Auditor

But older MiG variants like the 19, 21, and 23 are fine, then? The 21, and yes even the bis version, is still very much used by modern countries. What is the rationale, there?

I put the part that I wanted to respond to in bold. While I do appreciate the sentiment, and it is true that information on old soviet technology is fairly spotty as well. At the same time, this is a simulator and the idea is to get the most real experience possible with the information that we have available to us. We don't always have that luxury, and many times we have to use estimations or second hand accounts Granted, most of the information I've posted so far are not in-depth looks into the missiles. They're just things that mention how the AA-2 came into being. None of them look into the mass-production missile at any serious length, and they don't bother trying to compare differences or go any more in-depth than just mentioning it like a tidbit. foxbat155 makes a good point about the rollerons: they're very clearly different on some level mechanics wise, but we don't know how different and at what scale. Which is why we need to have these conversations so we can put together the best evidence we have to make the most accurate picture of how it truly handled. I would like to know if Basher54321 has a link to any sources that detail the Israeli capture of those missiles, because that's very interesting.

I would like to hear the rationale behind restricting simulation of export variants, as well. Many of them are downgraded for that exact reason, and some of them aren't even created by the original factories or manufacturer. Surely, exports would have looser restrictions, no?

To be fair: From my reading SNP2 is more of an extension from the N-019's automatic mode (interleaved with automatic acquisition), so the jamming problems faced with FC3's interpretation of TWS would only exist in one mode of it. Particularly in the Topaz version which we have in FC3. In Encounter mode, these problems would be different and maybe more manageable. (Note: I have no proof of that) http://toad-design.com/migalley/index.php/jet-aircraft/mig29/mig29-n019-radar/ If we're talking pipe dreams of PFM. I would love for the N-019 radar to be modeled to be a bit closer to how it behaves in real life. What we have in FC3 right now is worse than the modes that the actual aircraft have available to it. Many of the things in FC3 that have to be done manually are done automatically by the plane IRL. Of course, I'm probably asking too much.

Can we agree that Mirage III takes it, then? still no answer on what variant was planned, though.

Speaking of open issues; Could we get an update from Magnitude 3 about where the module is headed and what is considered critical from them? It's been rather silent for a while.

I fully agree with this.

Could you provide a link, then? Because all the sources I find state that it is 100% a copy: https://airandspace.si.edu/collection-objects/missile-air-air-atoll-also-designated-k-13-aa-2 https://www.plane-encyclopedia.com/cold-war/aim-9-sidewinder-missile-series/ https://theaviationist.com/tag/aa-2-atoll/ And even in this book: https://books.google.com/books?id=qh5lffww-KsC&pg=PA35&lpg=PA35&dq=AA-2+missile+history&source=bl&ots=jDDYF2BxTv&sig=yR1tcTpAqYXuWSa4qpdLWt7yLmc&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi6ioqboq7dAhVIvFMKHWcnC304ChDoATAHegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=AA-2%20missile%20history&f=false All of them mentioning that the R-3S and the AIM-9 were such a close relation to one another that parts could be substituted off one and placed on the other. If you have sources to the contrary, I would like to see them. I'm not saying you're wrong, but every source Uncle Google is giving me is telling me that they are indeed copies of one another. If the R-3S has better performance than the GAR-8, that would be good news for me because I want the 19 to have the best missiles possible. I want this to be a thing, as well. However, we're still not sure if Razbam is even going to update the R-3S we already have to behave like it should. It may come down to M3, and that is going to be a battle all on its own.

:lol: That's hilarious.

Oh, good catch. I didn't even notice that part. :music_whistling:

Looks great! Are the lighting effects going to be a bit closer to how the Mig-15 looks? I would like to see a source on this, because this sounds more like you're describing the R-13. The R-3S, however, is almost identical mechanics wise. Even the rocket engine itself is thought to be a copy. http://www.military-today.com/missiles/r3.htm I don't think ignoring people is the answer, we need to have these conversations because it's important if we wish to have the most accurate experience possible. That said, I'm not sure if Razbam or any of their developers are even going to touch the R-3S in its current state. Would like confirmation if that's being worked on or if it's being deferred back to M3.

EDIT: After watching the trailer a couple of times. I do hope that the textures get some more love. Maybe the lighting as well. I think maybe this should be re-shot in a few months when the cockpit and exterior textures look a bit more acceptable. This is sort of the reveal of the aircraft, after all.

I keep checking this thread persistently hoping for updates, I'm looking forward to this more than the F-15E.

I'm getting the exact same problem with the NS-430 and it has resulted in me flying with it turned off unless I need to quickly reference it for some reason. The heightmap just causes too much of a stutter.

Very much agreed, and would also like to echo sentiments about finalizing the flight model or at least getting confirmation about what would be the roadmap to finalizing it. In terms of its wobbly nature, I believe that was a mistake that was rectified sometime. Also, it would receive exceptionally good handling if SAU stabilize were functioning.

That's what makes it fun, though. All the fun of strapping a lawnchair to a rocket engine and riding it around.

Hello, Please implement persistent user waypoints which remain inside of the NS430 between missions, and remain saved on the users hard drive after the game has closed. Also, please automatically save user waypoints on exit, and write them to a plaintext file. Please also allow users to change and edit this saved user file from outside of the simulator as to give them the ability to add and remove waypoints or import waypoints from other users. I think this would greatly increase the importance of the NS430 from a neat novelty to an almost strict requirement for anyone who is serious about this game. Thank you.

Couple things, and I'm not sure if this is an error in terminology or not. Turning off your radar has no bearing whatsoever on the enemies ability to see you on radar. It only prevents them from seeing your radar on their Radar Warning Receiver. So turning off your radar doesn't help if their radar is already looking for you. In terms of turning it off to prevent enemy RWRs from seeing you: absolutely. Especially against the F-5E which gets a really modern RWR that tells them exactly what the threat is that is painting them. Allowing them to discern from friendly radars and your radar. Unlike you, whose RWR consists of four lights that blink :lol: in its current state, I wouldn't even use radar guided missiles against F-5Es. It would probably be a bad idea even if the missiles were working correctly only because the R-3Rs are not great against maneuvering targets. R-60's are better for that.

Oh yeah, I think everyone notices it. It's been open on the bugtracker for almost a year. It straight up becomes loony tunes physics once you reach low-speed. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=689 I almost think its gotten worse since the migration from 1.5. In terms of who is still working on the Mig-21 now that development of the CE2 is in full-swing, I'd like to know that too!

Great video, Schmidtfire. :thumbup: I, too, would love to see the classic snaking motion on our older sidewinder-based missiles. It may be something to just think about if Razbam takes initiative on fixing the R-3S before M3.

Great chart! Makes me wish I had the paid version of Tacview :thumbup:

Very nice! :thumbup: I would like to point out, and this is something your team may want to look into in regards to the stock R-3S: every missile introduced by Leatherneck has been having performance issues related to how they angle acceleration/AoA. Magnitude 3 was 'looking into it' last I checked, and it is on their bug forum: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3609750 This bug does include the R-3S that we have right now in the game, and as I understand it weapons are shared between planes in the game code (Which means the L-39 has this problem, too). Which may be why your first shot missed. It may be worth looking into changing the missile to match the performance of the GAR-8 if this problem persists.

I think if we rally for R-73s, we should first find the real-life instance where they were used on the bis'. I know they exist, but several days of searching has left me with nothing concrete. Does anyone have any examples?

working SAU Stabilize mode seems like a pipe dream at this point. That's been an open issue since the aircraft went into early access. That's not to say that I wouldn't absolutely love to have it.

Thank you, Zeus. I'm really looking forward to this one!