Dudikoff

Ah, I see. Thanks for the answer. That's an interesting question then. The most flexible option then would be to make it as an option by the mission designer, so that if Chinese EWR/AWACS units are present in the mission, it might work if activated in the mission options. It's not that far fetched if the later J-11A U3 upgrade has it and the lack of a proper MFD could be considered an FC3 limitation anyway. So, I'd vote for c) Make it an option for the mission designer.

There are additional aspects here, IMHO, already mentioned. So, again: 1) did the plane keep the Russian export-level DL equipment (as it is apparently mentioned in the Su-27SK manual) which would work with Russian ground stations/AWACS (e.g. if they're in the same coalition in the mission), and 2) if this Russian export-level DL equipment is kept in J11A, than in-flight DL between J11A's of the same flight group (up to 4 would be RL limitation, I presume?) should still work. Still waiting for a comment on this from the OP. Not sure what Chinese ground equipment is included, but if the original DL equipment is still there in the early J11A, then I would prefer to keep the DL functionality and add required Russian ground units to the Chinese coalition making them optional for the scenario creator. But, I presume that currently, the DL functionality is not tied to specific equipment (as we don't have these ground stations in the game), but more to unit types of either EWR or AWACS to be present in the mission, right? Are there any Chinese specific EWR and AWACS units in the game at the moment, anyway?

I presume that TM shifted the philosophy to individual USB devices which can be unified via TARGET rather than to limit themselves to like e.g. on TM Cougar design which connected the throttle and the rudder unit to the PCB in the stick and then was limited to 8 axis per USB device or so (which wasn't enough for TM Cougar if the rudder was connected). In theory, VKB could make a more universal twist adapter (if there would be some modular design with adapters for mounting it to different sticks and a hole for a pass-through cable connecting the grip to the base) with a separate USB connection, rather than integrating it with the electronics in the stick.

I think some additional clarifications might be helpful here by the OP before making the vote. IIRC, the Su-27SK manual mentioned the datalink, so I presume the equipment was still there on the J-11A (given that even the labels in Russian were kept)? Is the problem then perhaps that the Chinese Air Force didn't have the required ground stations and/or AWACS aircraft? If so, I'd presume the datalink could still function between the flight members?

Since MiG-31 is a twin seater, it would be a first for FC, but I guess it could be done like in Fleet Defender with seat-switching and simplified radar system modeling (given the amount of buttons present in the rear cockpit for radar modes, filtering and stuff, I guess a full module would be too complex given its appeal even if the documentation was available). A similar thing could be done with Su-24M, but it would require some basic A2G radar model to be added (I guess not a big deal once they implement it for the Hornet). MiG-29M/K (presumably the original 9.15 and 9.31) would be great to have, but their MFD's make them a difficult choice for an FC level module (e.g. control-wise to begin with). So, some version of the earlier Fulcrums, but just with some TV guided A2G capability added would be much more suitable (e.g. MiG-29SM or perhaps 9.14). MiG-23ML(D) or MiG-25PD would be quite straightforward cockpit wise, on the other hand. As would be the Su-17M3/4 or MiG-27M/K.

Why is it dumb if he argues against the Warthog throttle being the ideal throttle? For example, I also don't consider it the ideal one as it has only two hats (besides the slew controller) and (more importantly) has no rotaries. It's obviously ideal for an A-10C which has no radar, but for a fighter I'd much prefer the X65 throttle (with a rotary encoder and two rotary analog axis plus two more hats). However, I do agree that the Virpil throttle lacks those three position switches on the handle (X65 at least has one four position mode switch there). IMHO, two of those should be present ideally as they can be useful for switching modes, flaps, speed brakes, etc.

You mean, in the Axis assignment screen? I remember I had a lot of issues getting both of mine to be active there as well as there was some misalignment between TM Cougar and DX axis names and mapping IIRC so matching those was quite a hit and miss. In the end I ended up configuring mine like this (as 6 and 8 with the disabled rudder axis in between): https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=182430&stc=1&d=1523570427 I also mapped mine in Target like this: MapAxis(&HCougar, RDR_X, DX_ZROT_AXIS, AXIS_NORMAL, MAP_ABSOLUTE); MapAxis(&HCougar, RDR_Y, DX_YROT_AXIS, AXIS_NORMAL, MAP_ABSOLUTE); Used it for some SCurve adjustments in Target, but this step might have also been necessary for them to work in DCS, IIRC (not sure, it was quite some time ago).

It was probably discussed before, but I don't suppose the lights are controllable per-switch/button? E.g. so you could program a button to switch colors on each press so you'd have a visual feedback on the current function. Also, with all these lights, it's a shame two more couldn't be added to provide a visual feedback on the physical position of the throttle and the small side axis in regards to their min and max values.

I guess FC3 is in a way on a somewhat simpler level (e.g. cockpit interaction wise) compared to those Origin Skunkworks sims mentioned (i.e. F-15 and F/A-18 ), but it's rather more complex than the other jet "sims" released under the Janes' label (like US Navy Fighters, ATF, USAF, etc.).

