Alfa

Very interesting! :)

Also if you watch a "stock" tank or artillery piece in the model viewer, you will notice that the barrel elevation is animated from straight down to straight up(+-90 degrees) - the actual operating limits for a unit "in-game" are controlled by the code, so you should not emulate these limits via your animation.

The missile is "LOBL"(Lock On Before Launch), which means that the IR seeker must acquire the target before the missile can be launched. In order to acquire the target, the seeker needs to be told where to look it - the aircraft's weapons control system can obtain target information via 3 different methods: - the electro-optical system(EOS) - the radar - the pilot's helmet mounted sighting device(HMS). In real life the target's heat signature will be affected by varies factors including humitity, but AFAIK such fidelity isn't modelled in the game. No - missile launch warning relates to radar guided weapons - IIRC detecting when the launching radar starts to transmit midcourse guidance to support the in-flight missile. No - an IR missile is completely "fire & forget". Not possible with SARH missiles such as the R-27R/ER. The beam width is some 3.5 degrees. Radar scan limits are +/- 65 degrees in azimuth and +56/-36 degrees in elevation. The azimuth range is divided into three 50 degree sectors(selected by pilot): [Right sector: +65 to +15], [Center sector: +25 to -25] and [Left sector: -15 to -65] This is for the N019(MiG-29), but should be the same for the N001(Su-27 and Su-33) IIRC scanning cycles are completed in 2-5 seconds depending on operating mode(real radar - not sure how this is modelled in the game).

Much of what you mention are not really "bugs", but merely a case simplified representation(model animations) - such as the varies weapons' firecontrol radars not physically turning towards target(BTW the FC radar for the AK-130 is not the "MR-145" - the MR-145 is for the AK-100, while the FC radar for the AK-130 is called "MR-184"). This does not necessarily mean that the associated radar routine(code) isn't working though - in order to determine whether FC radars are providing guidance to their respective armament in accordance with their properties, you need to test varies engagement scenarios for each system.....so alot of work. Anyway, there certainly are many problems with the naval stuff in the game, but sadly this has not been in focus for a very long time(practically since Flanker 2.5) and I seriously doubt that your efforts will result in any improvements - e.g. many of the actual bugs you mention(such as the carrier's aircraft control) weren't there in Lock-on and only occured during the switch to the DCS world with "Black Shark".......and apparently haven't been fixed yet.

I think this will depend on the findings in regards to the cause - to the extend it can be established. Right now I think the apparent loss of lives is more sad.

Its a new-built MiG-29M2(hence the similarity to MiG-29KUB) - probably from a batch destined for Syria. The "old" MiG-29M2 was build on the airframe of one of the 1980'ies MiG-29M(9-15) prototypes - more specifically the fourth(no 154), which was later further modified and presented as the "MiG-35".

Try running the application via the lockon batch file - that sometimes did the trick when there was a runtime error. Its located in your main Lockon folder - just double-click it to start the game.

Hi DCSpksky, "Lockon Gold" was published by a company called "Evolved Games"(not Ubisoft). http://www.evolvedgames.com/lockon.htm There were some issues with a faulty second disc on the initial batch of "Lockon Gold" - as far as I remember the problem was exactly that the Starforce protection system asked for an activation key, IIRC because the second expansion disc had incorrectly been printed with the download version of 1.1 Flaming Cliffs(which requires an activation key). From your description it sounds to me like you may unfortunately have one of those faulty discs.

Hehe yeah. Its been a long while since I last did any rack modding, so I am a little rusty, but if you run into a problem, just shoot me a PM and I will try to help you out :) .

Well it is a bit tedious, but once you have tried it a couple of times its not too bad. It sounds like you already know which files you need to modify for the purpose, so a good way to go about it is to pick a particular existing rack/weapon combo and then "trace" it down through the varies files to figure out the relationship between them. Mind you the files you listed are just the ones you need to modifiy to "declare" the new racks and rack/weapon associations - after that you also need to assign them to weapons stations of each aircraft entry you want to make them available for......and perhaps also modify each of the stock payload options accordingly(which is a right pain).

What - first too young and now too old?

Thanks ;)

Check PM :)

Unfortunately I don't have much on the SMT - my project is a MiG-29K pit, so I have really only searched for photos concerning this :) . But in the Strizhni-link that Gizmondo provided, there is a photo(attached) of the SMT pit from a different angle where you can see the both the VVI and radar altimeter. Both the type and positioning of the gauges is the same in the MiG-29K pit, which is why I picked up on this in your pit model :) .

I think you misunderstood what I meant mate :) - I am talking about the gauges in the center of the front panel. There are some variations to the layout of these depending on the exact variant of SMT, but your pit model seems to replicate the pit in the photo I have attached, where I have indicated the function/layout of the gauges. Two of the gauges(VVI and radar altimeter) are obscurred by the stick, but I can find separate photos of these if you are interested - the VVI is the same type as in the Su-33 pit. These gauges are all present in the game code, so there shouldn't be any limitation in terms of their functionality :) .

Interesting project SVKSniper :) . Just wondering about something - why did you change the gauge layout compared to the real pit?

It just says what we already know - i.e. something along the lines of: "The MiG-29S differs from the MiG-29(based on 9.13) mainly by a modifed radar providing support for the R-77"....etc.

...irrelevant :) My point was that if a "shooting war had started", it would have been during the cold war(i.e. prior to 1991), when neither side had operational ARH missiles available yet.

A little off the mark there GG - had a shooting war started it would probably also have been before the 9-13S'es opposition had been supplied with AIM-120s ;) .

No but "R-77" and "RVV-AE" is really the same thing Pilotasso - just two different names for the same design. There is much more difference between early and late versions of the AMRAAM than between R-77 and RVV-AE :) .

As far as SNP(TWS) mode functionality, the new representation introduced with Lock-on FC should be quite accurate - except for the HDD, which for some reason(probably lack of time) wasn't updated.

It didn't really - it evolved from Nate's bug-list thread where I initially responded to a post where the poster seemed to think that the MiG-29 and Su-27 don't have "datalink" for missiles in the game and, as I read it, that the lack of "multi-targeting capability" for those aircraft types can be considered a bug. Then Presing started rambling about the MiG-29S, which of course is a different matter :) . Exactly.

"MiG-29G" was the designation Luftwaffe assigned to the aircraft they inherited from the former GDR after having made slight modifications(for NATO compliance) to them. East Germany didn't have any 9-13, but there was a Soviet unit stationed in GDR which did and IIRC it was even the actual MiG-29S(9-13S) variant with the modified radar. Not quite Nate - both the 9-12 and 9-13 are simply called "MiG-29", while the "MiG-29S" designation specifically denotes the 9-13S, which in turn only differs from the "baseline" 9-13 in regards to upgraded the radar. The confusion I think comes from NATO designations - because NATO designated both the 9-13 and 9-13S as "FULCRUM C".

I wrote: MiG-29 - 9-12 and 9-13 with N019 radar. MiG-29S - 9-13S with N019M radar. Talk about posting **** :D

Yes arguments are catagorised. E.g. for the Su-33 argument #0 controls IFR probe inside the cockpit - on the external model the same argument controls nose strut lowering, while IFR probe is under argument #22.