lmp

I can also say that I noticed that it can happen multiple times during a single cold start, taxi and take-off event. It doesn't seem to happen once I'm in the air.

I can confirm, I noticed the exact same bug on the Caucasus and Syria maps.

I use the cannon symbology to find the target on the HUD. Hold the first detent of the cannon trigger, the circle will then be overlaid over the target, release the trigger and continue with missile engagement. This will only work if you have range information however, so it'll be fine when using the radar but with an IRST lock you need to wait for laser range. It seems the Soviets were very keen to keep the HUD decluttered or maybe the thing just can't handle too much symbology at the same time?

I don't think that implies anything. Being able to configure it in the editor would in fact let us simulate this limitation better - for example by keeping the same threat list throughout a campaign rather than having it auto adjust to whatever spawns in each mission.

Will this be editable or are we stuck with what the mission editor generated?

They said that based on existing Eastern and Western modules. Consider the MiG-15bis, F-86F, UH-1H and Mi-8MTV2. Two pairs of aircraft very similar in terms of capabilities and "iconicness". We don't have the sales numbers but we do have ED's statements and we do have forum numbers to judge which one garnered more interest. It's always the Western one. By a lot. Capabilities didn't matter. What matters is most of the audience is Western based and cares about Western aircraft and Western side of the story. There is a section of the player base which cares whether the aircraft will be capable on the dogfight server but it's a small minority (based on ED statements the great majority of players doesn't even play MP). There's nothing wrong with wanting that but it's not a factor for most customers. One thing that might hurt the sales is the limited multirole capability, but that's just not something the Soviets did much. And the MiG-29 is still a much more multirole platform than a Su-25. On the other hand, the 9.12A has a lot of advantages for players more interested in historical or quasi historical scenarios rather than being at the top of the server leaderboard. We're getting a Germany map. And the 9.12A isn't too different from the 9.12 and 9.12B, so it'll fit great on the Caucasus map, the PG map, the Syria map, the Iraq map... Even the Nevada map can be used to host a realistic scenario. A modern, Russian variant, like the SMT, wouldn't be that versatile.

What you can do is find and designate your target with the TPOD, roll in on the diamond and once you have visual, undesignate and continue in CCIP. At least that's how I remember doing it, it's been a while since I've flown the Hornet. You can place a mark point in case you need to reattack, so that you don't need to look for it again.

One thing to consider when discussing the merits of multirole platforms versus dedicated fleets of interceptors, strikers etc. is whether you can train your crews (and keep them proficient) in all the roles the aircraft can perform. Even in the rich air forces there's some level of specialisation among the crews. Not everyone does everything. If you're not that rich and can't give your pilots hundreds of hours every year, you may find that your multirole capability is an illusion, despite having the hardware. The Soviet system of having fleets of dedicated rather than multirole platforms and relying somewhat more on ground control has its problems but it also means that a pilot with a lot fewer hours can still be effective.

The in-game one doesn't seem to. I don't believe any of the radars we have in DCS currently see weather. As to whether it should, I'm no radar expert but I suspect the answer is yes.

I had good results when I commanded a 25nm narrow search and very poor results in a 50nm wide search. Against a MiG-21, Jester would find him at over 20nm in the first scenario and at around 4nm in the second. I haven't tested this very extensively though.

I wonder how the clutter modeling will change. Will we see proper, analog clutter like what we're getting in the Phantom?

This is really welcome news. I mean, I'll have my hands full with the Phantom for some time, but eventually I'll get back to the F-5. I always do :).

They absolutely will!

I asked in their Facebook post and the answer was, we're not getting any improvements at least for now.

There are significant differences in the interface, but FC3 does a decent job at representing the radar/irst features, albeit in a somewhat abstract way. The major modes (RADAR, IR, CC, helmet, optic...) are all there, the three PRF options (hi, med, int) are there, TWS mode is there. It all works slightly differently in FC3 than it will in FF, but I don't think the interface alone will make it harder to fight in the FF MiG. It will be different, but not really much harder. And having a panel I can look at and click rather than trying to remember if changing the PRF was alt+I or ctrl+I or win+I is actually a big advantage to me. I have all the 4th gen FF modules and I don't think the complexity of their radar interfaces is holding me back compared to the simplicity of the FC3 interface. If anything, I feel the added options more than make up for it. What I do feel will make a difference is the more modern, high fidelity simulation of the radar and irst themselves. Ground clutter, false contacts, radar dropping lock more easily or locking onto ground returns, unreliable IFF. All those things that we're beginning to see in newer modules that can cost valuable seconds in complex air to air scenarios. Of course, I've narrowed the problem down to just air to air combat. Outside of that, the fidelity of the FC3 MiG's system is so low that the new interface will make it more difficult to learn. But this is no longer a question of balance.