Dragon1-1

Google only (or DDG, or whatever strikes you fancy). Never use AI for such specific advice (or for any technical advice at all). It might just be right... or it might tell you to do something that'll fry your mobo. You can never be sure with AI unless you check a reliable source (at which point, why not start there?). While messing around with BIOS is much safer nowadays than it used to be, you can still end up with an unbootable configuration and have to mess around with jumpers/pull the CMOS battery to make it forget your messed up settings.

Note that the supposed 130km "range" quoted is likely flyout range, and an optimistic variant (supersonic launch) at that. The actual claimed effective range is something like 65km, I suspect the range given here is based on that.

I haven't followed that one since their forum became a hideous monstrosity even worse than the current DCS forum (for an Invision-hater like me, that's saying something). It was so unreadable for me that I stopped coming there, so I guess I missed their take on the F-15. Still, ED's boast was true until a year ago. Funny how they decided to take on the F-15 right about the time it stopped being so.

IRL, the rudder would be used to displace the probe laterally a little (the basket doesn't trail as neatly IRL as it does in DCS), but overall, you should aim to minimize the need for lateral corrections as much as you can. If you can get a good sight picture before you get close, pitch and roll inputs needed should be very small.

The AI can do things like that. They all have a 2000s era RWR (a MiG-19 will happily call out and identify SAMs in its front quarter...), radar from an F-16 (ED is working to fix that, at least) and MWS from the A-10. Ka-50's LWR comes standard for them as well. I suspect ED took some shortcuts when they originally coded the AI, it might have been fine when the aircraft selection was more limited, but now it's rather egregious.

One reason I stick to Steam. It doesn't suffer from such problems.

I think it should be something like if you pull more than 2G, the AIM-9B won't track, and if you pickle either version when pulling more than 6G, it won't even come off the rail and will probably break (unless there's a safety interlock).

Eh, for the sort of people who ask things like "should I replace my 4090 with a 5090?", I imagine it'd be manageable. Especially if you build your own. Commercial offerings are pricey, but I've seen a few ingenious DIY rigs. One day I'll make my own. FWIW, I noticed that motion platforms are a thing in simracing, too, and it's a bit less niche hobby. They have some nice designs, too.

I consider the bar for "quality developer" to be somewhere between RAZBAM and ED. HB surpasses both when it comes to accuracy (one thing RAZBAM is known to play fast and loose with), visuals and features. All of them have bugs, sometimes bad, and a lot of those that are merely annoying, but again, compare the MiG-19 and the Harrier to any ED module and you'll see the difference.

It'd be nice to have it, though it was practically unarmed. It did have a ramp gun and a gun turret (IDWS), which was supposedly used a handful of times in Afghan, if docs for this could be found, it could be a fun addition. Other than that, it'd likely be a niche transport aircraft, though now that we have Chinook and Afghanistan, perhaps there's a place for it.

The thumbwheel is sometimes called "DLC thumbwheel", because that's what it's mostly used for, but in this case, it operates maneuver flaps. I never needed that, or putting wings in bomb mode, for that matter, but it's there. I'd like to add one more thing I do use: sight picture. A good reference is putting the "30" on the HUD pitch ladder (AA HUD mode) onto the hose during the approach. That will align the probe with the basket. After plugging, start looking at the gun cross instead, and use it to aim at the wing just to the left of the pod. Small, gentle, but constant throttle inputs, minimum stick. If you're taking a lot of gas, be ready for the trim to change as you tank, if you're not, just leave it there. Trim it to fly mostly hands off in formation with the tanker before trying to plug.

Ah, that. It's not exactly "left for years", seeing as it seems to have appeared since the MT build came out, and not everyone gets it. TBF, this looks like a difficult bug to fix (hard to diagnose something that doesn't happen on your test build...). I should also note that it's a single bug, and the only one real gamebreaker, at least if you're not one of those for whom it goes away after mission reload.

Last time you were asked to elaborate on that, you produced a list of minor issues (no "major gamebreaking bugs" last time I flew it...), unfinished features and things that weren't even on HB. Let's face it, you're not exactly a trustworthy arbiter of quality, because your definition of "gamebreaking bug" seems to be "can't perform OBS BIT as per NATOPS". None of those modules are perfect. That doesn't mean HB doesn't have a better track record than RAZBAM at actually making their modules work like they should. Just look at the state the Harrier and MiG-19 are in, then at Tomcat and Viggen, and tell me which is more complete. It's true that HB should spend more time fixing bugs and less time embedding Chromium in DCS, but RAZBAM are much worse in that regard.

Far from it. Their modules look nice, but feature-wise, they're behind the curve. Most notably, they're the only developer who decided to make a frontline two-seater without making an AI crewmember an integral part of their plan. This approach works for trainers, but that's because the second seat in those is for the instructor, whose main job is to teach the guy in front to fly the plane. In the Mudhen, the backseater is there precisely because you want one guy flying and the other handling the weapons. The WSO is an integral part of any real Mudhen crew. And despite that glaring omission, it's still better than the poor MiG-19, still unfinished in several areas, or the constantly under repair Harrier. If you want quality, look no further than Heatblur. They might be overdoing it with their dolled-up UI (really wish they stopped wasting time on bells and whistles), but the planes themselves are second to none. The AI backseater might not be the brightest bulb, but he's genuinely useful.

It doesn't mean they're not in DCS, though. It just means they need a model refresh. Supposedly, both Viper and Hornet are nearing a full release, maybe ED could then be convinced to expand on the available variants. An F-16A would be a new module, but the Hornet didn't change that dramatically. No HMD, mechanical HSI and engine instruments, old radar, old engines, Nite Hawk TGP (which would be applicable to our Hornet, too) and only Link 4A datalink. It did have MFDs, they were monochrome, though in practice, outside of tracks on radar and SA pages, they're pretty much monochrome on our Hornet, too.

I think there's a good case for adding a "GPS box" variant post-release, especially if there's a performance argument against the NS430. In any case, the point is to avoid the need for an extensive system tied into the avionics, which would inevitably involve a lot of costly programmer time. That rules out any variant with an F-16 style UFC, for instance.

You will likely have the option to use the NS430, that's what Poland did (albeit with a different GPS unit) before they started modifying their jets. The problem with modded variant is really the question: which one? Every operator who tinkered with their MiG-29s came up with something different. So Polish jets? Ukrainian? Slovak? Romanian? They all differ a quite a lot. I agree that ED could use a page from Heatblur's handbook (though maybe not the one where they embedded a web browser in the game). At the very least, the 9.13 should be doable, there are unclassified export docs for the Gardenia out there and there's already an external model for 9.13S in FC3, I'm not sure if there's any difference externally. It wouldn't do much, but the extra gas would be welcome, what with the MiG-29 being a thirsty beast.

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.