Dudikoff

I get what you're saying, but you're explaining it in a wrong way. The vertical FoV is the same in 16:9 and 21:9 in theory, but your physical vertical size is too small for you to comfortably zoom out. My point is that there's nothing wrong with the 21:9 format for DCS, but yes, I'd agree that the 34" monitor is not the ideal size for it.

That's misleading as it's technically not true. Just by looking at those ratios, it's obvious that you get a larger FoV with 21:9 (i.e. 21 compared to 16) for the same vertical space (9). So, with a 40" 4K (16:9) monitor for example, you have the same FoV as a 27" (16:9) monitor, but with better sharpness (due to increased resolution) and I guess better immersion as it's bigger (unless you push it way back from you). But, even though it's bigger physically, you don't see more vertically for the same cockpit zoom level, while the 34" ultrawide gives you a bigger FoV for the same vertical level (even though its vertical size is PHYSICALLY noticeably smaller than on the 40" screen). Now, I do get what you're saying and for me the same vertical on 27" (16:9) and 34" (21:9) is physically somewhat small for proper immersion, hence why I upgraded to 32" 4K (16:9). But, I wouldn't mind having a 37.5" ultra-wide monitor (with a loss in sharpness as it has a vertical resolution of 1600 compared to 2160) for a wider FoV.

Which more modern one would that be? There's currently only one of the new Ford class delivered, but given the amount of issues with it, it's at least a few years away from operational testing, let alone service.

Sorry, is that a 3-way rocker (forward, center, back) or a 2-position rocker with depress? If it's the former, it might be useful as a mode switch in Target.

Agreed, but god only knows what else they might have installed. It's the only way to be sure..

There's already a thread on that mission here (and a temporary fix posted on page 2): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=237187

From my Fleet Defender days, that's the TWS-A mode, but there's also a TWS-M mode where the RIO assigns target sequence manually I think. There's probably more to it, I didn't have time to play with all the RIO stuff yet as I have to program the controls profile for the RIO first.

Technically, it's not pulse guidance, but CW as the radar is not doing the illumination as there's a separate antenna which paints the target and the missile's seeker is guiding towards the reflections. In this mode the missile's seeker has to be tuned to the CW frequency prior to the launch. I guess the 7E models used conical scan seekers (only supports CW illumination), while the 7F introduced the monopulse seeker which supports both CW and PD illumination. For the PD mode, I'd presume the seeker head is not really tuned per se, but WCS just sends one of the predetermined PD illumination channels (as set on the carrier aircraft by the ground crew) to the missile (as the 7F had digital electronics).

Agreed, scaling on a 4K screen is a far cry from scaling on the lower resolution screens. I planned to use the 1440p on my 32" 4K monitor as it looks quite good, but the laptop can run DCS decently in 4K so I didn't need to resort to lower res yet.

Yes, the D was supposed to have gotten the AMRAAM integrated and it was tested (A and B were a different story due to the older radar), but since the D program was killed by Cheney (cutting the numbers to 37 new built and 18 upgraded from 200 originally ordered by the Navy), the Navy directed the money towards the LTS pod instead counting on the A2G mission to be more useful since the A-6E was retired and Super Hornet was still years away.

That's the choice when considering 4K screens at the moment, better sharpness or higher refresh rate (non - 4K). Since I use the monitor for work as well, I opted for the higher resolution and keeping the same size of the screen wouldn't have been an upgrade for me really (at least with the 27" as a starting point which is a bit too small vertically IMHO, same goes for 34/35 inch ultrawides). They are going to release 32" 4K monitors with 144Hz "soon", though (quoted as it's already been late for quite some time). Also, they will release non HDR 27" 4K models which won't cost an arm and a leg as the current two models do, but that's a bit small for 4K, IMHO. One interesting option that I'd consider would be the 38" 3840*1600 2.35:1 model (basically, an ultra wide version of the venerable 16:10 30"panel). There is only a single panel option currently at 75Hz with adaptive sync, but it's also a bit slow response time wise. There should be a 144 Hz variant released this year, though.

I upgraded to a 32" 4K from my 27" 1440 monitor. The 1440 on a 27" was pretty good so I'm sure it would look ridiculous on a 32" (the DPI would be too low) to me. I do run my desktop with some scaling to reduce the pressure on the eyes, but I can still appreciate the extra sharpness of the 4K (of course, it's also very useful in DCS cockpits). I run DCS on a notebook 1080 in 4K so I'm pretty sure your 1070Ti could run it too. I have a rare G-Sync model, but now that Nvidia finally relented and added support for adaptive sync, no need to pay extra for that. There are some LG and BenQ options with adaptive sync in the 40-60 range, though usually you could lower the range by modifying the EDID of the monitor. I think IPS should be a bit faster, but if you insist on VA for the better contrast, check e.g. LG 32UD59.

I tried that mission once, shot down the helicopter, got well done, then realized I didn't get a full fuel load and the tanker was orbiting pretty much next to the carrier instead of being closer to the mission area. No Floggers showed up. But, what's worse, the wingman seems bugged. He starts moving first and then stops in front of me as his catapult shield gets raised in front of him so he just sits there and does nothing. I then have to take the furthest catapult position not to hit him when taking off. Happens to me every time, though I didn't try moving first as the wingman starts moving within 10 seconds or so.

There was a special MCG-TM variant of the grip announced, but nothing much has been heard about it since then.

And that blocked the buttons from working as well?

Did you plug it in the stick base? :) Check the connector, maybe it's dusty or something. Where is it not recognized? DCS or in Windows? Try running that HOTASConfig (or HOTASView directly) program which came with the Cougar software and see if it's visible there.

