2 Major Problems With Russian Fighters in DCS

I wasn't actually trying to make a point. It was a simple question about game mechanics.

I never said you are trying to make a point.... I said you are hitting the point I have been making since I posted this topic.

The few times I know I was shot at by a MiG-29 was from STT with the R-77's seeker showing on my RWR just a little later.

At what range MiG-29 fired the R-77? was he/she maintaining a lock?

Alright fine. I wasn't hitting any point in this thread.

Longer than 15 km. Probably.

It's been fun reading this topic, albeit ALPHA does show some language deficiencies, which may come across as rude.

But even overlooking these, he's still being irrational.

He's obviously concentrated on the MiG that he flies primarily.

Making the R-77, or any other missile for that matter, not give a launch warning in SST would require a complete redesign of the current system, which took 20 years to develop.

In DCS, for simplicity and fairness, the SST launch gives a warning and so it should remain so.

To summarize, the facts are as follows:

TWS2 with R-77s on MiG-29S against 2 targets does work great.

The second target is marked with a cross (+) and both missiles track.

This is assuming all the conditions are met, like no background ECM noise, etc, but it does work well, especially well with medium PRF. :)

The bug of TWS2 giving a launch warning prior to R-77 going active is admitted.

The launch warning should only be received within 15km or ARH seeker range.

But should the lock warning be given still or TWS2 should be like TWS on F-15C but only 2 targets?

Again, for game's sake and fairness, the latter should be implemented.

There's NO such bug as getting ARH warning from over 15km, period.

ALPHA's observation of such a warning is false or misinterpreted..

The SPO Beryoza in DCS would never show an ARH missile from farther than its seeker's strength.

The EOS detection range is being tweaked, at least the gyro-free is fixed.

On idle, head on, the EOS loses targets quite consistently, outside the 15km.

OLS-27/29 should not show exact distance to target at over the laser range finder limit, which is 15km and 10km respectively.

The range must be guessed if farther, or compared with data-link.

However, so should not the A-10Cs RWR show a laser warning (L) from EOS over 10-15km.

So, ALPHA did not bring anything new to the table.

He made a mistake of misinterpreting ARH warning on RWR from over 15km, which is not possible, and is not a bug in DCS.

These bugs are admitted:

EOS max range and stationary/cold targets lock needs fixing.

TWS2 gives lock/launch warning, and should not, for the simulation fairness.

Changing SST lock/launch behavior for ARH or SARH is too big of a game changer and will not happen, it has been perfectly great for many years.

The rest is debatable and is not a fact.

P.S.: Do not eat an R-77 for lunch. ;)

It's been fun reading this topic, albeit ALPHA does show some language deficiencies, which may come across as rude.

Again, I have to repeat my self, I never intend to be rude in any way ...

Can you please show where in my comments I was being rude??? rather than just accuse me.

But even overlooking these, he's still being irrational.

 

He's obviously concentrated on the MiG that he flies primarily.

Making the R-77, or any other missile for that matter, not give a launch warning in SST would require a complete redesign of the current system, which took 20 years to develop.

lol .. so you think I post this to give Russians a complete re-design prospective of R-77?:)

I never said the 9B-1103M-200 seeker should never give warning in STT mod.... sorry if I didn't explain my self probably..

What I really meant is that it does not make seance to a have launch warring from more than 15 km of seeker range when the target is no longer locked.

In DCS, for simplicity and fairness, the SST launch gives a warning and so it should remain so.

Agreed..

The bug of TWS2 giving a launch warning prior to R-77 going active is admitted.

The launch warning should only be received within 15km or ARH seeker range.

But should the lock warning be given still or TWS2 should be like TWS on F-15C but only 2 targets?

Again, for game's sake and fairness, the latter should be implemented.

ouhh... So you do agree that I brought some thing new after all...

And how about... when there is only one target is tracked but not auto-locked in TWS2 mode ?!?? And when its locked manually which give missile launch warning???

How about the fact that even when missile is launched in SST mode, and then unlocked... missile goes ballistic, and straight, rather than to navigate towards its target using its IMU???

There's NO such bug as getting ARH warning from over 15km, period.

ALPHA's observation of such a warning is false or misinterpreted..

Haven't we met in a DCS server before???? because if in case we do, I will show it to you, so you can see it your self.

