ShuRugal

If the HUD fails, the HDD showing the HUD info is moderately pointless. All of that information is already available on the gauges (where you can get it in more detail), with the exception of radar data. It would make more sense for that display to be dedicated to showing detailed radar/targeting data, without the clutter of things like your own flight parameters and CCIP cues.

Raises an interesting question: What does the MFD on the real MiG-29 do? HUD-repeater is probably the single most useless function possible, since all the HUD does is repeat the gauges up in the forward line-of-sight for the pilot to see without taking his eyes off the sky. If all the MFD does is repeat the HUD, then the MFD becomes more of a Heads-Down-Heads-Up-Display. Since the front dash already does this job...

define "ruthless". I can brick the Merlin in under 2 minutes if i close the radiators, go full WEP, and make hard turns to keep my speed down to ~150 kts.

That track with the R-73s is kinda f*ked up, even by recent poor missile seeker performance standards. The R-27 fest is, unfortunately, exactly what happens every time you launch: F-15 driver pulls his stick in the corner, stands on his rudder, and starts dumping chaff like a cropduster, and the 120C performs so well that he can get away with putting himself in such a bad position (kinetically) by mad-dogging a few and laughing.

In the DCS KA-50, the SAS buttons also turn on the Autopilot for that channel. The only way to disable Autopilot control is to either engage the Flight-Director mode, or to press and hold the trimmer. This is the reason for always needing to fight the autopilot: When the SAS channels are engages and FD is disengaged, the default mode of the AP is "attitude and heading hold". Each channel will attempt to hold the attitude at which it was engaged, or at while it was oriented the last time the trimmer was released.

Or, I can decide before I begin my attack run how I wish to arrange my salvo, and set switches accordingly. Who are you to say my method is wrong? The function is there for a reason, I use it.

sounds like you're sitting in a stiff crosswind.

fairly regularly. I never launch Vikhrs in pairs, unless i am shooting at T-90s or M-1s, But I almost always launch S-8s in sets of 5. I also toggle the cannon between 10 and 20 round burst depending on my desired effect on target.

The module was originally developed for the Russian military as a pilot training aide (just like the A-10C module). We just get the unclass version as a side bonus of ED filling that contract.

If the engine dropped to 100 RPM, it would die. There are exceptionally few engines capable of maintaining an idle that low, and all the examples i am aware of are massive (earth-moving or naval sized) diesels.

The problem is that the datalink only works on aircraft in the same flight, and that is only possible with AI aircraft at the moment. Currently, a flight can only have one human pilot in it.

mostly it'll just piss off any flankers on your team, as they won't be able to use TWS mode if you are in their FoV. It also advertises your position quite nicely, and a pair of coordinated human opponents can use this to triangulate you.

That would be nifty, but I have a sneaking suspicion that ED is not interested in adding features to the Shark anymore.

Six of one, half a dozen of the other, depending on who you believe.

Looking back through all these charts, it looks like we can infer that the best altitude for accelerating to maximum wet speed should be in the vicinity of 7-8 km? This seems to be where there begins to be a notable difference in dry-thrust vs TAS. Without any testing, it looks like the most efficient climb/acceleration profile would be MIL power @ mach 0.85 up to ~7km, then level out, full wet power up to desired mach #, and climb holding that speed to desired attack altitude? It won't be the fastest climb profile, but it will get you to attack speed/altitude with maximum available fuel remaining.

Glad to hear you found a setting that works. That's really the biggest hurdle in DCS: finding input sensitivities that smoothly translate the 3-4 inches of travel a PC joystick has into the 5-8 inches a real flight stick would.

I think the words to describe this are "holy ****ing shit."

There are a couple things coming in to play here. The first is airflow into the engines. The faster you are flying, the more air the engines can breath, thus the more power they can make. The saying goes "The faster you go, the faster you go faster" and its correlate is "The slower you go, the faster you go slower". Second thing is something called "corner velocity". This is, in essence, the slowest airspeed at which you can pull maximum-Gs. Flying at this speed will give you the best possible instant and sustained turn rates. If I recall correctly, the F-15 corner speed is 350~450 Kts IAS, depending on load. Flying faster also means a lower AoA needed for the same lift. Lower AoA == lower induced drag, which means flying faster == lower induced drag.

^^ fun as hell to do it, too.

auto-turn only applies rudder to try to align the nose with the shkval. It does not matter what autopilot mode you are in, the only time it won't work is in Flight-Director mode. In normal flight mode, it will attempt to yaw to face the shkval, regardless of your speed and direction. In route mode, it will set the shkval heading as the route-mode desired heading, and actively fly the helicopter towards the shkval as if you had a waypoint set there. In auto-hover, the auto-hover will continue to hold position above the waypoint while auto-turn yaws to the shkval line of sight.

As others mentioned, these are very high-performance aircraft. I'm sure, as a pilot, you are familiar with the concept of "less is more" when controlling an aircraft? It applies double to these birds. Best thing to do is go into your axis settings and set all your axis to have 15% curvature to them. This will soften your input around center. Also, set dead zone as small as possible (i use zero deadzone with my X55) to give yourself more precise control.

And very simple, really. Battery -> fuel tank -> fuel pump -> ignition switch -> ram-air -> primer for 5-10 seconds, -> RPM to max -> crank until it fires -> carb from cutoff to run.

You have just neatly and concisely stated the three major reasons this will not be modeled by ED. It is not a tactic. It is not in books. Your opinion that it should be carries no weight with ED, who is interested only in what is.

No, you have repeatedly re-stated a theoretical mode of engagement for which you have provided zero supporting evidence as ever having existed. Or even possible with any currently-fielded A2A radar sets. No, they cannot, because there exists no such hardware which can be used in the manner you have described. It is possible -only- in theory. In practice, it's a good way to turn your missile into a million-dollar fireworks shell. I would love for this to be possible. I prefer to fly the Su-27, and I would love for my wignmen to be able to support my missile after I am forced to defend. But is it not possible.

Devrim: As Kilix noted, the minimum altitude for auto-hover is 4 meters. If you are staying above this an kicking out, it is probably a trimming issue. I believe (based on observed behaviour) that if the auto-hover requests more input from the auto-pilot than the auto-pilot has control authority (20%), the AP channels kick out. I have observed this happen several times in cases where I engage auto-hover without properly trimming for a stable hover first, or in cases where dynamic weather allows a dramatic shift in wind speed/direction after I engage hover.