Flaming--Cliffs--2.0

[FLANKERATOR]

I understand ET maddog can be very frustrating for the downed airman, but it has been made for that purpose too "the maddog". Otherwise why russiand have been buiding up very long range "IR" missile?! i know the maddog is not used in RL at least not often but it stills a possibility technicelly speaking...

 

Forbidding ET maddog or forcing IR lock before firing is not wise IMHO.

 

An eagle driver or any other airman who is flying passively and head on while having the "29" on the TEWS and worse with burners and lazy with flares deserves to be shot down with an ET maddog. period

[104th_Crunch]

Game balance is one thing, but all information that I am aware after talking to some pilots in our community is that 27ET without seeker lock has very very low Pk. So, my own preference is to realism. Also, from the information provided so far in the forums, it looks like the AIM-120 and R-77 will also be less effective when maddoging as the seeker limits look like they will get reduced.

[GGTharos]

but it has been made for that purpose too "the maddog"

 

Wrong.

 

Otherwise why russiand have been buiding up very long range "IR" missile?!

To run down bombers when their radars and radar missiles are jammed to hell. It's about chasing capability, not head-on capability (witht he exception of bombers)

 

i know the maddog is not used in RL at least not often but it stills a possibility technicelly speaking...

Yes, with a good possibility of a miss.

 

Forbidding ET maddog or forcing IR lock before firing is not wise IMHO.

It is not forbidden. The missile seeker has been made more realistic. If you launch the missile without seeker lock, it will likely not find any targets.

 

An eagle driver or any other airman who is flying passively and head on while having the "29" on the TEWS and worse with burners and lazy with flares deserves to be shot down with an ET maddog. period

Burners increase lock-on distance. The missile will not be successfully maddogable. Period.

[FLANKERATOR]

Agreed totally...a maddog has very low PK specially for a long range ET maddog providing u respect very basic precautions...a slight angleoff from collision course early on engagement is way enouph to make it a lost bullet...but in RL the pilot has the possibility to overide it and launch it even it hopeless so they dont do it...maybe on a large furball with high density ennemy formations..still IMHO!

[GGTharos]

In RL the missile will lock onto anything it can see before it reaches your target. A cloud, the sun, a reflection of the sun from a window or lake, or the snow. Or someone's bonfire.

 

You can fly perfectly straight for it from initial launch, and it will fly to a different target. Further, the real missile will NOT steer for intertial collision after launch, unlike the LO one.

You can still maddog your ET, there's no restriction - just don't expect it to actually hit anything.

 

 

Agreed totally...a maddog has very low PK specially for a long range ET maddog providing u respect very basic precautions...a slight angleoff from collision course early on engagement is way enouph to make it a lost bullet...but in RL the pilot has the possibility to overide it and launch it even it hopeless so they dont do it...maybe on a large furball with high density ennemy formations..still IMHO!

[cool_t]

So.....

 

With the ET...at 1/3rd and ER tweaked...Even if the F-15c stays the same I will see a 12 to 1 Kill ratio in my F-15c....With my "Ninja Moves" ohhh sorry secret ninja moves....

 

All in all the F-15c is the premier fighter in LOMAC..with its feathers trimmed...

[3Sqn_Sven]

So.....

 

With the ET...at 1/3rd and ER tweaked...Even if the F-15c stays the same I will see a 12 to 1 Kill ratio in my F-15c....With my "Ninja Moves" ohhh sorry secret ninja moves....

 

All in all the F-15c is the premier fighter in LOMAC..with its feathers trimmed...

 

You are a gem.

[monotwix]

Wrong.

If you can winkle GG out of 90s and show him a graph, then you will succeed.

Su-27 is an old plane, KA-50 on the other hand isn’t, so let’s put it together.

If it’s not on the paper, it can’t be true.

[EtherealN]

All in all the F-15c is the premier fighter in LOMAC

 

Because, out of the aircraft modeled in LO it is simply the "premier fighter" in real life too? ;)

 

Wrong.

If you can winkle GG out of 90s and show him a graph, then you will succeed.

Su-27 is an old plane, KA-50 on the other hand isn’t, so let’s put it together.

If it’s not on the paper, it can’t be true.

 

The Ka-50 isn't old? It flew in 1982 and production started in 1990.

Edited January 14, 2010 by EtherealN

[monotwix]

Yep and it’s vary well demonstrated.

