Tango3B

THIS!!! It is a really nice module with great potential and stunning looks but Razbam's choice to use the Su-25 default sound is really bad. If I remember correctly the RD-9Bs (and WP-6s) had an incredibly loud high pitched whining sound to it. Very distinctive. Many many years ago I had the pleasure to see some FT-6s taxi by and the engine noise definitely made a lasting impression. So, please consider giving us a little more immersion, Razbam.

It is actually a similar system to the MiG-21's ARU system. It is located under the fat fin fillet by the way. Did not try it out yet but maybe one can even do the amazing stunts with arm in T.O./Lndg. mode like in the MiG-21.

Firmek, maybe my request for Razbam was not clear enough for YOU to understand, it seems. And yes, I read the statement made by ZEUS concerning ED´s announcemnet policiy. I requested some information on the development status of the MiG-19. I said I request no date and nothing specific either. I think they can do this without permission from ED, don´t you think? Have a nice weekend.

Sadly, there was not the slightest bit of information about the MiG-19 or some kind of expected schedule in todays weekend newsletter. I kindly request some information from Razbam on when your team currently expects to have a release candidate available they can submit to ED. Again, I am not asking for a specific date - only a general timeframe. I fully understand that a release announcement is ED's responsibility but I think after all those teasing and training videos a statement about Razbam's development progress on the MiG-19 is overdue. And please guys, let us keep this thread clean and do not start a flaming war.

I like your thinking but I am afraid you cannot do that the way you want it to work. Friend or foe recognition in DCS is faction based. You are either team blue or red. So, there is no way you can simulate that unless you would place a SAM site by a hostile faction. And to my knowledge there is nothing RAZBAM can do about the ED game logic...

Excellent work Baltic Dragon! This is definitely going in the right direction. Looking forward to the radar training mission. A question for the Devs (really guys - only the Devs please!): are you guys still on track for a january release? The recent weekend update did not mention anything so I thought you guys might give us something here...

Ok, the dude already answered. Well, there you go...

You can see the start-up sequence of the upcoming MiG-19 at the end of this video: Also, there was a promise für more content like radar and navigation videos coming up soon.

As far as I remember the downgrade for the 9.12B was indeed because of less capable software and processors with the above mentioned consequences. The same issue also affected the OEPrNK-29 EO complex which had shorter detection and tracking range and as far as I know there were differences in the navigation suite. The 9.12Bs (some of them, at least) had the older A-312 navigation system. I do not know which type of INS system software was used on these aircraft, however. The GAF MiG-29G 9.12A had the CWU A-340-071M v.2204/v.2205, for example. And the 9.12Bs IFF systems were of the old Kremni-2 type unless specified otherwise for the customer. Some countries like Iraq only got deliveries of early batch R-27Rs and apparently these had serious flaws. Furthermore, these 9.12Bs were fitted with early model RD-33 engines with considerably shorter engine life. If there are more things to add to the list somebody else might contribute to our little discussion here... A short note on the data declassification issue. While considerations on that issue are indeed on a more global level I do not want to get into more deeply I think when Poland and Slovakia terminate their MiG-29 operations declassification on radar and weapon data might happen in the next years to come as was the case with available information about the MiG-23 and her "nifty" little secrets...

The EGAF standard MiG-29 had the then brand new and top secret russian Parol IFF system. These systems were deleted by russian technicians even before GAF personnel could get their hands on the aircraft. Therefore, we had a completely different system in the GAF for NATO use. The 9.12B was heavily downgraded in terms of radar performance (look-down, range, processor capability, etc.), IFF, ECCM and so on. These aircraft can hardly be compared to Warsaw Pact country versions. Iraqi versions, for instance, were more like EGAF MiG-23MLs in terms of overall performance. So, the MiG-29G is far ahead, though still pretty basic like the russian 9.12 model. Maybe someday there is a full fidelity DCS MiG-29. Would certainly be a dream come true for me. But then again hard data on radar and weapons remain classified, still. Surely it IS possible to obtain the data on all of this and I am sure ED which is already working with a real MiG-29 pilot has access to certain aspects of the more closer guarded secrets. The performance data they used for the new flight model is excellent in my opinion. You can even turn the aircraft only by rudder at low speeds which is something only a few people might know about that haven´t flown the aircraft. Anyway, we will see what happens I guess...

On our G version stations 3, 4, 5 & 6 had to be the same missile type. Firing order was automatically defined (wing closer to target fired missile). This was dangerous, however. You could end up with one empty wing and one full of missiles (thank god, you experienced such things in simulator training, only - absolutely no fun flying then). There is even a special section in the MiG-29G manual that tells you how to deal with that joy of flying... And yes, the old Ts100 computers were bad. There were indeed problems with look-down and lock stability because they were simply overloaded with information input. They had a pretty low MTBF, also. When the TsVM was retrofitted you could make far better use of the SNP mode. With the radar in the G model you could expect to detect a very low flying target at 40km or below (depending on RCS) and tracking at 30km or below. On the plus side the TsVM improved the reliabilty of the N019 and the ECCM was improved, too. That package gave the MiG-29G at least a reasonable radar to work with. And yes, resolution got better the closer you came to the contact but concerning the fact that SNP went to auto-stt when in launch parameters didn't really help sometimes. You had to be good working with the N019. You had to learn a lot of lessons...

