Announcing Flaming Cliffs 2.0

[Shaman]

Quite an important thing to me.

FC 2.0 - flaps controls.

Right now we have Flaps full down, flaps full up, and toggle flaps that toggles between half(or full) flaps and no flaps. Kinda weird to me.

I am having trouble programming external hw to do incremental flaps go down, flaps go up with just two seperate inputs. Can FC 2.0 have these two incremental commands (like FSX and X-plane does)?

[33rd_bratpfanne.]

you can map the flaps as axis on a rotary or slider, at least that is what i am doing. Works like a charm

[monotwix]

I don’t understand the advantages of not having active missiles on air superiority fighter e.g. SU-27 and therefore the theoretical tactics used by Russian air force to deal with AIM-120.

 

If the primary strategy for SU-27 was to fire R-27ER followed by ET, it then rises the question of getting to within ETs firing range.

I’m not saying that it’s a useless strategy but rather how dangerous and uncertain it would be in the real scenario.

In order for a fight to be effective one would assume that putting your opponent into disadvantage and make him work hard would be a good thing and to do that you use weapons as your primary tool, now R-27ER only works for as long as pilot can maintain that lock which puts him in a serious danger of not only loosing his tactical advantage but also his fight and a piece of air force.

 

So it’s clear that having an active missile on board is advantages, living your opponent occupied whilst you are on defensive retaining tactical advantage.

What is not clear from this stand point is that Mig-29 being capable of launching R-77 and the people in general who made it possible thought it was a good idea, but not on SU-27 and these are the kind of people who made their space advances and took their air defence seriously i.e. by making very capable platforms, fit them with titanium, train pilots, write defence program only to be in the disadvantage of not having an active missile on their air superiority fighter.

 

In short: it doesn’t fall into places in realms of understanding and I’m not uneasy about it, whatever is given in FC2.0 I’ll take it, it just that certain statements are so convincing that’s hard to take on board.

[GGTharos]

I don’t understand the advantages of not having active missiles on air superiority fighter e.g. SU-27 and therefore the theoretical tactics used by Russian air force to deal with AIM-120.

 

There are none. They were in a bad position in general to deal with AIM-120 equipped aircraft.

 

If the primary strategy for SU-27 was to fire R-27ER followed by ET, it then rises the question of getting to within ETs firing range.

 

No, the primary strategy is to launch an R-27R1 followed by an R-27T. The E versions are not used against fighters unless they must - at least this is the impression I got. The E versions as present in LO are apparently over-modeled in their performacne vs. fighters.

 

I’m not saying that it’s a useless strategy but rather how dangerous and uncertain it would be in the real scenario.

In order for a fight to be effective one would assume that putting your opponent into disadvantage and make him work hard would be a good thing and to do that you use weapons as your primary tool, now R-27ER only works for as long as pilot can maintain that lock which puts him in a serious danger of not only loosing his tactical advantage but also his fight and a piece of air force.

 

Once more, the E versions are not the primary anti-fighter tool, AFAIK. This leaves you with the much shorter ranged non-E versions.

 

So it’s clear that having an active missile on board is advantages, living your opponent occupied whilst you are on defensive retaining tactical advantage.

What is not clear from this stand point is that Mig-29 being capable of launching R-77 and the people in general who made it possible thought it was a good idea, but not on SU-27 and these are the kind of people who made their space advances and took their air defence seriously i.e. by making very capable platforms, fit them with titanium, train pilots, write defence program only to be in the disadvantage of not having an active missile on their air superiority fighter.

 

In short: it doesn’t fall into places in realms of understanding and I’m not uneasy about it, whatever is given in FC2.0 I’ll take it, it just that certain statements are so convincing that’s hard to take on board.

 

The real MiG-29S did not actually equip R-77's, although technically the capability existed. The R-77 is in fact a very recent and low-numbered addition to the VVS inventory, again, IIRC.

[monotwix]

Please answer why SU-27 is not fitted with R-77.

[GGTharos]

Because it is a foreign product (made in Ukraine, not Russia) and because fitting the Su-27 with it was too expensive at the time. The Su-27 was not modernised to carry the R-77 until the mid-2000's, IIRC.

 

Please answer why SU-27 is not fitted with R-77.

[monotwix]

That’s better for a answer, thanks indeed.

[3Sqn_Sven]

Please answer why SU-27 is not fitted with R-77.

 

Ring up Sukhoi and demand the answer from them...

[monotwix]

Have you got Russian air force phone number I might just do that.

And ask them what sort of porkies are you playing at.

Can I quote your name?

[EvilBivol-1]

Everything is new, but basically the same.

I rest my case, as I am not sure where we can go from here.

Don't get me wrong, I'm aware in the very real possibility that this will be the last time FC gets touched. I just don't see any sense in that. You are giving the game "one last hurrah" 2 years after it should have happened. Releasing FC2 and just leaving it in whatever form it gets released in IS WORSE than 3D Realms never releasing Duke Nukem Forever.

