Custard

Well this irrelevant, it was an example date in a hypothetical scenario. Rather silly for you to latch onto it. As are many systems in full DCS modules, so?

Of course, and I too enjoy stating the obvious on occasion. Though I challenge you to imagine the following situation. It is 2018 and the FC3 MiG-29A is complete, with it's PFM fully integrated & all cockpit issues ironed out. The FC3 aircraft already includes a simulation of all the 'sensitive' systems in the aircraft such as RWR, kinematic performance, and radar capabilities + (more or less) all radar operating modes. Though I suspect that the integration of the radar with GCI datalink would be an excluded system. Looking at the German & Russian manuals available, the only systems not modeled in a full FC3 MiG-29A would be mundane. The fuel pumps, hydraulics, back-up systems, engine relight, navigational aids & ILS are all very ordinary in the 29. I am under no delusions as to thinking that this thread will convince or even be noticed by ED. Nonetheless I feel compelled to publicly wonder what could possibly, logically be holding the Fulcrum-A back from being fully simulated. Though logical thinking is certainly not the strong suit of the Russian authorities I admit.

I honestly fail to see a legal reason for the MiG-29A to not become a full fidelity module. The full documentation is declassified by the Luftwaffe and spread all over the net & 90s western aviation journals. What's more, there are not really any complicated or sensitive systems on board save the usual IFF & ECCM systems are always abstracted in DCS anyway.

Apologies if this issue has already been raised and acknowledged, but it appears that in DCS 2.0 NTTR there is no street lighting baked into the night-time ground texture like there is in the Caucasus map. [ame]http://puu.sh/qwOGT/c28d30b390.webm[/ame] As can been seen in the linked video, recorded on the maximum object detail setting. The draw distance of the lighting is clearly insufficient. This makes flying at night a poor graphical experience and navigation artificially difficult, with the player unable to see towns clearly when he is at altitude. As can be seen in the below picture of Las Vegas seen from 30000ft, real pilots have no such issues visually identifying cities and towns.

True, the rockets are invisible in the pod.

Honestly, small impostors are pretty reasonable in my opinion. You certainly can't see them at long range but they do help spotting at WVR ranges.

To the caster, use Russian icons as you can see the direction of travel of planes in F10.

Probably tomorrow, assuming there is a patch this week.

This only happens to me when the gear are up, on the ground it works fine. Bizarre isn't it?

I don't think it was ever classified, so a freedom of information request is the best bet. Trouble is they don't actually have to bother fully disclosing the document in the US afaik.

Only way that's going to happen is if someone gets access to the AGM-65B manual supplemental via either an FoI request, finding an engineer who worked at Northrop in the mid 70s, or finding a Taiwanese fighter pilot with a scanner.

It is, look at the external stores knob and the new knob at the top right corner of the CRT for switching between Radar & AGM-65 display. Plus the green lights above the Maverick capable stations, presumably to indicate the AGM-65 being warmed up. This is the cockpit of a Taiwanese F-5E-3 btw, which received no domestic upgrades or avionics. Also note the new and more sensible position for the countermeasures controls.

Only Fc3 aircraft cannot hot-rearm.

No, it's an aircraft from 1972, even the upgraded version we're getting with an RWR and updated radar is only from the late 70s.

Try beginning of August at the earliest.

Wow, that's a fantastic tool there. Illustrates the necessary changes far more clearly than the walls of text that have been used previously.

Major problems: Dodgy flight model when the aircraft departs. Broken ASP, not working as it should and in some cases being more capable than it is IRL. RWR not working as it should. + plenty of other minor issues that can be found in other bugs subforum threads.

They've stated many times no, not in the foreseeable future. These things aren't as simple as they seem being the reasoning.

It has MERs

I never saw an issue with the Kh-66, it was carried and fired on many MiG-21s and the main reason it never saw service on the bis was that is was obsolete by 1972. However AMRAAMs & other such capabilities that never even made it into service are something else entirely.

The complete wrong approach by LN imo, the ASP is an abomination and the only unrealistic feature we get to turn off is the pipper tracking IR locked targets. The Kh-66 doesn't really bother me, as some MiGs could fire it. But no MiG-21s prior to the 21-93 were capable of CCIP. However this thread is about the F-5E, and I'm confident that BST are not the type of devs to compromise on the accuracy of their simulation.

No, and I'm not sure the MiG-21 should have it either.

It's more likely to get AGM-65 from what I've read BST devs saying on the forums. I wouldn't be surprised if it was easy to mod extra AIM-9s under the wings but afaik none of the original unupgraded F-5Es from the 1970s like this one carried 4 sidewinders.

Are there issues with these scripts in the latest patch? I can't get AI fighters to spawn, not even in Stonehouse's test mission.

It would be straight up making a whole new module at that point, since most of those modernized versions would require a whole new flight model and systems modeling. At that point why not make an F-16? Rather than an F-5 with F-16 avionics that would take just as long to develop.