TheFurNinja

It is still vitally important to practice jousting. Because there always will be times you cannot hide or take the "sneaky" route due to air defenses, EW/AWACS systems, or have been previously spotted. It will only become more important as missiles get their FMs fixed and the ranges (and thus kill ranges) extend. I dont need to be the person to tell you that in the modern environment there are not many places to hide and to boot if you are in enemy territory the ground is covered in air defense. You can only really ambush in your own airspace. But with everything there is a time and a place for every tactic. And this one calls for such guerilla tactics if possible. ANY 2:1 fight is likely to go bad for the latter force. So either fight 1:1, dont enagage, or work in your own airspace and ambush/split enemy assests

2v2 works fine imho, especially with ECM. But as Bimbac said you should bring friends, as really nobody should be putting themselves in a 2:1 fight voluntarily. I must commend you for your bravery though.

Ive found it turns really well around 800-1000kph, and this seems to match what I see in the E-M diagrams I find. I have never found an original E-M for the MiG though, so something could be wrong.

No the 190 is not the most inferior plane. The P-51, Bf109, and Fw190 are all a matter of preference. The 190 is my mainstay ww2 fighter, it handles great in all axis and leaves heavy handed planes like the Bf109 and P51 in the dust when it comes to defensive maneuvering. This comes from amazing control harmony and breakneck roll rate. To boot, the Jumo motor in the 190 is the most easy to use, durable, and reliable motor of the three birds. It often will eat up .50 calls and continue on flying, taking insane rev changes, and temperature extremes. Talking about reliability, the flaps and gear are electric and do not rely on hydraulics, often again still functional after a good burst from a mustang. The 109 gets good pilot armor, but has sensitive components. The visibility is unparalleled out of the 190 as well, making situational awareness much higher and also means you don't have to maneuver your blind spot around at all. Compare this to the near cagelike 109. Taxiing is easier due to an easy lock tailwheel (pull back to lock) and wide set landing gear. Again unlike it's thin wheelbased brother. But still it has its flaws, low speed or high AoA handling in pitch is tedious at best, the nose is huge (Its only taxi downside), and gyrosight is poor (I tend not to use it). But overall it's ergonomically based design trumps any 109 rocket ship imho. It really feels like a "pilots plane". If I could put all three planes into one word 190: ergonomics 109: power P-51: flexibility

I may not be correct on the procedure. But I do believe you "box up" one target with the TDC until a cross appears over it. From there you select a second target in the same fashion. From that point there will be a "T1 LA T2" displayed on the HUD. When both T1 and T2 are displayed that means you have launch authority on both targets.

Despite the nav panel not functioning. You can still navigate via HSI, HUD, and landmarks in conjunction with a (hopefully) good briefing. It is how I do it and its how I will continue to do it until they add in the NAV panel. Fly to any of the waypoints, remember the location of the waypoint by comparing briefing with landmarks and you now know which waypoint you are at. This is also assuming the waypoints were actually placed on top of good landmarks and not just over some random locale.

Some info from "Overscans guide to Russian Avionics" http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm Ctrl+F and search L005 to find it. "SPS-171 / L005S /Sorbtsiya-S works in the H/I band and consists of two pods installed on the wingtips of the Su-27, an interface with the mission computer, and a control panel in the cockpit. Each pod has phased-array antennas fore and aft. The middle section of the Sorbtsiya houses the receivers, emitters, and techniques generator. Among the jamming techniques employed by the system are noise jamming and terrain bouncing. The electronic phased-array antenna permits detection over a wide frequency range and the direction of more than ten jamming beams against air-to-air and surface-to-air threats. The installation of the pods on the wingtips has many advantages explained Boris Akinshin, deputy chief designer at KNIRTI. First, the wide space between each pod allows a better coverage of the environment around the aircraft and better signal localization. In addition, the design of the pod is such that it can listen to and jam a threat simultaneously. For instance, when entering a threat zone, the forward part of the right pod will listen, searching for a ground-to-air threat, while the forward part of the left pod will perform the jamming. Such a division of work can be achieved with the rear part of the pods as well. "

Thank you for clarification! All information is needed.

(blue is response)

