Top Jockey

Preciselly, also being the missile mode pushbutton at the ACM panel in "NORM".

Already mentioned it here - personally I HATE subscriptions and the sorts. However I also understand your point, and thank you for calling things (subscriptions) as they are.

I believe not; it is already scanning by itself when in Boresight SCAN mode. The CAGE / SEAM button on the throttle, instead gives the lock command / function. AIM-9 modes: - Boresight; seeker fixed at ADL - Boresight SCAN; seeker scans about ADL - Slave SCAN (Radar or TV); seeker scans about sensor line of sight However, as the AIM-9 seeker scan pattern is not visible at the HUD, the 2 first modes do look very similar.

Probably was refering to some old time forgotten PM or something, no big deal. As on your previous post you said "it didn't exist", I thought you meant "didn't exist at all in any airframe". Even more so when @Naquaii mentioned: " Some of our documentation is quite old, detailing functionality that was later removed. " Not complaining at all (would buy the boxed Heatblur F-14 version if available), I see maybe I expressed myself wrong : I'm tired to know from the start, that our current version / specific airframe does not have this feature. Just manifesting a personal preference when this subject comes up; that it would be great if we could have an airframe / version where this feature eventually might have existed. As it would add more of the Tomcat's charisma - just like the early IRST that never was very good performance wise, for instance. And yes, I'll admit it might have come across with some insistence from my part.

The notion of money value, changes from one person to another, so the clearest answer to the bold, is: If you are an F-14 Tomcat enthusiast, you can be sure it is. Other than that, this is actually the most feature complete and realistic sim of this aircraft, currently available.

Yeah the devs already mentioned that (and much more) to me, when we've exchanged impressions on this subject. So thank you for pointing, but I know my place... and it could be useful reading what @Naquaii said at the link I posted above, post #14. Like the fact that, there were MANY different iterations of the F-14's avionics throughout its service life. ... I think you should know we are not talking about the "double D" pattern anymore, as the current F-14B version we have actually does feature an "epicyclic circle" scan pattern. So I'm not denying Victory's statements / expertise / credibility, I'm just stating that little details / differences like this, there are lots of them.

Long time don't see... you really pick your moments. However, I'm not so sure: - Fleet Defender featured it (I know it worths what its worth) ; - the VSL Lo and PAL modes, do feature a moving scan pattern diamond symbol visible at the HUD, so why completely reject that the AIM-9 seekerhead piper/cross eventually also have had this feature ? - in some of the many threads about this, @Naquaii doesn't see it as straight forward as you, post #14 : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4006557#post4006557

Yes, but nevertheless he is right... they took away my AIM-9's seekerhead moving scan pattern from the HUD. :mad: ... a long time ago, in sim called 'Fleet Defender' this very same feature (moving scan pattern) was visible at the HUD... (From 4:27 onward.) So I imagine that IRL, at some of the various Tomcat avionics iterations this feature existed, and later it eventually was removed. The same for the pattern geometry, initially it was the "double-D", and latter changed for an "epicyclic circle" type.

Months ago I tried it against the "Moskva" Cruiser (and other smaller combat vessels) just for fun, as it is an horribly ungrateful task for just one single F/A-18. - comming in VERY low above terrain & sea level - since the take-off, all the path until egress ; - first two sorties with AGM-88 HARM, to first try incapacitate the ship's radars... otherwise the Harpoons will have no chances ; - after that, return to base, re-arm with the Harpoon, but if I recall correctly, it takes a lot of them, and can't remember if I ever managed to sink it before I eventually got shot down. Also tried AGM-154 JSOW, but I believe they were also shot down against Moskva and Pyotr Velikiy... now against ships like "Grisha" and the likes, the JSOW obliterated them. But generally it is an interesting task for "educational" purposes in naval warfare.

Very good, the kind of detail that clarifies this. This answers point 2. at my post #31. Regarding point 1. do you think it also explains the little bit higher Gs achieved by the Su-27 ?

