TheFurNinja

What an amazing observation! I take it very well could be true, based on the GCI data link screen for the MiG (shown below). It shows the very same number on the bottom right.

You have found a jammer (or a few it seems)! What you are witnessing is your avionics interpretation of a jammer that is active. It cannot tell anything but a vector between you and the jammer and as such looks like a glitching line from the top to the bottom of the HUD (and a line between you and the target on the HDD).

While true that the MiG-29 gets a data link, it does not create a new screen on the HDD. Instead it is a special mode on the HUD (repeated in the HDD). Below is the GCI data link screen. From "http://aerospace.boopidoo.com/philez/Su-15TM%20PICTURES%20&%20DOCS/Overscan's%20guide%20to%20Russian%20Military%20Avionics.htm" "Encounter mode is the main search mode used in interception, as it gives the longest detection ranges and the least false returns. It uses a High PRF mode which can detect closing targets only in the velocity range of 230 - 2500km/h at altitudes from 30m to 23,000m. The display is calibrated to a maximum range of 150km. Target can be up to 10,000m above or 6,000m below the host aircraft's own altitude. A typical 3 sq m RCS fighter target can be detected at 50-70 km and tracked at 40-60 km. If the target is flying below 3,000m reduces the detection range to 40-70 km and tracking range to 30-60km. Two basic scan patterns are used. When the system is under direct GCI control via datalink, a 6 bar elevation raster scan is used. This scan covers a sector of 40° in azimuth at ranges up to 30km, 30° at ranges of 30-55 km, and 20° above 55km within the scan limits given above. The distance to target and other useful information is supplied by GCI command, and the direction of the scan is automatically cued by CGI command towards the desired target." It seems to work by using the LAZUR (Lazslo?) data-link to communicate to get cued on where to fly and where to turn your radar to find the target easiest. It looks like you follow the "GCI Control Mark" like NAV mode and proceed to turn the Radar system to where the target is as cued by the GCI. This is a mode I would love to see on the MiG-29 (and maybe the Su-27 if it came with it).

It seems that the Su-27 style HDD was not realistic. Every chance I see the MiG-29s HDD all I see is a Heads Down Repeater, no display like one on the Su-27. Here is some more footage from the PAF. 2:40, 3:07, and 5:08 shows the HDD as a repeater And some from a MiG-29UB, showing the HDR.

That looks like the old HDD display from a earlier patch. You can see this on other older Su-27 videos as well. If so that cockpit is from before they removed the "HDD Repeater Switch"

The first one is a MiG-29UB, which is a twin seat derivative of the MiG-29A. The Polish MiGs I do believe are MiG-29Gs bought from Germany, which are Warsaw Pact MiG-29As.

Well I do it all the time in game. Lock a target up with the radar and turn on "EORL". This allows me to maintain lock (assuming the IRST is tracking) though beaming and ground clutter (if chaff effected tracking I would assume it negates it). It also works it seems to work (with different symbology) in the vice versa ("EO" first and turn on the Radar second). Is this not supposed to happen?:huh:

You seem to assume that I don't understand the geometries at play. Despite my shaky grasp on these matters (and please I do wish to understand) I understand of course that if the chaff is behind, in front of, or anywhere near the target it will be illuminated (again a lock is a cone and has some play) and reflect signals to the host plane and missile. This could lead to a break of lock or the missile following a stronger return from chaff and missing the target plane. But I would imagine (unless I am mistaken) that a plane that turns away (from your perspective which means down, up, or to the sides) from his cloud of chaff, the cone (again assuming the lock hasn't been broken) will follow the aircraft and move away from the chaff. The time it takes to maneuver the cone away would come down to range and the angle of the cone. So a target going defensive would have to use chaff from angles that would keep it illuminated by the aggressors radar.

