Generally speaking, it has to be remembered that when you listen to podcasts/interviews/documentaries/comments/etc... from active/former pilots, and a tactic that they used, you are listening to just someone operating in just one component of a whole air force/armed forces. Depending on how realisitic you wish to play it out, you may or may not have the same backup, that's to say an entire wing to help you out.
With that out of the way, you should realize that at this point, you are asking yourself perform two missions at a time (first - bring down low an enemy aircraft, two - engage and neutralize it). If you are flying alone, there are easier ways to use the MiG-29 (and more efficient, as per capacity). Consider outmaching your target in altitude and speed. Use interceptor tactics. High and fast, give you extended range, higher kinetic potential energy for your missiles (x2, launch speed and altitude are both major factors for weapons range), higher energy if BVR turns into merge and also good capability to outrun an enemy missile with pure speed at that altitude. That's only one side of the coin, you. As to your enemy (which, again, depending on realism), will often (if a human pilot) be overweight with their F-16s, F-18s and definitely F-15s, will struggle to gain altitude like you. Often, the enemy pilot won't notice how slow they are moving, by trying to gain on you. A slow moving target, is an easy kill for you. This is a very safe tatic, and allows you to dictate the terms of the engagement, and turn away at a moments notice, should you feel that you are over-committing. The MiG-29 (if to imagine a single ship flight), is really a interceptor in pure AA.
If you however still, are hellbent on running down in the weeds, that's all fair and square, but it is a tactic that puts you at a disadvantage, if not simulating real strategy (multi flights with all their tasks). As such, know that you don't, per se, need to have the enemy pulled down low. A known tactic, is to fly down low and fast, such that you negate a high-flying enemy any successful missile launches by pure rule of aspect. A missile will not hit much, if fired vertically down at an aircraft that keeps funneling and maneuvering. Consider the overspeed limits of an aircraft, and that it seldom can point straight down and go at high speed (bending of wing, overspeeding of engines, destructive G-loads, etc...). You, on the other hand, can climb at a ridiculous rate (easily 10km altitude in under 1 minute if at speed), R-27 are incredibly good climbers. If you approach from straight down, you literally won't trigger the RWR of any aircraft in DCS, given the deadzones for RWR sensors at the belly and the back of a plane. The flight profile would be such that you keep 800km/h +++ (avoid afterburner, of course) at low altitude, push to just beneath your target. Continue by pulling hard up (90* vertical if need be) until you are close enough. Finish off by launching R-27/R-73, and head quickly back down, regaining momentum. Generally, you might wonder how long you will live by pulling up, at times behind enemy lines, however consider the time it takes for a pilot to first gain SA and update their mental projection of the battlefield (an aircraft popping up where no one was before/there are many own flights). Two; a potential shooter will have to IFF you. Finally; have his weapons/systems in check in order to engage you. Again, it takes determination (don't second guess, commit to it fully), but if you know what you are doing, those are lethal and quick engagements.
Something I will point out with the second method (down low). Generally, if you are realistic about your flying, this would seldomly work in a contested area (in particular, behind enemy lines), as you have SAM sites, manpads, GCI and AWACS to worry about. In addition, if the coalition is even poor at cooperation, they will be able to eloquently deny you to enter their airspace without prior knowledge of you coming. Therefore, I'm pointing it out, that depending on the scenario/target/difficulty, flying down low for AA might not be optimal at all.
IT-23 showed such information back when there was no ABRIS, but rather a map on a roll. The instrument in question is the PA-4-3. If you've seen the map position projector in the Mi-24 (showing your current doppler position on a paper map), then this is what the PA-4-3 was, except the pilot never moved the map himself. Instead, the tablet had an automated system and a paper map in a roll with 26 frames. The scales were 1:100.000, 1:500.000 or 1:1.000.000. As the helicopter flew, the map would move top to bottom.
The PA-4-3 was unable to show datalinked information in realtime, obviously. As such, the IT-23 would be used to show that additional information on a vector map. In other words, the pilot would only know references, but not exact positions (approximate positions could be extrapolated). When ABRIS came forth, the Ka-50 not only gained a virtually unlimited cartographic capability, but also the ability to overlay that information from IT-23 on top of it (not even mentioning GPS, +++). At that point, the system became pointless, and the very visuals that you see in the picture, got implemented in the ABRIS moving map system. That functionality fell then away from IT-23.
More is better, sure, but we already have a correct (to the bort) implementation of the system, and a much better one. It would make no sense to have this implemented.
zerO_crash's post in MIG-29A BVR - how to force enemy aircraft down low? was marked as the answer