[GGTharos]

And your problem is ... ?

[EtherealN]

monotwix, I'm not sure I understand what point you are trying to make, but... The Ka-50 is actually old. It's younger than many aircraft still in service (Hell, there's still MiG-17's in service in a few places... :P ), yes, but it's not exactly a newborn baby either - and it hasn't undergone the development work that many other aircraft of even greater age have.

 

But if we look at the C variant of the Eagle we can note that it entered production at about the same time that the 50 started flying, and the Su-27 is only older by a few years.

 

As for the fact that the Ka-50 is "demonstrated" (I assume you mean it is well documented?), that has absolutely nothing to do with age. That is a question about whether militaries decide to declassify stuff. ;)

[monotwix]

You see on this occasion I don’t have an obligation to make a point or be responsible for any particular statements I make, in terms of sorting out the organised air combat.

I play it I know it.

You might ask what my problem is, but then how did you find one in the first place.

EthereaIN, I don't disagree with your comment, but is it all tied to the classified stuff?

[borchi_2b]

@gg:

 

to the range of 1/3 tweaked down, well this is something we figured out after making about a month of testing in addition with a month of preparing.

we calculated, one of us, the expected range the missile flies to the point of 0 speed. you can imagine that this range was very very long, we ended up at a calculated range of 90km+. the 27er had a range of 110km.

we knew that these numbers were just math, no real thing cause no missile flies to the speed of 0.

thats for we have set a minimum manueverspeed of 1000km/h over ground, cause we figured that in lomac this is the last speed that might produce a hit, do to the ability of manuevering.

we also figured that in the mathematical calculation that there will be slight diffrence between the r27er and the r27et, do to the shape of the nose, but this was a small percentage that was at 7 diffrent alt. the same.

so we checked the balistics of the r27er again, to be sure we have the right data and compared that with the official data vympel released.

vympel says the r27er has a range of 75km, period. we did not know at which alt. they tested it, but we figured that an altitude of 12000m the balistics of the missile without lock are the same and the missle travels a range of 75 km over ground till it has reached a speed over ground of 1000km/h.

we also mesured the flighttimes of the missiles and all the relevant distances compared to you own plane, etc etc etc, also the angles you have to fire to get a straight flightpath. so we really went into the depth of balistics in lomac.

what we figured is thatfollowing data at angles 12000m:

 

3.11

►R27er Semiaktiv (ALT. 12000m)

- Max. Range = ca. 75Km

- effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 40Km u. max. 60Km

- Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek.

- Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG

- Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 9Km

- Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4220Km/h

 

- (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh)

Distanz OVG = 75Km

Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 40Km

Flugzeit = 2Min 3Sek

 

---

4.11

►R27et Infrarot mittlere Reichweite (ALt. 12000m)

- Max. Range = ca. 60Km

- effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 25Km u. max. 50Km

- IR Suchkopfrange = 15Km

- Selber Motor wie bei der 27er

- Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek.

- Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG

- Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 9Km

- Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4180Km/h

 

- (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh)

Distanz OVG = 37Km

Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 23Km

Flugzeit = 54Sek

 

sorry that it is in german, it is copied directly from our documents.

what i want to point out here is the numbers in blue and in red.

all the data is the final result we figured in lomac.

 

the blue numbers are the distances of the missiles traveling over ground after launch till they have reached a speed of 1000km/h OG (over ground)

the red number is the flighttime till the speed of 1000km/h OG is reached.

 

both missiles have the same airframes expect the nose which does not affect the missiles ballistics in a very very big number.

calculated by math and physics, also airpressure was taken into account!

 

also the burntime of the motors is the same = 11seconds

weight is the same etc etc etc

 

so why is there such a diffrence in flighttime, cause the missiles have same airframes and same rocketmotor, also nearly the same speed after they have burned out, marked in orange.

30km/h is absolutly nothing at speeds that reach mach4.0

 

so please tell my why the flighttime of the r27et is half the time of the equvilant r27er.

 

for me this is an evidence of tweaking a missile that would be capable way more in real life, plus, both missiles have datalink also the r27et in real life. they can be steared like the aim120 with tws in lomac, which means, yes i need a radarlock but the missile will be steared to the target till it gets is own seakerlock on the target.

