Top Jockey

Same problem here after the last open beta patch : - the nose strut seems to stay on top of the catapult shuttle, and not in the arc in front of it... always ; - when saluting, it doen't launch. edit Yep, pressed " U " and aircraft exploded on catapult.

Same here with the F-14 vs AI in single player, with last open beta patch, which causes my pilot's kills not being logged.

Yeah they maintained a somewhat vague information regarding a release date. Thank you for your time Sirius! :thumbup:

Hello everyone, Not intending to open one more repeated thread, I'll use this one to ask: Is there any forecast / estimate for the F-14A release ? Thank you.

You're right Hummingbird, but just let it go. Those enraged posts / bad education speech were red flags right from the start, and eventually the moderators will deal with it.

Ironhand and everyone, you have done a lot and cleared my doubts - thank you for your time and effort. Yes I suppose it can, as in the mission I posted, I had difficult to keep at his 6, because in no time my MiG-29 was always loosing energy. (But as we all know, I can not directly compare the MiG-29 vs JF-17 performances, as the last was flown by the AI.) This really was the center of the matter, and during my experiments it was that what I perceived - in the Su-27 I felt that when pulling on the stick, one could "sling" its nose up in a more unrestricted way than in the MiG. And also, the Su-27 doesn't seem to bleed speed as quickly as the MiG in similar circumstances. (Because of the reasons @bies mentioned at post #33.) Thank you for the numbers - indeed they are close to others I've read throught the web on some instances. The Instantaneous Turn Rate numbers, show a clear superiority of the Flanker on those circumstances. Regarding the MiG-29's ITR, did you use the paddle switch when attaining those 25º/sec ? So in therms of turning capabilities, this pretty much sums it up for me, and explains why it felt easier to turn "at will" and also maintain energy easier in the Su-27. On the JF-17, don't bother because of me, as it wasn't the focus of my performance evaluation, but merelly a comparison reference to evaluate the MiG against others.

1. Ok certainly I was going into blackout "earlier" ! My flights are being done with very low fuel quantities and at low altitudes. Now that I've look closer - very similar conditions like in @captain_dalan's second vídeo. So naturally I'am attaining higher Gs, right from speeds well below 400 KIAS. 2. I do leave 2 mission files here for anyone which might be interested to try what I've been talking about all this time. They represent my "experiment" comparing the MiG-29 vs Su-27 ACM performance against (for instance) the AI's JF-17. Bear in mind that: The fuel quantities I've chosen, try to give both aircraft flown by me, the MiG and the Su-27 "similar conditions": - 3500 lbs and 5200 lbs internal fuel respectivelly, give each of them roughly 3 - 4mins. full AB. - the fuel quantity flown by the AI's JF-17, is roughly 3000 lbs (60 % of its capacity), as the AI already maneuvers very "expertly" as you all correctly point out. So I would appreciate if anyone could fly those 2 missions: - right at the merge, proceed to a 2 circle fight against the AI enemy; - getting on the AI's 6 o'clock, without shooting I'm down; - stay there as long as you can and watch your speed when you keep turning either in the MiG and in the Su-27, trying to maintain a guns solution if you want. What I would appreciate if you could tell me is (amongst several things): At those missions conditions, does or does not, the Fulcrum bleeds energy easier than the Flanker while pursuing the AI's aircraft ? Thank you. MiG-29A vs JF-17 MERGE.miz Su-27 vs JF-17 MERGE.miz

Thanks everyone of you guys, who have had the time (and patience), to look at this. I'll have to look at things closer, to see if in some way it's me who isn't getting all of the maneuvering performance from the MiG. I knew maybe there was something wrong (that I'm not doing right) on my end: How can you maintain a sustained turn at 420 KIAS without the pilot go into blackout ? Every fighter I fly the pilot goes into blackout above 390 KIAS, (or below) in a sustained turn, max afterburner !!

Obviously I wouldn't classify either 1 or 2 as the "definite better dogfighter". Although my favorite performance aspects are those of the airplane 1, airplane 2 also have its strong points, like the better relative T-W ratio, which could provide it better performance in the vertical fight. How can you agree or disagree, if you didn't try those circumstances I mentioned yet ? (For instance, both the MiG and the Su-27, with fuel quantity for aprox. 3 - 4 minutes full afterburner.) In the bold, I wouldn't say I put too much value in certain maneuvering properties; but that some do spike my curiosity / interest more than other. From a curiosity (and leisure) point of view most of the times I tend to fight 2 circle fights; on the horizontal plane and sometimes in the vertical when the enemy goes there. ... and in those circumstances, I repeatedly felt it is easier to maintain the 6 o'clock position on the enemy AI flying the Su-27, than flying the MiG-29. Also did some solo flights and got the impression, that for same circumstances the Su-27 can maintain roughly 0.5 more Gs than the MiG. I really don't have anymore ways of saying it.

Yep, it goes in line with what @bies says below :

Haahaa! No, you aren't annoying me the least. :lol: This is just personal curiosity, of the real capabilities of the MiG-29 in the real life. Since the 90's popular media / news / etc, contributed to create some legendary status around it. And when one is starting (at that time) in combat flight sims, this kind of stuff caught my attention. (Same for the Tomcat, but for different reasons.) Although its combat record never was impressive, in therms of dogfighting abilities it was much more praised / renown / famous than F-15s, Su-27s and the such. ... and all that made me look at the Fulcrum as the Russian "yardstick" regarding pure turning capabilities, well it seems it might be the Flanker instead afterall. Hence, the reason for my surprise with its relative subpar performance - particularly when compared with a much bigger and heavier aircraft like the Su-27. But @bies already provided some reasons for this back there.

