Ironhand

It allows the Inertial Navigation System time to align. Otherwise you’ll have issues as Akiazusa noted above.

Cool link!

Ahhh….never thought to check the telelight panel. After 20+ years in FC aircraft, I stopped looking because the panel never told the full story. Thanks for the help.

I was able to spend some quality time with the MiG today. One of the ways I like to test my understanding of how systems integrate is to misalign the switches and predict what will happen. Everything happened as I expected except one--the new lines being drawn on the range scale as the range marker moved down. The setup: IRST is primary first searching, then capturing. The radar is set to Dummy with the Co-op switch up. I, however, left the radar mode in Average rather than Close Combat so that there would be no ranging. I've never seen what I saw on the range scale before. TRK file attached. MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T WTF.trk

I imagine the odds of it happening will be directly proportional to the FF MiG-29 Fulcrum sales figures.

For years people complained that bombs were not sufficiently effective with no secondary blast effects. Now…

Took a look at the TRK file and also took control of it to play around a bit. In the image you posted, it turns out that the debris you see are ground textures. In experimenting with you track, I had to be above something like 850 m for them not to appear and not feel the blast effect. BTW, it's the same texture whether you were hitting ground or, in this case, the bridge.

In the Weapons section of Gameplay Bugs there have been a number of complaints about bomb damage radius (of a variety of bombs) being too large. Haven’t checked it out myself.

I don’t know the answer to what it was translated from. As for the page numbering, I doubt it. It’s an odd mixture of standard print and pages that are obviously enlarged photocopies of translated text and/or diagrams.

I own these: MiG-29 Flight Manual (Schiffer Military History Book) by Alan R. Wise MIG 29 Flight Manual GAF T.O 1F-MIG29-1 English Edition [Loose Leaf 2001] by Luftwaffe

Just noticed this. If there was a fix, it’s been unfixed. My installation is up to date but the issue remains and is demonstrated in the first two TRK files I posted above. It would be most helpful to have it fixed again.

Excellent!

@BIGNEWY, not sure exactly what you’re requesting the tracks to demonstrate but… Here are some TRK files that might be helpful. The 1 minute cool down starting after an air start is a thing. "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach-Less Time" and "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach-Less Time2" are the same track. The difference between them is that I opened "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach-Less Time" in the ME and moved the F-15's start position closer to my MiG. In both, you get launch authorization 1 minute plus 2 seconds after mission start. 1 minute for the cool down. Then 2 seconds for the missile seeker to do its thing. The other thing going on is the strength of the heat source. "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T High Mach" results in launch authorization shortly after the R-Max kinematic range at 23 km. "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach" results in launch authorization much later. The kinematic range is identical but authorization doesn't occur until the range closes to 8 km. Just for fun, I then opened "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T High Mach" in the ME and swapped out the R-27Ts for R-27ETs. As expected, the kinematic range is much greater but launch authorization is identical in "MiG-29 Fulcrum R-27ET" to "MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T High Mach". MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach-Less Time.trk MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach-Less Time2.trk MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T High Mach.trk MiG-29A Fulcrum R-27T-TG Low Mach.trk MiG-29 Fulcrum R-27ET.trk

Just make the best adjustments you can and be consistent in the trials.

You weren’t. That it was Фи0 and not boresight that would be involved needed to be clarified.

Which is what I did. I had meant "Фи0" but chose the wrong descriptor.

Here’s the relevant forum with the guide: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/901-voice-chat/

EDIT: Nevermind. What I wrote below simply enables the possibility of using it. It’s the key combo that makes it actually appear. So what I wrote below won’t work. You should be able to do do at least a part of that by editing the mission file. A MIZ file is a zipped file. Simply open it, locate the line that states whether or not the pilot body is enabled and change it. Don’t have access to my computer right now, so I can’t be more specific. You may be out of luck on the HMD, though.

From the DCS User Manual: Have you selected “Load”?

Yes, I know. Some of the above was hyperbole, though I have had it happen. Very disconcerting when it does.

I’ve never used it but DCS has its own voice chat system. There’s also SRS which, again, I’ve never used. And Discord which I have used.

Susceptibility to chaff has always been this missile’s weakness in the sim. Doesn’t seem any worse than previously, though. Much more often than not, in a BVR dual, it’ll be a missile with an IR seeker that will make the kill. The R-27R/ERs just give you something to do, while you wait to make the R-73 kill.

That seems a bit strange. If the missile seeker is pointing at the target in identical situations, I wouldn’t expect to see a difference. Concerning the two sensors, I have no idea which would be more sensitive. Does this include Boresight?

Unfortunately I won’t have access to my computer for another week or so. I’d love to take a closer look at some of the assumptions that we’re making. OTOH, it certainly seems that the missile interacts differently with the two platforms.

That’s interesting. I was only going by the data you presented and hadn’t watched the videos. You used active pause. So there’s a variable not account for. Either the target aircraft were flying at different speeds within the first two test groups or the “own” aircraft speeds are not identical as assumed. I suppose both could be true, though. The 11,800 m test is the one where they were identical. EDIT: Maybe I’m making a mountain out of a mole hill. And this isn’t a criticism of your test procedure. It just seems that something is amiss and it might not be the missile.