Alfa

No of course they can be carried on the inner pylons. What I meant by R-77s on all pylons probably not being a realistic loadout was in regards to the most outer pylons :) - using an ejector launcher on those could be restrictive in terms of the level of manouvering you can do while firing the missile. Possibly, but I think the adapters used with the APU-470 have more to do with those large fins of the R-27 missile - check out the R-27 missile on the MiG-35 in the photo above :) No I don't think so.

Those are R-27Rs(not R-27ER) - i.e. its a normal loadout for the standard MiG-29. On the MiG-29 and MiG-29S the R-27 missiles can only be carried on the two most inner wing pylons(as in the picture). Only the MiG-29S can carry the larger R-27ER variant(and R-77). The aircraft in the picture is a MiG-29M(note the extra wing pylons - 8 total). The MiG-29M(and MiG-29K) can carry R-27 missiles(and heavy ASMs as in the picture) on the four inner pylons. Technically the MiG-29S can carry R-77 missiles on all six pylons and the MiG-29M on all eight, but AFAIK wouldn't do so operationally - the R-77(RVV-AE) only comes with an ejector rack(AKU-170) - i.e. no rail launcher available, so that may have something to do with it.

Very useful information - didn't know about the "object ID" thing. Is it really the actual objects that have to be ID'ed in the right order to avoid invisible/hidden objects? - I thought it was the material IDs assigned to them that have to be "layered" in the right order.

Initially TVC was introduced with the "Su-37" demonstrator(Su-27M/Su-35 prototypes modified for the purpose), which was fitted with an engine called "AL-31FU" - I cannot remember whether this was single axis only though. The Su-30(baseline interceptor) had standard AL-31F engines(no TVC), while the Su-30MK multirole prototypes and subsequently the Su-30MKI were fitted with the AL-31FP, which has TVC in two planes. The TVC engine for the MiG-29 is the Klimov RD-133 with "omnidirectional" nozzles. http://en.klimov.ru/production/aircraft/tvn/ The engine was fitted to a MiG-29M(9-15) prototype - the sixth(# 156) -from the late eighties in order to demonstrate TVC(under the name "MiG-29M OVT"). The "MiG-35" prototype was built on the fourth MiG-29M prototype(# 154) - first introduced as the "MiG-29M2" and then later renamed "MiG-35". AFAIK this currently doesn't have the RD-133 TVC engine, but a production version can be supplied with it on customer's request.

On the last part concerning detonation range, keep in mind that the more recent missile types such as the AMRAAM and RVV-AE have more efficient warheads of expading rod type and therefore have their proximity fuse set to a longer distance than older types with blast fragmentation type warheads - even if the actual explosive charge of these is larger.

I called your idea that lack of information helps to prevent sub-standard mods idiotic(I suppose I could have used the term "illogical" instead) and the notion that no one aside from the currently approved 3rd party developers could possibly understand and make proper use of better documentation arrogant(which I think covers it better than your own "rude"). But you are right - this discussion is clearly leading nowhere. Which IIRC was to provide information to "every joe without an ounce of know-how".....otherwise I guess it would have been posted in some closed forum section :D

Well forgive me for saying this aaron886, but you don't exactly strike me as a particulary diplomatic person yourself :D

Exactly, so what? - are you saying that the rest of the community aren't willing to put up with these conditions(as if it was something new) and therefore shouldn't even attempt to make mods? I may no understand the point you guys are trying to make, but it all sounds pretty arrogant to me.

Well in my humble opinion thats an idiotic notion - there is a difference between having the necessary information available and having the tenasity to figure out how to use it.

I don't see how e.g. a free "FC level" F-18 mod would be a serious commercial threat to an official DCS level release from ED for the same aircraft. If you look at it from that perspective, then "semi-DCS level" stuff from 3rd party developers would seem to be a much bigger concern - partly because it is pay-ware and partly because the fidelity level between FC and DCS becomes less distinct.

I don't agree with that argument cichlidfan - given the level of work required for a decent flyable aircraft mod, I don't think there is much risk of DCS World being flooded with free ones....and if they aren't "decent" then they would hardly be a threat to pay-ware ones that are :) .

An actual step-by-step tutorial is not only time consuming to make(diverting time away from projects) , but also inevitably comes with the "moral" obligation to follow up with assistance when someone runs into problems when following it. So I can I understand why individual 3rd party developers might be reluctant to make such tutorials. But I don't see any reason why general know-how needs to be secret or why "how-to" subjects should be scattered all over the forum or kept inside closed forum sections - this very thread(and forum section actually) also seems to contradict that notion. Nor do I see why anyone with a mod project needs to be granted "3rd party developer" status to be privy to documentation in regards to how the sim works. As I understand it, such a status is only necessary for developers who intend to charge for their work and as such become subject to quality control by Eagle. One thing is to have the skills for making a quality mod - another is to see it through. As is evident to anyone reading the forum, there are many announced mod projects that have stalled due to time constraints on the part of the authors - this might be less of an issue for "professional" mod teams, but at the end of the day there is no guarentee that even the most dedicated and well funded teams won't run aground for one reason or another. Lack of information does not help to prevent "low quality mods" - quite the contrary. If anything more open access might actaully provide Eagle with a better outset to judge the skill level as well as the prospect of completing a project when a person/team applies for 3rd party dev status - i.e the more functional contents you can present and the more progressed the project, the better the basis for evaluation.

