Dudikoff
-
Posts
2881 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dudikoff
-
-
Apparently, it's fully supported:
-
1
-
-
The new interface to DCS sounds interesting. I'll try it out when I find time. Thanks for your hard work keeping VAICOM alive.
-
2
-
-
On 8/3/2025 at 10:06 PM, AeriaGloria said:
But wouldn’t it send out pseudo CW and datalink at same time? I don’t see why it would separate them
It doesn't, there was a diagram of its multiplexed radar signal somewhere. At some calculated distance from the target (depending on the target size selection), it would switch from sending the commands to the missile to illuminating the target for the missile.
-
11 minutes ago, Fran11player said:
Then, if the MiG-29A never used ER and ET why incluye them but no EA??
A/EA variant was developed for a while in the 80s (ARH seeker, basically), but at some point further work was abandoned in the late 80s as they focused on the more promising R-77 design.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Ironhand said:
“A” summer? Not this one?
Sorry. Saw that and had to ask…
It also doesn't specify the hemisphere it refers to.
-
3
-
-
I think people are getting stuck on a certain version as if it was a static thing, rather than a continuous upgrade through their service. When these planes go through major overhauls, e.g. their WCS and radar processing computers get line updated and since their original stuff is obsolete, they get newer parts with updated capabilities (e.g. Ts100M processors that initially came with N019M radars instead of original Ts-100). So, 9.12A as released initially couldn't support R-27ER missiles as they weren't available yet anyway, but later on with various line upgrades it probably could with the correct upgrade package.
-
On 5/25/2025 at 1:13 PM, AeriaGloria said:
Well the datalink that Su-27 uses to make that nice display also requires a specific box. It’s possible there wasn’t space for the box on the MiG-29
IMHO, it's more likely that it makes no sense for the MiG-29A given its short range, only 2 BVR missiles and the G-limits with an asymmetric R-27 loadout.
It's more than enough to guide it to a single target via GCI that it will engage with both BVR missiles and finish off or engage any targets of opportunity with Archers before turning back as it's running out of fuel already.
-
1 hour ago, 0minutes said:
By that logic, almost any missile could be retrofitted or tweaked to work with almost any system, which kind of defeats the purpose of realism when modeling something like the MiG-29. As for Artem, they don't produce legacy R27 seekers as all ukranian MiGs underwent modernizations with new radars such as MU1 & MU2 which tweaked the old radar N019 to support the R27ERs as well as already having a limited amount of MiG-29 9.13s
I only mentioned it because R-27 was always advertised as a modular missile where you could easily swap between IR and SARH seekers on the same missile body so I suppose the same would probably work between older and newer SARH seeker heads.
I mentioned Artem as they used to advertise exporting R-27 missiles. Not sure where Poland, Czech Republic and Slovakia are getting their R-27 stocks from, but I would expect it's Ukraine rather than Russia.
-
2 hours ago, 0minutes said:
Exactly, maybe receiver in the head makes all the difference huh? Also please read what I wrote.
That's a good point, although I think it's the N019, since if ED was gonna go through all the troube of simulating the N019M they might have aswell have made the 9.13
So you have two receiver standards, one for the original set of channel/frequencies, one for the modified. Is there a compatibility problem in combining an ER body with the original R-27R receiver if the missile is as modular as advertised?
In any case, I can understand if the Russians wanted to sell the new missile only as a package with the radar upgrades, but there's nothing stopping e.g. Artem from Ukraine to offer R-27ERs compatible with the original radar sets.
-
16 minutes ago, 0minutes said:
Because it was never adapted for the N019 Radar, as I stated before, the R27ER entered service well after the N019 Radar was discontinued so there was no need to adapt it for the old radar, please read.
I guess the russians should've though about adapting the 27ER for the N019 just incase in 35 years if a full fidelity MiG-29 9.12 is developed in full fidelity, it would be able to carry the 27ERWhat's to adapt? There's only the difference of some receiver component in the seeker head.