- Eitherway - I believe I've somewhat found why the MiG-29's performance does feel below my armchair enthusiast expectations, even with the PFM. I've compared (in game) the MiG-29A with Su-27's turn performance, in as "equivalent" as possible conditions: - 100 to 1000 ft above sea level; - 250 to 410 KIAS; - 2 x R-73 Archer; - 3500 lbs internal fuel for the Fulcrum - roughly 3 mins. full AB; - 5200 lbs internal fuel for the Flanker - roughly 3 mins. full AB. I've got the following impressions: 1 - at slow speeds (i.e. below 350 KIAS and lower), the Su-27 can achieve higher Gs than the MiG for the same speed - typically 0.5 G or more ; ... I guess I never saw that comming, either because of the Su-27's airframe / wing loading / T-W ratio / FCS / etc. but it does get a little bit more Gs. 2 - the Su-27 does maintain speed a little bit easier than the MiG while turning - this is why one feels it's easier to pursue an JF-17, F-15, whatever, in the Flanker... pulling the same in the MiG's stick, speed goes down and eventually so does the turn rate ; 3 - when the pilot releases the stick after a pitch up command, the MiG-29 soon after commands a nose down pitch input, which doesn't help when tracking the enemy. Everyone feel free to share your opinion.

@Harker, Thank you indeed for your time and effort in this matter. I have experimented roughly the same points you mentioned. (The reason why this always will be a complicated matter, is because of FM implementation particularities - other AC show somewhat easiness of maneuvering / superior performance in aspects where the MiG was supposed to excel, etc.) About finding yourself overspeeding when transitioning form the Hornet to the Fulcrum, why not pull more on the stick to avoid it ? On two circle fights, did you felt it took more time to get on the enemy's 6 o'clock in the Fulcrum, comparing with other types you've flown (excluding the F-16) ?

I believe I tried that (pitch dampener) also right in the first days the PFM came out (ALT + 9) if I recall correctly. But I've found it of little use as the pitch got somewhat uncontrolable, or at the least there wasn't a reasonable level of fine control. By the way, anyone knows if the Fulcrum or the Eagle, which of them does have the highest sustained turn rate ?

Sure, and from that point onwards it feels like an Hornet (obviously it also starts losing speed quicker and all that, but those are the dynamic compromises everyone knows while in BFM), thanks to the higher AoA flight. The point is, I feel that comparing with the F-15 ease when getting to the opponent's six and nose point ability, the Fulcrum doesn't feel all that much "superior" - instead it feels roughly similar and sometimes somewhat hindered. I believe this is probably also because of the things @Yo-Yo mentioned. I'll try to sumarize it: 1. Eitherway the Fulcrum doesn't feel as completely as "free" as the Eagle or the Hornet when moving its nose around ; (And maybe IRL it is supposed to be like this, not saying the contrary.) 2. Is the real life STR of the Eagle higher than the Fulcrum's, or is the other way around ?

Interesting indeed, because I believe IRL it is supposed do be like that. However at sim in the F-15: - it's true that when chasing the opponent through a curve at slow speeds, the Eagle starts to shake everywhere and will eventually stall; - but even so until he gets there, it seems to be able to point its nose to the opponent and/or get on his six, at the least as easily as the MiG-29... See, I always thought that for aircraft like the MiG-29 (and F-16, F/A-18, etc) that's one of the areas where it really excels...

Hello, Yes I do know every aircraft does get its own fame / reputation in a sense, which is a completely different thing from its practical IRL capabilities. However (for me since the 90's), the media / general consensus, always refered to jets like the MiG-29, F-16 and F/A-18 as "highly maneuverable" or something of that sort. (Let's face it - they were built with that purpose in mind, so one instinctively tends to put these in a class of their own.) And therefore regarding BFM, naturally they will be in a different category than let's say: F-4 Phantom, F-14, F-15, Tornado F3, MiG-23, JAS-37, etc. (Neither I'm I saying these perform the same between them, obviously.) So I don't expect the MiG-29 or the F-16 to be "vastly" superior to other types, but I expect them to be "somewhat" superior at the least. My interest in comparing the MiG-29 BFM performance characteristics, is certainly not for winning a war through 1v1 dogfights; it is purely by technicall curiosity perspective regarding the MiG-29 airframe / machine itself - just that. (In the exact same way for instance, that in F-14A Tomcat its AIM-9 employment modes / HUD symbology were also source of great curiosity to me.)