P.S.: Do not eat an R-77 for lunch. ;)

F-15 might eat an R-77 for lunch.. lol

If you are talking about me, I keep that in mind... thanks though..;)

From my Conclusion these are the things I believe we all can agree on:

1-EOS (OLS-27/29) should not be able to detect and lock targets from more than ~50km away... And I will post a Image for that if you think that's not the case.

2-Most of you guys did agreed that TWS2 mod needs some more work, Since it should not give missile launch warning when R-77 is fired at more than 15 km to the target.

The additional problems that needs testing, and may taken into consideration for bug fix:

1-Currently, R-77 failed to use IMU for its guidance since it goes ballistic, when target lock or tracking is no longer available. And most of us know that should not be the case, since it does have a IMU system.

2-I fly MIG-29S a lot... and if so far nobody have noticed a missile launch warning from the seeker more for than the 15 km range..

Well.....next time I do find that bug, I will make sure I post a track of it.

3- should seeker of the R-77 give missile launch warning when a target is locked in SST mode, ..... well... sure...but it wont be from the seeker, it should be from the radar of the MIG, since it moves to a different carrier frequency.

And that doesn't mean that R-77 has mid-course semi-active system like AIM-54A, or latest AIM-7 sparrow does.

And for the rest of the argument...

Sorry if any one fined my comments offensive...

Again...the whole point of this topic was to simply re-mind the developers, since I have seen these problems for months, and did not knew it was reported before, and got ignored.

And hope these problems, as I may find more, be addressed soon.:)

1-EOS (OLS-27/29) should not be able to detect and lock targets from more than ~50km away... And I will post a Image for that if you think that's not the case.

Clearly the EOS is kinda botched right now, although some great things were recently fixed/added (no gyro stabilization and elevation control).

1-Currently, R-77 failed to use IMU for its guidance since it goes ballistic, when target lock or tracking is no longer available. And most of us know that should not be the case, since it does have a IMU system.

The missiles going ballistic when lock is lost happens, I think, to every missile in the game, and as such is not really a bug, but a simple implementation. Could it be reworked in the future ? Sure that would be great, but it is more of a wishlist item than a bug.

2-I fly MIG-29S a lot... and if so far nobody have noticed a missile launch warning from the seeker more for than the 15 km range..

 

Well.....next time I do find that bug, I will make sure I post a track of it.

 

3- should seeker of the R-77 give missile launch warning when a target is locked in SST mode, ..... well... sure...but it wont be from the seeker, it should be from the radar of the MIG, since it moves to a different carrier frequency.

If you can show a track where the target aircraft receives a missile seeker RWR warning from 50 km, then I'm sure everyone would agree it's a bug. Firing an R-77 at a target will give him a launch warning from the MiG's radar, as you said, and the launch warning will switch from that to the missile seeker when it goes active.

I have always seen ARH work that way in the FC series. On the SPO, you can tell when the switch occurs because the power indicator goes back to zero and starts over. I think the US RWR has a special M indication for missiles (that they indeed should not get from 50 kms away).

A couple of things....

Regardless if your happy to accept it or not... GG knows what he is talking about, you really will be wasting your time arguing with him about technical points such as this, doesn't matter if you don't like the way its being put to you ... he is right.

You have to understand your arguing with a man who has seen lots of unpublished data that it is impossible for you to have ever seen, or get access to!

Secondly...

From the data the team has there is nothing to suggest you will NOT get a launch warning when fired on by a Mig-29 shooting an R-77 in TWS. So common sense or how the F-15 TWS works does not come in to the equation, what does come into account is the Aircraft data we have from Mikoyan.

As someone already mentioned ED has access to lots of data you will never see... they are also NOT OBLIGED to share this information with ANYONE.

Regardless of how long you've flying you have no right to get access to this data and believing that you should get access to it is frankly comical... why should ED jeopardize getting access to classified / unpublished data just to show you and keep you happy because you believe something should be better?

Bottom line is there is NO official data you can provide that says you will NOT get a launch warning from the Mig when fired on in TWS

I believe in common-sense, research, and proven information I get.

If this is true then believe what your being told by GG, although he cannot share the information he has with you that is no reason not to believe him.

Common sense part - GG is a long standing tester for ED and probably has the most technical knowledge within the test team.

Research part - GG knows more about the technical aspect of these avionic systems better than anyone else you will find willing to talk about them on these forums.

Proven Information - You have to trust us when we say we have the data... end of!

You are quite right however about Eos being overpowered.... unfortunately it's not something that can be easily fixed but it IS being worked on, it will just take some time.

