lmp

Is 1960s Germany worse than 1940s Normandy in this regard though? 1950s-1960s Germany would be awesome because the early Cold War jets really, really need a map (and some period appropriate units). I adore my MiG-15 but it's difficult to do much with it except for dogfighting Sabres over not very appropriate terrain. The MiG-19P and a number of upcoming jets (MiG-17, F-100, G.91...) would also fit in great. 1980s Germany... I don't think I need to sell anyone on this idea.

I know how long EA can drag out and I'm not encouraging or discouraging anyone from buying into it. I'm personally waiting at least for Afghanistan East. But @Hotdognz asked for the release plan, which is a little buried in the wall of text on page 1, so I figured I'd help out. And now it seems I'm being ridiculed for being helpful. Go figure.

For honesty answering another poster's question?

Why ask the question then? You wanted a release plan. That's the release plan. Trust it or don't, but what's the point in asking for it again?

It's in the announcement: Regions will be released in approximately three-month intervals.

I'm wondering if ED wants to build the Iraqi map the same way they're doing Afghanistan. It would actually make a lot of sense in case of Iraq. Someone primarily interested in war with Iran may not be interested in, say, airfields in Saudi Arabia, which were critical for Desert Storm. And a version which would satisfy everyone would have to be huge. Besides, the way the initial announcement was worded suggests we will be getting the map in chunks. Also, if objects could be separated from geometry, this would allow multiple historic versions of the map. Say, modern and 80s/90s? I'm expecting to hear "nothing to announce just yet", but... Maybe?

Yes, this exact one .

Not all Polish MiGs were upgraded. Some are in museums, one is even in my old university. For photogrammetry, these museum pieces are probably more accessible than operational MiGs and for systems implementation, the documentation is the critical part, not access to a real, flying one. It's not like the air force will let you take one out for a spin to see how the radar works anyway.

Keep in mind that targets won't magically become invisible the second they go below the horizon: https://f4.manuals.heatblur.se/systems/radar/overview.html If you're not so low that sidelobe clutter becomes a serious issue and the mainlobe clutter is sufficiently far behind the target, you should be able to see and track it. Same is true in case of the other pulse radar planes we have, the MiG-21 and F-5 aren't completely blind when looking down either.

I mean initially we had an even more simplified system in place. Thus we shouldn't assume that this announcement means there's some major IFF overhaul in the works that will span the entire game. Perhaps just some of the IFF features will be missing initially (like the auto IFF was initially missing in the Hornet). I hope what ED wants to do here is an overhaul of the entire system, but the announcement doesn't explicitly state that.

The NS-430 I can understand since with only a very minor modification of the jet's electric system you can have a quasi realistic solution very similar to what's actually been done. Changing the repeater into, well, not a repeater is fantasy unless you're planning to fully simulate something like the Slovak or Polish upgrade and that's no longer a small job.

The Hornet also had a simplified IFF in the beginning and once it got its final (?) iteration, we didn't get a new system spanning all modules.

The datalink present on our version of the MiG-29 allowed a ground based navigator to guide the interceptor onto a target or group of targets. We're not going to get an airspace picture in the same sense we do in the Viper or Hornet, only flight directions to a target. The TAF in the Mirage is perhaps the closest analogue we have right now. I've no idea if the system will be able to execute any complex intercept geometries, or if it'll simply point as at the target, and what control, if any, we'll get over the target selection, but I recommend to temper your expectations.

Thank you very much for the newsletter. One nitpick though - the insignia on the wings of that Polish MiG shouldn't be mirrored.

There are a lot of factors that can influence how you (and your enemies) fight. Aircraft capabilities are one thing, but the mission objectives, presence of other threats (SAMS?) and assets (AWACS?), weather, time of day or range requirements may push the fight up or down. Going low might help your enemy become harder or even impossible to engage at BVR ranges, but at the same time it limits their endurance, missile kinematics and speed. Also, while some other 3rd gen fighters may have better LDSD capabilities, I wouldn't exactly call them stellar. I'm expecting that after the Mirage F1 gets its radar overhaul engaging low flying targets in it should become interesting. The Flogger also shouldn't be able to see very far down low. That said, I expect to see a lot more WVR fights than we do in the AMRAAM era. Certainly the Fishbed and Tiger drivers will want to exploit the weaknesses of the Phantom's radar and get in close.

Thanks for all the good info Кош.

