Alfa

Hehe no not yet I am afraid - sorry you got that impression. But although ships aren't player controllable, they do have quite extensive armament functionality(airdefence and surface-to-surface) and if you are modelling naval ships, its quite cool to see them "come alive" in the sim :) . Unfortunately it(DCS world and its previous iterations) has been rather deprived on the maritime side of things for a very long time - serveral high profile naval assets(both Russian and US) have been lacking all along, while many of regional relevance were removed with the transition from Flanker- to Lock-on series(some ten years ago) and not pursued since, just as the variaty of civilian types is very scarse. Furthermore, the 3D fidelity level is generally far below that of other types of units and could certainly do with some attention by skilled ship modellers like yourself. So there is plenty of potential for improvements and if you are interested I would be happy to help you out with armament scripts - I did a complete one for a Sovremenny class destroyer and started on both Udaloy and Burke class, but stalled because I didn't have proper 3D models to work with and no time to start building my own :) .

On the subject of performance there is also the question of texturing - i.e. multiple 4096 x 4096 sized texture maps can be just as problematic as a high poly-count.

Awesome model! :) As far as getting it into the game - since the Burke class shares most of its armament(depending on variant) with the Tico class already in the sim, at least the weapons script should be fairly straight forward to make.

I could be mistaken, but it doesn't look that way to me. The interviewer asks questions of a very general nature about things like the performance of the engine, the autoloader, the armour protection etc - the type of topics you often see debated by military "buffs" on internet forums, while the tank commander talks about low-tech practical issues that might seem insignificant, but affects the crew's ability to do makeshift repairs and as such can have a pretty big impact during combat.

The real problem here is that the game allows you to load only one wing droptank :) . You couldn't do that in reality as the huge weight off-set would make the aircraft unflyable - in fact the real jet has a safety feature to ensure that both wing droptanks are jettisioned simultaneously. The centerline tank can be jettisoned by pushing a small button at the back of the Flight stick(grip base). Wingtanks are jettisoned separately.

Yes but I think the differences are down to their intended specialised roles - the MiG-29 as a "counter-air" fighter to make short dashes relying heavily on GCI for tactical information and SA, while the Su-27 was expected to penetrate deep into enemy airspace to establish airsuperiority and therefore required a higher degree of self reliance. Yeah I know what you mean Sov13t - I have concentrated on the MiG-29 myself, but sometimes it can be beneficial to look at other aircraft types to put things into perspective :) .

Yes thats also the impression I get. Thinking back I do actually remember having read claims and counter-claims as to whether the pilot can override the automatic target selection - I guess I should have studied the MiG-29 manual a little closer :) . At any rate, it raises an interesting topic about the extend of differences between the WCS of the MiG-29 and Su-27 - i.e. although the basic design of the sensory is very similar, there is no doubt that the Su-27 has more sophistication in terms of options available to the pilot and information displayed on the HDD.

Well in that case I stand corrected :) . But even with the possibility for the pilot to "override" the system's target selection, I would still consider SNP an automated mode by nature.

Yes I realise now that you were asking how to understand the fuelgauge functionality as it is currently in the sim. No but like I said there are issues with the fuelgauge in the sim, which hopefully will be addressed. Since the MiG-29(and MiG-29S) in the sim has the ability to carry wing droptanks, the fuelgauge functionality/indication ought to be implemented according to the excerts from the Luftwaffe MiG-29G flight manual in IvanK's post :) . Better yet IMHO would be to diversify it for the MiG-29 and MiG-29S, so that the MiG-29 be depicted in its original form with the old fuelgauge/centerline external tank only and the MiG-29S with the new fuelgauge and added wingtanks, which this variant has from the outset.