 

why is that?

they are datalink steared cause the mainpurpose of the r27et was , to be launched at very long distances at b52 bombers, which are mainly covered by escorts. so the russians had to find a way to get a shoot at the bombers before they have to engage the escorts.

with the r27et they are capable of shooting at such high asset targets before the escorts would engage the flankers, or while they are beginning thier engagements.

the r27et was never ment to be used against fighters, although it is a way to use that missile, cause it has a heatsignature too.

nobody would really think of getting to a bomber close, i speak of 15km here, cause this is not possible. you cannot give bomberpilot a kiss good bye on to his windshield.

 

the datalink stear tells me that the seaker could lock a reflection or a steam from hot tubes of a manufacturing facility, but do to the datalink, it will not do that so it is not right when you argument like that about other heatsources.

sure you need a lock to hit the target or get the missile close to the seakerlockrange, but you will not have a dump missile that locks what ever it wants.

 

so thats why i asked for the r27et if there will be done anything to it.

if not and there will not be done anything to the SARH problem of the su27, and the problem that the radar eos combination does not work properly, like it does not right now, then the improvements will eb f15c improvements only.

 

period!!!!!

 

hope you are willing to answer in a friendly tone and very constructiv.

 

p.s.:

the abouve stated brought us the fact that, after we tested all missiles, also the aim120, aim7 and aim9, that the r27et and r27t was tweaked down by 1/3 of it original range.

 

to the hit possibilities of maddoging an r27et, sure, the hitpossibilities are slim, but when you preaim right, the possibilities of a hit, go up very high, untill the bandit changes its vectors in a bigger ammount.

 

also the missiles, also the r27et has a certain window of its infrared vision. on a range of 15km, 2° or 3° make distances of 1000 or 2000m, so there is no magic to it of hitting a bandit in an override, it is basic flying when you know the facts.

 

in additon, or flightpaper is not complete, but allready has 57 pages, of pure data taken from lockon

 

 

[RvEYoda]

@gg:

 

to the range of 1/3 tweaked down, well this is something we figured out after making about a month of testing in addition with a month of preparing.

we calculated, one of us, the expected range the missile flies to the point of 0 speed. you can imagine that this range was very very long, we ended up at a calculated range of 90km+. the 27er had a range of 110km.

we knew that these numbers were just math, no real thing cause no missile flies to the speed of 0.

thats for we have set a minimum manueverspeed of 1000km/h over ground, cause we figured that in lomac this is the last speed that might produce a hit, do to the ability of manuevering.

we also figured that in the mathematical calculation that there will be slight diffrence between the r27er and the r27et, do to the shape of the nose, but this was a small percentage that was at 7 diffrent alt. the same.

so we checked the balistics of the r27er again, to be sure we have the right data and compared that with the official data vympel released.

vympel says the r27er has a range of 75km, period. we did not know at which alt. they tested it, but we figured that an altitude of 12000m the balistics of the missile without lock are the same and the missle travels a range of 75 km over ground till it has reached a speed over ground of 1000km/h.

we also mesured the flighttimes of the missiles and all the relevant distances compared to you own plane, etc etc etc, also the angles you have to fire to get a straight flightpath. so we really went into the depth of balistics in lomac.

what we figured is thatfollowing data at angles 12000m:

 

3.11

►R27er Semiaktiv (ALT. 12000m)

- Max. Range = ca. 75Km

- effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 40Km u. max. 60Km

- Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek.

- Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG

- Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 9Km

- Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4220Km/h

 

- (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh)

Distanz OVG = 75Km

Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 40Km

Flugzeit = 2Min 3Sek

 

---

4.11

►R27et Infrarot mittlere Reichweite (ALt. 12000m)

- Max. Range = ca. 60Km

- effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 25Km u. max. 50Km

- IR Suchkopfrange = 15Km

- Selber Motor wie bei der 27er

- Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek.

- Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG

- Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 9Km

- Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4180Km/h

 

- (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh)

Distanz OVG = 37Km

Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 23Km

Flugzeit = 54Sek

 

sorry that it is in german, it is copied directly from our documents.

what i want to point out here is the numbers in blue and in red.

all the data is the final result we figured in lomac.

 

the blue numbers are the distances of the missiles traveling over ground after launch till they have reached a speed of 1000km/h OG (over ground)

the red number is the flighttime till the speed of 1000km/h OG is reached.

 

both missiles have the same airframes expect the nose which does not affect the missiles ballistics in a very very big number.

calculated by math and physics, also airpressure was taken into account!

