Alfa

@ Dudikoff, Listen mate I understand what you are saying and I am not contesting what you propose. But like Esac_mirmidon said, it just seems like a rather marginal improvement in the grand scale of things.....like some of the suggestions for fixing the current NAV shortcomings for the MiG-29.

Ok thanks for the clarification - I wasn't sure I had interpreted what you said correctly :) Thats what I thought - like I said I am out of the loop, but my impression was that, that while FC3 aircraft got PFM, there had been no changes to the combat systems functionality. In that case I agree with you, that the change proposed by Dudikoff seems a little moot....at least in terms of realism.

Just to be clear - the selector knob positions "OLS" and "RLS" do not activate EOS or Radar as a general sensor selection, but activate two specific BVR modes(one using the EOS for the R-27ET and the other the radar for the R-27ER). The display symbology in these is completely different(see attachement) and as far as I can tell(could be wrong), there is no ability to use EOS/Radar in combination in either of these. BTW - does DCS even simulate the EOS BVR mode(with the large -> small search area boxes)? I am seriously out of the loop, so maybe I have missed something, but last time I checked EOS was only simulated(display symbology) for the close combat modes("OPT" and "Vert").

But your screenshot does not show the standby radar altimeter(?) - did you mean difference in barometric altitude between HUD and standby pressure altimeter?

It does. There is no cut-out function - with large bank angles the radar altitude indication becomes unreliable and if there is no reflected signal, then altitude indication automatically switches to barometric altitude(HUD indication switches from "R" to "B")

Not questioning your authority on this, but reading the attached paragraph from the NATOPS manual, you get the impression that the HUD and the Height Indicator are just two different display options for the same radar altimeter set - i.e. they get the data from the same source. You can also initiate BIT checks of the system via either the DDI or height indicator. I would be more inclined to think that an altitude deviance would be down to display "fidelity" - i.e. that the height indicator may have a larger error margin than the digital output?

Yes because they got the same multirole upgrade. Yes because its an upgraded Su-30, which unlike the Su-27UB, always had an IFR probe. The ingame Su-30 is an Su-30KN - ED changed it to that(gave it multirole capability) at some point in time, but for some reason didn't change the display name accordingly. The export version of the basic Su-30 was called Su-30K(K for export) before it was upgraded - Su-30KN after :) . The KN upgrade could be applied to both the export Su-30K as well as the domestic Russian Su-30. But since Russia only operated a handful of those on evaluation basis and later returned them to Sukhoi, there were no domestic Su-30 interceptors to upgrade.

NP :) - and in that case you would be right that there is practically no difference between an Su-27UBM and an Su-30KN, since its the same upgrade package applied to both.

Yes at least for CVN-71 to -75(sometimes referred to as the "Theodore Roosevelt subclass") it should be feasible. However, from CVN-76(Ronald Reagan) the arrestor gear only has 3 wires, so that would be probably be too much of an omission :) The sim already has two different class designation systems - one for in-game display and another for the editor. So a simple way of addressing what you propose, would be to use the proper class designations(in your example this would be "CG-47 Ticonderoga") for the editor, since this is where you make the selection for the mission and then just leave individual names as they are for the in-game display......at least for ships that only exist as single entities.

There is no such thing as an "Su-30UBM" - I think you might be thinking about the Su-27UBM, which is an Su-27UB upgraded in similar fashion to the Su-27SM. Other way around - again both Su-27UBM and Su-30KN are multirole upgrades to older existing airframes.....the Su-27UB doesn't have an IFR probe, while the Su-30/-30K does.

Did you read the last paragraph of my above post? The Su-30KN is not a production variant, but a multirole upgrade for existing airframes(i.e. for the older pure interceptor Su-30/Su-30K). As you can see from the link I provided, former IAF Su-30Ks have been upgraded to this standard and resold to Angola - so it does exist "in the real world".

IIRC the Zif-122 launcher pops back down into the bin for re-loading. An even more similar system(to the MK-13) is the Uragan(aka Shtil) onboard Pr. 956 destroyers....but ok that type is not in the sim(big fail!). It applies to a lot of systems - RBU-1000, Kt-153(Udav-1) ASW launchers, PK-2 countermeasure launcher and Kortik/Kashtan AD combat modules to name some. Indeed! :)

The gauge is just a display - in some aircraft(e.g. MiG-29) both principles are employed and can be displayed by the same gauge. Yes but then "indication system" would probably be a better one :)

Already answered - look three posts up. There is no reverse thrust - the AI aircraft are being parked by "mules"(tractors), but there are just no visible models for them yet.

AFAIK the "only a tester" is a former F-18 pilot himself. Who said they did? Yes it does - if they had no intention on working any further on it, then why bother looking into it. Why don't you take a chill pill - you don't seem to realise that you have bought an "early access" product and not the final release version.

It really shouldn't be able to. The G-limit of 7.5 is for a very lightly loaded aircraft and the FCS automatically lowers it depending on weight - at a gross weight of over 44000 lbs(corresponding to your "fully loaded") it is fixed at 5.5. The G-limit override provides some 33% extra - i.e. as a procentage increase over what is otherwise available, so while it may allow you to pull up to 10 Gs with a practically clean aircraft, you are not going to get more than about 7 with a heavy one.

Ah ok :) - I thought you meant in terms of the layout. Their full cockpit simulator does have some minor differences in this respect compared to the more current actual cockpits(see attachment). But then practically all photos of operational Su-33s you can find on the net show a slightly different layout, so it seems it has been a continuous W.I.P.

Yeah and there is also that photo with the notebook and map on the table, but no nothing specifically on the carrier. Heh yeah it is :) - he is actually the commander of the whole regiment(both squadrons). Hm in what way do you mean? . The old Su-33 cockpit in Flanker 2 and Lock-on were(apart from being rather inaccurate) depicting the pre-operational version(test aircraft from 1990) and had several differences in the cockpit layout - e.g. had the old version of the ADI(same as in the Su-27) and the small(round) fuel gauge in the instrument panel(not in a separate housing on top of the IPV) etc.

NP :) I don't know the answer to your original question though(never really thought about it), but maybe you can pick up something from this nice reportage of a visit to the Severomorsk-3 airbase(home of the 279 KIAP): https://onepamop.livejournal.com/823062.html

You are welcome :)

He is referring to the aircraft carrier's optical landing line-up system called "Luna 3"(i.e. "moon"), which interacts with the aircraft's navigation system. http://www.elektropribor.spb.ru/newprod/en/enew_vert_luna_3e.pdf

Bug - or perhaps rather that the DDI monochrome version of the moving map has not been implemented yet.

Thats incorrect. The moving map can be called up on DDIs - it will just be shown monochrome.

Yeah it might(couldn't remember), so use the stick CM function instead.

Nice! :) But I was thinking more as an official addition since, as you mentioned yourself, your mod won't pass MP integrity check.