Seaeagle

That would be the case for a "lock warning" - not "launch warning" as the OP asked about.

Doesn't matter in the case of SARH missiles, as these don't emit anything themselves.

When support from the launching aircraft is broken. Earlier radar/SARH systems(such as with early AIM-7 versions) employed a separate CW(Continuous Wave) transmitter to illuminate the target for the missile SARH seeker, so the launch warning would come when the RWR detected this waveform commencing - i.e. at the point of launching the missile. The system used by the MiG-29(and Su-27)/R-27R/ER employ PD(Pulse Doppler) target illumination, where the radar switches its transmission frequency between target tracking and target illumination/radio correction for the missile. So in this case it would be this(alternating frequency) that triggers the RWR launch warning - i.e. again when the missile is launched. The missile has a finite operation time(onboard power supply), so when this is exceeded, I guess the weapon's control system of the launching aircraft will stop supporting it.

Not the same thing though :) Correction - they tried to purchase them(Moskit/Sunburn), but were turned down. Instead they managed to acquire a batch of Kh-31A(IIRC in parts), which in turn they modified into target drones("MA-31") with moderate success.

Depends on the type/number of ships and how many Hornets you employ. One or two frigates sure - a complete group of the most heavily armed vessels on the planet.....not a chance. They could also seriously decrease your chances by implementing features that warships currently completely lack in the sim - i.e. a vast array of countermeasure systems and powerful ECM suites that RL warships have :) . There is no way the Kuz would be travelling anywhere with just a couple of small missile ships, so if realism isn't an issue you might as well just go against the Kuznetsov on its own .....and even then you would have your work cut out for you :) . The Kuz has four Kinzhal systems with a total of 192 missiles, eight Kortik systems each with a magazine of 32 missiles(256 in total) + dual 30 mm gatling cannons and 6 AK-630 mounts each with 2000 round magazines.

I believe the symbology comes on in CAC modes, when the gun trigger is activated - the stick has two triggers(one for missiles and another for the gun) and are set up so that when one is pulled down(activated), the other moves up to deactivated position. Well we have the 9-13S(MiG-29S) FM, cockpit(+ external model) and radar. The 9-13 is practically the same aircraft except for the radar(same as in the 9-12). So you are right that introducing the 9-13 to the sim would be very easy, but I guess being so similar to the MiG-29S, it wouldn't be very attractive to most people......i.e. just a less capable MiG-29S without R-77s. Yeah as a functional fix you mean?. IMO It would be better with a semi-modelled navigation panel(I don't think there is much hope for a fully modelled one unfortunately).

Obviously and thats my predicament - I build my models to rather extreme detail, which of course drives up the poly-count(although I do take it into account). Thats why I was interested in what the sim can handle, because I am not interested in making "low-poly" stuff just to get it to work in DCS :) . Exactly. In older versions of the sim, you could just assign a simple material to the model, export it and see how it faired. But these days you have to do a lot texture work first and since I don't have much experience with that, I just didn't bother - thinking that my models would probably be too "heavy" anyway. Yeah and I guess it really is the only way to find out. I mean the model itself is one thing, but performance is also heavily dependant on the complexity of working systems - e.g. you might get away with a high-poly Kirov as long as it just sails along, but when it starts using all its armament.... I don't do much texturing because, outside DCS, my models don't really need them - practically everything is in 3D, so aside from Hull numbers and the odd crest or squadron emblems, there isn't much to paint :) Yeah I think you are right about that. The ones from Hum3D don't either(very little anyway). Thanks mate - thats very kind of you :) . But these days I don't even have a max version that can work with ED's plug-ins, so its probably not going to be anytime soon.

Yes thats correct. Not sure I understand - the "radar scale" as you call it, only sets the maximum range displayed on the "scope" for the particular radar mode. Yes those are correct, but I am not sure about the gun modes though and, like BlackPixxel, I don't think there is a particular range scale for STT - when the radar can transition to STT depends on various factors(including target RCS I guess) and when in SNP, it won't make the automatic transition until the target is within missile launch range.