There is a flaps axis now, but it's not correctly handled. When I mapped it to the Warthog Throttle's slider, I had to invert it and noticed it only uses like 30-40% of the available axis movement (i.e. after I move the slider close to the half, in-game lever is already fully down). Hope this gets fixed.

Yeah, I just realized this yesterday. I hope this gets added.

They probably are, but that doesn't necessarily mean that R1 means export. It could be a newer production standard compared to the original missiles made in the early 80's. Plus, there could still be some difference between the export R1 missiles and the Soviet ones and this would be visible from a product code or something. IIRC, in some MiG-29 manual (I think Yugoslav) they mention some difference between missiles made before and after mid-1986 or so, but not sure if this R1 denotes that or something later on.

No you wrong. Is the same size, but different.

Yeah, that's the usual information on some sites, but check this post/thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3669101&postcount=38

I would argue it's for the later R-27R1 variant, it clearly says so. IIRC, the original missile had noticeably worse engagement envelope (according to some Luftwaffe ex-MiG-29 pilot). It would be interesting to dig out the diagram for the original variant from some WP MiG-29 manual for comparison.

Oh, OK, so an article in Air International written by some guy are somehow facts, but OSD reports and budget decisions are apparently fiction. Look, the number 187 is certainly no coincidence. Rumsfeld order a study which reported that the smallest number the USAF can deal with is 179. The USAF disagreed, but nobody in OSD cared. So, Rumsfeld's OSD removed budget from the program and only paid for those 179 production units (plus those 8 development aircraft => 187). Again, Congress could have fought it and demand for administration to add funds in the budget for the F-22, they were well briefed on reasons pro and cons, yet they voted to approve the budget that ended the F-22 production. Why? Because it made sense at the time since the money was needed for other projects while the F-22 was way over-budget and very late, and the fact it was single-role in times of low-tech wars (which were draining the budget) didn't help much. Regarding Wynne and Mosley, there were not "fake reasons" against them, but apparently pretty legitimate ones. Besides, they are subordinated to the SecDef, so he's well within his rights to remove them if he can't work with them. Conspiracy theories stuff is exactly this stuff you're presenting here - ignoring all suggestions to the contrary and making it seem as if there was this huge sinister conspiracy to kill the F-22 just because they can and claim that everything that happened was somehow connected to that and that thing only (e.g. Obama keeping Gates in charge, Gates firing those officials, etc.). If you could just be bothered to read something longer than that condensed and opinionated Air International article (e.g. at least the whole congressional report, plus search for articles on why these guys were fired), you might realize that, as always, things are much more complicated in real life.

I posted in my first response to that daft post of yours how it's actually Rumsfeld's OSD which pushed the 187 number after the study came back that OSD ordered on the matter (which didn't agree with the USAF study, but nobody cares what they think as they're not the ones who are paying for it). Again: Since the submission to Congress in early 2005 of the FY2006 budget, DOD plans have called for procuring a total of about 187 F-22s—a figure that includes: • 179 production aircraft; • 6 Production Representative Test Vehicle (PRTV) II aircraft; and • 2 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) aircraft funded with research and development funding. Or, e.g. here: "But what ultimately sealed the Raptor's fate was Programme Budget Decision 753, which was issued by Rumsfeld on December 23, 2004. The memorandum axed over $10 billion from the programme and reduced the total buy to 179 aircraft." So, Rumsfeld administration reduced the number down to (and paid for) 187 F-22's. It had nothing to do with Bush, Obama, Clinton and what not you listed there. It's similar to the B-2 bomber. After all the money spent on development and production tooling, did it make sense to make only 21 of them instead of 132 planned? No, but, it was very late, had many issues and was super over-budget. And what happened? Nothing, it was barely used and is about to be replaced by the B-21 anyway and a lot of money was saved (i.e. spent on something else). Would the USAF be happier with having more F-22's in a potential clash with China? Yes. But, Schwartz agreed to kill the F-22 production to get Gates to fund the B-21 development which was more important to them and in the low-probability case of the F-22's actually being needed in a war, the Air Force will have to adapt and work with what they have (and perhaps suffer more losses, unfortunately). Nobody in politics cares about the F-22 and what it can or can't do that much, they won't fly them. They mostly care about how much it costs and what it can bring them in political points. And there's also never enough money for everything so somebody has to make some hard choices. The F-22 didn't seem useful to the Rumsfeld team anymore and worse yet it was late and had many bugs which were getting resolved too slowly so it's only logical for the Congress to agree to kill it off rather then fight the administration on it. Since you keep insisting that the reason Obama kept Gates is so he can finish off the F-22 (i.e. if in some parallel bizarre universe he actually had a personal beef with this military toy, he could have named any other politician from his circle as SecDef and give him the same task), I really have nothing further to work with here. Sorry for the smug attitude, but I really get ticked off by perceived conspiracy theories.

That's not true at all as nothing was blocked during the Bush administration. Rumsfeld and Gates were the major proponents of the idea to kill the F-22 as a single-use Cold War relic that wasn't useful to their current wars (compared to e.g. the upcoming F-35) and during Rumsfeld era, the number proposed by the OSD was cut down to 187 as I posted earlier. The only reason why this came to a head during Obama administration was that at that time those 187 were paid for already and the decision had to be made whether to stop the production or continue it. Gates as the SecDef didn't add any F-22's in the proposed FY2010 budget and the Congress ratified it. The Congress could have opposed it and fight the administration on it, but didn't. Why? Because it made sense at the time given the state of the program and the dire state of the budget. As to why Obama kept Gates, it was due to some political reasons that I'm not familiar with, but that had nothing to do with the F-22. The presidents don't stress about these military toys, they let other people handle these matters.