AeriaGloria

Can’t watch the track right now, but the sight has limitations of 30 degrees bank and about 20 degrees/s yaw/pitch. So if using the sight as a pilot, you need to command Petro or your multi crew CPG to close the sight when exceeding any bank angle above 30 degrees. This is why in reality Mi-24 crews trained to never use the sight above 20 degrees of bank. When this happens the gyros are toppled. And this can only be fixed if CPG turns off the power so that the gyros can settle for 3.5 minutes

The MiG-29 manual is full of warnings about false contacts both radar/IR, over swampy or wet areas. How the target indicator will go down if you select false target. And the range/azimuth inaccuracy for each mode. Hope all these things are modeled. The IRST should have good filtering, but should also show false things

It’s not much of an immersion breaker for me to consider it a Soviet version since performance is identical. For MiG-29 9.12b, I think the main difference is different IFF unit that requires manual interrogation. So you need to press “ZANPOC/break lock” button to identify, and the panel is clearly different in cockpit. But that’s also a small difference in my book. These first three pictures are 9.12B with Parol IFF. Last 4 are 9.12A. Different between the round IFF selector with codes, and IFF you would be more familiar with in say Mi-24P module

Practically nothing. For all intents and purposes it performs the same. Radar/IRST is an alignment different expert version (identical performance though). IFF has differences probably in codes but same unit and operation. Following from Yefim Gordon I think

I’m not sure what you is possible. Only maps 1:200,000 or 1:1,000,000 are possible on a 220x168mm area. I think what they might mean in this video using smaller piece of map? Or even knee board. The selector only has the two positions in game in reality….. even 200,000 scale one covers 44 by 33 km

Not directly. You can go do with the Petro interface though. Press left short I believe to open CM menu

We would need a track to know for sure, since you didn’t take any damage and had 2x S-8

You limits are 30 degrees bank and about 20 degrees/s rotation, avoid those and close the periscope before you reach those and you’ll be fine

You would be surprised how many late Soviet aircraft don’t have WOW switches. It seems to have been a very western thin g at that time.

Like what? The engines have a pretty detailed model. There might be some engine emergency controls that might need to be added, but that’s all I can think of. Would be interesting to model the power changing switch as a ME option

I would never count on it. MiG-29 that adds MFD also adds alot of other things But they did confirm modeling the GCI command Beryuza/Lazur system. You will control this with panel by right elbow, you can select 3 ciphers and 20 different targets for up to 60 different selections. Each selection should give you range and bearing to a target, guiding you along a proportional navigation route. The autopilot can automatically fly this route, and it will control your radar and lock automatically for you, meaning you only have to press fire. You can also keep radar off, just use IRST for stealth while using the data link to guide you to target, this way you have stealthy approach while knowing exactly where target is. By changing to different targets, you can build a picture of the airspace and enemies within It should be a very powerful tool that should give it some options to take down some advanced threats You also have an auto mode, where the GCI operator decides what target to send you. And the whole time you will receive commands on the HUD, including when a new target is about to be sent

The intercept route is proportional navigation for either a head on intercept or for stern conversion. You should get rough heading range and commanded altitude, then by following the targeting circle/ILS markers you will be guided on this proportional navigation intercept route, almost exactly the same path as if you had fired a missile

Yes

What I meant isn’t spring center, but the needed pedal deflection for straight flight, the “center” needed for coordinated flight at one power setting I use springless pedals. I always found Mi-8 Microswitch implementation easier then Mi-24 with “disable by return to nuetral” not only because you don’t have a tail that changes power to pedal relationship with airspeed, but a few other reasons the nuetral zone for Microswitch disable is 5% in Mi-8, 9% in Mi-24. In Mi-24, this zone is fixed at the center. For Mi-8, this zone is centered based on where pedals are at when yaw channel is turned on or pedals trimmed. Which I personally think means springless pedals work better for the 8 then 24 with disable by return to nuetral, especially if you turn AP off then back on to adjust it for cruise. But that’s just me

IIRC there is also an altitude limit for the emergency afterburner mode? Like 3,000m?

It’s worth a pass over with lessons learned with the past year or so of this feature for developers to maybe take a look before final release. Also probably best before manual comes out, but I know that’s complex If anyone does want microswitches working in game like reality, I taped these to my pedals lol https://a.co/d/53pYra5

I just don’t see how anyone would want the heading hold to always be active with still pedals. What do you do in a steady turn? Keep the pedals in one spot. If this setting worked the way it was supposed to, the heading hold wouldn’t fight you as you added pedal as bank increased, then the heading hold would kick back in once your bank angle stabilized and pedal stayed where it needed to be coordinate. You then end up with it trying to straighten you with 18% anti torque authority while trying to turn, and possibly 118% while trimming you if you have PEDAL AUTO MOVE on. I could see it working if you usually kept heading hold deactivated most of the time and only used it every once in a while. But for actually turning I don’t see how it could work well To me, it’s not worth the developer time. And I think it would make things simpler as the settings are complex as they are

I and everyone I know who has tried has found the “enable by presence of movement” setting to be useless. I think it could be removed and not be missed, but that’s just me.

Yes. But MiG-29 9.12S also exists, where S upgrade is done in 9.12 airframe without hump

Me EO seems to work automatically in RL or EORL mode. EORL seems to Simply skip memory mode extrapolation and skip straight to EO, so I’ve been using it less for R-27R/ER shots The real Fulcrum only had sensor cooperation if “coop” switch is flipped. In such a case, the radar only works in MPRF mode which has 30 km acquisition and 21 km track range. So to do it realistically in Fulcrum, is complicated

It’s kindve like why they never used the datalink for R-27 T/ET. Sure it “could” have worked if they built them with the reference antennas and made it work with the software. But the sad truth of the Soviet Union is that they didn’t, and I think the they did a pretty good job as is designing a pretty unique missile to have some rather unique abilities (modularity).

I checked guide for MiG-29SMT with Zhuk-ME radar. It can do TWS and provide coordinates to RVV-AE (R-77) and R-73 in such a way as to attack all selected targets. However, if any R-27 variant is selected, it will transition to STT 10 seconds before reaching authorized launch zone. So if it is possible, it is not on the MiG-29SMT

Absurd? It’s impossible I think! Maybe possible if the time was turned back to 1976 and the engineers were able to design it with that intention with extra money and resources. Or if some sort of huge upgrade was announced. But DCS MiG-29 will only be able to guide with STT

The radar itself is also what sends the data link signal. Two 1/3rd second signal periods to provide datalink guidance for up to 2x R-27, and last 1/3rd second target illumination. I would have to check some material, but I believe after a certain period of time the radar sends a seeker lock command and transitions to a more normal illumination waveform with higher update, but I would have to check

It is theoretically possible if the Missile/guidance system was designed that way. As it is, there is no way to fire while maintaining TWS, and the datalink is designed with 1 s update rate. Whereas in TWS, a full scan takes about 3.6 seconds I believe. Im sure it would’ve been possible if the engineers had the money to make it work with their existing hardware which is as you say, already designed for LOAL. But it just wasn’t done. The range is 12 km for small target, 25 km for medium, and 40 for large. These ranges are also drastically smaller if attacked using MPRF/ZPS mode. You would think with comparing to the F-14/Phoenix, that this sort of thing would have been on their mind. But I guess they believed the STT guidance needed for accurate mid course guidance while saving their TWS mid course engineering for R-77, which was notoriously behind schedule