No offense meant here at all, but it's understandably hard to really see all of the factors driving product development decisions as an outsider not purview to the legal and financial realities behind the scenes. Just consider that Lock-On is not an ED-owned product and it was not until very recently that FC2 even became a possibility for legal reasons and its future development is not entirely up to ED.

 

I don't mean to sound like a snob and I'm sure there are ways ED could do things better, but as I've said before, at the end of the day the company has been producing successful and market-leading flight sim products for years. I would trust that they have a decent idea of how to handle the business side of things given the variety of determinants not well understood externally.

Edited February 7, 2010 by EvilBivol-1

[IvanK]

The reason (in cold war times) the Russians fired Radar followed by IR missiles was actually based on Kill probability. Early generation Missiles Pk were appalling ! ... both Western and Soviet. In addition the IR follow up shot was done second as range would have reduced and IR head acquistion was more likely. An IR Missile launched without seeker lock is no longer a Missile but rather a rocket ! If you believe that Russian IR seeker technology of the 80's allowed IR seeker lock at the same range as Radar SA launch then I think you are dreaming. Dont forget cloud it tends to stuff up IR signatures. The very reason many western Air forces given the option of both Radar and IR versions of the same missile chose only the radar versions.

[ФрогФут]

No, the primary strategy is to launch an R-27R1 followed by an R-27T.

R1 is an export version and is not in service in Russian AF.

The E versions as present in LO are apparently over-modeled in their performacne vs. fighters.

The E versions are designed to do the same as R and T, but with less approach time.

Because it is a foreign product (made in Ukraine, not Russia)

The missile was made in Russia, only the seeker was made in Ukraine.

The Su-27 was not modernised to carry the R-77 until the mid-2000's, IIRC.

RVV-AE. There is no R-77 now.

Edited February 7, 2010 by ФрогФут

[nscode]

Have you got Russian air force phone number I might just do that.

And ask them what sort of porkies are you playing at.

Can I quote your name?

 

All right, well listen now. Who should we call?... *Who* should we call, Dmitri? The... wha-whe, the People... you, sorry, you faded away there... The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters... Where is that, Dmitri?... In Omsk... Right... Yes... Oh, you'll call them first, will you?... Uh-huh... Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dmitri?... Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information...

[GGTharos]

According to the pilot I spoke with, they are a poorer missile to use against a fighter instead of R/T.

 

The E versions are designed to do the same as R and T, but with less approach time.

[Renato71]

 

All right, well listen now. Who should we call?... *Who* should we call, Dmitri? The... wha-whe, the People... you, sorry, you faded away there... The People's Central Air Defense Headquarters... Where is that, Dmitri?... In Omsk... Right... Yes... Oh, you'll call them first, will you?... Uh-huh... Listen, do you happen to have the phone number on you, Dmitri?... Whe-ah, what? I see, just ask for Omsk information...

 

Mine Fuhrer, I can walk!

 

:lol:

[tflash]

Maybe it has been answered before, but will all flyable airplanes have the high fidelity flight characteristics like the SU25T?

 

Also, will all aircraft have tires that will blowup if you apply the brakes too long and slip and slide across the runway?

 

I tried the SU25T today for the first time since having CF, and I had the brakes on when landing and I started to slide, and I was like WTF, so I went to outside view and saw that the tires had blown and I was sliding on the rims WAY COOL!!!, I was seriously LOL.

 

I also noticed that the SU25T handles more like a real airplane, in that if you try to turn with just ailerons without rudder input you get adverse yaw. The stall/spin characteristics were also more realistic.

 

Please tell me all aircraft will behave in more of this high fidelity manner on FC 2.0???

 

Strange that you give this example: the whole blowing tires thing is entirely scripted, and in no way an expression of the high fidelity of the FM. The same holds for the weapons drag, and the shaking cockpit. All scripted items that in fact add no realism whatsoever but just try to fake realistic boundaries.

 

It is perfectly possible to mimic these "features" with a standard FM. Let's stop these completely irrelevant comparisons like "flies more like a real airplane". Sorry, but a realistically rendered Su-25T will never fly like a Flanker, an F-15 or a full FBW F-16. So why would I fly Su-25T if I want to fly flanker? Because it "flies more like a real airplane"? That is just rubbish. I can imagine you need rudder to turn an Su-25T, but I would be surprised the same holds for the Flanker posse.

 

The real advantage of Su-25T modelling is the integration of flight and damage model. When you lose part of a wing or some elevator, the model allows a correct rendering of the effect. This is much more difficult to do in an SFM context.

[DarkWanderer]

According to the pilot I spoke with, they are a poorer missile to use against a fighter instead of R/T.

