Dudikoff

Interesting information (as I also got the wrong impression reading online that the R-27R1 designation was for the export and slightly downgraded variant). There used to be a website about the German MiG-29 squadron and there were some pilot impressions on the missiles posted and I do remember it mentioning how they were disappointed with the R-27R range. They never mentioned the R1 variant, though. Can you please comment if the plane could carry a mixed R-60MK and R-73 loadout (as I read that it wasn't possible, at least on the initial standard) and if so, how would you switch between those? Also, if you can comment on the performance of the N019 radar compared to e.g. the APG-65 installed on the F-4F Phantoms later on?

Touche. I need to get more sleep and drink less coffee.

Hardly, because how would you know which pylons are selected? There's no stores indicator like on e.g. Su-27 which thus can have a toggle button for this.

Nice find! So, there's a switch to toggle between inboard and outboard pylons. I guess that would swap between the R-27R and the short range missiles (R-60M or R73) and in the air to ground mode it would swap between the two air to ground pylon pairs (as I guess the two outmost ones are only for short range air to air missiles). That solves my question, thanks. Now, if only some manuals on 9.13S (or SE) would appear to see what's added there :)

Silly question perhaps, but how was the weapon type changed on the 9.12? I don't recall seeing any command for that on the throttle, hence why I presume there was some limitation regarding the WCS. E.g. in close combat modes, the selected missile type would be R-60 or R-73 (and it would only support a single type) and in the BVR mode it would be the R-27R. I suppose the same goes for the air to ground weapons where it's possible to choose the salvo size only (IIRC, there was such a selector on those WCS panels), not the actual weapon type. There is probably some default order in which the pylons are fired if half salvo mode is selected (e.g. you have 4 bombs on 4 pylons, if half salvo mode is selected, 2 would be dropped with each press of the button from opposite pylons obviously). Not sure how it worked if MER's were carried, if there was possible to define some salvo number or the full rack was released. In that case, it would seem rather unlikely it was possible to carry a mixed loadout, e.g. 2 bombs and 2 rocket pods as how would the WCS handle these then? Regarding the 9.13, yes, I meant the 9.13S which supported the new weapon types, sorry. And of course, the T types were supported by the export variants derived from it (SE I guess, not sure about SD).

I might be wrong, but I don't recall the 9.12 being capable of using the R-27T; that capability came with the 9.13 as far as I know. Don't remember the real reason, probably some WCS limitation (e.g. I remember reading that the initial standard couldn't use mixed R-60 and R-73 loadout as the WCS supported only one short range A2A type or something). Not sure if there were some mods later on to add the capability to 9.12's?

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