CrazyGman

Listen guys hears the rub, the BFM performance difference between The F-4 and the other cold war jets is pretty marginal. To the extent that if you get caught out with more fuel the other jets are likely going to have a small advantage. Stop thinking that there is a silver bullet for winning in the F-4, there isn't. You set up engagements in your favor or you disengage. You manage your energy and you capitalize on opportunities and avoid making mistakes, and you practice, and you practice. I've flown pretty much all the cold war jets in game including the F-4 and played them in PVP and I normally win my engagement regardless of which airframe i'm in and regardless of which other cold war jet i'm fighting, i've out rated every cold war jet playing as every other cold war jet, because the simple matter is keeping consistant rate while maintaining eyes on an enemy is hard, and even if you have a marginal advantage in turn rate the most likely scenario is someone runs out of gas first

Trying to get nose aspect using flood mode to work I came across this odd behavior which doesn't make sense to me. If in the parameters shown in the video at low alt with a high speed closing target I keep the aspect knob set on nose the aim-7 won't track anywhere inside 4nm. If i run the scenario again this time in fwd aspect mode the aim-7 still won't track. However if i run it again but this time once they are within 4nm I quickly switch from nose to fwd aspect and then fire withen 2-3 seconds, the missile will always track, and also if I switch from fwd to nose and fire within 2-3 seconds the missile will always track. I'm not sure if this is a bug but i don't understand why the missile won't track in one mode or the other, but will right after the mode has been switched within a few seconds

A 100% this. Don't think of it as specific manuvers. Think of it as what is my vector speed and energy, and what is my oppenents vectory speed and energy, anticipate and learn what they can do, and what their current manuvers are doing to affect the states mentioned above. This only really can happen with lots and lots of practice. One of the best suggestions I have is get comfortable having your oppenent not be directly in the front glass. When they are right in front of you with you behnd them it's because you have now outflown them, and can employ weapons, but to get into that position you likely had to keep tally on them generally 45 degress off the centerline to set it up. Most people scramble to get their oppenent center hud as quick as possible and mess up thier vectors and therefore kill their speed and energy in the process. It like auto racing. Go slow...to go Fast. Speed is life, but it will often give you enough rope to hang yourself with as well in a dogfight...so really it should be "managing your speed" is life

So I'm not sure if this is the case with all the current aim-9s, but right now in the Mirage F1 if you take off cold or with a new rearm, ever since the Wednesday update on April 10th the AIM-9B will have no standby growl sound when you select them or go into close combat mode. however the growl does come back on as soon as the missiles detect a heat source, and then the standby low growl tone comes back, and stays on like it should.

I'm surprised the heating standby mode of the 3 way radar energized switch is still bugged and not fixed as this has been a day one problem since early access started. In it's current state with the radar in this mode targets can be detected and seen on the radar screen, and locked (although no icon shows on the hud, and no weapons can be guided) and the detected planes own RWR i believe cannot detect the the F1 radar emissions (because in this mode there are no emission) yet as mentioned there are contact returns from these "non-emissions" visible on the screen that can then be locked. I get that we've all become used to it, but I don't think we need to wait for the complete radar overhaul to have had this long persisting bug fixed by now.

Yeah I did, you still have over 50 seconds of fuel with full burner even with the startup and full loadout. Once you finish the climb the acceleration to supersonic is less then 10 seconds. By that intercept profile you still have around 400 liters of fuel in the tank by the time you hit supersonic at 10 km altitude But you won't pass mach 1.4 before the tank is empty. also above 30,000 feet the might be problems with the fuel flow from the centerline tank, as is stated in the german manual.

Hardly...i tested it in game, max burner all the way struggling to keep it below 0.9 even in the climb to 30,000 feet, it still has a full minute worth of fuel in the centerline tank at full burner. It doesn't run out till i'm 40km away from my starting position at full burner the whole time with the climb to 30,000. Again based on it's role, and compared to the limits of the MiG-21, and the other fighters before it, it seems at odds with the rapid response point defence interceptor.

So which is it then? Do we have conflicting information, or is something being misread. I'm inclined more that the 1.5 is more accurate, as fast interception is kinda the MiG-29s thing, and the MiG-21 didn'f have a speed restruction below mach 1 for it's external tanks, and i'm pretty sure neither did the MiG-23. For the external wing tanks I can see it, because those came after the initial design.

Makes sense with the wing tanks that were a later addition. Not that i plan to use the gun with the tank attached, but why is the gun restricted, and why does a hole matter?

Yeah I was a bit dubious of this source, but I'm wondering where they got that number from

I've read from a source that the MiG-29 with the centerline external tank is limited to mach 0.9 while the external tank is attached, can anyone confirm this?

It would depend if they are doing a scramble mission, then yes. If they are doing a patrol with Flankers, I would actually expect the MiG-29 to be high, to help it remain on station for a length of time closer to the Flanker, unlike the F-16 the MiG-29 is actually pretty good cruising at high alt with the bigger wing, and flying body, while the F-16 has to end up sometimes using afterburner to maintain speed up that high. especially if it's the block 50s with the GE engine, and the higher bypass the works a bit better at low alt then the Block 52 which is a bit better suited for high alt.

See I thought so, I had heard similar interview and references, and so was a bit unsure, because if you look at just on the development side then it seems the answer is no, but there are numerous anecdotes, on them training using the ER/T/and ET.

Based on previous implementaions. Like waypoints for the viggen data-cartage, and other changes you can do on the ground on your kneeboard like the laser code for weapons, i would be very surprised if this was not implemented .

For me it's about immersion. I actually like it when tweaks are made on a module that actually make the system less effective. Like the changes to the radar in the Mirage 2000. Currently the FC3 radar (while good for the time it was developed) is now very behind with what DCS is currently working with. Locking up targets in the MiG-29 currently feels lacking, and the instananeous IFF. requires a large dose of suspension of disbelief. I suspect that there will be some tweaks to the flight model, like the negative effects of having only one R-27 missile on one wing and it limiting your max AoA allowed. IMO it going to make the module feel more alive, and closer to an actual simulator, which is the appeal fans are looking for.