I understand you may not appreciate how difficult it is to fix something like this within the sim so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt... yes it looks like nothing is being done about it but that is far from the truth.

I can't tell you why its so difficult to fix (NDA) but trust me it is, and the team are making good progress with it.

Sorry I don't want to sidetrack the issue. Isn't it suspicious that =AirForce= suddenly appeared on the 24th of March to argue with ALPHA_2014 with only 2 posts? hmmmm very interesting.

Sorry I don't want to sidetrack the issue. Isn't it suspicious that =AirForce= suddenly appeared on the 24th of March to argue with ALPHA_2014 with only 2 posts? hmmmm very interesting.

Quite often someone joins the forum just because he feels the need to join a particular discussion.

Yep, I had lurked in these forums for several years before my first post, and finally joined just to say something in a discussion that interested me. Nothing unusual so far. :)

Quite often someone joins the forum just because he feels the need to join a particular discussion.

What Blaze said (and Aginor). If I recall I did the same. I know I lurk a bit on gun forums before I join and participate to see if said forum is full of snobs and keyboard commandos. Usually it takes a convo I'm interested in joining to pull me into the forum. Alpha just tickled AF's interests and pulled him out of lurking.

Quite often someone joins the forum just because he feels the need to join a particular discussion.

I doubt it. I think someone has created a duplicate account and wants to say stuff that might get him banned ;)

Don't insinuations of impropriety carry the same punishment as actual impropriety?

I doubt it. I think someone has created a duplicate account and wants to say stuff that might get him banned ;)

Following this logic any new account with low post count is fake. What a chaos theory..

Simple solution:

Cope with this aspect of reality (as Maverick positions it) as a bit of highly compromised waveform knowledge.

Which is, in fact, the case. You would forget the fact that the CIA not only had a mole at Phazotron back in the 70's and 80's who worked on the MiG-29s radar, but that the US purchased later produced MiG-29S' from Moldova, and used them for both material research and training purposes.

If there's a tell, it's known. And it's a radar, thus, there will be a tell if you know how to look for it. The United States knows exactly how to look for it with that hardware.

As for this continually bantered about concept of "balance" (which negates the apparent supposition that =AirForce= is GG, because he will tell you the same as me- balance does not exist in simulation except by volume of force), EOS plus R-27T is plenty of "balance", being that you need not radiate at all to shoot. All you have to do is gameplan and fly.

Which may, in fact, be the problem, same as it always is.

hi guys. this topic was interesting, but to be honest, FC3 and DCS will not get anywhere near a simulation, what we acspect it to be, when we reach topics like BVR or a2a, cause they, ED is lacking the informations or the permission to use all the informations they might have, do to some NDA. Why I say, that DCS will never ever get close to a real a2a inviroment, is just one little thing of sooooooo many, i have seen in this game, that are not even close to reality.

did Ed even know that the aim120 family has a security program running in the background when launched?

if they knew it, they would be able to include it in the so called DCS simulation, but there is no intention to do so.

I will not go into the discussion deeper, cause i got informations that are NDA infos, from pilots that do know all aspects of thier fighters, even 2 are testpilots for a european company and part of the nato. so well, it was a nice amusement to see gg tharos fighting against arguments and a solid topic, like he allways does, so please ED, get somebody into the game who really knows the facts and does not allways tells the comunity, he is the fgreatest and knows all, but in basic, all he does is insultiong people and not talking productivly about topics. all GG does is, hang out the balls and tells all uf us, who might even have better insight then he does as moderator, that we are dump little wannabees and he is god, which he is not.

ahh fot gg tharos, by the way, this is nothing against yourself in person, cause i do not know you, but it is critisims about your postings, cause your postings tell me something diffrent, then you beeing a nice person, but thats the way you represent yourself, so it is your bussiness, not mine. keep on going that way mate, your behavior might scare off the people who are really in that bussiness, cause at least 7 guys, including 2 pilots, where allready scared of by you, and one of them has fired aim120c for real in training, so hell yeah, ED got all the infos and does not need help to make it a better sim. so please keep on going producing stuff that is still arcade, although you call it digital combat simulation.

did you know that the r27 family flys loft parameters for long range??? why was it deleted in fc3, cause in fc2 it was there and the range was still shit, but it was capable of compeating with the aim120c, which it would in real life do, but well, here we come back to balancing again, cause it is no simulation it is still a game. sorry to say that, but thats how it is!

but well i am not going into this deep again, cause i crashed and burned before, cause gg took out the super laserbeam of convincing argumentation from his side and just vaporised me when i talked about the russian missiles in a diffrent topic, where i even compared the fc2 data of the missiles, yes it has been long long times ago, but nothing has changed, ahh wait, it got worse for the 27er (maybe also the 27et in some aspects, but on the other hand it improved on two topics alot) in fc3, and real data and showed, as far i could without breaking any NDAs, what other testers probaly have never done, so if there is a tester signed in the forum, it does not tell you what he is testing in this sim, upps sorry, arcade/sim.