Yes I did, here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4131802#post4131802 The poor roll authority I fully understand and isn't an aspect which might "bother" me. But pitch authority and turn rates on the other hand... they tend to catch my attention easier. The STR I've always tried between the 360 - 390 kts roughly above sea level. I've flown almost everything against everything. At the link above I've flown against the AI's JF-17, the following types: Mirage 2000C, F/A-18C, MiG-29A, F-14B and F-15C. And amongst the several impressions I've mentioned at the first post, I got somewhat surprised for instance that, the BFM against the JF-17 seemed easier in th F-15 than in the MiG... Already understood like people told here, the AI isn't the best way to evaluate an airframe's capabilities, however if the AI's airframe is always the same - it becomes a "common denominator", when evaluating a human flown airframe (by me) against it... and here I felt the Fulcrum performed below my expectations.

@Low Blow, Thank you for the offer, one of these days maybe I'll accept it - in order to learn more about DACT with several airframes, amongst them the MiG-29. Believe it or not I never played any sim whatsoever multiplayer (neither aircraft, car racing, first person shooter), but if the online setup is easy I'm looking forward to give it a try soon. @zhukov, I fully understand you and even so I'm curious to see how the 80's Fulcrum we have fares against other types in DACT vs human player. @pepin, Yeah I've read that already here and there and I see your point. However I do not consider myself a facious blind fan of a given airframe. As I appreciate several airframes regardless of their origin, I really like the MiG-29 so I'll always be interested in its true dogfight performance - although I tought it would be close to the IRL with the PFM release, hence my doubts when I feel it shows difficulties in certain BFM aspect. Although nobody goes into detail of its perceived maneuverability handicaps in DCS, you confirmed so. I understand your disappointment. @Harlikwin, Sure, I'm thinking about trying the offer from @Low Blow soon. Anyone, who wants to share their opinion on the specific technical points (1 to 5) I mentioned regarding the BFM characteristics of the MiG-29, feel free to do so.

Well I understand that there are many biased members, for either blue or red, for an airframe or another, but that is to be expected - within the healthy opinions exchange. (I for myself also have my favorite airframes, for instance always found the Fulcrum much more interesting than the Eagle.) Even though I would like to know your technical opinions, on the stuff I posted about the Fulcrum if possible. Thank you.

Hello everyone, First, I'm not claiming the FM is wrong or whatever, neither I'm I asking to discuss against FM charts or diagrams. I'm also from LOMAC times, when the MiG's poor SFM was in use. These are just my personal impressions, as I'm trying to understand certain stuff about the Fulcrum's handling characteristics. I would appreciate your opinions, to better understand this aircraft in BFM - which is; how it does "turn", its BFM behavior. As to be honest, in some situations when dogfighting against other types in DCS, I really feel the MiG leaves something to be desired - taking into account its worldwide reputation as a lethal dogfighter. For starters, I got to know the MiG-29 from long ago from 1995 (as the main enemy's jet fighter in TOPGUN: Fire at Will!... so it was even before the Internet arrive at Portugal). It quickly became legendary thanks to its maneuverability, and a few years after with the Internet appearance, one got to know even more of its capabilities and virtues regarding aerial warfare, and its status grew even higher. So the thing is: throughout innumerous media sources the Fulcrum boasted the fame of being a super maneuverable, almost "diabolic" uber-machine; but in DCS when fighting other types... meh... I feel something's just missing. Getting to the point: Few days ago when the JF-17 came out, I've flown 5 different airframes DACT against it (JF-17 AI), and to my surprise, I felt that the MiG-29 was the one in which I got more difficulty to get on the AI's JF-17 six o'clock. (Roughly at sea level; 2 A-A missiles and 60 % internal fuel for both aircraft - I felt it had the worst performance of the 5 aircraft. When lowering the internal fuel to 3500 lbs to both AC things got much easier, but even though the MiG didn't impress much.) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257291 To be honest, although with different types of FCS I was always expected the Fulcrum to be something roughly similar to the F/A-18C in terms of low speed handling... but in reality it ain't so. 1 - maybe the because the Hornet allows high AoA just by continuously pulling on the stick, while on the MiG if one forgets to press the paddle switch, the nose will briefly stop tracking as it hits 26 AoA; ...but even whit paddle switch pressed it does feel somewhat stuck; as it doesn't move its nose with the same ease / authority as the Hornet; 2 - also was expecting to feel an higher sustained turn rate, but even the Su-27 seems to have an higher STR - is this true ? 3 - also felt that it was easier to get on the JF-17's six, flying in the F-15 than in the MiG - how come ? Does the F-15 have a better STR, better at maintaining energy while turning ? 4 - when chasing the JF-17, the MiG does seem to lose energy almost as quickly as the Mirage, when the Hornet does keep it easier - is it because of the Fulcrum's relaxed stability design ? 5 - can't say for sure, but generally it feels somewhat a little hindered when turning, comparing to other supposedly less maneuverable fighters, as the F-14 and the F-15, probably I was expecting its turn radius to be smaller ? So MiG-29 fans or otherwise, feel free to tell me what I'm not getting right about the mighty Fulcrum.