It sounds like you haven't got an input folder for the aircraft entry - which aircraft slot are you using for the mod?

Thats also the plane I am looking at - it is a little difficult to see on that photo. But I think I can just make out the bort# 20, which would make it this plane: Photo(Planespotters.net) from Saki 2010.

No its an Su-27UB(tandem cockpit) trainer in naval colours - its not "carrier capable" though :)

There are also different versions of the Tunguska. I remember we researched this once and it appeared that at least for the more recent -M1 variant, having to manually lock target with TV was only in case of radar jamming(i.e. a back-up procedure) - suggesting a higher degree of automation in terms of target "hand-over" from 3D search radar to 2D tracking radar to opticals. The naval "Kortik" system also uses the 9M311 missile and is fully automated.

Yes but the actual guidance of the in-flight missile is radio command. Both the target and the in-flight missile are tracked via optical means(TV) - this information is sent to a targeting computer, which generates steering commands for the missile, these in turn are transmitted to the in-flight missile via the antenna of the tracking radar. So it is not really a "radar lock" - the tracking radar is "slaved" to the angular position of the target as obtained by the opticals and just functions as a radio transmitter when guiding the missile. I believe the "Shturm" missile system employed by the Mi-24 use a similar system - i.e. opticals for targeting and a radio transmitter for missile guidance.

Well it is possible to make the structures of course, but I doubt you could get any functions to work. Another matter is that, as far as I recall, AI traffic uses the runway at Saki where the NITKA complex is on the real base - so that could be a problem e.g. with the position of the take-off ramp.

No they are not :) Target tracking and missile course deviation is obtained via optical means, but the 9M311 missile is radio command and the actual missile guidance is done via the tracking radar - transmitting the radio command pulse to the in-flight missile. The Shkval system/Vikhr combination is all optical and uses laser beam riding for guidance, so its completely different.

Yeah I know its free, but my seven year old PC can barely handle FC2 and has quite a small harddisk too so until I get a new rig, five gigs of DCS world files would just be "dead weight" :)

I don't have a "mods" folder - I am still in FC2 :)

Its possible! :) I made a script for a Sovremenny class destroyer in FC2 - the problem is that it is equipped with a SAM system("Shtil"/SA-N-7 "Gadfly") that isn't in the game. The missile it employs is though - namely the 9M38M1(for "Buk"). So I looked in the "missile.lua" file and decided to try composing the Shtil system based on the system closest in nature to this, which seemed to be the OSA-M....partly because this also employs a rail launcher and partly because on the Krivak class frigate the two Osa launchers are positioned in a way(one aft and one front along centerline) that resembles the two Shtil launchers on the Sovremenny class. So I copied the OSA section, renamed all instances of "OSA-M" to "Shtil" and then started modifying everything - first swapping out the two offset 9M33 missiles to a single centered 9M38M1 and then continued to change all the other values to Shtil specs. Then I assigned two instances of this new weapon system to the Sovremenny ship script, added the entry to the shiptable and assigned the new ship to Russia - since I don't have a 3D model of a sovremenny, I just copied the "rezky" model and renamed it. Now I don't really know what the hell I am doing in those lua scripts and what half of the stuff in them means, so starting the game I fully expected it to crash every second, but it didn't. So I made a mission with the new ship to see if that would cause a crash, but no....not only did the ship show up with the new missiles(pointing in the right direction even), but they actually worked(!). In the mission I had an F/A-18C overfly the "Besstrashny"(name of the ship) - at the point of detection the front 9M38M1 was elevated(although displaced from the launcher arm) to follow the path of the target, then launched....dead Hornet :) .

Ok misunderstood that one - sorry :) No not really :D - just the nearest town from where I live.

Well wether building a 3D model of a warship can be considered easy or not, I think depends highly on your level of ambition - I realise that this is a flight sim and as such there is a tendency to settle for a fidelity level much below that of aircraft. But building a good(accurate) and high fidelity ship model is definately not an easy task - ship hulls are every bit as complex as airframes of aircraft and given the density and complexity of systems "top-side", they tend to be monster projects - not to mention giving headaches in terms of the resulting poly count.

Yeah me too - and its a good idea, because the more you understand about the overall "system", the better chance you have to make a mod work properly - and even come up with ideas for new ones :) . Indeed. But also the armament - I guess as long as a new unit just needs to be equipped with existing systems, it should be quite managable to compose the armament by picking systems out of existing scripts. But I wonder to what extend it is possible to "customize" a weapon system.