I get that it is not a "beam" and I never claimed it to be one. I stated that the target has maneuvered away from the chaff and the radar is not illuminating the chaff anymore, making it useless. IRST does not by itself guide radar missiles, again I stated (and maybe I'm bad at typing things) that the IRST works in conjunction with the radar and (as they are slaved together) negate any form of ECM (as IRST cannot be fooled by ECM, only IRCM). It would require a target to use both ECM and IRCM to fool both the IRST and Radar system on any aircraft fitted with both.

Actually, wouldn't you think that Actives are more susceptible to chaff by nature alone? If you shoot a basic actively guided missile at a target (with no filtration for chaff) you would think that if the target spammed chaff and made a hard turn that the missile might see the chaff as a target instead of the plane. While with a SARH missile system, if the target dumped chaff and made a hard turn (and lock wasn't broken already) that the signals would not be illuminating the chaff (thus the missile will not guide to the chaff) and as such the SARH at its core becomes more reliable. This could become more compounded as the Russian airplanes have an IRST. The IRST can be used in conjunction with the radar and negate any ECM (including chaff) used by the enemy as long as the IRST has a lock.

It's actually a really smart move. As in the rough tough conditions of the battlefield things can get hairy fast and nobody may have time or even the training to properly maintain the plane. This heavily influenced Russian design. You can see it reflected in many areas of Russian aircraft philosophy. Their idea of "Murphy's Law" combined with the fact that Russia might not reliably be able to upkeep their aircraft in a desperate and strained war against all of NATO. In these conditions Russia might not have time to train personnel well enough on a strategic level. On a tactical level it just might be too hectic on the front-lines to wait around and maintain the plane. The MiG-29 would likely be running short range CAP and Point-Intercept, landing and taking off constantly to meet a new threat. No time to give a few hours to check the plane, just go. And in the case of a break in the action: a plane as simple as the MiG would be quite easy to maintain and run diagnostics on. +1 this

Ive only seen the HDD function as a repeater in any footage I watch. Also I have seen the Su-27/33 HDD function as a repeater too. MiG-29 Trainer HDD. Look from 2:20 onwards. From the Polish AF. Look at 2:28

I would not quite put it up to that. But the MiG-29 was designed with the idea of that happening. Remember the MiG was meant for rough and tough conditions, so it cannot always be maintained properly. These conditions were heavily considered in design, the HDD is a redundancy for when the HUD fails.

So this makes me want to bring up my question again... 1.) How does the data-link and mid-course guidance work between the missiles and the aircraft? Can the AIM-7M and R-27R be continuously guided via datalink? 2.) If the above is true: Wouldn't you think that within a certain range the host aircraft would be communicating with the missile via D-L and that it would be much harder to confuse the missile (but you could still confuse the host radar)? 3.) From the above question spouts another question: If the above was true wouldn't the EOS system completely negate any sort of ECM as the host plane would be able to data-link the targets position regardless of countermeasures? I really wish I knew where to find more detailed information. :helpsmilie: Aside from my questions, its clear the chaff needs work in this game and I think that its long past due that we properly model chaff and its effects. Now don't get me wrong I'm not all pitch forks and torches about this, I know they are working on it. But I just cant help but feel uncomfortable when missiles get confused but radars don't by the hands of chaff. If I saw that my radar was getting caught up in chaff- I wouldn't launch (as I could see that the radar isn't tracking properly).

Ive been noticing things about the HUD too recently. Though these are not bugs but instead inconsistencies with RL MiG-29 HUDs. Examples can be seen in these video below. I tested in-game with the same aircraft as the one used in the video: The MiG-29A From 1:55 to 1:57 you can catch a glimpse of the vertical scan mode. Pause it and notice the differences between that and my screenshot shown below. You can see that not only is the HUD much more simple, but the bars seem to also be closer and take up more of the HUD vertically. And from 2:25 to 2:30 you see him locked with the gun activated. Aside from minor details, you can see the range indicator dividing between .8, .6, .4, and .2km with even the "bars" showing capable firing range. You can see the differences in my other screenshot below as well. As you can tell they do differ pretty noticeably from the real MiG-29. These are just a few of the many differences I have noticed between DCS's avionics and RL (really I should make a whole new thread dedicated to this). Now it does not hinder the pilot's ability to fly in game and functions very closely to the RL ones. I may overlook it but I cant help but feel things like this make flying the MiG feel less authentic IMHO.