 

also the burntime of the motors is the same = 11seconds

weight is the same etc etc etc

 

so why is there such a diffrence in flighttime, cause the missiles have same airframes and same rocketmotor, also nearly the same speed after they have burned out, marked in orange.

30km/h is absolutly nothing at speeds that reach mach4.0

 

so please tell my why the flighttime of the r27et is half the time of the equvilant r27er.

 

for me this is an evidence of tweaking a missile that would be capable way more in real life, plus, both missiles have datalink also the r27et in real life. they can be steared like the aim120 with tws in lomac, which means, yes i need a radarlock but the missile will be steared to the target till it gets is own seakerlock on the target.

 

why is that?

they are datalink steared cause the mainpurpose of the r27et was , to be launched at very long distances at b52 bombers, which are mainly covered by escorts. so the russians had to find a way to get a shoot at the bombers before they have to engage the escorts.

with the r27et they are capable of shooting at such high asset targets before the escorts would engage the flankers, or while they are beginning thier engagements.

the r27et was never ment to be used against fighters, although it is a way to use that missile, cause it has a heatsignature too.

nobody would really think of getting to a bomber close, i speak of 15km here, cause this is not possible. you cannot give bomberpilot a kiss good bye on to his windshield.

 

the datalink stear tells me that the seaker could lock a reflection or a steam from hot tubes of a manufacturing facility, but do to the datalink, it will not do that so it is not right when you argument like that about other heatsources.

sure you need a lock to hit the target or get the missile close to the seakerlockrange, but you will not have a dump missile that locks what ever it wants.

 

so thats why i asked for the r27et if there will be done anything to it.

if not and there will not be done anything to the SARH problem of the su27, and the problem that the radar eos combination does not work properly, like it does not right now, then the improvements will eb f15c improvements only.

 

period!!!!!

 

hope you are willing to answer in a friendly tone and very constructiv.

 

p.s.:

the abouve stated brought us the fact that, after we tested all missiles, also the aim120, aim7 and aim9, that the r27et and r27t was tweaked down by 1/3 of it original range.

 

to the hit possibilities of maddoging an r27et, sure, the hitpossibilities are slim, but when you preaim right, the possibilities of a hit, go up very high, untill the bandit changes its vectors in a bigger ammount.

 

also the missiles, also the r27et has a certain window of its infrared vision. on a range of 15km, 2° or 3° make distances of 1000 or 2000m, so there is no magic to it of hitting a bandit in an override, it is basic flying when you know the facts.

 

in additon, or flightpaper is not complete, but allready has 57 pages, of pure data taken from lockon

 

 

 

Sorry if I misunderstand your posts here, but as from what I can tell you say you have simulated

the missiles yourself based on some data? I dont know what exact stuff you are using but the actual

maximum engagement ranges at different altitudes and closures of these missiles have actually been

posted by ED in the russian forums, so there is no need for this ;)

 

There is no need to approximate the missile ranges with your own, as this data is already out.

Btw what simulation software have you used, or did you write your own. What data sources for drag

etc and flight models have you used.

 

Here is Aim120 A : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=816680&postcount=2455

Here is R27ER : http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=816710&postcount=2467

 

Ranges stated "75" is not range flown above ground, it is range to target when missile is fired.

Range covered over ground should be much less.

 

Also there is no datalink on the R27ET, so it wont help you if maddogged.

Also 2-3 degrees are FOV, not search limits, there is no known data on search algorithms

when not having a target. You could be looking at the completely different place.

Third, do you know if the IR missiles of these type have any intertial stabilization to begin with?

Otherwise a maddog can just make a 180 turn and do nothing if it isnt stable ;)

 

I agree with you that ET should not have much shorter range than ER in terms of kinematics.

I have also ran tests on this and the nose shape is not a huge factor. Maybe 5-10% range difference

from what I've seen. However ED may have better data than that.

 

I recommend running translate.google.com on that thread in russion forums, as many questions

are answered here by ED developers. Or maybe you know Russian ( I dont :) )

Edited January 14, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

5-10% is correct for a rounded vs. sharp nosecone. THere's also a difference in trajectory which accounts for the rest of it (the ET runs straight, where the ER lofts).

 

There is no datalink for the ET - we know this not ONLY because the operator's manual specifically says you need a SEEKER lock to launch, but also - get this - ED has access to actual, real operators and maintenance technicians who put it quite bluntly: The fire control system does NOT generate a datalink signal when a heat seeker is launched. Period. It doesn't matter if it's a 73 or 27 - it is simply not done by the fire control radar itself. Regardless, there's probably no provisions for a datalink within that seeker to begin with.

