Alfa

Oh I don't know - they did serve them quite well in the Falklands.

vanveken - you don't build an aircraft carrier to support a cruiser.....rather the other way around. BTW didn't you mean cruisers of type Atlant(Pr. 1164) and Orlan(Pr 1144/1144.2)? Anyway, in Soviet naval doctrine the main anti-carrier assets were the SSGNs("submarine cruisers") which where routinely shadowing US carrier groups during the cold war. The task of Soviet aircraft carriers(and the surface fleet as such) was to operate in support of those. This is quite evident when you look at the evolution in Soviet carrier designs as well as the way they operated.

Yup :) - or "SSGN" fleet to use a "western" term.

There are different doctrines and different types of aircraft carriers. Soviet naval doctrine was very different to the US one and their carriers were designed for support of the submarine fleet and as such actually a defensive meassure. Even the British Invincible class was initially designed as a dedicated ASW asset and only meant to carry helicopters until someone got the bright idea to put Harrier jump-jets on it.

Its clearly not a MiG-29K gaanalma.

Not to me Kuky - look at the spine curvature immedeatly behind the cockpit - it looks like a "humpback" :)

Well thats a matter of opinion - its also much shorter(some 247m vs. 300 m ) :) Anyway, the ex-Varyag is considerable larger ship than the CdG - some 67.000 tons full load vs. some 42.000 respectively.

Well the model in the render is definately not a MiG-29K - thats very easy to see :). The schematics it "sits" on you can find on airwar.ru and shows a mix of 9-12 and 9-13 variants. For some inexplicable reason it also has a single insert showing the wing of a MiG-29K(9-31) although this variant is completely different to the 9-12 and 9-13 on multiple areas. Judging by the "neck" its a MiG-29(9-13) or MiG-29S(9-13S).

.....you don't think the CdG is larger than the ex-varyag do you? :D .

Bad memory then - they acquired it in the late nineties and only got it to China in 2001 or 2002.....so its been 10 years and not 20 :) . When you consider that what they got was an empty rusty hulk, I think its quite impressive what they have managed to achieve with it in that time. But while it may be a major landmark for the Chinese navy to induct an aircraft carrier, I agree that calling it a break-through in Chinese naval development is a bit a stretch -i.e buying someone else's carrier design and reverse engineering the aircraft to fly from it.

Thanks HungaroJET - I did see those renders, but while impressive, a single new 3D model does not make up for a decade's neglect. Aside from all the other models in dire need of replacement and that several important assets are lacking entirely, there are many issues with radar/weapon systems, carrier flight operations being crude and buggy etc. To bring the naval side of the sim up to standard will require a major concerted effort and not just the odd touch-up now and then and my point was that a new patch of water in a different part of the world won't solve that problem. Of course we can hope that the effort put into that new Nimitz model is a sign of something more substantial to follow, but given past experience I reserve the right to be sceptical :) .

No offense SkateZilla, but that response of yours didn't make much sense. What are you talking about? :)

You could say something similar about the air-side of that campaign - yet you rarely hear that argument when it comes to improvements/expansions to the aerial combat of the sim :) . I am not saying that the Black Sea is optimal for naval warfare simulation, but its frankly a little annoying that whenever someone suggests something in regards to this, it immedeatly becomes a question of a new theater. The ground warfare has been under constant development through every new title since Flanker 2.5, while in the meantime everything connected to naval warfare has been pretty much dead in the water. So say someone actually develops a new theater perfectly suitable for naval warfare - then what?.

Master warning lamp? :)

Photo of MiG-29 cockpit instrument illumination attached.

Well I also prefer the old indicator for the 9-12 (I chose that for my MiG-29 3d cockpit project ) for that reason, so I am not advocating one constallation over the other Buncsi - just saying that it needs to be either one or the other :) The Luftwaffe fulcrums had the same fuel indicator initially yes - but then they went and purchased the wingtank kit from Russia and the fuel indicator changed :) Before: After:

Actually the "MiG-29A" fuel indicator was not correct in FC2. In FC2 the MiG-29(9-12) was depicted with the ability to carry 1150L wing tanks - this is ok as the real life 9-12 often is backfitted with this feature, but the wingtank kit also includes a new fuelgauge like the one in the MiG-29S. So the 9-12 should either have the original fuelgauge/no wingtank ability or 9-13 fuelgauge/wingtank ability.

IIRC promotions are simply awarded based on number of sucessfully completed missions - requiring a double-up as you progress: * second lieutenant - 0 missions * first lieutenant - 15 missions * captain - 30 missions * major - 60 missions * lieutenant colonel - 120 missions * colonel - 240 missions The number of medals available differ depending on nation - they are awarded based on mission points, which I believe are down to number of destroyed targets, types of targets etc.

...instead of 10 :) The weapons station indicator in the real Su-33 is the same as in the Su-27 and only displays 10 stations.

That should be: "MiG-29, Su-27 and Su-30/33" :) The EOS is the only real sensor/WCS difference between the Su-27 and Su-33 - the EOS of the Su-33(shared with the Su-30 aka Su-27PU) is an updated and bigger(more powerful) version.

Not relating to your bug reporting, but as far as I can tell the real Su-33 doesn't actually have all 12 hardpoints indicated on the display - only 10 like the Su-27 :) . At least thats the case in the pit of T-10K5(see attached photo).

I could be wrong, but the report in question seems to be the one I have attached to this post. If so I think you are missing a couple of points. The report investigates the usefulness of the HUD versus back-up instruments(the ADI) when recovering from "unusual attitudes" in the F-18 - more specifically whether initial test studies(using modified test instrumentation) leading to the recommedation of using the ADI would "hold water" in an actual operational environment. So it deals with the HUD/instrument layout of the F-18 specifically and as I read it, the conclusion is not conclusive :) - i.e. both methods performed equally "well" and that a bigger issue was with attempting to use both at the same time instead of picking one and sticking with it. While the study shows that the HUD "does the job" as well as the back-up ADI, it also mentions that one of the reasons for this might have to do with the position of the ADI in the pit(low and off-set to the right). I don't really see how you can arrive at that conclusion - one of the closing comments by the author: "Finally, the author would like to encourage a discussion on the somewhat disillusive finding of a failure rate of 29% and 27%, respectively, in one of the world’s most sophisticated fighter aircraft." Anyway, I think the subject and findings of this report is pretty far detatched from the topic of this thread - except perhaps that pilots perform best when relying on the instrumentation they are used to through their training and therefore feel most comfortable with.

Actually it is a bug, but a very old one :) . When assigning TV homing weapons to the Su-27 or MiG-29, you are employing a targeting function that is based on some very old code from the days of Flanker 2.0. Anyway, no the inverted axis is not something you can fix.

Thanks, but I already got that - it was the cross sections I needed :)

Thank you! :) Very useful information about the point connectors - finally got mine working :D