Dudikoff

OK, but the number of these older IR missiles will increase with time (with e.g. perhaps some equivalent Western A2A missiles of the first or second generation). The benefits of adding this system are not only linked to the Mi-24P in the game, but for the wider game itself as it would require some changes in the base game to differentiate between different types of IR seekers which leads to a more detailed simulation overall. BTW, the Ukrainians seem to have developed a more modern variant of it which covers the more modern IR seekers supposedly. https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Ukraine+modernizing+Mi-24+self-protection+systems.-a0131812535

IIRC, they were planning to add President-S MWS system with the BS3 as one of its features as I think it was tested on one of the many Ka-50 development prototypes. Since the system only recently entered service, I can understand its considered sensitive stuff, but I don't think this will in any case influence modelling the basic 9-12 variant.

Yeah, it's a rather silly excuse. Like, they're modelling the old variant (not a modernized PN or something), but according to their excuse they intend for it to be used in the more modern scenarios only, apparently.

I would definitely be interested in Cold War asset packs, but I think it would help if some of the relevant AI aircraft are included in these packs as well. You could perhaps offer these organized by some time periods and maps. E.g. an Arab/Israeli asset pack intended for the Syrian map might be interesting (AI vehicles, perhaps SAMs, skins, livery for AI aircraft, new AI aircraft models, etc.).

It does have what appear to be two bumps which could be the double wing fences of an Su-17M3 or UM3 perhaps. But, there are enough confusing shapes in front and back that I can't really make anything out of it and since I've been burned before, I'd rather not get my hopes up again for something cool only for it to be another Christen Eagle. I do hope there will be a few more hints and not too far ahead

Well, I'm pretty sure the one taking off from CAT3 in front of you had AIM-9X's as you can't really mistake them for M's.

Minor issue, but IIRC, the campaign is set in early 90's since the opposing side is still Soviet Union, right? Asking as I've noticed the Hornets taking off before you in the first mission carry AIM-9X, so that looks odd.

+1 I'd rather have the new carrier model with all it brings and (presumably?) a wrong hull number in the campaign, than have the old Stennis model. Speaking of which, I've seen a mention of three carriers of the TDR subclass being included in the DCS Supercarrier manual (71 to 73), but since Stennis is apparently a part of the same sub-class, couldn't ED add it as well? I remember there was some mention of adding more hulls to the pack, but not sure which ones were mentioned.

It's not fixed, but obviously there are some reasonable RCS value ranges like large for bombers, tankers, etc., medium for fighters and small for e.g. cruise missiles that both US and Soviet side would see fit to add to the WCS controls. Do you have any references stating that the Phoenix would jump back and forth between active guidance and updates from the launching platform once it goes active? I'm curious how long would these cycles be in the sense that if long enough, the missile might be too late to make the turn based on updates (if e.g. the target maneuvered significantly) and then lose the chance to intercept the target. One reason why the early activation might not be ideal is that the missile might pick the wrong target along the way. Yeah, come to think about it, it's pretty logical that some tables for the missile speed depending on the time of flight, launch and target parameters would be necessary to be able to determine a good enough estimate of the missile's position to be able to determine it's distance from the target and then also its remaining speed to be able to calculate the TTI. You misunderstood my point. I meant similar in ways of the large/medium/small target setting influencing the guidance as well as fuzing as previously you stated that it only influences the fuzing.

Well, yes, the WCS can't know exactly where the missile is, it can only work with where the missile should be at some point which I guess is the TTI value. But, I don't see why this would also not be mixed in with the target size switch to give the seeker a better chance for a timely lock on. E.g. for bigger targets you use a higher TTI value, for smaller ones, you use a smaller value (i.e. activate later). I guess it would be interesting to know more details about it like e.g. if these TTI values are influenced by some other parameters like target range and altitude which would influence the missile speed at intercept point and thus the actual range for the given TTI value or it's more simplified and these values are fixed based on some average missile speed value. IIRC, there's a similar thing with N001/N019 radars where the target illumination by the radar starts earlier or later based on the target size switch (which also influences the fuze setting on the missile).

Thanks for posting this. As I'm using a 32" 4K monitor myself, I was considering that the next one would be either the 37.5" as shown or perhaps even one of those 49" 1440p where you lose 10% more in the vertical, but gain even more on the sides. I have to say that the 4K sharpness is pretty cool though and ideally there would be some 37.5" 2160p monitor. I guess 37.5" would be more practical in many other scenarios in general, but I'm also kind of convinced that something like the 49" G9 with a strong curvature would be more immersive in DCS than 37.5".

