okopanja

Still munching over the document you sent, but wanted to ask why were they so concerned about roll stability? E.g. how does it influence maneuverability and drag when it actually flies (no wind tunnel or simulation)? E.g. the use cases for these missiles and guidance configuration look different, is the controlling function achieved with rear fins or canards in front?

I assume this does not pass IC?

Mainly the deflection angles used for one vs other approach. Due to the greater efficiency the drag comparison should not occur for same angles, but rather those that match equivalent performance of control surfaces.

I always wanted to burn rabbits on the runway.

And yet, you can not turn on radar or shoot guns on the ground...

This might be too large and not very manouverable missile. The paper nighthawk reference above is missing some important information, but most importantly makes some assumtpions on deflection angles. Is it known what is the minimal deflection angle for e.g. minimal, medium and large corrections? E.g. I would expect that deflection angles of traditional fins is larget than for grid fins, due to lower efficiency.

Do you happen to have charts which demonstrate this difference? Edit: or these charts from before were calculated or measured?

You realize that fixing this is just one if-then block? Surprised that both responsible developer and beta testers did not see anything wrong here, since it's kind of obvious that in a "card" game you are not supposed to see the cards the other side holds.

Not sure why so much discussion on grid fines, especially in sub-sonic and transsionic range: 1. Launch platform can accelerate beyond transsonic range 2. majority of DCS missiles are between 2-3 Mach when they hit, which means the aircraft and missiles are most of the time in super sonic range. Therefore what matters is actual performance in super sonic range.

Yes, all this is true, but we know what we are getting roughly. At this moment we can only hope that GCI will be reworked and ideally provide means for sane AI GCI as well as potentially human GCI, however this will not be on release.

I did not claim this, this is factual state on servers. Bottom line: no point in arguing if it had E or not, eventually server owners decide what to arm to keep up with the balance.

"Prevailing opinion" is not the same as having the manual pages, including exact software update that brought ER/ET to 9.12. Off course you do not need to be worried in MP, pretty sure that server maintainers will give ER/ET to 29 only if the other side gets AIM-120B or better.

I preferred May 9th as release day. Still I personally prefer more complete things later, than less complete things blowing up in the face spectacularly. Also vacations are coming and developers are humans after all.

If this is the case then the talk about 9.12 ECM is over (unless we talk about later pylon extensions). I doubt adding hump would have been an option, and perhaps the reason for Russians being reserved on that topic. Still crazier thing did appear (e.g. radar as a pod) at that time, so I always assumed that something similar could have been an option. Its kind of weird that pods did exist for 21/23 and not for 29. But perhaps the considered this was more needed for air to ground than air to air aircrafts. It's just in this interview pilot was so sure about it. Off course he did not say pod or hump.

Remark was about centerline fuel tank. I assume same would apply for ECM pod, which would likely be hanged in place of it.

In this video there are several things that are not consistent with IRL behavior: 1. Launcher which is in combat readiness mode has elevated RAMP. In DCS ramp is down in transport position. Ready battery has RAMP always erected. 2. Once the fire control radar starts rotating (to acquire assigned target), the launchers selected by commander should also start rotation at the same time. This reduces the needed time for launch, since launchers are already per-positioned. 3. There are 2 targets in this example: 1. first target is heading toward battery, the radar looses track of this target briefly, and transfers toward second target which is outside of range 2. second target beams the radar and goes cold at edge of maximal ceiling, IMHO: the AI made here the wrong decision, it should actually try to locate first target on different azimuth, but it keeps tracking the second target too long, thus wasting opportunity to hit first target while getting away. Timestamps: 00:12 1S11 search radar rotating at high speed has acquired target and transferred to 1S31 (round dish, turning toward target) 00:39 1S31 looses track, now 1S11 assigns new target cold target, 1S31 turns again, launchers stay in transport configuration (ramp down) 01:14 Checking F10 situation, first target enters again into the cone of the 1S11 01:59 Measuring the distances to both targets: first 17km vs 45km for second 02:16 1S11 station assigns first target to 1S31, which turns but launchers stay in transport configuration 02:57 First target exits threat ring. 03:27 As targets start turn toward airport and beams the radar, 1S31 still tracks, but launchers still stay in transport configuration For better understanding I have provided short overview: Short introduction on workflow inside KUB radar 1S91 radar actually consists of: - 1S11 search radar - 1S31 precision tracking and illumination radar - TOV sensor. mounted parallel to 1S31 Crew consists of: - Commander, who sits at launcher and missile panel and has following duties: - decides on target selection - controls launchers, missile readiness and launch, as well as communication with regimental command and his own launchers - Operator 1, sitting at 1S11 station, - consisting of: - round horizontal situational display and rectangular - detailed horizontal situation display showing detailed picture - duties: - receives the target from commander and select it on round horizontal situation display - uses detailed horizontal situational display to start tracking of the target - he then positions rough angular position of 1S31 radar (at this moment the 1S31 radar rotates, as well as launchers) - he then transfers target to Operator 2 - Operator 2, sitting at 1S31 station - consisting of: - angular target display - distance display - duties: - once the target is transferred to him, performs precise adjustments and establishes lock with 1S31 - controls TOV (for TV tracking or battle damage assessment) - Driver, moves the vehicle if commanded. KUB_Launchers_not_turning_when_1S31_is_turning_and_tracking.miz KUB_Launchers_not_turning_when_1S31_is_turning_and_tracking.trk

Which missiles were meant by this? There are very few IRL which have the AESA seekers.

First batch of Yugoslav 29 pilots went on training just 1 month after first batch of Germans. From pilot interview who was there. Technical stuff was on separate location.

HUD_MFD_after_DLSS = true

Youtuber got the story to large degree right, but nothing better than a direct source: https://www.vojnaknjizara.com/shop/padenie-nocnogo-яstreba-slavisa-golubovic/ Each crew member has an interview there, at least 2-4 pages each. This is interesting since it covers the P-18 radar, but also inside the radar crew cabin. It dives into the details on how the workflow in SA-3 SAM goes. Also provided is a section discussing popular myths, and which were true and which not. Author did promise to publish English edition of the book, however this did not happen yet. His interview is here: Another book was published by another crew member, but IMHO the author is controversial, since he tried to claim the kill for himself while he was late for duty, so his book is geared toward that story. Needless to say: the first author had to exclude the testimony of the second guy due to their personal dispute.

written in manuals, and same revision in 2 manuals, where one tells you ER/ET is there.

There is no need for this as we discussed this in other places the version giving KMOD is the same version which gave R-27ER/ET. So artificial nerfing you advocate is not needed. The only unclear thing is if we will get P version or not. I am pretty sure ED would like to add missile at some point in the future.

I recently flew Mig-21 and the things did work for me with the trim. I can check later and confirm.

Thanks, sorry if I sent the wrong track.