Dragon1-1

They had 10 at one point, though they might be counted with the SMTs now, seeing as Russians upgraded some of its MiG-29s to that standard, which is more or less similar to the M.

True about the M, not true about 9.13, which would require only a new external model and the Gardenia knob in the cockpit. As mentioned above, they're very rare, and not as capable as you'd probably like, in any case. Su-27 is probably a better bet, but that likely won't be a modernized MFD variant, either.

This has nothing to do with the exterior 3D model, by far, it's the cheapest part of any module development. Refer to the Wikipedia yourself (it's not that great a source, TBH, the 9.12A avionics downgrades are marginal). The 9.13S has been produced in a handful of examples, two squadrons' worth. There are 10 MiG-29Ms in Russian service, 46 in Egypt. If the 9.12A sells, we could possibly get the regular 9.13, with the Gardenia ECM and some extra gas in the spine. While ED would no doubt make a glass cockpit variant if they could (just like they did for NATO jets), they likely lack documentation and permissions from the Russian government.

It does, Russia has more MiG-29s in service (over 200) than all modified variants' production runs added together. Some of them were upgraded to SMT spec, but not all. The only difference between 9.13 and 9.12 is the Gardenia jammer and additional fuel. As far as Gardenia goes, it seems there's public info available on its operating modes. It'd be cool to have, but 9.12 is the prettier one.

In most jets, you just have to keep your feet on the floor. Your goal is to be wings level when you pickle, so no rudder input should be needed. What I was saying was that the manual clearly cautions against trying to displace the pipper with rudder, because it will only affect the position of the pipper and not the bomb's trajectory. Rockets and bullets have a forward velocity, so slipping will actually change the impact point.

The Hornet can cosplay an older variant pretty well, though. Just make it only carry Sparrows and older Sidewinders. In that configuration it should be a pretty good match for the MiG-29. We absolutely need more period-correct aircraft, though. Actual old-style Hornet, maybe the early F-15A, and the F-16A, though with no Sparrows it'd be at a disadvantage against a MiG-29.

Wrong. This version is nearly the same as the original Soviet version, with the only difference being IFF and some details in the radar. The worst-performing version is the 9.12B, for non-WP countries. It's also the most produced, and is still being used both in Russia and in several NATO countries. MiG-29S was only produced in small numbers before the USSR collapsed, while the biggest MiG-29M operator is Egypt, with 40 or so aircraft. Russia has 10. Neither of those models would be appropriate for a wide variety of scenarios that the A model will bring. Yes, it's a Cold War jet, lacking some capabilities that Western jets bring, notably Fox 3s. While BVR duels can be fun, IMO DCS would benefit from more Fox 1 oriented servers, in any case.

This illustrates why SIGINT tends to be kept strictly under wraps. If the enemy knows you're listening, they can pull stunts like that. In this particular case, the Gnat had no RWR or other means to build SA beyond looking out of the window, and was relying on its own controllers... who blindly trusted the intercepted messages. It's possible they didn't have a radar in the area that could expose the deception.

I'll certainly be up for some Operation Allied Force scenarios, especially with the upcoming MiG-29A. Not to mention, the region was a mess since Yugoslavia collapsed and had only calmed down somewhat relatively recently (with the EU in the picture, most countries seem to have decided to play nice).

The method DCS uses for terrain sucks at making good looking mountains. You could get away with hand-modeled rocks as objects, but you probably couldn't do a whole mountain range that way without killing performance. Cold War Germany shows that it's quite possible to do a lot of detailed objects, but the sheer scale of the mountains would probably be an issue.

Could you put a Steam product page up, at least? AFAIK, that doesn't require a release date. Once you have the date, you can then open it up for preorders. If you do, I promise to wishlist it, so that I get notified when preorders are on.

As opposed to full scale warfare that occurred in the region several times in the past, with thousands of casualties. Yes, it was a spat. A lot of planes in the air, but not very many kills. In the 1965 war, dozens of planes were shot down. Often quite similar to ones we have in DCS, if not the exact models. Yes, there was a big missile fight, but none of the aircraft involved are in DCS, nor will they be in the foreseeable future. Most of the tech that was flying there was top of the line stuff, and none of it was made in the US. Maybe you could make those modules half a century from now.