Seconded, I see no issues there. They have to make the simplest variant first anyway fully before they can add more systems on top of that for subsequent variants. Kind of wished ED did the same with the Hornet and made some earlier Block first (e.g. some early/mid 90s standard) and then added all these fancy features later on for the much newer Block they're modelling.

Plus, the actual G9 screen has a pretty strong curve so I'd presume the image looks less stretched than in 2D if positioned close enough.

OK, so when you get the video card back, perhaps you could run DCS again and check the GPU temps (both core and VRM)? The case doesn't look that small. Which CPU cooler do you have to get its temperatures at 90 degrees C?

If the GPU fans are just above the PSU, perhaps they can't draw enough air to cool the GPU. Also, if there's no space for circulation of air there, I guess the GPU VRMs can get fried. It's hard to say without a photo or maybe the name of the case? Also, what is the ambient temperature roughly? You could install MSI Afterburner or something similar to check the GPU temperatures, especially of the VRM area. But, given the high CPU temperatures, there does seem to be insufficient cooling at present for the CPU and perhaps high performance GPUs.

Not sure which core temp you're referring to, but whichever it is, temps hovered over 90 degrees C and higher? Which case is that? Sounds more like a hotbox design to push the cooling systems for testing.. DCS didn't kill your card, but horrible case cooling and/or ambient temps. Temperatures must be kept under 90, otherwise stuff will overheat and die (CPU can take higher temps and it will throttle itself down, but that's not recommended in the long run). So, don't get another strong card till you fix that problem, otherwise it will quickly follow the Radeon to greener pastures.

Logically, if it was designed as statically unstable, it would require some kind of an FBW system (like Su-27) as it would be hard for the pilots to keep it under control otherwise I guess. Can't search in the proper books now, but, here are a few quick search-engine references I've found: "In this regard, Mikoyan's management has disclosed that the firm is now at work on a MiG-29 successor prototype which embodies the MiG-29's aerodynamically stable airframe, but which is fundamentally new in every other important respect (see "Mikoyan Flight-Tests Fulcrum Follow-On," Flight International, October 3, 1990, p. 32)." "They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight." "While the Su-27 featured an advanced computerized fly-by-wire system that allowed for an aerodynamically unstable airframe, the MiG-29 despite a similar layout of engine and wings did not have this, instead relying on a traditional system of hydraulically controlled control surfaces."

IIRC, the MiG-29 was not designed to be inherently unstable, unlike the Su-27 which was and thus does require some sort of FBW assistance in the pitch.

Yeah, you just right click on the SST icon in the tray and select one of your profiles (saved in the proper folder). Then the icon will become green or something indicating an active profile. But, be sure to go to DCS controls config for EACH plane you want to use the Saitek software for and clear the Saitek X56 column (it needs to be plugged in before you start DCS for it to show) completely with the appropriate command. Regarding the mods, if the Saitek mode switch is mapped to regular DX buttons (as I think it is), those buttons can be used as modifiers in DCS so technically the 3-mode functionality can be replicated there as well. For some reason, Logitech chose not to do this on their G940 so the mode switch there can't be used in DCS controls menu which is a shame as Logitech G940 controls app is pretty bad (while e.g. Saitek's SST is quite usable and I preferred it to setting things up in DCS).

Yeah, the MiG-29 9.13S introduced the much better Ts.100M computer and presumably the older models have or would have been upgraded to those during depot maintenance. So, for a later mission date (e.g. 90s), it would be reasonable to assume that some of the radar issues described in the 80's 9.12B manual would have been ironed out (like e.g. general unreliability of the SNP mode which IIRC was often overwhelming the capabilities of the older computer).

IIRC, for the SST mappings to work, you have to clear all the default assignments in the DCS for that controller first (i.e. select any row in the X52 Pro column in DCS controller config and press 'delete all assignments' button or whatever it's called). After that, it will work just fine.

No worries, was just wondering what's the status and when it can be expected. Thanks for the update.

I do hope the requested bindings get added before the module is considered feature complete. It's pretty weird that a lot of switches are not bindable still.

Any updates on the separate campaign release? Early next week is behind us.. :)

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/reality/pc-hardware-and-related-software/7152636-amd-rx-6800xt-vs-nvidia-rtx-3080#post7152669