Ironhand

I look forward to viewing them.

The FF module will model many of this aircraft’s systems very differently from the FC version which many of us have been flying. So there will be a lot to unlearn and, then, relearn. It would be extremely helpful to have the manual released prior to the module. That would decrease the frustration level for folks who haven’t spent time wading through the available Russian language. At least this would give folks a chance to see what’s changed before the module arrives.

Let’s hope this bird comes with a detailed manual. If all it arrives with is a “quick start” manual, people will be extremely frustrated by what they experience. The frustration will be there no matter what because many will have spent a lot of time in the FC bird and have a lot to unlearn. Not having a good manual to reference is going to add fuel to that frustration fire. In fact, releasing the manual a month or so prior to releasing the aircraft would be the best route to take with any FF module previously released as an FC bird.

The best approach is just to forget any planned release date. Then you feel like a kid on Christmas morning, when it’s suddenly released.

Yes, there will be a lot to unlearn and relearn. And knowing what is actually correct can be difficult to ascertain. On certain points, manuals can seem to contradict each other. There can even be contradictions within same manual. Most of them seem not to have been professionally written. Anyway, I found the above about landing interesting because, if you take the info and diagrams provided in you post earlier yesterday along with the subsequent text you posted later that day, it would seem that the large circle and the small circle should work just as they do in the sim. It’ll be interesting to see what turns up.

At this point I’m not sure if we’re agreeing on what #32 represents or not. From the both the diagram caption and text you’ve provided, it seems to be either distance to a navigation point or the manually entered target range depending on HUD mode. Do you agree? I assume that both the FF HUD and HDD will have differences that we’ll have to unlearn. Won’t that be fun.

“42” looks to be a typo. It should read “43”. 32, in addition to being the navigation distance, is the manually entered range to the target. Why would a range/distance number be tied to cannon rounds remaining (42)? Also, if you look at the diagram, 43 is pointing at roughly 16 km on the range scale.

Umm..isn’t it actually item 32 (manual range input) in the diagram? Isn’t the bar (#26) actually the range to target based on the radar return?

@Mainstay the TRK file I attached to my previous post might prove helpful.

300 km/hr is too fast. And that you need to do that suggests that you’re landing too hard as well. The fastest speed I’ve ever touched down was 290 and I was seriously overweight. With about 60% fuel and 4AAMs you should be touching down in the 270-280 km/hr range. With around 1,500 kg fuel remaining and 2 AAMs, I’m usually touch down in the 250-260 range. You need to come in flatter in this bird. Otherwise, you will end up landing too fast and too hard. EDIT: Just attached a TRK file landing at Kutaisi with 6AAMs and a bit less than 60% fuel (roughly 13,700 kg gross weight, I think). Touchdown speed was 270 km/hr. Note the slow descent rate at the end. Just before crossing the threshold you should begin slowly pulling the stick back. Just don't let your nose pitch higher than 10° (11° at most) or you might cause an engine strike as you touch down. In the end, it'll be just about in your lap as your wheels touch. Mig-29A Kutaisi Landing 13700kg.trk

Hard to tell what the issue is until/unless Mainstay responds. @skywalker22 is correct. It’s very easy to get behind the aircraft. Normally, the aircraft takes off using full mil power with flaps extended. If you take off by the numbers, you pull back on the stick between 230-250 km/hr and, as the nose wheel comes off, settle the nose on 10 degrees pitch. The mains will follow a second or two later. Usually you’re airborne by 280 km/hr. If using afterburner, everything happens much faster. IIRC, you start pulling back on the stick around 170-180 km/hr. By the time you get it anywhere near the right amount, you’re at the 240-250 km/hr mark.

That’s curious. I’ve only had a blowout once that I can remember and that was the result of a truly horrible landing. Perhaps I’ve just been lucky. In what circumstances does this most frequently occur?

From today's newsletter:

Because the -ER (-ET) entered service. The -AE did not.

When having issues such as these, it’s always an excellent idea to disable any mods you’re running, even if they would seem to have nothing to do with the problem. It’s amazing how often a mod for one aircraft will screw up another.

That’s where you PM NineLine and pass it on privately.

Now I know what the difference is. In my screenshot, the engines are idling. In yours, you hadn’t spooled up yet. So there was insufficient hydraulics to raise the mains.

It's a bug. All three should collapse.

Both radars seem ok. Both pick up a test Su-27 at 76.5 km give or take a fraction. This was SP.

“A” summer? Not this one? Sorry. Saw that and had to ask…

The map’s a hoot in the MiG-29, too.

+1 Looking forward to this.

+1 It would be best to release it as a new payware map, not an update of the existing map. I love “flying” in that part of the world. It’s got a bit of everything: sea, shoreline, mountains, steppes, cities and towns with amazing architecture…

BIGNEWY in today’s changelog just posted:

Optical/thermal tracking? Some generation of the system have it. Not sure what’s modeled in the sim. It’s been awhile since I’ve paid close attention.