Then you must check other your sources, because the same missile with more powerful engine can't be "poorer".

[GGTharos]

Change in airframe and weight may rob it of available max airframe g - so yes, it can be against fighters.

 

Specifically the comment was 'good missile against B-52, not so good against fighter'.

 

Then you must check other your sources, because the same missile with more powerful engine can't be "poorer".

[DarkWanderer]

Change in airframe and weight may rob it of available max airframe g - so yes, it can be against fighters.

 

Specifically the comment was 'good missile against B-52, not so good against fighter'.

Sounds reasonable, though I don't think that's the case.

[RvEYoda]

IIRC the source was a mig29 pilot ? I hope GG can answer that

 

A long time back I also spoke to a 29 pilot about the Alamo, but that was way back

and the only thing I remember is him saying ti has longer range than the amraam,

which isn't much to what is already known ;)

 

That said what I remember from the Vympel webpage is that it stated the R27 missiles

were capable of tracking targets up to 8g whereas R77 could track targets up to 12 g,

so there is likely some difference in their performance.

Edited February 7, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

The reason is my speculation, the comment does indeed come from a Polish MiG-29 instructor pilot (he currently instructs pilots in BVR tactics, including tactics for dealing with AMRAAM-equipped aircraft, obviously).

 

In his opinion the plain Alamo (R-27R) is a much better missile against fighters. Again, I don't know the reason.

 

Sounds reasonable, though I don't think that's the case.

[tflash]

Is a missile not less mavoevrable during boost fase? So, when the motor is larger, and the boost fase lasts longer, there is a longer part of the trajectory that is rather "straight", which is OK for long distance attack on bombers but not so good against a fighter? I'm just guessing.

[ФрогФут]

Is a missile not less mavoevrable during boost fase? So, when the motor is larger, and the boost fase lasts longer, there is a longer part of the trajectory that is rather "straight", which is OK for long distance attack on bombers but not so good against a fighter? I'm just guessing.

Why should it go straight with the working engine?

[Renato71]

Why should it go straight with the working engine?

 

I believe that is simply an impression that missile leaves when observed in say tacview. When launched, almost all of them are going straight during first 10-30 sec. As that period overlaps with both engine runtime and opponent reaction time (he is not evading yet, due to slow reaction, or on purpose), missile is guided in a straight line as target is "non-evasive".

 

Also, all of the above real-life-pilots opinions regarding R-27 may be affected by their understanding of what a "mid-range missile" is. You see, when you have R-60 and R-73 that are in a short range category, everything that can reach twice as much can be considered as "mid-range". Despite all data regarding R-27xyz, in about 95% of cases I was not able to hit a target if it is further then 30 km away when fired upon. If I launch at 30 km, and target immediately starts to evade, R-27 will run out of energy. Therefore, I have to launch it at about 20 km. That is about 4-5 time practical range of R-73 and sometimes almost 10 times that of R-60.

Now, if someone tells you that you have a missile with a range "5-10 times further then short range missile", you will say "well, that must be a mid-range missile, no?".

Now, if you have to get as close as 10-15 km to get high PK, I would suppose that R-27R could be a better choice over R-27ER, cos its lighter and it would accelerate faster. And at that ranges it will not loose much of its energy by the time it hits/misses a target.

And, if you take above into account, why bother carrying a heavier missile (that will lower you maneuverability) when you can do the same job with a smaller one? Especially if you cannot put extended range to a good use cos your radar may loose its lock at higher ranges.

 

There is always something behind any opinion that is important, but is forgotten to be mentioned. Most soldiers prefer a particular weapon only cos they have a limited choice, and they forget to mention that. For example, I preferred Korean AK-47 much more over Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Romanian or Russian (all in 7,62). You may say "but everybody knows that YU is the best of them all". Well, yes, on paper. In reality, Korean batch was in a MUCH better condition then other examples, which were heavily overused and badly under-maintained.

 

So, maybe the key to interpret opinions does not lie in a chart that covers whole of the envelope, but rather just a small portion of it, up to 15-20 km?

[volk]

No, the primary strategy is to launch an R-27R1 followed by an R-27T. The E versions are not used against fighters unless they must - at least this is the impression I got. The E versions as present in LO are apparently over-modeled in their performacne vs. fighters.

Once more, the E versions are not the primary anti-fighter tool, AFAIK. This leaves you with the much shorter ranged non-E versions.

E-versions of base missile was designed to give attack fighter ability "first hit" enemy fighter in duel due to higher speed and energy (hit target before enemy missle). This was a temporary solution expecting ARH missile.

The reason is my speculation, the comment does indeed come from a Polish MiG-29 instructor pilot (he currently instructs pilots in BVR tactics, including tactics for dealing with AMRAAM-equipped aircraft, obviously).

Which E missiles on Polish MiGs?

Edited February 8, 2010 by volk