Other things to add. A couple photos of translated panels from the English cockpit on the Su-27. This brings up some interesting questions and shows some lacking features. Forward ECM Panel Rear ECM Panel Of course some of these translations are rough, and takes further interpretation. But here is what I can piece together from these. Of course take my interpretation with a grain of salt, as I am no ECM expert, Su-27 Expert, and im also again working through a translation. Forward Likely a manual override/manual use panel, as the rear panel is the only one that mentions any automation. Most likely only uses brute force method. ECM is limited to either Forward or Rear Hemispheres, likely due to how the L005 operates Jamming light should also show here The "Modulation" switch is the only questionable item on this panel, I have no idea what it would do. Rear, working from left to right. Most likely the panel for automatic ECM use. RWS Panel on the far left, likely used to set the overarching radar type or altitude to active the ECM, thus telling the pods in which band or method to jam. "Detect" switch is probably used in conjunction with the RWS setting. So by flipping the "Detect" switch, the ECM will automatically jam when being painted by a radar (a fighter type in current setting). No idea how "Tone" could tie into this, but likely the ECM should make a sound to warn you that it is on. To be assumed the "Automatic" switch is used to activate the automatic features of the panel. "Illumin" likely works like "Detect" but as an additional switch for use only when locked (though its safe to assume both can be used at once for obvious reasons). ">3km/<3km" switch probably used as a modifier for the "Illumin" switch, telling it to only switch on above or below 3km (as you likely dont want to be using something like brute force method when attempting to use ground cover). "FWH/RWH" switch again, looks like a further modifier for "Illumin" Another switch that I am more shaky on is the "TGT/Auto" switch. This switch might be an overall modifier for the ECM system, telling the pods to ignore everything else (painting, locking, or not) but a target aircraft locked by the pilot. Overall missing things Automatic features Lacking the its characteristic of only being able to jam one hemisphere at a time. (This would be especially useful in multi ship engagements as it reduces friendly Jamming). Forward light Tone? Time limits to due to heat generation. So as an example, if we wanted to keep it simple for FC3 implementation (only a few switches, brute force only). This is for the L005, but may partially apply to the AN/ALQ-135 as well. Use normal ECM switch to activate automatic panel, use one modifier with E to change between "Detect only" and "Detect and Illumin", and another for manual activation of brute force. In automatic, the ECM should take an extra second or so additionally to change between threat types, altitude, and hemisphere (as to simulate the pilot having to manually change such switches). The pilot again may just override them with manual, or switch the panel off if it lags behind changing threats. In manual the pilot would have to define the hemispheres. Light should show in rear for automatic, and front for manual override. Perhaps both for manual override but more info is needed. A tone could be used to signal that the ECM is broadcasting, but what tone idk. I did the best I could. But overall it seems that the L005, false contact creating or not- is missing vital automatic features (something the AN/ALQ-135 is also missing). It doesnt need to be perfect or 100% simulated, but I feel we should go as far as we can guess logically. Having a proper ECM environment is key to a proper battlespace, thus is essential for a combat flight sim. Which is why many people are calling for a better implementation of ECM across the board.

It would be nice if certain recon vehicles had similar equipment to the JTAC binocs but with much better optics, it is of course limited to vehicles that had such equipment. This might add more depth to the recce vehicles. I feel like other than the obvious things previously discussed. I also think that we need some more battlespace things. Things like comms systems, GCI-AWACS-SAM interaction with both players and other units, infantry unloading/loading from trucks/IFVs/APCs/Aircraft/Boats. Things that add depth and allow things to flow more naturally would make it a much better experience.

Agreed, the only stipulation is that the MiG can only do such things close to base (due to payload and range). But that is okay because with base so close by, turnaround times at base are low and you can cycle in and out masses of MiGs in no time. All of this forms the "MiG Screen" that is constantly prodding at the enemy lines all the while providing security and superiority over friendly lines. All in all a very very strong strategy.

I beg to differ. The MiG is a great superiority fighter within the limits of its range. I call it "Frontline Superiority" as it really can only operate around its base or the FLOT. From there it really cannot go as an escort unless enemies are expected behind lines. The MiG-29A is more poor in this respect with its lacking BVR armament and electronics, so I would say the MiG-29A is mostly a "Point Intercept Fighter" while the MiG-29S is a combination of that and "Frontline Superiority". But despite what I personally say, all MiGs do interception best. Flying off of co-ordinated networks in likely low-hi-low attacks on enemy formations and with deadly efficiency using IRST and DL.

It is supposed to get a cool datalink called "Lazur" (or something close to that, varies), it uses ground radar stations (perhaps AWACS? Ive heard conflicting things) to show the locations of enemies and control some parts of the Radar. I hope it comes in when the MiG is finished. If it does, it will make the MiG scary dangerous as a short range interceptor.

MiG-31 or F-106 Both amazing interceptors for their era. The MiG-31 would be a great competitor to the F-14 in missile fights, and could datalink targets between eachother and other planes (IE Su-27). They would work like fast, armed AWACS aircraft. It also is multicrew. F-106 is another "Deltaceptor" from the 60s. Gets Nuclear Ordinance (Genie Rocket, shown below). Perhaps it gets a AWACS/GCI link, but I dont know much about the birds avionics.

To boot, the new netcode means that the warping (causing multiple broken locks and trashed missiles) has ceased almost entirely. This helps the planes that use SARH are going to get a much needed boost of Pk.

Ahh I forgot, I just remember they changed the spine for the ECM :D But now I have a question, I thought the 9.13 and the MiG-29S were the same? Isn't the 9.13 the Mikoyan designation of the aircraft? Of course it is likely a stripped export version, do they designate those differently?