Ok, then you can change the AI's JF-17 for an F-16 and you can see the same results for yourself : - flying BFM against it, will feel harder in the MiG-29 than in an Su-27... pratically in the whole spectre os aspects you mention at your point 3. ( And as I already mentioned, the whole point of this is that, I was expecting it to be the contrary IRL. ) I've looked at the F-5 when it came out, but it isn't my type of jet fighter: - almost no HUD symbology whatsoever, merelly a computed gunsight; not interesting enough for me; - I'm obviously aware that F-4 Phantom II HUD's also were the same, but on the otherside the Phantom is generally a more powerful aircraft; - slow top speed, etc. I fully understand the utopic character of the question. As like you detailed the intricacies of ACM / BFM are not necessarily 100 % unchanging rules and concepts, but instead a dynamic and fluid set of processes where the best characteristics of every airframe should be used to their advantage. But... bear in mind that all the airframe characteristics / processes you highly detail in point 3. will by last end in effective performance differences when doing DACM... and here the Su-27 seems to atain / maintain its 6 o'clock position on the enemy easier than the MiG. Which is, I feel the majority of the characteristics you mentioned at point 3. seem to be more on the side of the Su-27 than in the MiG-29...

Sure but if the AI jet is always the same that problem doesn't exist. Then for my purposes it suits well. (See the IronHand citation at my post above.) How did you miss them - they are right at my signature. ... my New Year's Eve also went great yesterday night. :lol: (just kidding) That's what I've been talking about - and it is where it shows that, IRL the Fulcrum might not be that "extreme uber-dogfighting machine" I always was convinced of. Can you elaborate on the bold ?

Finally someone understood my point !!!

(I'm not looking for "the fighter in which it is easier to win".) What I meant when I said "I felt it was easier to win against AI's JF-17 when flying in fighter X instead of fighter Y", is: - in the Su-27 and the F-15 I felt it's easier to maintain energy / speed when pulling Gs, than in the MiG-29 ; - even the F-15 felt "easier" to employ higher pitch rates and nose pointing authority; - also, in the vertical it is easier to stay at the AI's JF-17 tail in the Su-27 or F-15 withouth loosing too much energy, than in the MiG. But answering your question, my experiments do focus more in sustained turning fights. No, not "bothered" with that. I've been playing combat flight sims since the early 90's, and yet only in the last few years I've started to learn crucial stuf about ACM / BFM. I'll admit its purely the laziness / unfamiliarity on how to log into a server, that kind of stuff.

Only against AI so far, as I'm yet to learn how to go in a server or whichever and fly against other people... call it lazy. Actually the comparisons are relevant, you misunderstood my point: - I'm NOT comparing the MiG-29 (or anyother aircraft) against the AI ; - I'm comparing the MiG-29 performance against the Su-27 and others, all flown by me each in turn against a "common denominator" that always behaves roughly the same, which in this case is the same given AI's aircraft. I mentioned this at the first post.

Thank you for your work !

Hello, Ok but in that case, how come it is (a perceptible little bit at the least) easier to win turning fights / general ACM in the Su-27 than in the MiG, in the aspects I mentioned earlier ? I mean, the characteristics @bies mentioned do explain a lot of stuff. Regarding ITR, STR, pitch rate, nose pointing authority at low speeds, etc. I don't see the MiG-29 prevailing on the Su-27, maybe I'm missing something here.

Thank you guys for your insight, I'll look into it with more attention (and time).

...still making confusion, between some concepts regarding TWS. - There's LNS and DT2 modes, which I don't understand what DT2 is; - and besides the nose wheel steering / undesignate command (which cicles throught targets), the cage/uncage button also effects changes in a fashion I can't quite understand yet.

Of what I recall from another F-16 sim, regarding AIM-9 seekerhead modes and functions, there's: 1. Boresight mode: - Caged; - Uncaged; 2. Radar Slave mode: - Caged; - Uncaged; Meaning, in point 2. the AIM-9 seekerhead should be able to be slaved to the radar when that mode is selected at the SMS page, regardless of if the seekerhead is caged or uncaged. Which I'm guessing, prior to last DCS update, it was only possible if selecting the "uncage" function. Regarding the uncage function: - the objective of the uncaging is, that the AIM-9 seekerhead could follow the target by itself; - if one loses Radar lock on the target before the AIM-9 seekerhead is uncaged, so will the AIM-9 lose its lock on target.

Hello, Thank you for these!

If I recall correctly in DCS, the AIM-9 in the F-15 always took a little bit more time to launch when given release command, or needs more button press time, than the F-14 or F/A-18C for instance. Don't know if it's supposed to be like that IRL though.

Hello eveyone, Besides the tutorial videos, is there an updated section about the TWS procedures at the manual, or at Chucks manual ? Thank you.

Hello Max, Interesting question (one of many in the ACM world). But I'm sure you can find a lot of the already existing threads about this, here at the forum.