 

As for a maddogged ET? It doesn't matter how well you aim it ahead of time - the point is the seeker has plenty of things to lock onto before it sees the target you want it to hit.

[borchi_2b]

to yoda, the data i have posted is directly taken from the simulation. no closure speeds taken in account, this is only the missile itself in its ballistics, like a bullet shot ba a sniperrifle.

period.

and we have tested it all the same way, we had a certain point over the ground, launched the missle and used ingame and tackviews for multiple methods to analyse the missiles ballistics in the game.

[GGTharos]

The real R-27ET has a head-on range of 53km against a non-maneuvering, head-on target at 10km altitude. The actual distance covered over ground in this case will be less than 40km.

[borchi_2b]

to yoda, the data i have posted is directly taken from the simulation. no closure speeds taken in account, this is only the missile itself in its ballistics, like a bullet shot ba a sniperrifle.

period.

and we have tested it all the same way, we had a certain point over the ground, launched the missle and used ingame and tackviews for multiple methods to analyse the missiles ballistics in the game.

you are right when you say that the range over ground should be shorter do to the fact that there is nothing that comes to the effekt of the equation. but the data is taken direktly from the simulation, no need to fuss about, cause i can prove it with tackviews. i can alos set for you a reference point on the ground and you can maesure the tangent distance between the 2 points and you have the alt too, 12000m, then you can calculate by simple 3 grade math the distance the missile traveled, and in addition you can also see the speeds and can measure the time the missile flew. if you need more prove thena tackview, well then ....... my .....

cause nothing hard can shock then the facts the simulation gives. i have not programmed anything cause i do not know how, like you do, what i also would not do, cause i can satisfy myself with what ED gives to us.

 

just give me a few hours then i have the tackviews done, maybe also as a vidoe on youtube, in which you can see both missiles fly at the same screen to have a comparison, and to prove that the diffrence between both missiles is in lockon, way greater then 5%-10%

 

just give me a little time and then i maybe, cause i am sick of the argueeing that i might be the dump ass, and that i am full of shit, provide the document to the whole community, so that everybody can check for themselfs, and see what a bukllshit this is we did in 2 month.

 

yoda, you want to tell me that this work is shit?

believe me, the grafics from ED are nothing compared to the things we figured in that time, the graph shoes what?

the flightpath of a r27er, lol, funny, cause that not how it flys for example at an altitude of 12000m.

 

just to give you an inside to our squad, we are not just a bunch of little fighterjokes and idiots.

we have nmore knowledge and resource options in our virtual squad then we tell.

 

we know what we talk about.

 

to the 5%-10% of difference, well thats what we also calculated in the preperations.

 

now compare the fired r27er in 7500m to the r27et, or at an alt of 12000m i give a damn shit about the alt you want to test

i can give you prove that the range diffrence of the r27er and the r27et is greater then 5-10%

 

now just compare the times we figured.

the diffrence between 54sec. and 123sec is 5-10%?

sorry,

the speed is about the same when the burntime of 11sec has ended, so both should, do to your 5-10%, fly nearly the same time, or at least the r27et should fly, when we take 10% diffrence, a time of about 110sec. you see the diffence, 110sec minus 53sec make all together a diffrence of 57sec, which is by far way more then 10%.

so just simple math proves that you have never really tested anything in lomac.

sorry to say it with these hard words.

but you will see for yourself when the prove is online and everybody is able to see it for themselfs.

 

@gg:

#

►R27et Infrarot mittlere Reichweite (ALt. 10000m)

- Max. Range = ca. 55Km

- effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 20Km u. max. 40Km

- IR Suchkopfrange = 15Km

- Selber Motor wie bei der 27er

- Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek.

- Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG

- Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 8,4Km

- Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4130Km/h

 

- (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh)

Distanz OVG = 30Km

Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 17Km

Flugzeit = 45Sek

 

that are the data of the r27et we figured in game at alt 10000.

it is about the same when you take the closure in account, so that sums up with your data, but now here is the data of the r27er which is only 5-10% greater in range how you and yoda said it.

