Vatikus

Correct of course. I listed _dual pulsed_ motors and not multi stage ones as what OP was describing falls in that catagory. :)

Most 'famous' are ASRAAM, Derby ER and PL15, PAC3 MSE... in works are MICA NG, Astra 2, etc.

1/ it is simple pragmatic choice. why waste loadout station for a weapon which has little to no use for 99.99% of a time. It is the same reason why passenger planes do not have ejection seats... 2/ there are already such a2a missiles which can fire 2nd stage at terminal intercept. Why was that not used much in the past is related to the sensor tech which did not even allow for rangers where such config would had mattered.

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_pdf.cfm?DACH_RECNO=391 66V2 is comparable to 68V5 (also close enough with my previous link in post above)... it states look up and look down ranges for fighter size target.. this is without getting into "sensitive" info :)

There is no (V)5, but one can calculate (V)9 which is better performer: https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte024.en.html

It would been great if mission designer could along SATNAV option have chance to enable or disable also p2p datalink and hmd. This way, creating missions which quasi simulate earlier blocks/years could been possible.

190a8 w/o pylon, 4300kg 2300/1.2 2400/1.32 2700/1.42 760mmHg 15°C no wind or turbulences air star at 200, 1200, 2200, 3200, 4200, 5200, 6200, 7200m you can do it yourself if you do not believe... the real data is on page 1 and 2.. compare with your findings...

Will be voice commands interface simulated?

speed, check the graphs on 2nd page for example...

I rerun the test and it shows that there was ZERO improvement done on making engine curve closer to test documents as shown on page 1&2. Quite a shame when this module is now considered released. :/

Did anyone test yet if anything was improved with the release of A8?

I've made a little font mod regarding slashed 0 which was really a pain to diff vs 8 in VR... Hopefully it will be of help to some... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3308322/

Not true... PN is used only in SAHR mode, while in INS/RC it uses PG as does aim120, etc.

<64C>Vati Mig15

Since I am having problems with connection timeouts in DCS lately, I dearly miss monitor feature wrt network connection quality. As of now, we can only see ping time which doesnt tell anything except latency... It could be simply addition to the fps/perf monitor toggle we have now and it would help us troubleshoot the MP experience...

Correct. During INS/RC phase homing head is a basis of spatial reference and is not used for SAHR..

It is quite an interesting system actually, INS uses homing head gimbal itself and not separate unit to get gyro readings for the autopilot...

<64C>Vati ... F5

Real is as is now. One simply should not hesitate in NORM position.

@2:30 @7:44 It shows clearly that dynamic aiming cross is NOT in world coordinates. So both, F16 and F18 in DCS have this logic wrong.

This is wrong. Simple as that. Dynamic aiming cross is designed to help under high G look up conditions and it should thus work in reference to a/c and not earth horizon.

hazzer, I have reported this few times over the years, even pointed out the exact solution, but last time ED told me, that they are not interested in spending time fixing this as it good enough for the small % that form DCS userbase. In the end I was thus forced to code my own vjoy proxy driver over the weekend to fix what should not be the case in the first place...

bump.. since it is ignored

that is not the case as seen in track... (also tracks are build instantly that one is prolly WIP)? tws18.trk