I've read this thread from the first page to here, and still have one doubt: As it seems that IRL the F-16 does have an higher sustained turn rate than the Hornet, why I have I read (link below posts #31 and #32) that the devs seem to consider the current F-16 flight model corresct ? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257691&page=4

Yeah, I know this really is more of a specific technical comparison between dissimilar aircraft type. But my curiosity is essentialy to ascertain which fighter has best / better BFM capabilities in a pure machine vs machine comparison. The fuel mass / aircraft mass, also does make sense. Although I'm not thinking in therms of range, but in therms of pure physics capability analysis of both fighters, which is in internal fuel: - 50 % fuel for both an F-14 and an JF-17 (F-16, MiG, whatever): Would be a disadvantageous comparison for the F-14, as it would represent a lot of weight in internal fuel in aircraft that is already much heavier than a JF-17. - some 3500 lbs (for instance) of fuel for both: Would be a disadvantageous comparison for the JF-17, as for this one this would be roughly 70 % of its internal capacity, whereas for the F-14 it would be roughly 22 % - therefore not hindering its BFM performance so much as for the JF-17. So I've guessed: would it be more equitable instead, to give (for instance) the fuel for 5 minutes in full afterburner for both aircraft ?

Great to see the legacy versions live on. In my case it was Flanker 2.0 the first contact with ED sims.

By the way, one doubt for whoever wants to share their opinion on BFM performance. Which would be the most "equitable" way of comparing BFM performance between 2 different aircraft - regarding internal fuel: - giving both the same percentage ( % ) of fuel - which can greatly differ the fuel quantity from aircraft to aircraft; - or the exact same fuel quantity ( lbs ) for both ? Example: - giving both a MiG-29 and JF-17, 50% internal fuel, one will feel increased difficulty while BFM in the MiG; - giving both of them some (for instance) 3500 lbs of fuel, one will notice easier BFM in the MiG. Essentialy it's the question I've posted at port #7 htread below. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257423

Its funny you mention that, as I've recalled in another thread that the JF-17's AI performance in BFM (nimble turns; very good sustained turn rate; high energy levels also in vertical, etc) do remind me the Gripen AI aircraft from another old sim. Regarding BFM I've tried several aircraft against the JF-17 AI, in the link below. My doubt persist however; which would be the most "equitable" way of comparing BFM performance between 2 different aircraft: - giving both the same percentage ( % ) of fuel - which can greatly differ the fuel quantity from aircraft to aircraft; - or the exact same fuel quantity ( lbs ) for both ? Example: - giving both a MiG-29 and JF-17, 50% internal fuel, one will feel increased difficulty while BFM in the MiG; - giving both of them some (for instance) 3500 lbs of fuel, one will notice easier BFM in the MiG. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257291