It would be cool to know if ED has testers for specific areas of the sim, like missiles, radars, maybe each aspect singled out or not, or do testers do whatever they want and tell ED, ahh, in the game there is that little bug i saw or this? how is the testerteam setup ??? thats one question i really would like to know if it is not breaking any NDA, cause that would give insight to ED, which is maybe not in the interest of IGOR, who knows.

thanks for reading, and for the amusement i had reading this article.

thumps up and allways a save ejection on compressorstall

So now that we know whose head GG is living in rent free...

It was probably the data from the Russian Air Force that indicated the missile flies APN all the way to the target without lofting - you know, some stupid reason like that. Obviously you know better, I'll let ED know to discard their useless military contacts, original data for R-27 and the actual Su-27 FCS missile range plotting software :)

did you know that the r27 family flys loft parameters for long range??? why was it deleted in fc3, cause in fc2 it was there and the range was still shit, but it was capable of compeating with the aim120c, which it would in real life do, but well, here we come back to balancing again, cause it is no simulation it is still a game. sorry to say that, but thats how it is!

It's all a matter of PoV, there's no life or property at risk so one can argue it'll never be realistic. It is quite pointless, however.

P.S. you might want to use proper structure for your post, even if that just means starting the sentences with a capital letter and ending them with a proper mark. If you can't even bother to do that, why expect anyone to take you serious?

;2027706']A couple of things....

 

Regardless if your happy to accept it or not... GG knows what he is talking about, you really will be wasting your time arguing with him about technical points such as this, doesn't matter if you don't like the way its being put to you ... he is right.

 

You have to understand your arguing with a man who has seen lots of unpublished data that it is impossible for you to have ever seen, or get access to!

First of all, I never was looking for argument, until he did, but you want to call it argument, fine... Cuz all I did I pointed out the obvious... Nothing too classified ..lol

;2027706']

Secondly...

 

From the data the team has there is nothing to suggest you will NOT get a launch warning when fired on by a Mig-29 shooting an R-77 in TWS.

 

Bottom line is there is NO official data you can provide that says you will NOT get a launch warning from the Mig when fired on in TWS

I don't believe you or any one have any official data suggesting that it should give launch warning from the MIG's radar in TWS suing R-77 either...

But according to the man you admire so much (GG), he did agreed to the fact that it should NOT give warning in TWS2 mode....

But another bug/problem with TWS2 mode of MIG-29S, is that it does not Auto-lock a single target .... stead, it forces you to lock the target manually.

;2027706']

If this is true then believe what your being told by GG, although he cannot share the information he has with you that is no reason not to believe him.

 

Common sense part - GG is a long standing tester for ED and probably has the most technical knowledge within the test team.

Research part - GG knows more about the technical aspect of these avionic systems better than anyone else you will find willing to talk about them on these forums.

Proven Information - You have to trust us when we say we have the data... end of!

Look I don't care if some one in ED decided to sleep with Mikoyan, so that's that's why I don't have all the information regarding MIG and its weapon systems....

what I said was the fact that R-77 and MIG has a sertain systems such as :ARH / DL / IMU, and MIG has TWS, TWS2 radar mode.

According to how those systems work, the MIG and R-77 should react differently in DCS than what is doing right now.

So I posted this topic, so we all can come in to a common sense as to what needs to be fixed on MIG and its weapons systems, and to remind the developers to fix them, since its been too long arcade and unrealistic.

Way to escalate a simple question thread, did this really have to be 4 pages long? Great job. No matter how knowledgeable and "right" you are, a little moderation in your attitude and wording goes a long way . . . especially for a moderator.