The operational limit for G forces is around 9G's. It is to preserve the airplane's structure.

I must of missed it then, great to hear that they are gonna do a overhaul :thumbup:

I think instead of attempting a flame war I would want to ask: Why do you think it is biased? Personally I think that we have the resources to not assume so much about these missiles. These assumptions have been more work trying to work than what is is worth to go around and adapt it over just starting fresh with a more realistic foundation imho. I feel that it is time for a BVR overhaul, not just FMs, but from the radars to guidance I feel it needs to be looked over again and made to the highest standards (I mean it is one of the most integral parts of the game).

I would like to clear up what I meant by "see" would be a gross generalization for interpret. A radar interprets incoming data and calls it a target, the missile interprets incoming data from the radar and calculates a path, etc... But that clears up some of my questions. So just to verify, chaff confuses the host radar in-game? Because to me that is the biggest issue. I would feel more comfortable with missile behavior if things like that were modeled correctly. For me it (the R-27R and ER) just seems like right off the rail my missiles go for the first chaff but this shouldn't be the case until it switches over to SARH guidance from what I can tell. Now with a one-way data-link I can definitely see the issues around that and what I said about the integration of the EO sensors as a work-around to guide the missile. It would simply not work due to limitations. This still doesn't change the fact that it seems like these missiles are just going haywire midcourse just seconds off the rail. Is there a good place to get information for this? I wish I could know more :( Thanks for your answers guys. All I want is the truth and the best simulation for all of us.

So I want to check with you guys that im thinking correctly. So chaff is reflective, and therefore unless being illuminated by a radar that it is nothing but floating aluminum. The Su-27 uses its radar and for the first part of a R-27s flight it is in datalink and later switches to SARH when datalink cannot be held for any more range, right? So from that: As long as the Su-27 can properly track the target through the chaff and the missile shouldn't be confused unless its beyond datalink range. So theoretically with a hybrid style lock with both EO and Radar (because they are integrated and slaved together), you should be able to track a target through any amount of chaff (given a solid heat signature from the target). Making it extremely hard for any enemy aircraft to shake the missile until it was far enough from the launch platform for SARH. From what I read and remember this is the secret to the Su-27s BVR capabilities. I wanted to verify with some of you more experienced members who may have gotten into more detail than me about this aircraft. Is this correct? And if so is it modeled in game? Because from what I know, as long as I can maintain a lock the missile should follow my target regardless of chaff unless it was using its terminal SARH guidance.

I redid the first post, any other pro-"free the MiG-29A" like to add any of their points? As well as opponents, any more counter arguments? I really want to hear from both sides here.

This +1 I would like to see (or even better hear) crew call-outs over the radio (by text or audio). EX: "Contact at 3.5km bearing 053" (given by commander of your vehicle or from other vehicles that are tuned to the same radio station). "We are engaging the Enemy/We are under attack!" "Roger, moving to new location" "Copy that, holding position" "Got it, changing formation to xxxx" "Roger that, Weapons free/Holding Fire Until xxx" I find that the AI spots better than I do and I would like it if I could use their eyes. Having radio call-outs would increase a Tanker/Commander's awareness on the battlefield.

Judging by the MiG-21. I cant wait to land the F-104 (if that thing ever comes out). .___. (2nd generation aircraft weren't built for the pilot, just keep at it man)

Isnt the CDK coming out soon (or am I mistaken)? I think it would be great if players could also create maps using tools so that we can come out with nearly endless locations. This would let the devs do what they do while also letting players create scenarios in places they want. But I would think that a nice area would be cold war Germany (with the wall still intact). You could do plenty of "Interception" missions there where you escort Russian or NATO aircraft out of your borders. One day it goes hot and now WW3 is here.

Gosh this is a pain in a scramble when I'm fumbling for little switches but I'm "spawn drunk":lol: