SwingKid

The Canadian Armed Forces once had a downloadable video in which you could watch and hear a pilot cursing as it took three or four attempts for the APG-65 to lock up a ship, in an apparently zero clutter environment. Also interesting is that the APG-65 was well within its service life when the USN decided to replace it completely, fobbing it off onto Marine Corps Harrier IIs because they were still too new to throw out (helping transform the Harrier fleet into a maintenance fiasco in the process). No upgrades, thanks - only a complete replacement would do. -SK

They were both using only SARH missiles, for one. Good-bye "Western-style TWS" -SK

The F-16 radar against the MiG-29 radar is not a fair comparison? Interesting... -SK

Out of curiosity, what did your sources think of the APG-68? It didn't even have HPRF or a guard horn - both of which the N019 certainly did. Did it suck even worse, then? -SK

GG seems to be having a bad fact week. The whole difference between MSIP I and II is that MSIP I was for F-15A and MSIP II was for F-15C. Therefore, no F-15C ever went through MSIP I at any time. Further, MSIP I was cancelled, and even if it wasn't, MSIP I did not yet include the AIM-120 or the AN/APG-70 - rather, it upgraded the ECM. Concerning the MiG-29S, perhaps the most important thing to remember is that by the time of its development, the MiG-29M program with the far more advanced Zhuk radar was already well underway and testing with the R-77. The whole point of the MiG-29S program was to try to retrofit some of that new technology into older platforms at low cost - it was NOT a precursor to new development. Therefore, we should expect the difference between MiG-29S and MiG-29A radar to be minimal - basically, the cheapest minimum modification required, in order to fit the new missile to the older aircraft. Much like the APG-70 was a drop-in replacement for the APG-63 - which I don't think is far off-topic. -SK

Beg to differ - that's Sukhumi, the capital of Abkhazia and the likely epicenter of a Caucasus conflict - only now it has its lake (easy to spot and navigate towards from a distance) and its railroad station is in the right place. Looks like a sports stadium in the right place too. And there are a lot more roads through the urban center now, so you'll have to search for driving vehicle targets instead of always ambushing them along the same one street. The "boxes" are not just more numerous - they seem to be more carefully and accurately placed than before. Interesting.. -SK

Hmm... Where did you find that? Interesting. Link? -SK

Against multiple simultaneous targets, with the APG-63? I'll take that bet. :) -SK

Since the F-15 had no such ability itself at the time, it seems that assumptions about western aircraft weren't much better. :) -SK

Where are you hearing this? The look-down capability of the original N019 made the West abandon its Tornados, Lancers, Intruders and other low-altitude strikers practically overnight. Maybe you're thinking only of Medium PRF mode? -SK

The slotted array is on the Zhuk radar for the MiG-29M/K with a rearranged nose and modified radome. MiG-29S uses "Topaz-M" with the same old Cassegrain as N019 - there used to be photos on the web. It made a simple drop-in upgrade for Malaysian MiG-29N as a result. Of course, the ability to suppress STT mode when shooting is "improved ECCM" in itself.. -SK

Huh? The S radar is just an A radar that is able to suppress STT mode when shooting, no? What has that to do with target detection? -SK

Link? -SK

Perhaps I misunderstood something. Can you help us with a correct translation of this post? http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?p=60512#post60512 For all the protests that "we don't have resources for this, we don't have resources for that" - it seems to be an almost 30-page discussion about developing something that is entirely not even a flight simulator. The particular post to which I've linked above, made already two and a half years ago, seems suddenly prophetic in retrospect. -SK

I can think of at least three alternative development paths that I think would have been MORE logical and smart. However, to be fair, developing a Lock On WAFM patch for free is not one of them. That's only about equal. -SK

Duh, they were specifically ordered to WAIT FOR THE ANNOUNCEMENT. I guess you're waiting for after the release? ;) -SK

So much for that agreement. -SK

Well since you ask, there ALSO that whole "you're right, the F-15 flight model is broken, I promise to fix it" thing after four years... How far that went. -SK

By that standard, there has never been any bug in any ED product. Small use we have for testers then. :P If the programmer who wrote it says it's a bug, it's a bug. To call it "intended feature" after that is no longer honest. -SK

Still too vague. If you're talking about missiles (as others often are), then I assure you from experience that they are very, very hard to do. Virtually anything you ever change will make them worse. Do you remember what the range of an AMRAAM was in 1.02? Like Sidewinders. -SK

In a generous mood, I'd say the debriefing system is about 40% functional. -SK

So much for the bounty of riches from the A-10C contract. -SK

Depends on which problems. To address "some of the problems" would require starting a whole new sim from scratch. Of course, it's also possible to start a whole new sim from scratch, and still not address ANY of the problems... but that's beside the point of your already-too-vague topic, I think. -SK

Hello EB, I salute you on an excellent post. Although I'm personally happy as a critic, much of what you wrote is very true, and this poll has once again shown that we critics are often very far from being in agreement amongst ourselves. The main point I would disagree with is the importance of the online community. We are indeed a small minority compared to the customer base, but as Ice has pointed out, there is an even larger non-customer base out there, to which we are the key. For example, I didn't buy F4:AF, because of what I've read about it - things I wouldn't have read except for the voice of their demanding online community. I truly believe that ED's entire customer base is a tiny fraction of what it could be - and, that it has always been, because of what people like us uncover on their behalf. But I guess, that's one opinion against another, until I develop my own sim and have my own experiences and facts to back it up. ;) Another point I would question is the direction that ED is taking, and the assurance that we all want the same thing. In light of recent announcements, can you clarify for us anew, why the Ka-50 was chosen as the focus, and how it fits into the direction of development that you believe we should all be agreeing on? If ED really wants to model fighters, why do they keep throwing resources at the far more difficult task of modeling CAS? No other fighter sim that I know of needed to take such a difficult, time-consuming and meandering route to its goal. If on the other hand their focus is CAS, because they think that's where the bigger market is based on helo sims featuring RWRs and dynamic campaigns and gameplay balance like Longbow and EECH, then I think a shock is coming, when it's discovered that the helo community wants the same things that we do. Frankly, I don't think the decision makers at ED believe they have missed any fighter enthusiast customers at all. By their own public comments in the Russian forum, they have indicated a belief that they simply exhausted the entire market of us. You have seen or heard different? -SK

I tried a poll like this years ago: http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6654 It basically indicated that if you took ALL non-flyable improvements that anybody ever wanted and put them together - people (in general) would still rather pay for a flyable Ka-50 than any of that. Well, they'll sure get what they asked for! :beer: -SK