Well this is no escalation by the guys who point out things that are wrong in respect on knowledge of systems and how they work. I think it is a good move of alpha_2014 to point out problems in this arcade/sim. I just remeber many years ago, how people complained about other players blink with thier eccm and how ED approached that topic in regards of balancing the whole game again, by including a warmup of 16 sec for the eccm to be radiating. I still smile sometimes I push the eccm to active mpde, cause in reality it is not workng that way at all. Just to give GG a little input on eccm, so he does not argue with false infos again, the system is warmed up on last chance most of the times during last weapon and system checks by ground and pilot personals, cause yes, the little rod inside needs some warum, which is longer then 16 sec in real life, so the whole eccm system is active during flight in a mode that is similar like the sniff mode of a radar, and can be changed instantly from sniff to active. This is even a system used in an old lady, that was retiered by the german airforce a few month ago. Alpha_2014, i stoped arguing with the guys from ED since a long time cause, when you come up with stuff they should know but do not produce it, do to balancing reasons, then they most of the time argue about infos abd data and all that bla bla, which they should have if they have such good contacts to thier partners. Just think about dcs as arcade/sim , not a study sim, then it matches what it is ;)

Well this is no escalation by the guys who point out things that are wrong in respect on knowledge of systems and how they work. I think it is a good move of alpha_2014 to point out problems in this arcade/sim. I just remeber many years ago, how people complained about other players blink with thier eccm and how ED approached that topic in regards of balancing the whole game again, by including a warmup of 16 sec for the eccm to be radiating. I still smile sometimes I push the eccm to active mpde, cause in reality it is not workng that way at all. Just to give GG a little input on eccm, so he does not argue with false infos again, the system is warmed up on last chance most of the times during last weapon and system checks by ground and pilot personals, cause yes, the little rod inside needs some warum, which is longer then 16 sec in real life, so the whole eccm system is active during flight in a mode that is similar like the sniff mode of a radar, and can be changed instantly from sniff to active. This is even a system used in an old lady, that was retiered by the german airforce a few month ago. Alpha_2014, i stoped arguing with the guys from ED since a long time cause, when you come up with stuff they should know but do not produce it, do to balancing reasons, then they most of the time argue about infos abd data and all that bla bla, which they should have if they have such good contacts to thier partners. Just think about dcs as arcade/sim , not a study sim, then it matches what it is ;)

ECM is bad. You know it, we know it, they know it. The entire ECM model needs an overhaul, but until that happens, the system is unrealistically exploitable. The warmup time was implemented to prevent ECM 'blinking', which was used in order to force other people's RADAR to break lock.

It is a temporary balancing fix in order to prevent unrealistic exploitation of an UNREALISTIC IMPLEMENTATION of a system. When ED gets around to a proper implementation of ECM, I have no doubt that this will change.

If you have knowledge about a particular system and can provide concrete, written documentation, I have never known ED to willingly refuse this sort of help. :)

Just to give GG a little input on eccm, so he does not argue with false infos again, the system is warmed up on last chance most of the times during last weapon and system checks by ground and pilot personals, cause yes, the little rod inside needs some warum, which is longer then 16 sec in real life, so the whole eccm system is active during flight in a mode that is similar like the sniff mode of a radar, and can be changed instantly from sniff to active.

I thought this was the part where you were supposed to tell people (including GG) something they didn't know...?

There is a world of difference between knowing a fact, and being permitted, whether by system limitations, engine design, or legalities, to put it into practice. All three of these aspects have come into play heavily with regards to the interactions between radar/ECM/ECCM. Having intimate knowledge of Sorbtsiya does nothing for them, as both the radar modelling is a generation behind, and there are specific legal issues with implementing it in a more discrete fashion. You're not going to find declassified data of capability and methodology on the TEWS, nor the ALQ of your choice. So a lowered performance model is sufficient until the groundwork is in place for something better. Is it right? No. Wasn't right before, either. No one in their right mind ever argued it was; at least, not in English, and not where you think it's coming from.

Hell- ED hasn't presented an air to ground radar as of yet, and that presents even larger challenges than properly modelling the interactions of air to air radar and the spoofs that can deny them. Doesn't mean it's not coming, but the underlying system as a whole requires an investment of time and resources that we haven't necessarily see take place as of yet. However, if the -18C is to be worth the price of admission, it'll need it.

Speaking of facts others don't apparently know- Fisher spent $1 million of his own money after Apollo 1 burnt to develop a pressurized pen. Up until then, NASA was flying with pencils. And NASA's grand total for the pens that went to the Moon? $600- 200 pens at $3 a pop; small price to pay for operational safety. Meanwhile, the Soviets were still flying around with FOD generators. Just what I want- graphite in high voltage switches, jamming up valves on Soyuz (oh, wait- they've got seals to do just that)...