Flyout

It's not as simple as it seems at first glance. To use night vision goggles, the cockpit and instrument lighting must be modified so that they emit light of a specific frequency, which is cut out from the night vision goggles. There is no documented or confirmed evidence that such MiGs ever existed.

Кто вам мешает в случае обнаружения бага или несоответствия написать об этом? Если аргументируете с документами - думаю исправят.

МиГ-29 в ГС сделан сильно упрощенным. На оригинал похож только внешне.

В реальном самолете это ограничение не снять. Это ограничение ракеты.

Да, бланкирование есть. Но при этом нормальная работа Березы не обеспечивается. О чем не двусмысленно указывается в БП. Береза корректно работает только без бланкирования, то есть без РЛПК.

This manual is from the 1990s, when many in the Russian Federation were not afraid to share over military documents. And this isn't the only manual. There's also a Su-27 combat manual which says pretty much the same thing.

Last year, ED reported that the AIM-7 missiles were based on a new API with new dynamics and guidance systems. Now the R-27 has reach this points too. If you don't turn on failures in the failures panel, they won't work. In the simulator, everything is perfect and nothing breaks, neither weapons nor planes.

Не совсем так. В документе "Бортовой комплекс самолетовождения.." написано, что СПО-15 бланкируется в момент работы РЛС. Но ничего не написано насколько корректно она выдает информацию. А вот в методике БП для МиГ-29 и Су-27, которые уже пишутся для летчиков без лишней воды, дается качественная оценка работы СПО с РЛС - "верить нельзя". Это значит что Береза что-то показывает, но это может быть не связано с реальной радиообстановкой.

Про "нормально" нигде не сказано. Сказано ровно наоборот, при включенной РЛС и/или САП индикации Березы верить не стоит. Логично. От своего же радара.

The APG-63 radar was more advanced than the N001 in every respect. It had a more advanced antenna with lower sidelobes, a better signal-to-noise ratio, and better digital processing. The Soviet Tikhomirov Research Institute used the APG-63 data as a specification for the development of the "Mech" radar. However, they failed to fully complete the task, and as a result, they had to create a radar based on the N019 from the MiG-29, scaling it up. You're mistaken. Interception control involved displaying control markers on the aircraft's instruments. In other words, the pilot was shown where to fly and when to turn on the radar using an indication. Exactly the same as was later done in the USSR, including on the MiG-29. All missiles in the world have a certain percentage of launch failures.

You continue to perpetuate myths. The birthplace of the GCI and AWACS is the USA. They were the first to implement the F-102/106 semiautomatic intercept system back in the 1950s. This system was in use at NORAD even before the Soviets copied it. Please read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-Automatic_Ground_Environment

What is wrong with AIM-7?

I hope so I think you are wrong. I have enough technical literature to make a statement. I don't make unfounded statements, unlike you.

В документах по боевому применению на МиГ-29 и Су-27 сказано вполне однозначно.

If you're looking for balance, you can find it in plenty of other games. A simulator is designed to simulate the technology as it was, not how some players wants it to be. You can believe what you want, but in reality, all systems have their limitations. And electronic intelligence systems have many of them too. As for the SPO-15, there's nothing surprising about it. The Soviets were never strong in electronics and lagged behind the US by a decade.

The average power of the APG-63 is also greater than the average power of the N001: 2 kW versus 1.5 kW. You don't know history well. The first AWACS appeared in the US and were used during the Vietnam War, at a time when the USSR was still only considering it. The SAGE semiautomatic interceptor guidance system also first appeared in the US on F-102/106 aircraft. And after that, the Soviets began copying it, developing their own VOZDUKH systems.

You seem to have misunderstood the game. Balancing isn't DСS's job. Every developer here strives to make the aircraft model closer to reality. And if that's how reality works, there's no point in distorting it to make things more convenient for some players.

This is a radar operation cyclogram, the receiver is locked during transmission, it has nothing to do with the SPO.

This document does not apply to the MiG-29. It is a general description of the device.

You're distorting the facts. There are pilots who report poor performance of the radar. And official documents confirm that SPO information cannot be used when the radar is on.

You're wrong. It's not mentioned there. There's a reference to a blanking feature in the 2011 document about the SPO-15. However, it has nothing to do with the MiG-29 aircraft; it's a general description of the device's capabilities. It's worth clarifying here. Not all capabilities are always and everywhere utilized. Recall the R-27R missiles. The manufacturer's description of the missile states that it supports a reduced target illumination frequency to enable a salvo launch of two missiles at two different targets. But the devil is in the details. Mikoyan and Sukhoi Design Bureaus didn't implement support for this feature in their MiG-29 and Su-27 aircraft. As a result, the missile can be used in a salvo against two targets, but the aircraft don't support this. The same is true here. The SPO supports blanking, but for some reason, the aircraft developers didn't implement it.

You don't speak Russian, but I do. It says there that the information can't be trusted. Quite clearly and unambiguously. Since these are Soviet aircraft, the original manuals in Russian take precedence over all others. And yes, it clearly states that you cannot use the SPO when the radar or jammer is turned on.

This SPO-15 manual isn't specific to any particular aircraft. It describes the equipment's capabilities in general. However, specific implementations of the station varied across both design bureaus and aircraft types. What's written here doesn't directly apply to the MiG-29.

I disagree. The F-15 outperforms the MiG-29 in every way, from its radar to its flight characteristics. Which is fine, since they're different classes of aircraft.

Why are you trying to shut me up? I claim that the SPO in ED is modeled correctly, and you're wrong. I'm basing my analysis on numerous Soviet combat manuals. It's just that you don't seem to have this information.