 

---

3.12

►R27er Semiaktiv (ALT. 10000m)

- Max. Range = ca. 65Km

- effective Reichweite mit hoher Trefferwarscheinlichkeit zwischen 30Km u. max. 50Km

- Brenndauer des Motors = 11 Sek.

- Zurückgelegte Distanz nach dem Brennvorgang = 12Km OG

- Entfernung zum Flugzeug nach Brennvorgang = 8,4Km

- Geschwindigkeit der Rakete direkt nach dem Brennvorgang = 4160Km/h

 

- (manöverspeed = 1000Kmh)

Distanz OVG = 51Km

Distanz Flugzeug-Rakete = ca. 28Km

Flugzeit = 1Min 20Sek

 

see the diffrenc ein time and distance travelled over ground.

 

the et travels 30km over ground at that alt, right thats less then 40km.

but the r27er travels nearly twice the time and 51km at same burntime and final speeds.

twice the time and 21km more, by a total of 51km and 30km, is way more then 5-10%.

do the math and find out how much more it is.

and thats unrealitstic, you named it with you approximities of 5%-10%.

 

make the math, i can prove it to you on all altitiudes, that Ed has trimmer the r27er up, or the r27et down. only one of both has been done. now comes the question to me, which was done.

i have read things about russian weapons that tell me, that the r27et was trimmed down, no dupt about it.

[RvEYoda]

I think we are talking about different things here Borchi.

You are talking about missile performance in the game.

What I have quoted is the range of the missiles in real life, that is what the graphs show.

ET in the game right now maybe has 40% less range than ER, when I'm guessing it should

be more like 10% less. In fact the ET has been given a lot of extra drag in the game compared

to the ER. If you want the reasons, you will need to ask ED, as I cannot speak for ED.

 

For example, here is engagement range of RVV-AE ( the R77 that lockon tries to model )

There is no other R77 in service today, I qoute Chizh on that.

Edited January 14, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

Are you talking about a straight (non targeted) shot with the ER? The ER flies a different (And longer) flightpath first and foremost. It is also less draggy. You have to compare their ranges with straight shots for both - maybe you have done that, but I can't tell from what you have written.

The R-27ER head-on range vs a head-on, non-maneuvering target is 66km, as shown by range diagrams from Russian combat manuals. This includes a different flight-path as well.

 

The real graphs are used to translate range and performance into game modeling parameters - but also realize that the LO missile model is old and lacks in certain things which means sometimes we have to sacrifice certain capability for the sake of other capability to fine tune and make things as realistic as possible.

 

This will always be the case, until DCS introduces an advanced missile flight model that will allow ED to model missile performance quite a bit more faithfully. For now, we're stuck with what we have.

Edited January 14, 2010 by GGTharos

[borchi_2b]

@yoda:

 

jup 40% less range thats what i come up with too and thats what i would like to hav an answer too.

is it balancing?

probably.

but when we talk about an update for the missiles performance in Fc 2.0 we also have to take that in consideration. it cannot be the case that the r27et is slimed down in its lockon capabilities of lock and also in seeker strenght, when not even the range itself is right in first place. this is something that aims for me to the direction of the f15c pilots, who allways complained about to week missiles, which had no safety setup like real once do, or a max azimuth of 55° of the charly which means a max scan area left or right of 27.5° when the missile scans.

to be honest it is ok when the r27et is not that strong anymore, but a low probability of getting a lock on a target when it is fired upon in override, although the preaim is totaly perfect, and a weak representation of the SARH system, means that the su27 will be just a fighter joke compared to the f15c in lomac, cause the tws and datalink are modelled in certain extend, thats what we figured in our testing too, cause i shot missiles after all, i mean the aim120b/c at ranges the missle would only be able to hit a target when there is a datalink provided.

now there is still the problem of the radar eos problem to the russian fighter, that eos shuts down the radar when the bandit jinks out, which is total bull....

that means, fc 2.0 will only bring advantage to the eagle drivers and the 2/3 of the community which fly russian fighters, are actually screwed, do to the fact that thier planes are underdogs, although they are not in real life.

 

@gg:

well this is something that is true, but why then the changes to the weapons, also fuses, cause there is no other chance, as far what i have read about the update, to get an eagle killed with a russian fighter, unless you try to get into a close fight at fisual ranges, which means i have to ditch the 1000 amrams that are shot at me, before i get close enough, and even then i am not sure i will even hit the bandit at all, do to the fact that the missiles and radar combination work like crap.

if we have fuses, they are set to about 15m in real life.

when i ditch a missile, not with a barrelroll, but similar, then most of the missiles will pass my underside at distances like 25 -40m.

the fuses will normaly detonate at 15m, will this be the same in fc2.0?

if so, ok, if not, then the russian flyier s do not need to take off at all, cause there is no way to get close to an f15 in the end.