All of what you mentioned clearly affects the capabilities of the aircraft but does it affect the ease of use? Is the MLA less susceptible to compressor stalls? Are spins more benign? Have the elevons and/or rudder been redesigned to prevent (overpower) this very scary uncommanded roll scenario described in the video? I'm genuinely asking, I'm somewhat familiar with the MF, not so much the later versions. As for the wing sweep, I agree it shouldn't be a problem most of the time but there are perhaps a few scenarios where this could catch you out - if, say, a high speed bvr develops into a dogfight or you're carrying wing tanks. It's one extra thing to keep track of.

I wanted to try to answer the question posted above: which is easier to fly in combat. I don't know what propaganda and disinformation has to do with anything? I posted a video of a pilot recalling his personal experience in the aircraft, detailing its aerodynamic quirks, and I added what little I know about how the swing wings work in the Flogger and how that complicates the human machine interface. My conclusion is similar to yours - the MiG will probably have a steeper learning curve. I didn't make any statements about how the combat capabilities of these two compare.

Well, the MiG-23 can be quite quirky: Besides the above, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand the wing sweep is set entirely manually, unlike in the Tomcat. Additionally, you can't really change it under a lot of Gs, so you're stuck with whatever you had when you started the break unless you're prepared to unload. That's one thing you don't have to worry about in the Mirage. I have a feeling the Mirage will be easier to fly in the sense that it won't surprise new pilots as much. But whether it'll be easier to win fights in, I don't know.

I think it's a lovely livery and it gets me even more excited for this module .

Great job! It shouldn't be long till you can fill her up all the way. Then you'll only need to learn to do it with a full combat load, at different speeds and altitudes, at night, with the tanker turning, with different tankers... But it looks like you got over the biggest hurdle. It's only this frustrating in the beginning. Once you learn it once, even if you let your skill slip a little over time, it's never that hard to get back into it.

Depending on the software solution you use for your home cockpit/button box, you could make it send two different outputs, say, 100ms apart. This way you could program one of the buttons as lift the cap, second to flip the switch. I'm sure DcsBios could be expanded to do something similar. For stock controllers, some may support macros, but I'm not sure.

A few more random tips from me: 1) In case of the probe and drogue system, after you connect, fly a little bit forward and a little higher and try to keep the aircraft there. Don't stay exactly where you connected, the hose will not have any slack and you'll have less room for error. 2) Keep practice sessions frequent but short. It's better to put in 10-15min every day (or however often you can) than 1h every once in a while. Practice for a few minutes and do something fun next. 3) When I was learning, a big milestone for me was being able to connect reliably every time, even if I lost connection quickly. I don't know if you're there yet? If connecting costs you a lot of time and stress, of course you're going to disconnect immediately afterwards, because you're all tense and worried you'll waste this opportunity. So a session where you don't manage to pick up any fuel but you successfully connect a few times is still useful training.

It shouldn't be difficult to code it so that a single switch activation corresponds to three controller impulses. I would say it sounds way easier than the sliding cam solution. But this is coming from a decent coder and rubbish mechanic ;).

As others said, there's no need to trim during AAR. The fact that you are even focusing on that suggests to me that your approach to the problem is wrong. You shouldn't be trying to find the perfect stick and throttle position that'll keep the aircraft stable behind the tanker. The aircraft will always be drifting or about to start drifting. You should be focusing on spotting any hint of it and correcting it immediately. Prioritise stopping drift early over not overcorrecting. Overcorrecting (within reason) will not make you oscillate, but being slow will. You will always be behind the aircraft if you keep looking for the ideal throttle, pitch and roll. There is none. Identify drift. Stop it. Don't overthink. It took me a while (I'd say way too long) to truly understand this, even after hearing it so many times. But once you get it, it all becomes so much easier. Going back to trimming, I don't trim not just the Hornet or Viper for AAR, but even non FBW jets. I will get it trimmed pre contact and throughout the flight of course, but at the tanker I'm flying at a near constant speed so there's no reason to trim. It's that much of a non-issue. EDIT: I just now realised you're talking about the F-14 rather than the Hornet. We're in the Hornet forum section and it seems everyone assumed that's what you fly. The point about not trimming is still valid though, regardless of what you fly. Trim it before you connect and don't touch it. You can additionally consider putting the wings in bomb mode so they don't move when you're in the middle of it. Or so I'm told, I don't fly that aircraft much.