I can't believe this discussion on the variant is still going on. Unless the video is very skewed, from the proportions on that image it's pretty obvious it's the longer R-27ET. It certainly makes much more sense to use that variant as the basic R-27T already has a rather short effective range and when launched from the ground, it probably wouldn't have enough energy to intercept anything not coming straight at it.

Yeah, but unless I'm mistaken, these could be patched up rather than re-downloaded every time they're modified. E.g. you generate diff files between the new and previous version and download only the diff files (if the local files are validated to match the required version, of course).

The patch is pretty huge so I presume when some terrain files are fixed, all the modified files are being re-downloaded? It seems rather inefficient, especially when there'll be more maps. Any chance of modifying the update procedure so that files are actually patched (and with generated diff files being downloaded instead) rather than being fully re-downloaded all over again?

F-5E has rather weak engines and thus acceleration, while the Su-24 was designed for supersonic low level air defense penetration so that's not surprising. It would go over Mach 2 at altitude if they kept the variable ramps.

Or its impending release which would arguably be a better way to mark the Red Army anniversary than some measly sale (at least from a perspective of someone who already owns the modules included ;) ).

Yeah, sorry, completely forgot about that; I was squarely looking at it from the A2G perspective.

I presume that the OP was saying that the throttle handle is not staying in place, but is physically inching slowly forward due to its weight (something I can attest to with the X65, but its grip is metal so its rather heavy).

I think this was already discussed and there wouldn't be any point to it. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2866855&postcount=2

I'd have to agree here. Using R-73's probably requires only a slight update to the WCS and the APU-73 launch rails, while it would make the MiG-21bis more flexible in modern scenarios.

Looking forward to seeing the new look. Are there any updates of the SST software planned perhaps? Like, adding some new functionality, like e.g. a Tempo option or an option to iterate through a set of assigned commands with each button press? It's a shame that X65 is discontinued, though.

I think they lacked the digital bus so they weren't completely on the same level. But, either way, that was the upgraded F-14A with LTS support added (so, 1996+) and HB specifically stated that the F-14A they're doing will be a mid 80's standard, IIRC.

As an SST user, it sounds like you haven't cleared the default assignments which block the SST profile from working (the same goes for TM Target IIRC). Go to the controls setup screen for the particular plane, select any field in the Saitek X56 column and select 'clear category' option to remove all the X56 button assignments and then give it another go.

In general, I don't think so. I mean, all you can do is divide the axis into bands for triggering some key combination depending on the position. So, if a module had some radio select rotary control and a single PTT button, it would work, but if not, in general, you'd need some scripting support and the SST doesn't provide any of that, unfortunately. At the very least, I wish they included the tempo option in the SST (for long presses) and the ability to toggle through a defined set of commands with each press.

That depends on the timeframe, but I mean, if they're making the LTS-pod capable B, at the very minimum there's the pod itself to be made, the new display (?), the LTS control box with the controller stick, various A2G weapons that need to be supported, etc. Not sure how correct this list is: "The F-14B is either a remanufactured F-14A or new production aircraft, both equipped with F110-GE-400 engines, which replaced the TF30-P-414A engines. The F110-GE-400 is a new design which emphasizes reliability, maintainability, and operability. The new high technology engine improves capability and maneuverability without throttle restrictions or engine trimming. Sixty-seven F-14B Aircraft are being modified to extend the service life of the airframes and improve the offensive and defensive posture of the platform. This includes the F110-GE-400 engine, Fatigue Engine Monitoring System, AN/ALR-67 Countermeasure Warning and Control System, Gun Gas Purge Door Engineering Change Proposal (ECP), Direct Lift Control/Approach Power Compensator ECP, AN/AWG-15F ECP, and Engine Door Tension Fittings ECP. In addition, the AN/ASN-92 Carrier Aircraft Inertial Navigation System (CAINS) I will be replaced with the Embedded GPS Inertial (EGI) Navigation System. The F-14B Upgrade includes a MIL-STD-1553B Digital Multiplex Data Bus (DMDB), Programmable Multi-Display Indicator Group (PMDIG), PTID, the AN/AWG-15H Fire Control System, AN/ALR-67D(V)2 Radar Warning Receiver, EGI, and Mission Data Loader. Other survivability improvements were developed under the F-14 Airframe Change Number 828, Multi-Mission Capability Upgrade. The modified F-14B Aircraft is referred to as the F-14B Upgrade; modifications will be completed in FY01."

It's somewhat surprising that the F-14B gets released first, given the extra work with the LTS pod and integration of A2G weapons. It would seem easier to release the F-14A first and then release the A2G stuff later, kinda like they're doing with the Hornet. I'm not complaining, though ;)

Yeah, I'll second that, a shame it's OOP as it was their best stick and the force-sensing worked pretty well for me (love the instant centering when you release the stick compared with e.g. a TM Cougar with the NXT gimbal). I did also use the Saitek X-36 USB when it came out ages ago and that one was pretty good for the time and the price. X52 Pro was a decent stick, IMHO; my main gripe was that they cheaped out on the potentiometers (they were spiking) and the pointing stick (which was off center by default); both needed generous deadzones added to be usable. Haven't tried the X56/X65 which were like cheaper versions of the X65f design which I already bought used so it made no sense to get them.