[RvEYoda]

@yoda:

 

jup 40% less range thats what i come up with too and thats what i would like to hav an answer too.

is it balancing?

probably.

but when we talk about an update for the missiles performance in Fc 2.0 we also have to take that in consideration. it cannot be the case that the r27et is slimed down in its lockon capabilities of lock and also in seeker strenght, when not even the range itself is right in first place. this is something that aims for me to the direction of the f15c pilots, who allways complained about to week missiles, which had no safety setup like real once do, or a max azimuth of 55° of the charly which means a max scan area left or right of 27.5° when the missile scans.

to be honest it is ok when the r27et is not that strong anymore, but a low probability of getting a lock on a target when it is fired upon in override, although the preaim is totaly perfect, and a weak representation of the SARH system, means that the su27 will be just a fighter joke compared to the f15c in lomac, cause the tws and datalink are modelled in certain extend, thats what we figured in our testing too, cause i shot missiles after all, i mean the aim120b/c at ranges the missle would only be able to hit a target when there is a datalink provided.

now there is still the problem of the radar eos problem to the russian fighter, that eos shuts down the radar when the bandit jinks out, which is total bull....

that means, fc 2.0 will only bring advantage to the eagle drivers and the 2/3 of the community which fly russian fighters, are actually screwed, do to the fact that thier planes are underdogs, although they are not in real life.

 

In 1v1 BVR, the eagle should have some form of advantage over most other fighters. It is what

it was designed for. The mig29 on the other hand is much more agile at high angles of attack

and getting the speed back after high alpha bleeding manoeuvres.

 

Not only 120 and ET will change in FC2, but also other missiles. I can tell you Su27 is not

useless in bvr in Fc2.

 

Also afaik the switching between different lock types in mig29 and su27 is modelled after the real aircraft

systems and combat manuals. If you want to bring that up talk to ED.

Edited January 14, 2010 by =RvE=Yoda

[GGTharos]

@gg:

well this is something that is true, but why then the changes to the weapons, also fuses, cause there is no other chance, as far what i have read about the update, to get an eagle killed with a russian fighter, unless you try to get into a close fight at fisual ranges, which means i have to ditch the 1000 amrams that are shot at me, before i get close enough, and even then i am not sure i will even hit the bandit at all, do to the fact that the missiles and radar combination work like crap.

 

First and foremost, you're facing the most lethal BVR opponent with a 10 year (or more) lag in technology. You have your work cut-out for you. But then again, the case is that you have your owrk cut out for you, not that it is impossible. You will need more realistic (... soviet like!) tactics to defeat the Eagle-AMRAAM combo, but ... I will say once more, not impossible. If you have half a clue about how doppler radar works, you know how to ditch any radar guided missile, including the 120C. What WILL happen is that you are far less likely to see a situation where you launch all your missiles and you hit nothing, on both sides.

 

if we have fuses, they are set to about 15m in real life.

when i ditch a missile, not with a barrelroll, but similar, then most of the missiles will pass my underside at distances like 25 -40m.

the fuses will normaly detonate at 15m, will this be the same in fc2.0?

if so, ok, if not, then the russian flyier s do not need to take off at all, cause there is no way to get close to an f15 in the end.

Yes, 15m is the maximum for the best missiles (120, 77) and everything else has shorter fuzes (corresponding with real life data that ED was able to obtain). In all cases, the fuzes are longer than they were in FC for ALL missiles, meaning all missiles have become deadlier.

 

To also address what you were saying above - I have to check again, but I'm pretty sure the ER and ET were tweaked to be reasonably consistent.

 

I must also add that again, concerning the missile FM, you'll probably see huge ranges at very high altitudes, and fairly realistic ones at low altitudes. There's nothing that can be done about these distortions unfortunately.

[borchi_2b]

@gg:

 

ok, thats sound good right now.

 

for sure is, that the first things i have to do with fc2.0, check the missiles and the flightperformance again of the planes, so that also that file is up to date :-)

 

will see what fc2.0 brings to us, maybe russian tactics? :-)