okopanja

Not aiming here modernized at 9.12 with R-77s and other stuff, we have today in operational use, but rather to the fact that comprehensive upgrade was offered as early as of 1996. Furthermore when working with foreign governments there is no place for rushing incomplete products into production, since flaws get revealed at factory and site tests and the money is paid on delivery performance and not immediately at full. Consumer market is much more forgiving in terms of supplying incomplete products with features being added at later time. Sadly sometimes some of them never get delivered.

The following interview with Pilot Mirčeta Jokanović, belonging to the 1st generation of pilots who got trained in SSSR indicates that R-77 was offered for sale/upgrade of the 9.12 fleet of Mig-29. A bit later he reveals the state of the NV019, he states the following Further he talks about the wrong way the decisions were made by political leadership... Consequently if you ever take into the account "effectiveness" of Mig-29 in 1999, you should have in mind that 1/2 of air-frames did not have either functioning radar or 1999.

I guess everyone have their own choice.

I gather you mean Mig-29S in game and J-11A. However it should be noted that the R-77 (RVV-AE) was offered to external customers as upgrade option for Mig-29 9.12 as of 1996 (sadly took place years later and too later for the actual conflict) and also exported to several customers. The missing features would include things like: DL for 29, fighter-to-fighter DL for flanker and e.g. in both cases no tone for IR missiles lock mentioned in the manuals. Asking for more superior missiles for blue, when you are blocked from doing the same for the red, can only harm the attractiveness of PvP modern scenarios. Is this what we are aiming to do?

Newer R-73/74, R-77-1 and R-37M, lets have them! And btw I am sick of not being able to utilize R-27ER on 80s servers for balancing reasons... Oh, my fighter-to-fighter datalink is also missing in flanker, let's have that as well. Surely we can add some glide FAB-250, FAB-500, FAB-1500 and FAB-3000 as well? And BTW: I wish to use the laser canon as well... Adding more to the BLUE, without fixing the debts on RED side and adding new things to RED does not lead to rich PvP environment.

Affects only visual representation or actually maneuverability?

It would be nice if we could get the original FC3 Icon back together with wallpaper and music cover. Would this be possible?

Yes, I got too used to that, and kind of the icons are low effort for red modules. Still was interesting to see different screen backgrounds.

If you linked Steam to ED account, you can go tou your ED profile and click on Get Licenses. Click on Transfer button and the aircraft will be individually transferred. Side effect: FC3 turned into individual aircrafts

Other factors that should be accounted: - variable RCS - S/N (especially in low level flight). Would be interesting if any of the modules models this depending on the actual terrain (hills, mountains, buildings, tree etc). - all that traffic that happens on the ground that generates reflections with doppler shift. E.g. cars, trucks, buses. Naturally you do not have that effect in desert. Pretty sure DCS does not model this. with western RWR, expecially if you export it it is easier to achieve this. The larger your make RWR the easier will be for human to spot the angle difference to 90 degrees. Flankers/Fulcrums can bring it close, but they are mostly guessing.

clearly lower speed is beneficial, since it leads you to a wider angle that can fit the notch. also note that this is just assumption that attack goes nose on. what should be asctually taken as angle at which his radar beam crosses the target heading.

You do not need to be perfect radial speed would be: Vr = V * cos(theta), where theta is the angle between 2 headings. Therefore it does not have to be perfect, especially if you lower your speed.

null Both sides were elevated by bringing sand and other material. Essentially prior to the war they both raced to get a higher position, with Israel at the end building fortified concrete which at the end mend that their side was 2m lower than Egyptian side. The was also a notable usage of water cannons by Egypt to undermine the eastern side of the channel, and collapse it. I do not have the Suez map, so I can not really check if they modeled this into the map.

just attach your original tacview, since server deleted it already. You can find file name in your own video.

You jump to conclusions, while the TELAR can be standalone it can be easily 10km away from search radar and still receive updates. This way BUK can cover larger volume.

go to the action table in DCS. Open any action, hit the button on STECS, then click on combo box and you should see along normal button presses additional button OFF events. I used this once for one of the detents for engine to IDEL that I could not get to work any other way.

One thing you can try, is to experiment with OFF event in DCS itself. Aside from the regular push event, there is also an OFF event. Still I agree with you: this is more of the workaround.

1. Can you export your VKB config for STECS please? I assume you are trying to use white up/down lever in left-most-bottom-most position. What is interesting is that that level maps to different physical position on my STECS. ( ) E.g. I got: physical 63/64 (UP/DOWN) mapped to 58/57. The middle position I got as an output of AND logical function mapped to virtual 98. In my case the 57, 58 and virtual 98 are holding the signal all the time. In addition, whenever I move the lever to different position, the stick sends the Pressed signal for new state and Released signal for old state. One thing that you may try is to convert the UP/DOWN from Button into Pulse Generator. This way when you flip the switch to UP/DOWN, it will generate a pulse(s). There are different types of pulses, but e.g. you can use GT generator to specify the length of the pulse. See second picture I added here GT generator with 10x10ms x 10 (results in 1000ms). This way the UP/DOWN will generate 1 second hold, followed by transition to low. nullnullNote that 98 will keep behaving like as permanent HOLD since in my case it does take physical input.

Both KUB and BUK can move rapidly. From the early on they were designed to move along the troops and deploy at shortest time. Some more time would be need for cables if you use them (at least for KUB it's recommened). @ustio an alternative is to have Combined Arms, in which case you should be able to command the vehicles to move.

Does it have crew?

Now look at that funny thing...

LOL, but it had the favorite redfor controlling fins: grid fins! Everyone "love" those on R-77.

All radars are directional radars, however, some may rotates and thus provide 360 coverage where the main beam scans the area. This means that majority of energy is direction into a single directions, but aside from the main beam there are side lobs and back lobe which for some of the radars may be strong enough to guide a missile on. If your missile can pick up only the main lobe then it's update interval is pretty high and this may lead to imprecision. Aside from this, some of the radars rely on the reflections from the ground. This can also create a "field" effect where you do not have precise information on where exactly the radar is located. nullSee the attached image. Note these diagrams are expressed in dB, so do not assume the linear proportion between e.g. main/back lobe. Turning off radar is effective measure both IRL and in DCS. You can counter this by firing the missiles that rely on different means of guidance.

I believe that Р-27П was part of official loadout specified in of the updated manual. So it's not a ghost.

Producers of SAMs specify the standard norms for reload and deploy/movement for properly trained crew. However IRL the crew themselves may find shortcuts and cut this time. Plus they may do the things outside of normal standards.