FoxAlfa

Time stamped... you are welcome!

If I am not mistaking burn times seam to correspond to the ones, we are having in DCS currently, not sure about the impulse and weight. @Маэстрo or @Chizh,maybe can give input.

Mi-8 "Getto Gunship" upgrade plz.... ATGMs, Bomb sight, Nose NSV, 3d cockpit update.... or Mi-2 Light helo to offset Light Blue helos.

And you are basing this on what source?

The picture is of a MiG-29M 9.15 prototype.... thus, digital FCS and new wing and another pylon off-picture so a different pylon arrangement a bit.... all in all, you are absolutely correct

13. HPRF and MPRF (PPS and ZPS) switch animation. At lower ranges then 30km it is more beneficial to use MPRF, but if you are in STT there is no way to tell which one is currently used. The animation for the switch is already in the game but not connected with the code. 14. Instrument brightness and floodlight control or tweak. Namely instrument backlighting\floodlight is it is now too bright and it can be turned off or controlled separately

It would be interesting to see how this values compere to the ones in DCS

SF-260 M-346FA (YAK-130) AW-129 Mangusta

I guess Aim-120A is also on the wish list?

At high range it is always useful to pull up before the launch, it preserves missile energy better since it doesn't need to do it with its limited energy source.

Is it just me, or it would be more beneficial to push for update to the new API and AP of the R-27s and R-77 so there is more foundation to up its priority then to ask for a nitch versions of R-73?

MiG-29a <64>Fox

Not trying to contradict you and I am not sure if it is due to video encoding or other youtube wizardry/messing up.... but compering to this: The clutter looks quite digital, Streight cut and same strength lacking any bloom/glow or fall off... Again, this could be due to WIP status of the radar or Videos encoding issues. null About the nature of the simulation itself I will refrain from commenting till I get my hands on it

Honestly, I would prefere that bug of AP (jamming) indication in STT disappring get fixed first. Once R-27 family get updated so they don't use pure but PN in HOJ, that will be much more important for missile employment.

Yes, it should, here is the link on Robert Hierl distinctly saying it should. So, it is a missing feature.

I am pretty sure you didn't, since I know what I posted now for few years, including stuff you were asking about. So ether put the time or don't complain. Manuals are out there, you just need to put the time in to find them. And in current climate not body is send them that easy.

All on this topic, you just have to go pages back...

There are MiG-29 manuals available with charts for R-27ER, the one from the manual has been posted on this forums multiple times. Also you are missreading the chart as R-27 aero/range, but is chart to give pilot idea when to expect 'PR'. Also CFD of AoA 0' helps, but isn't the magic bullit, since its been performace/speed loss when turning that was the issue before, not the streight line one. But I think we all agree all A to A missiles need to be done in the same way and same level of modelling. Hopefully soon.

There was a look down bug effecting all FC3 aircraft, meaning that low alt penalty would climb with the aircraft, which got fixed while ago... so look down performance is better for all FC3 aircraft

R1 is 90 km. R1 is not the same as Rmax since there are engineering safety include into calculations, like wind, trigger passing speed, temperature, hit probability etc... Also some pilots stated that missiles should be able to pull 3g for more then few seconds pass R1... That is why Rmax > R1...

You are using Rmax wrong... it is R1 and R2 ranges in Russian manuals.... so Rmax not necessarily equal R1... especially since manual instruct pilot to fire R1 which would be exceptionally low probably shot if Rmax = R1.

Another launch video with parameters in hud shot

X-31 launch... from cockpit...