MiG-29S has an enlarged "spine" where the internal ECM device is installed. The A is lacking this device and has no enlarged spine. The MiG-29G has the same airframe as the A, which means it should also get a nice upgrade soon. Here are a couple photos. MiG-29S MiG-29A/G

You got me that's for sure! Hit me up anytime on steam (name is "TheFurNinja" there too) whenever you guys are flying. I am always pumped for those old school gunfights!

Most airplanes have "reserve tanks" where they hold fuel for negative Gs (which is the likely cause here). The reason the Su-25 has less problems is that as a ground attacker it's engines both suck less fuel and have larger reserve tanks (as you have to press the nose over a lot while doing ground attack). Just be gentle on the stick with forward pressure and you will do fine. :smilewink:

:lol: Been waiting to use this gif! Welcome to DCS! You can hit me up anytime if you wanna fly. I would probably be best at teaching you the Russian planes, but I can also do (though a little rusty) the US planes from FC3 too. We can talk if you over steam if you want. My username is "TheFurNinja" there as well.

Might I ask why? (I do enjoy constructive criticism)

[DISCLAIMER: This is not a demand, this is simply an idea of mine to make use of a "underdog" aircraft and provide a more varied playerbase to DCS.] So, with the upcoming PFM and new 3d model for the MiG-29: It is progressively getting closer to a finished aircraft. This brought me to an idea. After the MiG-29 is finished and all, why not use the MiG-29A (and specifically the A model) as a free airplane for DCS? So lemme sell it to you For The New Guys 1.)This aircraft would be easier to fly than the Su-25T. It has superior Acceleration and Agility, allowing more room for error. 2.)Its multi-role, giving you a basic (but workable) Fighter/Bomber package. 3.)Its durable (besides the current SFM being crazy strong, will be fixed soon). The real MiG-29 is both durable structurally and systems wise, giving you redundant features like the HDD repeater. 4.)Gives you the ability to fight (while severely limited) against top of the line F-15s and Su-27s. 5.)It is used on both sides of DCS: Red and Blue. Allowing multiple nations on both sides to partake in the game. 6.)If using the radar, will not allow friendly fire (which is extremely embarrassing for a new pilot). For the Rest of Us 1.)Would stimulate a larger community into DCS (at the very least a little bit). This gives you a healthy boost of new and eager pilots that would populate our servers. This will give people already integrated into the community all sorts of benefits from more threats to engage/avoid to more recruits into their squadrons (not to mention new squadrons forming). All in all I feel the pros outweigh the few cons of perhaps friendly fire, Airport Accidents, etc (and really paid players are no better than free players in this regard, new is new). 2.)Though you can be engaged at the same ranges as a Su-27 with the MiG-29A. The MiG does not get any more than 2xBVR missiles, carries only about 15 flare and 30 chaff presses, no ECM, no R-77, worse sensors all around, no TWS-2, and a slightly worse AoA cap. It is worse in every way to its more popular MiG-29S sibling. This is nowhere near enough to maintain any level of superiority over anything but a smaller section of the battlefield. 3.)Has the MiGs short legs, you will likely see MiGs from the rear more than the front. Again unable to sustain air-superiority. 4.)If using radar, will not allow friendly fire (which is one of the most frustrating things for a vet). Why the MiG-29A? 1.)IRL has been widely produced/exported. A free airplane emulates this real-world popularity. 2.)The MiG-29A has been made redundant by the MiG-29S. If each MiG-29 was released as a separate module, nobody would buy the A. And if they were released in a pack the A would be overlooked anyways. 3.)The MiG-29G would be far too limited and frustrating to a new pilot. It only carries the early 1980s R-27R (cannot carry any E series or T series), R-73, and R-60s as A-A weapons. This would be awfully inferior against planes like the F-15 or really any other 4th Gen Fighter. Alternatives (with reasons against) 1.) Sell the lower end MiGs for a reduced price. This would add small paywall (relative to the other modules), but still a paywall. And paywalls will always reduce player count. (And as much as I would still like to see the MiG be free, I would be okay if ED decided reduced price was an option. All I am doing is stirring up public discussion and suggestions) 2.) Make the MiG-29G free (reason against listed above). TL: DR. The MiG-29A should be free or reduced in price due to its potential use as a "New Pilots Fighter", its flexibility in game, and its limited (but still workable) capabilities. [Reason for Re-Poll...] I realized that the poll I created before was way to polarized and very often votes for one or the other was swayed on small things like "It is not ready yet so I will vote no but I would be okay with the idea if the plane was ready". Mods, feel free to delete the older thread. So... What do you guys say? Shall we put this plane to use? We can debate why or why not below. Thank you for your time! :thumbup:

Everybody leaves out the Delta Dart :( "The American Mirage" A good interceptor that is of the same era of the MiG-21. Even comes with an internal bay and a nuclear A-A rocket! (muahahaha) :D Though I care less what I get, I love interceptors :thumbup:

It likely only looks like this for the GCI mode, switching to what we are more used to when you lock a target (moving to ATK).