We have an export variant here and a plausible scenario here is that they used the older spec seeker for export to owners with unmodified N019 radars.
-
23 minutes ago, 0minutes said:
"N019M Topaz is an updated version, developed as a response to the compromise of the N-019 radar by a US spy. Tested from 1986, it entered limited production in 1991. Slightly lighter than the N-019 at 350kg. Topaz has increased ECM resistance, new software, and a more advanced built-in monitoring system." - N019 Radar | MiG Alley Military Aviation News
They use the same seeker, but to make the seeker compatible with the new Radar (N019M) they had to tweak its frequency to make sure the radar was able to illuminate the target. Also as I said before, why would they adapt the missile for an obsolete radar? Which had its bands & frequencies compramised which tactically made it useless due to all the ECM.
also;
As for the Ukrainian statements, I cannot find anymore but it was a study by Korolov Zhytomyr Military Institute which seems to have been deleted or so hidden away by new information.
If you're still not convinced, here is a task for you; find a picture of an unmodified MiG-29 carrying/firing the ER or a source which explicitly shows that the MiG-29's N019 radar was capable of firing the R27ER which I assure you, you won't simply because it was never a thing.The R-27 is a modular missile, so you could just use the R-27R seeker on the R-27ER body (if the illuminating channels couldn't be modified differently). I don't see this as a reason for not having the R-27ER on the 9.12A (depending on the scenario timeframe, naturally).
-
4 hours ago, pepin1234 said:
they have been made the same for the ex-Soviet hardware made in ex Soviets republics. Example the Su-25 are rebuild in Russia instead to keep production in Georgia. For the legal instance they are restored...
Ulan Ude factory in Russian SFSR was producing the UB variant from the start, so it wasn't really a big issue for them.
-
-
I feel it could have been cheaper given how a bunch of stuff was already developed/researched with the FC3 and how relatively simple the plane is avionics wise.
I'm planning to buy it, but I do hope the radar and IRST systems are not just copy/pasted from the FC3 with some HUD updates.
Lastly, it would be great if the avionics developed for it would pave way towards some other FF FC3 modules in the future(like e.g. Su-25A and Su-27S, eventually).
-
5
-
-
On 2/9/2025 at 4:26 PM, KelGun said:
@stenji can you share what hub you used? Thanks!
I guess any powered USB 3.0 (3.1/3.2) should work, but the power adapter should have a proper power adapter connection (e.g. a 12V one) and not some USB style power connection (5V) as those are amp limited usually. For example, the MIP worked for me on a Sabrent 16-port hub and on a TP-Link UH720. Didn't work on some 7-port 3.1 hub which didn't come with a power adapter and had a USB micro 2.0 style input for extra power for charging (only two screens powered up out of three).
-
I've bought the same for my modded TM Cougar (NXT Ultra 2, IIRC) and it seems that the NXT provided base top is a bit tighter than the TM one (or perhaps the TM Cougar one was tighter than the Warthog one) as the adapter doesn't fit all the way in. Instead of sanding the sides of the adapter down, I've tried to simply remove the screws and connect the modded plug (as shown in the first post) directly to the base and then to tighten everything up and it works pretty well as luck would have it. This way, if/when I switch to Moza, I won't have to buy another adapter.
The provided extension actually makes the whole thing more precise and it's not too tall (as other adapters go) so hopefully the added strain won't be too much for the springs (still on the original set I've received when I bought the used NXT Ultra II, but I'm not flying much).
I've recently switched to a center mounted stick as I reused my Monstertech mount for the stick to mount WinWing MIP on it (gives better screen angles compared to the stock Winwing mounts, plus it's all connected together now; the only problem is where to store the thing when not in use) so this AVA adapter is a godsend (30 degree offset is just perfect for my usecase).
Just posting in case anyone has a TM Cougar base still (and/or NXT Ultra II mod)..
