Dudikoff

There's a big difference between simple pulse ranging and actually tracking the target to be able to calculate the intercept course for the missile and then sending these updates to the missile somehow, especially since the context is attacking the target undetected. Even the former (simple ranging) is detectable, let alone the latter.

And just how would you track the target at that distance in the first place without a radar to be able to calculate the intercept course and guide the missile there to its seeker range? Besides, the mid-course updates for R/ER missiles are also transmitted via radar signals.

Just to point out that it has held up even longer since it's pretty much exactly the same CPU architecture as the one before it (Skylake) and all the later ones, except that the latter increased the core count finally thanks to some competition from AMD. So, if you upgraded it with a newer Intel, I guess your gains wouldn't really be noticeable in DCS since you're already running it at higher clock (which is the other way Intel gained slight performance increase over these same architecture generations).

"Old" makes it sound like the later Intel CPU's are actually based on a different micro-architecture.

AFAIK, it doesn't have an INS, as it has an IR seeker with no LOAL capability. If the seeker has no lock before launch, it has no knowledge of any targets and it can't be launched, except in a case of emergency because it can't be jettisoned like e.g. the radar variants on the AKU pylons.

IIRC, some recent article claims that the IPC gain will be 10-20%. I presume some clock increase will be present, as well. Much bigger gains will only be on the ray-tracing side with the tensor cores where gains might be 2-4x higher supposedly.

Yeah, first they'd need to bring the carrier to a serviceable condition again (repair the damage from the sinking dock and that fire, maybe replace the faulty boilers, etc.) before they could start thinking if the Su-33 are worth sinking more money into or it's better to switch to MiG-29Ks only. Given the current oil prices, one could hope the damage was not severe and cost-prohibitive to fix, as otherwise it wouldn't be so surprising if they decide it's just not worth fixing in the end, IMHO.

I'd presume because the Area-51M doesn't offer any other type of screen yet (IIRC, the issue was with the narrow bezels design and the mounting brackets they need or something as there were no QHD or 4K screens that would be compatible with it yet).

If you have some diagrams and technical manuals describing the system in detail, then perhaps you could explain why such a thing would not be possible? Otherwise, I'd presume the K-041 is not an immutable black box, but a name for a system of multiple components and sub-components which control different functions (navigation, targeting, weapons, etc.). To insist that the engineers responsible for so many modifications required to test various systems on the numerous Ka-50 prototypes would have problems modifying, upgrading, replacing or simply bypassing some of these components (like e.g. the computer controlling the weapon control system) for something relatively trivial as adding support for two more pylons for A2A missiles seems pretty stubborn. Having said that, I would prefer if they just added support for some Igla variant to be carried on the current Ka-50's outer pylons rather than building some Frankenstein variant of the Ka-50 with new wings and MAWS, but the same old cockpit.

You should first make up your mind on what kind of experience you want from the monitor regarding everyday use and for DCS. There are standard 16:9 wide monitors (the same aspect ratio as TVs like e.g. 27", 32", 40", 43" sizes), there are ultra-wides (like 34" and 35" with a 1440 vertical resolution so basically a wider 27" QHD monitor or the newer 37.5" with a higher 1600 vertical) and then there are super-ultra-wides like e.g. Samsung CRG9 49" with a 1440 vertical resolution (the other models are 1080 only) which is basically equal to having two 27" QHD monitors connected.

But, should such high caliber FlaK be engaging fighters at all, let alone at such heights? Sounds highly improbable to an uninformed mind.

A 33% improvement on 'horrible' range makes it what? Just 'bad'?

While not familiar with the topic, given that the first three are of a different sub-class to the next five, I'd presume there are some physical differences that the current DCS Stennis bears?

You do realize Intel is in a bunch of tech besides consumer CPUs which are just a part of its business? Not to mention it still runs its own production foundries in multiple locations (speaking of which, god knows how much of r&d money was burned on developing the failed 10nm process only).. I would presume very little of that went to consumer CPUs because we for sure didn't reap much progress there. Unless of course you've been happy with what Intel's been providing up to the Ryzen release (basically, up to 5% IPC increase per consumer CPU generation, same core-count, HT reserved for top CPUs, each "generation" requiring a new socket and mainboard), in which case good for you, "bro", but I'd presume the most are quite happy with the benefits of having some competition here again (core increase, big price drop, HT). But, I haven't intended to get dragged into this debate, just wanted to add some perspective to the presented context.

I'd just like to add that the situation is not that simple as two huge companies wying for our purchases. One is a 60 billion USD revenue company which basically has a monopoly and thus doesn't really need to invest that much to provide better products for consumers as much as into marketing and various anti-trust violation practices to maintain that monopoly which allows them to basically re-brand the same product with some tweaks over and over again (e.g. the same quad-core CPU design over 7 generations in the consumer CPU market until AMD's Ryzen made them increase the core count there). The other one is like 10 times smaller and was on the brink of bankruptcy a few years ago. Now, I'm not saying people should be buying an inferior product, but given fairly balanced options, they should IMHO make an informed choice and reward certain practices (like in democracy), otherwise they have only themselves to blame in the long term. For example, I need to have a laptop as my main rig for both work and gaming. And even now when AMD has a pretty good CPU product (the new mobile Ryzen 4XXXH/HS CPUs with a matching performance, but a much lower TDP compared to Intel), no OEM's will be releasing high-end laptops with them which is simply preposterous, especially given how the current crop of laptops are getting thinner and thinner.

