Dudikoff

I prefer the Cold War stuff as well, with my lazy exception being the unassisted bombing (like e.g. on the F-5E) which is a no-go for me.

Then it's not a MiG-29"G", but just a MiG-29 9.12A (pretty much the same thing as 9.12) with a DDR skin. I don't see the new cockpit and systems happening so the easiest "fix" would be to remove the "G" from the game or live with it as it is. The updated cockpit certainly wasn't added immediately post reunification, but then the plane would be like 9.12B configuration (since they removed the datalink and IFF support). Since we don't have datalink and IFF simulated in the 9.12 anyway, it's still the same thing in the game so an early West German skin for the Fulcrum A would suffice.

HARM and Harpoon were tested on the D IIRC, but not integrated in the end.

Well, the Alienware would certainly benefit from a thermal paste change, but you could first try overclocking in a different way. Install Intel XTU and set up a profile where you set all multipliers to e.g. 40x (for 4.0 GHz) and then add some undervolting to the profile. E.g. start with -50 mV and see if it works and if it can be increased further. There's a stress test included in the Intel application that you can test the undervolted values with. This should help you bring the CPU temperatures under 90.

Well, of course, how else would Target combine your multiple devices and present them to the game? What you're seeing is normal and is not the issue the other posters have. If you don't use Target, then you should be able to manually program the controls in DCS, but not anything else (like this Discord control which I have no idea about). On the other hand, if you run a Target profile, then you have to check the DCS controller settings for the device and module and delete all default in-game assignments (e.g. select one field in the Thrustmaster TWCS or Combined device column and then select Clear Category). If there are any in-game assignments, then I guess there is some conflict and most of the Target assignments don't work.

Budgetary restrictions? IIRC, the main reason the Plus program came about was that Spain and Italy had such requirements so the USMC jumped on that train to share the development costs. Of course it is, though it's probably a huge increase compared to what those Soviet planes were capable of with their original rather primitive bombing systems.

Interesting. I guess they updated the campaign files to use the new F-4E models provided by Belsimtek as part of the new DCS module. It would be cool if those could be released in advance.

When did you buy them? There was some cutoff period after which the new Steam keys were not compatible with the 'regular' DCSW installation, but if you've bought them before, they're in the system apparently. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=187395

But, on the other hand, neither is it a Yak-141, so perhaps some discount for the AV-8B NA owners might be appropriate :)

IIRC, I've read that there was an electrical connection blocking the firing of the gun when the CL tank was on. But, AFAIK, the pass-through was for the APU, not for the cannon shells. The cannon shell problem was solved by modifying the cannon installation and the way the shells were ejected.

I force-installed it during th initial OB release and there were only Quick Missions included, so I asked if the release note means that there will be a new campaign released with it, but got no response.

Yeah, it's probably some minor modification. IIRC, the initial weapon operating manual for the Yugoslav MiG-29 9.12B (well, I say initial as it only mentions R-60M missiles) mentions that the gun is not to be used if the CL tank was on.

While I don't know if the RuAF really took these unsold Su-27SK's and if so what modifications were done, but in any case they wouldn't have used the R-77 as they themselves never really took the R-77 into the operational service, IIRC (well, technically, neither has anybody else as RVV-AE was the export designation which might have had some slight downgrades). There was mention of the Soviet Air Force getting about 200 of them for tests and such, but I'm not sure what happened to those stocks in the end.

And it's out: DCS 2.5.3.22877 Introduced the new Professional FM of MiG-29. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3659538&postcount=9

I presume they'll release the MiG-29 support on Wednesday to the stable branch, hence a Tuesday release on OB branch, just to double check if there are any critical issues left (like e.g. the keyboard profiles problem).

So, what was changed in the latest patch regarding the cockpit? This part in front of the HUD looked the same (kind of lifeless) so I went back to the Mustang one (thanks).

Those are export variants of the 9.12 - 9.12A is for the WP countries, 9.12B is for the rest.

Yes, but Ctrl-W also works as it first dumps the fuel tanks.

How would you use the provided target range in the optical mode? https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3271324&postcount=3

Yeah, sorry, I reckoned that since there's no fuel level meter there, that the lamp indication is an estimate, but I guess the fuel pumps can tell when there's no more fuel being pumped in and shut down automatically and this can be used as a signal for the indication. Hmm, I stand corrected, they actually did implement them to drop sequentially in the game (like the weapons). First press, the wing tanks are dropped and then the center tank (second press). It might have been like this before, didn't really test this ever as the drop tanks are probably a pretty limited commodity. Though, now with a more realistic flight model and no air brake function with the CL tank on, I'd expect a sudden surge in demand from the simulated factory that makes them.

What do you mean how HB will address this? I'm pretty sure they won't add the Iowa class ship to the game just to add a bit more immersion to one fictional campaign. It'd be a pretty big undertaking and modeling the Forrestal class and the A-6 is already more than generous enough from their side.

True, but I only ever saw a very slight deflection, especially at higher speed. I guess most of the negative pitch handling for the amount I was pulling was done by wing slats, hence why the horizontal surfaces didn't deflect much. I guess the limits I was experiencing were mainly caused by the somewhat insensitive FSSB stick which I'm afraid to push too much as it's not mounted, plus the TM grips have a weak point there at the base. When I tried it with the keyboard, I could achieve noticeably higher deflection by somewhat longer presses of the pitch down key. But, I haven't experienced the same complete lack of negative pitch control as yesterday yet, so have no screenshots to post.

Ah, that's interesting. I guess that's logical if they're presumably directly linked to the internal wing tanks (and those go after the CL tank) and as you've said, there's no indication of when they're actually empty, just a rough assumption and there's probably no way for the fuel management system to cut them off anyway. If they were integrated in a smarter way, it would make sense to have them go first as I presume they impose bigger restrictions than the CL tank. I meant in the game, I just presumed all three get dumped at the same time (once you press CTRL-W), but I'll have to try it out.

The wing tanks will get used first presumably, so once the CL tank is indicated empty, it will mean the others are as well, right? The jettison fuel tanks command probably dumps all three anyway so if they added the extra light for the wing tanks, they should also separate their jettison procedure.

Yeah, hence why I said if the TID screen was really used for the initial LTS pod test, they most probably needed some D/A video converter or what not. The other option might have been to use a PTID screen in a non-integrated mode (i.e. not integrated with the digital bus and updated software), but just by connecting the LTS pod to it directly. In that case, the tactical display output would need some conversion as well (which I presume outputs an analogue video signal to TID), but for those tests it might have not been necessary as only the LTS functionality might have needed testing.