-
53 minutes ago, draconus said:
Most needed are the Soviet/Russian, Germany/DDR, Poland (these were already shown afaik), Iraq, Iran, Syria, Ukraine. Accuracy and realism is more important than "coolness" of the livery imho.
I would add Czechoslovakia (plus Czechia, Slovakia for post Cold War period) to that list. They had interesting camos, reminiscent of the DDR ones, but different.
-
4
-
-
9 hours ago, bies said:
R-77 wasn't even introduced to the Russian military in 1990s and produced only for export to India and China as RVV-AE. It was considered by the Russians as low reliability and limited capability coupled with high cost.
I'd presume the primary reason was that they didn't even have any aircraft capable of firing them in service, except for like two dozen MiG-29's of 9.13S standard.
-
Any chance the exports for pilot's radar screen and RWR could be added soon?
-
DCS Main Menu, e.g. F/A-18, a control change causes a reload of DCS on my system.
But in any case, let's say I change something regarding the display settings, I will get into a same problem loop where a DCS will restart and then the menu will get messed up due to the Winwing display config getting messed up by DCS.
Maybe instead of DCS automatically reloading, we could have a popup asking us if we want to reload and if we choose not to, it will say that the changes will only get applied after a restart.
That way we (e.g. Winwing MIP owners that presumably have similar issues) could do all the changes, quit when we're done with all the changes, reapply the Winwing config, start the game.
-
1
-
-
Would it be possible that the main menu position can be chosen perhaps (i.e. like left, center or right instead of fixed to the right as it is now)?
The problem I have, for example, is as follows. I have a Winwing MIP configured. So, before starting DCS, I set the MFD configuration via WW's SimApp Pro which updates the viewport lua files and launch DCS.
Now, let's say I change something in the settings, like controls. For some reason, DCS restarts itself every time, even if only the controls were modified (which doesn't happen if you adjust controls while in-flight which makes no sense).
When it restarts itself, it modifies the viewport lua file I guess so it messes up the WinWing monitor setup. What happens when it reloads is that the three MFD screens are treated as part of the main screen I presume and the menu ends up on the rightmost one. So, I have to terminate DCS so that SimApp Pro can update the view lua file.
Now, I cannot get to the menu with my mouse, nor is the exit option in the menu visible on the rightmost MFD.
So, the only option I see on the menu is the top left logout icon. Then it logs you out of DCS and a DCS login screen pops up. This one doesn't have a close option nor does right clicking on it in the taskbar and closing work. So, you have to open a Task Manager and kill the login screen.
Then when you start DCS again, you get the new menu launcher pop up and have to reenter the password again.
So, it's a very tedious process which happens every time a settings change triggers a DCS reload.
I didn't really investigate deeper what happens internally, but IIRC there was a monitor configuration lua file (that I used to edit for TM Cougar MFDs over an extra screen) which seems to be modified by DCS on restart even though no related settings get modified. Perhaps this process can be revised so this DCS reload is not performed in cases where it's not required (e.g. controls change) or if the view/resolution settings were not changed, the lua config for the monitor setup shouldn't be touched?
-
2
-
-
Yeah, finally a European Cold War scenario map. This will easily become my favorite terrain in DCS by far.
-
1
-
-
The F-16A is a very cool idea and would fit well with the other FC3 aircraft and the FC concept in general. Mirage III series, as well.
I guess those late 70s single-pilot aircraft with their basic avionics are ideal for FC3, like e.g. Jaguar and such.
-
Looks VERY interesting, I was just wondering if such a thing exists few weeks ago.
I would advise providing a few review samples to some of the respected YouTube sim-related content makers to advertise it as I'm sure prospective buyers would want an unbiased take on how well it works in sims (and combines with Track IR, for example) before pulling the trigger.
-
1
-
Potential mistake in MiG-29A FAQ about R-27ER and R-27ET
in DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum
Posted
Even the first photo of a Ukrainian 9.13 shows an R-27ER, from what I can tell.