As I mentioned earlier the R-27R1 came in the later years of MiG-29G service. If I had to compare it to a Sparrow variant I would say it is like an AIM-7F whereas the R-27ER is comparable to the AIM-7M in overall perfomance only with greater range. Keep in mind that this is a very rough comparison, of course. I chose this broad comparison only for a rough performance picture. The R-27 family underwent constant upgrades (just like the Sparrow) and there are much improved R-27ER1 and ET1s nowadays. Concerning the mixed R-60MK / R-73 loadout I can say it is possible to load them in this configuration but only R-73s on inner pylons (stations 1 & 2) and R-60MKs on the outer pylons (stations 3,4,5 & 6) as the pylon selector in our G model allowed switching between inner and outer pylons only (two way switch). Personally, I never saw an G model in that configuration but it might have been loaded on the GT. The G normally flew with R-27s on the inner pylons. The performance of the APG-65GY is covered pretty good in the aviation press. A comparison between the APG-65 and the GAF´s N019 (simplified) radar is interesting, though. A short example: in the N019´s Head-on mode (V-mode/Encounter) the detection range of a typical 3sq m target would be around 60-70 km in ideal conditions. Mostly you had 50 km. Tracking was possible between 40-60 km but mostly it was 40-50 km. Also, the target resolution was far from optimum. Group targets were only discernible when their seperation was 5-8 km. So, getting a good SA picture was pretty hard. The APG-65GY on the other hand is a whole different story. Even when used with the old radar display in the F-4F it had roughly 50% better detection range and the target resolution was far better. It also had a RAID mode which helped a lot to create SA. You can generally say a MiG-29G pitted in a BVR scenarion over open terrain against an F-4F with APG-65GY and AIM-120Bs stood no chance of survival when the F-4Fs did their homework. Furthermore, the APG-65GY had several AG modes which the N019 in the MiG-29G never had.

Well, the R-27R1 actually is an enhanced and modified R-27R. It was also used in the RuAF inventory and is no specific export variant for the non-domestic market. So, enhanced weapon performance was by design. You had roughly 5nm more range than the baseline model had and an improved performance against low flying targets (seeker head could better distinguish between ground clutter and target). Another improvement was added resistance to countermeasures (specifically chaff). The baseline R-27R performance was really bad so it was a welcome improvement for the GAF.

Concerning the combat aspect this is actually not entirely true. In later years we actually used the R-27R1 on our G model. That gave us a little more range and the seeker head was also improved in various aspects. The R-27T in whichever form was never used in the GAF due to performance issues but the missile itself was tested though for suitability when we inherited the armament inventory of the EGAF. I am not allowed to go into detail on that, however. Also, we used the R-60MK with a modified seeker head to work more effectively with the HMS. And as a third step to increase combat potential there was the well known addition of wing droptanks. So, these were small steps in terms of combat potential but we did add some features during her servicelife. Stores switching is as described above...

A little update: just tried the whole AP logic thing in the updated DCS stable version and it worked as it is supposed to. Must have been a fault on my side with keybindings.:doh: Disregard the above posts, please.

Yeah, it is a simplified model and not the F/A-18C. That is understood. I chose the ATT Hold function as an example because the buttons and functions are already in the MiG´s config file - only the logic behind switching (usage) is not correct. It is surely doable to get this right. Anyway, let us hope the best as we are very early in the EA phase...

Well, that is not the only problem with "Attitude Hold Mode", actually! In the real MiG-29 we flew in the GAF you did the following steps to activate that mode: - press ATT Hold button - ATT Hold light on AP panel starts flashing - press AP cut-out lever and establish the desired aircraft attitude - release the AP cut-out lever - AFCS ATT Hold operation modus starts - ATT Hold light on AP panel becomes steady There are some more things to it but if ED is working with a real world MiG pilot they should probably know already about correct AP logic. This is currently not stated anywhere in the DCS MiG-29 manual nor is it implemented correctly. Maybe this is WIP at the moment but concerning this should be a PFM flight model such degree of realism such be implemented. Feedback welcome...:D

That is all I wanted to hear. No bad feelings here. I think most of us can already see the direction the Tomcat is going. It is very complex and awesome and that takes time. I pre-odered because I think you guys from Heatblur deserve our money at this point in time because the F-14 development must have been quite an expensive journey. Btw: Cobra, do those key links from Heatblur store already work when sync'ing them with our ED account? There was an issue yesterday so I'm just asking...

Wow, that was really quick!!!:D This is very much appreciated. Thank you...

Yeah, a quick info would be nice. Just downloaded 1.5.6 1648.240 and there is no info included or anything...

Same here. Pretty inconvenient thing but I guess fixing this should be no problem for LN considering how important the custom kneeboard pages are for the Viggen...

LN you guys rock! You guys have my absolute respect for creating this outstanding module. Releasing it in 1.5.6. Beta is no problem at all. That gives us just enough time to train managing all those weapons and systems to perfection until it goes live on stabile release. :thumbup:

Zeus can you take a look into that issue, please? The HOTAS WARTHOG AXIS for TDC slew control still does not work and it is a pretty annoying thing. Fixing that "minor" issue should not be too hard, I guess...

Exactly! As it was discussed many times before even the R-60M has only a very limited front aspect capability. In real life that would be a target flying in full AB exactly towards you and a little higher than you and even then the seeker would possibly only acquire the heat source at very short range. So, basically the R-60M is pretty much useless in a head on scenario...

You guys at BST did a great job. The F-5E is really really nice. The flight model feels great. Thank you very much!!!