The SNP term is definitely related to creating and updating of the target tracks and I presume is a standard part of search mode as there's no switch for it or any indication anywhere. The tracks seem to be well enough to indicate course, range and altitude (as indicated on the tactical display) which should be enough to calculate a missile interception path, I presume. But, at the time the SUV-27 (WCS) was built, there were no ARH missiles in service, only SARH so the target needs to be illuminated for the missile seeker, hence why the RNP mode (STT) is required for the missile launch. If they had such, the SUV could have been modified or modernized to allow for this (i.e. to make possible to select which targets will be engaged from the tracked ones, to send multiple mid-course updates to missiles, etc.) as happened with the later export variants (not the base Su-27SK).

In fact, it's there is as ОБЗ in DCS is short for ОБЗОР in the manual, which means search mode. Reading the same manual (though I don't speak Russian), chapter 5.1.2. does seem to indicate that these two modes from the DCS are more closely related on the real thing (i.e. basically the same mode where the radar would track and display up to ten targets) and there doesn't seem to be any special indication between them on the HUD like what we have. The one option you have is to switch between auto and manual lock modes (5.1.7. ЗАХВ АВТ-РУЧН) where you choose whether the system would automatically transition to STT (РНП) mode at some point (I guess by prioritizing and choosing the fastest approaching one of the semi-tracked targets) - which is kind of like the СНП mode in DCS - or you select the target manually via the cursor control - which would be the ОБЗ mode in DCS. If ED would remove these indications from the HUD, they'd have to animate the appropriate cockpit switches and players would need to check these to know in which mode they are. Regarding the range scale, IIRC these were fixed/set on the MiG-29 depending on the SUV mode so I guess the same logic is present here.

To be fair, there's a whole thread on the HB F-14 requiring various keyboard mappings or different handling to be added (including many switches which have no programmable key option yet in the control settings) and AFAIK there has been pretty much little to no progress over this in a year since its release, yet you don't see that being thrown against the HB or the F-14. I remember I started modifying my Target profile to add RIO mappings and gave up when some things simply weren't there or missed some things (like e.g. an option to turn some rotary encoder left or right, only specific positions could be mapped, similar issues with 2 or 3 position switches, etc.).

Never before? 2080Ti has been released at the same time as 2070 and 2080.

I beg to differ. You will lose 20-25% or more sometimes, but not due to the bandwidth of the x4 connection, but due to the lame thunderbolt 3 controllers which seem to get overwhelmed by all the data. The Alienware external gpu solution uses the same x4 PCI-E connection, but since it's directly connected to the bus via a proprietary connection, the losses are under 5%. For the life of me, I can't understand why no other company did this with their laptops. It would be nice to have more laptop brands to choose from as I certainly wouldn't shell out for an expensive TB3 enclosure plus 2080Ti and then lose 20% or more of its performance. Hence why I got an Alienware laptop (need my main computer mobile) and its GPU enclosure, but I'm waiting for Ampere to consider an upgrade (hoping that AMD high-end Navi solution is around 2080Ti levels to brings its price down). TBH. the 1080 in my laptop runs DCS well enough for my G-Sync 4K 60Hz screen, so I'm not in a hurry.

IMHO, I wouldn't worry about needing to wait for the EA to end. As ED would want to expand the potential customer base for the SC, the integration of F-14 will be one of the priorities for both ED and HB and if it doesn't get finalized on EA release (due to some last minute API changes on SC side, which seems quite possible given the TODO list), it will get patched in as soon as possible (presumably with the next patch). Also, given the same TODO list, they are aiming for some release date next month, but it will obviously depend on the implementation of the remaining key features and bugs. Since they already missed a previous deadline (Q1), they don't want to repeat that error before they are more certain of the release date. It's one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situations. It's a very complex product with a bunch of modules to maintain integrated, so these delays come with the territory I guess. No offense intended, but perhaps the pre-purchase discount might not be worth it for some people given the apparent levels of stress caused.

You can put your Cougar stick grip on the WarBRD base and keep the Cougar base with throttle and rudders plugged in as well and all of them will work, no need for buying the TUSBA/RUSBA adapters IMHO (apart from the slight inconvenience of having to keep the empty Cougar base somewhere nearby). Now, WarBRD base can also be set up in drivers to emulate the TM Warthog stick device ID so you could even still use TM Target software to program your HOTAS if needed.

Surprised to find these are no longer available from the manufacturer. When I looked a few months ago, they still had the R2 model on offer. But, Miles on the DCS forums has been designing a similar solution, not sure what's the status on that. R3 would work with the Cougar grip I guess, but as it's intended for the Warthog, you'd need to mount it somehow (normally it mounts on the Warthog base plate). It also wouldn't interface with the Cougar base electronically so it would be a standalone stick (not sure if it can be made compatible with TM Target). But, you could still plug your old Cougar base to the PC to use the throttle in parallel to this standalone stick.

What are the obvious differences between the early F-14B and the F-14B that we have in DCS (configured for A2A, of course)?

Ah, thanks. Didn't think to look for such notes in the profile itself. I remember the program was buggy, but I didn't use it for years so presumed such issues would have been ironed out by now. I guess the program core handling regarding key emulation is left untouched then if this issue is still kept. BTW, the CONTROL part still shows up if you have a non-US/UK keyboard (i.e. AltGr function which gives you special outputs for certain keys instead of pure Alt function). Too bad Logitech didn't at least provide common DX button presses for each position of the switches/encoders in their updated dr.. well, I guess they're not really drivers, more like hacked profiles for certain games.. Pretty silly decision by Saitek to begin with, I really wanted to be able to program the switch panel with my X65 in the SST back in the day.