I thought P was sort of a anti-radiation ("passive radar homing") missile not ARH ("active radar"). Maybe it is ment to be something like homing on active radar emission? Back in the day IIRC there was a project or prototype R-27AE but never got into service. There are in fact several mistakes on that page. Anyway, the R-27P1 is the short-burn version of the missile with a passive radar homing head(9B-1032). In official information, there is no mention of inertial navigation/radio correction for this variant, but rather that it employs the "fire & forget" principle - i.e. passive radar homing from launch to impact.

I am not so sure about that - if it should actually be; "manual setting of RLPK mode", then whats the logic in that?.....I mean thats exactly what the control knob is doing("V", "D", "AVT", etc). IMO would make more sense if the abbreviation refers to manual setting of radar sub-modes. But I don't know :) . Maybe it means that with the switch in the up position, SNP mode(with HPRF) is included into an automatic sub-mode transition(search, track, lock) - otherwise manual with only STT(using MPRF). That was the very "claim by someone else" that I was referring to :) Well it is in "V"(HPRF only) and "D"(MPRF only). They each have advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation and when this changes, you need to switch between them accordingly. "AVT" is sort of the two combined into one mode with automatic transition, which eases the workload for the operator, but comes with less "peak performance" than either of the two dedicated modes. But I don't know what he means by "AVT provides the same functionality[as SNP] automatically" - in terms of auto PRF perhaps, but there is a lot more to SNP(threat assessment/prioritisation). I would disregard that source if I was you :D . I read the rest of the page and...LOL.

Well I don't know how exactly they go about it these days. I just remember how some third parties with extensive experience from other sims came into DCS with a long list of aircraft they wanted to develop, where you could see that there was just no way in hell they could achieve that in DCS.....even if they had a decade:) . It might. What I meant was that it might allow candidates a greater insight and develop a project further before contacting ED - i.e. more matured contents as "proof of concept" for ED to evaluate. I don't see how that would increase the likelihood of failed projects - its still up to ED whether or not to grant the licence.

So far I have worked a couple of month on mine :) Its the one from Hum3D and the only purchase that I am not really happy with. It looks the part, but when you start digging into it, there are lots of problems - both in terms of accuracy, but also with how the polys are spent - e.g. all back faces are left in and the heli-pad fence is made all in 3D and is over a million faces!.....I kind you not. Anyway, I haven't tried inserting any of my models into DCS and what I was interested in, was how much the sim can handle in terms of the polygon count(faces). The reason I am asking is that, as far as I can see from the link you provided for the Tarantul, its over 800k polygons and I suspect those are quads, so it will probably be twice that in tris(?). Yeah I think it would be a nice and useful addition as well. Ok :) Yup you are certainly right about that and I do exactly the same. I actually "tear them apart" and pretty much remake them from the hull up with my own stuff. But they do make great hulls - both in terms of accuracy and fidelity and thats what I need as I am no good with hull making - the rest I can make myself :) . Indeed! :)

Perhaps, but rather than trying to limit candidates to those who already have a proven record/business model for other simulation environments, I think it would be better to ask for "proof of concept" - i.e. that anyone who wishes to obtain a 3rd party developer status, must have "solid contents" developed for DCS World specifically in order for ED to have a better basis for evaluating whether they have "what it takes".....and for this I guess it might be a good idea to make an SDK more openly accessible/user friendly.

Yes thats what I wrote(HPRF = High PRF), but not "with СНП/ППС" - note that the "ППС"-bit is displaced in the text.....it should be underneath the first "СНП" ;) . I don't know mate - it could be a typo as you suggest or it could refer to something else. The whole document is jam-packed with all sorts of Russian abbreviations, that I don't know the meaning of.....I only picked up on the "ВЧП" and "СЧП" ones as being HPRF and MPRF respectively, because the AVT mode was described as having "automatic alternation" between the two.

That would be the very misinterpretation that I mentioned above :) . According to the description of the switch on this page(lecture on the SUV-29): https://studfile.net/preview/5383872/page:6/ ....(scroll down to bottom of the page) it says: "СНП/ППС - ЗПС...ручний вибір режиму РППК: ВЧП з СНП або СЧП" That translates to something like: СНП/ППС - ЗПС....manual selection of RPPK mode: HPRF with SNP or MPRF. Which would mean that with the switch in the up position(SNP/PPS), the SNP sub-mode is activated, while it is deactivated with the switch in the down position(ZPS).

