Dudikoff

I did try the Super EF-2000 years later and the successor F-22 ADF and TAW, but wasn't really impressed, TBH. Coming from the same company, they felt like a more complex TFX with a better flight model, systems modellng and better campaigns, but still. I guess it didn't help they were "simulating" these quite advanced aircraft at the time so it felt rather digital and generic compared to the study sims concentrating on older aircraft (MS FD, DI's Tornado, Jane's F-15). Regarding ATF, I don't know. What was the last time you've tried it? If it was more than a decade ago, I'd suggest reinstalling it and trying out that "flight model" behavior. I guess we went way OT, but it will be long three weeks before the F-14 comes out, it seems.

IIRC, USAF, perhaps as I tried it a only bit so don't remember much except that it felt like another one of their lite sims (and by that time there were plenty of new serious sims released), but regarding the USNF and ATF, I'd have to strongly disagree. I actually did install Fighters Anthology again a few years back and reminded myself why I never could get into those games. There's no flight model to speak of, the maps are archaic and empty, just a few scripted enemies with bars showing their damage. At the very least SC allowed you to skip flying over that emptiness and added some movie-like story and management elements to keep it interesting ;)

To be fair, the latter two were not that far off the "WC2 in Jets" mark. Both came some years after the SC so the somewhat increased complexity was expected. I'd point out the Fleet Defender and Tornado as my obvious favorites of the SC era (1993/94), but my computer couldn't run the DID EF2000 so I didn't really play that (only the predecessor TFX which was again close to the WC2 mark).

So, if this had been done in the startup video, we would have heard the crew chief respond, right? And if e.g. we don't actually ask the crew chief for a disconnect and say "Check", the Jester will complain? Just wondering if all these checks are non-conditional or they already have the necessary conditions implemented and checked.

So, I guess it would be better to have separate countries for them. One could make fictional scenarios between them then, as well (e.g. (T)Opposing Force).

Awesome video. During the engine indicator test, Jabbers said the TIT indicator should be around 500, but it was at 400? Also, if the canopy is closed, how do they interact with the ground crew chief to remove the auxiliary air supply? Hand signals?

An officially supported mod would never work as ED would be held responsible. As an unofficial mod, it could work, but then the mod developers have no way of protecting their product. IMHO, the only way out of this, realistically, is when the Russian MOD (or whoever needs to OK it) decides that e.g. those initial export variants and their systems are no longer relevant to them or to the partner countries who still operate them. But, even if that's the case now, they have no benefit from it, so I'm not sure if they'd OK it anyway. And even if they did, you'd get a somewhat downgraded export variants of initial MiG-29 and Su-27 variants (so, Soviet mid-80's tech), which would perform worse (radar and RWR-wise) than the current FC3 modules. So, I guess plenty of MP people would complain even more. Though, ideally, that could entice ED to release downgraded variants of their Hornet and Falcon modules (e.g. an F/A-18A or initial C and e.g. F-16C Block 30 or 40). That would be really nice to have.

Yeah, but that depends on the general status. If there are some unresolved major issues, it could mean more than one week between them (with subsequent patches released on Open Beta until the major issues are resolved).

I don't think they're ever been released on the same day (ever since there were separate OB and stable branches), otherwise what would be the point of having them separated? AFAIK, new modules are released on the Open Beta branch first on a Wednesday and if there are no blocking issues discovered, the stable branch gets it two days later (if not, then they aim for the next Wednesday).

Will this trapped fuel be simulated? Is the trapped (but, apparently indicated) quantity more or less constant? E.g. 1200 lbs +/- some random amount? It should be implemented, I guess.

I think the only reason those manuals can be found as they were distributed with the export variants. But, manuals or not, ED is based in Russia and is bound by current Russian laws and apparently anything newer than Su-24M (including) is off the table. So, this is why they can make the MiG-23MLA, but not a MiG-29 9.12B or Su-27SK.

