Flaming Clifs 3 RUS aircraft useless ET/T Optical system nerf

[pauldy]

You can try checking out Sukhoi Gaming Channel on youtube too. The guy has videos nailing people on multiplayer using ERs and ETs at BVR ranges.

[bies]

There is an interview with Lt. Col. Fred "Spanky" Clifton, experienced aggressor pilot, with 500 hours in MiG-29 alone and way more than 1000 hours in different NATO jets. He was one of the members of MiG-29 evaluation program. He conducted a lot ot mock air combat flying MiG-29 against whole lot of different NATO fighters evaluating many different tactics from NATO and Warsaw Pact syllabus. The whole interview is long and very interesting, he was praising MiG-29 for many things, helmet sight, performance etc. but IRSTS absolutely wasn't one of them:

Quote

"One sensor that got a lot of discussion from Intel analysts was the infrared search-and-track system (IRSTS). Most postulated that the MiG-29 could use the passive IRSTS to run a silent intercept and not alert anyone to its presence by transmitting with its radar.

The IRSTS turned out to be next to useless and could have been left off the MiG-29 with negligible impact on its combat capability. After a couple of attempts at playing around with the IRSTS I dropped it from my bag of tricks."

https://jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

In short using IRSTS like a radar replacement with cold war technology aircrafts like MiG-29 and Su-27 is not realistic at all and when ED release weather component influencing all IRSTS/FLIR sensors it is going to be usefull only in a very specific situations for which it was designed to be used, like high altitude, good weather bomber interception during extensive radar jamming.

Such IR sensors were being used since 1950 for this purpose in most interceptors like F-101 Voodo, F-102 Delta Dagger, F-106 Delta Dart, J-35 Draken, F-4 Phantom, MiG-23S, F-14A Tomcat, MiG-25PD, MiG-29, Su-27S/P - in short in any fighter planned to be often used in an interceptor role. In tactical fighter variants like F-4E, F-14A they very often dismont it, replacing it with different more usefull sensor or avionics.

(Modern PIRATE Eurofighter's sensor is totally different beasts according to the pilots, but this is basically very advanced FLIR, aided with modern fast computers, capable of detecting much smaller heat emisions and tracking many targets at once from relatively big distance, not simple infra red sensor. But is is still prone to adverse weather compromising its parameters.)

 

BTW: "nerf" term has nothing to do with DCS since it is made for realistic representation, not artificial balance "buffing" and "nerfing" sensors to equalize different aircrafts for the "MP win rate".

Edited September 23, 2022 by bies

[cailean_556]

I cringe whenever I see someone decry any changes to any aircraft system in DCS as a "nerf", or that a plane, missile, or other system, is "overpowered".

DCS is not about "balance". There's no "BR", there's no skill-based match-making. You either are, or are not, good enough. It's a bitter pill to swallow for some people - even me. I suck against a non-AI opponent.

DCS attempts to replicate real-world data of aircraft, weapons, and systems, based on actual real-world data provided by the manufacturer, and/or user(s) - THROUGH THE CORRECT CHANNELS. There's no "balance" in reality. A nuclear-capable nation doesn't use nukes because their opponent doesn't have them - they don't use them because it will harm relations with the rest of the world if they did, so such uses must be weighed up vs the fallout of using them. It's not DCS that determines the AIM-120C-7's range, it's real world scientific research. Likewise, the detection range and parameters of EO for Russian jets (early model Russian jets, at that) is dictated by data that is both accessible by ED and comes from verified, or multiple trusted, sources.

If changes were made (and I've not read anything about EO changes in the last few patches), they were made based on data provided to them. Much like the AIM-54 Phoenix missile updates, which have arguably made the missile "worse" (or as I like to see it, more in line with what the missile was designed for - engaging high-altitude, long-range bombers at extreme range) - this was based on data and SME feedback regarding missile performance, from what I understand.

All I can say is, learn the new system's limitations and adapt - develop new tactics which better support your chosen strategy and apply them. And if your strategy doesn't work: time for a new one. 

[DarksydeRob]

On 9/23/2022 at 2:41 PM, cailean_556 said:

DCS attempts to replicate real-world data of aircraft, weapons, and systems, based on actual real-world data provided by the manufacturer, and/or user(s) - THROUGH THE CORRECT CHANNELS. There's no "balance" in reality. A nuclear-capable nation doesn't use nukes because their opponent doesn't have them - they don't use them because it will harm relations with the rest of the world if they did, so such uses must be weighed up vs the fallout of using them. It's not DCS that determines the AIM-120C-7's range, it's real world scientific research. Likewise, the detection range and parameters of EO for Russian jets (early model Russian jets, at that) is dictated by data that is both accessible by ED and comes from verified, or multiple trusted, sources.

If changes were made (and I've not read anything about EO changes in the last few patches), they were made based on data provided to them. Much like the AIM-54 Phoenix missile updates, which have arguably made the missile "worse" (or as I like to see it, more in line with what the missile was designed for - engaging high-altitude, long-range bombers at extreme range) - this was based on data and SME feedback regarding missile performance, from what I understand.

Yeahhh sadly not always , ED have changed values before for balance when people have moaned when it didnt fit their agenda.

[Mr_sukebe]

4 hours ago, DarksydeRob said:

Yeahhh sadly not always , ED have changed values before for balance when people have moaned when it didnt fit their agenda.

Got some evidence to back that up?

[DarksydeRob]

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Got some evidence to back that up?

If you want to you can go go dig it up in the Russian forum from two years ago. Flanker pilots were moaning the AMRAAM had too strong of a CCM resistance when it got reworked, It kept on going for awhile till ED gave it and reverted their changes and "nerfed" the AMRAAM. When the actual problem was the R-27 was eating chaff too easily back then.

Not like it mattered for long as the new scheme missiles had all chaff effects removed from it not long after.

[Mr_sukebe]

5 hours ago, DarksydeRob said:

If you want to you can go go dig it up in the Russian forum from two years ago...

Nope, I don't.  

I'm sure the devs would listen, if you provided suitable documentation to validate the statement.