Sorry fitness88 - I misunderstood the topic of your thread. I interpreted your question about understanding the MiG-29 fuelgauge and the reference to "the manual" as concerning the functionality of the gauge as described in the flight manual for the real aircraft. There are some issues with how the fuelgauge is depicted in the sim - it looks like it migt be under revision for FC3 and I thought your question was in extension to previous discussions on this. No you cannot control the T/P switch in the sim and IMO there is really no reason for this - it could just be set to the position to show total amount(int + ext.) of fuel. But then we are talking about possible changes and not about how it currently works. No because they indicate "end of transfer" - if no external fuel tanks are carried there is no transfer to begin with :) . Anyway, for a more in-dept description of the MiG-29 fuel indication(wingtank modified) you can check this post by IvanK: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1330322&postcount=45

Yes it is. Fuel in internal tanks is meassured via sensors in the tanks. Fuel level in external tanks is calculated based on known initial amount(manually set before take-off) vs. rate of consumption derrived from the flowmeter function. Both the meassured(internal) and calculated(external) amount is indicated on the tape, when the T/P switch is in the "P" position. For the MiG-29 (9-12) there are four lamps on the side - the top one(IIRC) indicates end of transfer from external centerline tank, the 3 other for each of internal tanks in the order they are being emptied(bottom lamp last). For the MiG-29 (9-13) and MiG-29S(9-13S) the gauge has tape indication for an increased amount of fuel(due to the additon of wing drop tanks) and an extra lamp on the side(second from the top) indicating end of transfer from external wing tanks.

...of the Su-27 :) . I was talking about the MiG-29 for which the "left hand panel" looks quite different(attached image) and doesn't seem to have such an option. Anyway, its been quite awhile since I last read up on the MiG-29 radar/weapons system , but from memory I cannot remember having read anything about such a manual operation of the SNP mode in connection with the MiG-29 - nor about several prospective targets being prioritised and marked on the HDD. I am not much "into" the Su-27, but suspect that its different to the MiG-29 in this respect.

No because the whole point to the SNP mode is to automate the target acquisition process. The system scans the selected sector and tracks up to ten of the nearest contacts. Based on this data, the computer analyses the tactical situation, picks the most appropriate target for engagement and finally switches to STT mode when it determines that the target is within launch parameters of the selected weapon.....all automatically. The only pilot action concerns switching on the SNP mode to begin with and ending the process by pulling the trigger to launch when the system tells him to :) . The modified SNP mode of the N019M(MiG-29S) works in the same way except that the system can pick out two of the tracked contacts(primary and secondary target) and doesn't automatically switch to STT mode if the selected weapon type is R-77/RVV-AE.

Thats how it works Tek - SNP(TWS) is an automated mode.

Oh you mean that you can't export your model to .lom? The option in your screenshot must be unchecked in order for the conversion to work. Moreover, if your model isn't UVW mapped, it must at least have a standard material assigned to it.

Well I just did :P Yes it can, but my point was that its only really practical for TV homing weapons. Due to its position on the aircraft with a mere -15 degrees "look-down" angle the dive required for a short range laser guided weapon is not exactly shallow and could be problematic even for the flight duration of a Kh-29L(there happy now? :D ).

Nothing to do with range - its about angle and velocity of the released weapon. A powered weapon like the X-29L races ahead of the aircraft when launched and gives the launch platform time to paint the target before passing over it - not so with a free fall bomb. The X-29TE in your photo is TV homing("fire & forget") - the launching platform just needs to take a "snap shot" of the target prior to launch and doesn't need to support the weapon after that......not to mention that the X-29TE can be deployed at much longer range(20 -30 km) than the laser guided variant(~ 10 km).

I said: The weapon employed in the photo is the X-29T, which is: a) a missile b) TV homing

Well it will need a special pod with the ability to paint the target below the aircraft(as seen in the above picture of the Su-34) if it is to employ laser guided bombs.

Well thats probably also what he meant :) . I just wanted to point out most of those poll options are "no-go" for a "full DCS level" module anyway because there simply isn't enough documentation available for them.

If that was the reason, the poll probably wouldn't have included the Su-35 and MiG-35....not to mention PAK-FA :D

But then the Su-25TM/Su-39 has the same cockpit as the Su-25T :)

No its probably not a big deal to remove the background grid itself, but there are quite a few other things about the HDD vs. HUD "routine" that aren't exactly right. Additionally there are differences between the MiG-29 and Su-27/33 that would require separation of the currently shared functionality in order to be replicated. So rather than to make cosmetic changes along the way, I suspect that Eagle might want to save the effort for a more comprehensive "overhaul".

Yeah I would agree with that. The question is how much work it is.

Well I am not Matt or anyone at ED, but you are right that I mentioned it once :D Anyway, no the grid symbology is not supposed to be there on the Russian HDDs - its a "left-over" from the old Flanker 2 code.