Regardless of DCS accuracy, I remember that at least one USN training manual said that while trying to use the rudder when bombing is stupid, with rockets or guns using the rudder to correct a lateral pipper displacement can work. This was for a trainer with a fixed sight. I also read about Phantom crews using the rudder to give the bullets some lateral spread, the cannon on the F-4E was supposedly so accurate that not doing so just resulted in a straight line of impacts, not exactly what you want when suppressing an area target. One thing worth noting about rocket and gun ballistics: they behave the opposite way. While rockets will weathercock into the relative wind due to their fins, bullets won't. That's why you aim upwind of the target when shooting a rifle in a crosswind, but downwind of it with an RPG-7. I think the gun should be reasonably predictable when firing in a slip (not 1:1, but within the ability to eyeball it), rockets probably less so.

They should have the same undercarriage, however there's always a limit as to how non-straight you can land. In fact, I manage to break the gear quite a few times on trap after coming back to the Hornet. It can take a lot, but do this often enough, or simply slam it down hard enough, and stuff will bend.

It's not a tailwheel lock. What you're doing is planting the wheel firmly on the ground, preventing it from castering as much. This is very much proper technique in any taildragger, both on landing and on takeoff. This is also why some aircraft have tailwheel locks activated by pulling back on the stick, you should be doing it anyway any time you want your tailwheel to be locked.

Native ATIS would be useful. The format is standardized, the recording is canned, and most airports have it. All information needed for it is already in DCS, and it would be quite useful for dynamic campaign. Also an interesting bonus: an ATIS station on common UHF channels would provide an ADF bearing directly to the airfield that would be usable with Western aircraft. Since most of them have UHF radios that can't receive regular NDBs, but have an ADF function, it would become possible to home in on the source of the ATIS broadcast. Just tune into the ATIS, select ADF, and follow the a continuously looping transmission coming from somewhere at the airfield.

The version that had it was incorrect, just not in that particular way. Earlier Mirage 2000s did have red lighting, but this doesn't change the fact there was a lot wrong with that version.

It can cause problems if you back up your documents folder. Some games use "my documents" for storing save data, despite Saved Games existing. Some devs (like the dorks who make Stationeers, for example) use in that way in 2025. It seems Microsoft never explicitly stated "saved games go into saved games folder", so the bad practices continue, and OneDrive has no good way to deal with that situation.

At this speed? Not likely. The flaps don't start dropping until way below that speed. Not seeing anything odd with the nozzles, either.

One of the nice things about two-seaters is that the second crewmember, if he's not blindly following orders, might sanity-check the first. One person can make a mistake, two making the same one individually are much less likely. This is why George should be able to second-guess such an order. Also, mistakes are not completely random, if the only helos in the area are friendly, someone suddenly thinking one of them is hostile is quite improbable (it could happen the other way, a hostile is unnoticed because only friendlies are expected).

Non-NATO are a different thing. Viper and Hornet use Zulu, the A-10 does, too. When the clock is part of a complex computer system, you Zulu is the one to use. Notably, there's no daylight savings time, time zones or anything like that in Zulu time. Local time is mostly useful for the pilot to set his alarm clock so that he's awake when he has to step. For anything more involved, you need a consistent reference. The Tomcat can use whatever because it has a mechanical clock, with no bearing on systems. For the F-15E, it probably should use Zulu. If the RAZBAM situation is ever resolved, that might change.

Sometimes a mission could be briefed with TOTs and such in local time, but as converting between local and Zulu is fairly straightforward, in-cockpit clocks would typically be set to Zulu.

Might or might not (he's a subcontractor after all, not an employee), but he didn't seem to get the memo as to what @BIGNEWY's post above had just restated. Nothing I wrote is speculation, much less nonsense. Between the timing and Zambrano's statements, it's hard to conclude that either "positive waves" are nowhere near their list or priorities, or they're so incompetent at PR that their attempts at creating them are actually generating the exact opposite. Or both (Ron in particular seems a likely candidate for a "I suck at PR and I don't care" attitude).

F-35 seems to have hard evidence in form of cockpit videos and such. Similar evidence for the AARGM-ER doesn't exist.

Well, no bombing computer wouldn't have meant no bombing, you'd just have to dial in the mils and bomb in DIRECT. That said, Japan seems to have focused almost exclusively on air to air capabilities, I don't think the EJs ever did air to ground.