Vatikus

I am using G940 and currently there is no increase in stick force when F18 is reaching and passing 22deg AOA. I've attached references.

The sole reason I never do ww2 in dcs mp anymore is that where the numbers are it is normandy and ww2 asset pack. I have no plans to buy these. And I am sure there are others like me who do not see the return value in this. Free map & staying with most popular dcs version (OB or R) is a good alternative to get more in.

Not being english native speaker, I would like to understand what does it mean "geared for". Is this for past, current or future ED's definition? The reason I ask is that FC in circles of DCS users I interact with, FC was never perceived as an entry step, but just as a legacy which would slowly be upgraded to FF modules and 2nd, the only way to fly these planes. If there was a FF, none would buy FC version. By saying that, I see the current FC userbase as not some monolitic "entry level fan base" but a very foggy cloud without clear definition as FC planes have no alternative to help making it less foggy. This thread confirms that nicely.

+1.. this was the sole reason for me... and to expand, I had a great dissapointment when I realised that mig29 was in FC2 state...

To get greenlight IC, the cockpit needs to be in Saved Games/Liveries/Cockpit_MiG-29A/<new name> (same for S version..). I use it as such, and it passes IC ok.

I was not satisfied with what is available on the net, so I made my own.... I have attached clean canopy mod... I've tried to keep the spirit of the original. Extract zip into your Saved Games/DCS/Liveries folder and then in setup under special folder select CleanCanopy Hopefully somone will find this useful.

Since by Chizh's words, the FM is half done ( https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3495886&postcount=883 ), we can hope for some progress on more 29's fronts this year ... JunMcKill, while we are awaiting for fixes, I suggest you to download some of the user texture fixes regarding RWR. Not the prettiest solution, but the sole one for now :/ To add to that list, I hope that someday we will get also a functional chaff/flare counter which is not just a static number on the texture ...

Let him try first deleting the compiled shaders from the saved games DCS folder.. that helped me in previous update when I was hitting shader compiler error

Which grfx card do you have?

AI - Airborne Interception radar... which means radar role is air-air (fighter)

https://theaviationist.com/?p=55011

The easiest way to get more info on the K bases is to search for each one... there is quite some material available on the net. For example.. on this website you can get aerial clips of quite some number of them. Good luck.

As GGTharos mentioned it depends on speed of the target... for typical fighter target this is indeed around 80deg. Here is picture from manual regarding where can one expect notch

No, I am using mig29 manual of yuaf. But cross-referencing with russian one it has same data, however it is written in different didactic. Since the given radars are pretty much the same family, there should not be that much difference and the limits pretty much confirm that. So there is section of given speeds of detecting and autotracking, which correspond to the ones you wrote (> 150km/h). Then there is a section of detection and locking which state the given speeds I've wrote. The formula of the closure limit is defined by: Vtarget * cos(TA) > Vmin.closure ... which coresponds to the next page in su27 manual you made the citation from - 70/80deg TA - target entering the notch.

=37.Sqn= vabi v svoje vrste nove timske igralce! Če želiš leteti v organizirani eskadrilji, se izpopolnjevati, in se ob enem imeti še peklensko dobro, potem se nam pridruži kadarkoli ob večernem letenju na naš Discord kanal Prednosti =37.Sqn= so v: Letenje kot ti dopušča čas Druženje v domačem jeziku in meme šale Jedro kadra sestavljeno iz prekajenih veteranov na combat flight sim sceni Lasten dedicated server 24/7 Udeležitev v eventih tipa Red Flag, itd. Letenje v vseh combat flight simih Se vidimo!

In Mig29 manual... one can read that rule of thumb is to keep minimal closure rate of 150km/h for target > 15km and for targets < 15km 50km/h, to minimize chance of losing the lock.

You wrote speeds for autotracking in SNP. The minimal closure speed for locking target is 60km/h or 50km/h if target is making 180 turn (front to rear hem.).

As you well know, statistics is always a complicated topic :) If my mind is not cheating on me, I think Russian scored 2 kills with R24R over the border into Pakistan. How many did they fired w/o success, etc. or what is actual tailly, that is hard to get any data on. Well if you could find the reference that would be nice. However we must not forget that R and ER versions were planned from start. ER did not happen because of poor performance of R. The whole point of R27 was to have modular design. The shorter ranged R is tactically analogues to R3R and it was never meant for BVR exchange.

Esac_mirmidon, I think he means the insta explosion which can happen... but it's the result of using old FM as it does not have proper ground modelling. This should go away once Mig29 is upgraded to at least the rest of FC3 planes...

SinusoidDelta, after I reread what I wrote, I see I've missed "also" (ups) in my sentance... thank you for writing your explanation, making it more clear for everyone.

Actually it is more maneuverable and less draggy at high speed ;) Indeed :) ... If we look at the russian SAHR missiles, with R23 introduction it was in front of AIM7E (Russians got AIM7E and made a copy - R25 which did not perform as well as R23 which used monopulse homing head) and when 7F came out, R24 INS link was answer to the range increase. With introduction of 7M the US was again on pair. Basing on this history, it's only logical that R27 would not be a step backwards ... and we must also not forget that R27 now is not the same as R27 in pre '90s as well... if Russian could make R24, R73... it is a naive to think that R27 is a flop :)

DArt, that is great to hear! Many moons ago I did my service on GCI, and I have quite good material on "eastern way" of doing this if you are interested ... anyways... I am sold, thx for answers! :)

I am considering buying lotatc, however I would like to know what AWACS/GCI functions does it have... especially if: - TA and AO data shows when you pair two contacts with BR line - Does it enable setting custom length of velocity vector for the pair (i.e. 7min) - Does it simulate MTI in a sense, that if contact drops into shadow that it can extrapolate and indicate Memory target If none of this is available, would it be considered for the future updates? thx

Very nice work Alfa! I've only seen 311 cockpit and not 312, so this is a nice moment to see the difference... F18 looks very well polished... few proportion/etc. problems (might be because I am 29 fan as well :D ) with Mig29 but I know it is a WIP so hats off, you are on great path... I look forward to see more :)

this just does not make sense in the given case... I am all for the option of "wornout" and "new" cockpit as I can see it adding the value for the immersion. However as it is now, I am forced to use user mods (most MP mig21 users have done it till date). What is more, this is the only plane in DCS in which user fights with deconflicting canopy dirt and the environment. Bottom line is that there is fault in logic... if it would hold, I should been flying WW2 DCS plane in a rotten state. ;)