Good to know that this is your interpretation as well :) . Simply because I read someone else claiming that . But I am not confident about that either - hence my "apparently" :) . It could be down to misinterpreting the function of the "SNP/PPS - ZPS" switch - i.e. as meaning to set SNP to operate in either "V"(using HPRF for forward hemisphere) mode or "D" (using MPRF for rear hemisphere) mode - i.e. "PPS" and "ZPS" respectively.

I was :) . In the real MiG-29, СНП is a sub-mode, that can be set for "V"("Encounter") and "D"("Pursuit") main operating modes. As far as I can tell, the toggle switch entitled; "SNP/PPS - ZPS" on the radar panel determines whether to activate it - i.e. in "SNP/PPS" position it is enabled, while in "ZPS" position its disabled. But I am still a little uncertain whether this is the correct interpretation. Apparently SNP sub-mode is not available in "AVT"("Automatic") mode. It could be that AVT itself is there to provide search with automatic alternation between HPRF/MPRF without the need to employ SNP. Still some research to do :)

Shouldn't that be; "no SNP in AVT"? :)

No idea, but it sounds like a conflict between missile orientation versus launch logic. Tomahawks are launched vertically on applicable ships in DCS, while Harpoons are launched from angled launchers, so if your launcher is set at an angle I could imagine it would cause a problem like that for the Tomahawks, but not for the Harpoons.

Well in regards to a tanker, it was [de].Impact who suggested that :) But both of those commercial vessels would be quite appropriate for the Hormuz map and they seem to be nice models, so thats a good idea :) . In regards to the Tarantul class - yes you could do that, but AFAIK the Iranian navy doesn't have any Tarantul class boats and the model you have(very nice btw) is even depicting the latest variant of the class, so I guess it depends on the level of realism you are going for - I still think the Alvand class would be a better option for an Iranian asset. BTW - what is your experience with polygon count of ships in DCS world? - do you optimise them before exporting to EDM?. I have 10 ship models from Hum3D that I am working on, but even in their original state(before my modifications) they seem far too "heavy" for DCS World - how big a count can the sim handle?.

Well I don't know - it does have C-802 missiles. Anyway, its the biggest surface combatant they got, so if you are looking for an Iranian vessel, its probably the most capable you can find :) . Besides, most navies wouldn't stand a chance against the full might of a US or Russian naval group.

The same site got this: https://hum3d.com/3d-models/alvand-class-frigate/ ...an old type, but still in active service with the Iranian navy.

It depends - in many cases the Kuznetsov just travels with a couple of escort ships + a submarine, but always with a replenishment ship. E.g. on its very first deployment to the Med(maiden voyage) in 1995, it was accompanied by: 434 "Besstrashny" - projekt 956A/Sovremenny class destroyer 702 "Pylkiy" - projekt 1135.2/Krivak I Mod class frigate K-119 "Voronezh" - projekt 949A/Oscar II class SSGN "Dnestr" - projekt 1559V/Boris Chilikin class tanker "Olekma" - projekt 6404/Olekma class tanker In more recent deployments it usually went with a couple of projekt 1155/Udaloy class large anti-submarine ships + submarine and again the same Boris Chilikin class oiler(now renamed "Sergei Osipov"). Large formations involving also the Slava class and especially the Kirov class are actually fairly rare seen only in large scale exercises and the one recent combat deployment to Syria. This is actually also the case with US aircraft carriers. Its a common misconception that these always travel with half a dozen or more escort ships. Amen to that :)

Well I would have to reserve the right to be sceptical about that :) - where did you find evidence of this?. As far as I can tell, that pretty much sums up the situation concerning the 60/60 variant(RVV-MD).

Well I believe that it is +/- 45 degrees lock limit(when the missile is sitting on its rail) and +/- 60 in flight, so I guess me calling it "gimbal limit" was a little off. Anyway, I suppose the lock limit is imposed to ensure that the missile actually has time to re-orient itself with the target after launch - i.e. you can imagine that if you lock the target at the seekers absolute gimbal limit, it may very easily "gimbal out" and loose the target. I doubt such a feature exists in RL.