Yeah, I'd prefer the Cold War era IDS personally, though I guess the IDS/GR1 differences are small enough that both could be released in the same package. But, back on topic, I guess the release is finally close enough that I can handle the stress of waiting for it. Bought. So, this week or the next? :)

It's been posted already, but the interviewee raises an interesting point on the F-14 radar losing lock on the maneuvering targets (I presume this relates to the AWG-9, not the newer AN/APG-71).

Yeah, plus they've said they don't really have the documentation on the radar and MFD's to do it properly (I guess -1A manual, basically).

He seems to be mistaking these informative videos for trailers.

Yeah, that's an untapped market in DCSW currently. For instance, I wish they'd dumb down the Hornet to the initial F/A-18C variant from the late '80s (if not the A which would require much more work) and sell it for a similar amount.

F-14A didn't, but the F-14B got the digital bus during the F-14B Upgrade program IIRC. Perhaps it lacked a digital stores manager so you had to program some stuff via PTID or something.

Yeah, I know Atlas 3 and 5 rockets are using Russian engines, but he implied that the US were never able to develop their own in the similar thrust category which is technically a fabrication since they didn't even bother trying :) (since they burned the money on the doomed Space Shuttle concept instead after which the Russian engine was already available and much cheaper then developing something similar from scratch, plus politically it was acceptable to buy them back then). Though I fail to see how this Russian rocket engine is connected with the state of Soviet tech put in their fighters in the early 80s which was discussed. The mentioned MiG-31 radar mentioned was a success, but the similar Soyuz program inspired radars for Su-27 and MiG-29 failed as presumably because they had much less available space for the radar and its electronics which took a lot of space and weight due to the state of the Soviet technology back then. But, to make the Mig-31 project work, the Soviets had to resort to using a phased array antenna to accomplish what a decade older AWG-9 was capable of with a mechanically scanned antenna and even then, the Zaslon was still inferior in range (though it had some advantages where phased array excels, naturally, like the faster scan rate which also allows for a larger TWS field of view).

Wait, what?

RTGS In RTGS the WCS computes the bullet trajectory and displays the location the bullets will pass through at 1 000 and 2 000 feet if no target data is available from the WCS. The diamond representing bullet location at 1 000 feet and the pipper representing the bullet location at 2 000 feet. According to the image above the text (showing the ADL, followed by the pipper and then the diamond), it should be vice-versa (the pipper representing the bullet impact at 1000 feet and the diamond at 2000). Sorry, if reported already. Missile Preparation (Sparrow) It also injects CW radar video from the radar to the missiles via an emitter on the aft end of the rail to a receiver at the aft end of the missile. Is this CW signal during seeker tuning really called the "CW radar video"? That sounds rather odd. Also, AFAIK, CW would not be considered a radar technically, as it's just a transmitter with the receiver antenna being on the missile's seeker. TWS When using the AIM-54 with TWS the WCS automatically prioritises the tracked targets, giving them a firing order number indicating missile launch order. As the first target is launched at the first tracks number is removed and the other tracks numbers are decreased by one. Should be "as the first missile is launched at the first track, its number is removed" or something. Also, "prioritizes".

They're still failing? Did you check the GPU (VRM) temperatures when they're running?

Yeah, because the "an" rule is AFAIK that it goes before a vowel sound, not a vowel letter.

AN/APX-72 IFF Interrogator "The AN/APX-72 can be used both in search radar modes and in STT radar modes. To enable interrogation the IFF switch is depressed on the Detail Data Display Panel which then activates the interrogator while the button is held or for 10 seconds if held shorter than that." I guess there's something wrong here.

It's foremost a question of finding the data for the PTID as they mentioned in an interview that they don't actually have a document on it describing all its pages and options.

General Design and Systems Overview headline typos: Fire Detection and Surpression System Fire Surpression System (also, same typo in the related text) Fire Detection and Surpression System Test (also, same typo in the related text) Should be Suppression, naturally. Electrical Power System chapter should use AC and DC acronyms in capital letters.