Ironhand

From Matt's 2018 PC Pilot interview: 1) 2) Most likely not. 4. Seems not.

S-200 Title reads: General Information About the S-200 Anti-aircraft Missile System and 5B21A Rocket.

For some of us, age and health inform the length of time we have available for waiting.

Ahhh…I found that definition, when I looked it up, but didn’t make the connection. Thanks. The operative word is “someday” which means, most probably, not in my lifetime…unfortunately.

For the uninitiated among us, what does this mean?

The limiting factor for RedFor aircraft is political/governmental rather than ED’s decision to only produce FF modules. I fly FC3 because I fly the Su-27 and MiG-29. If they were FF modules, that’s what I’d be flying instead.

ED, I believe, has already stated that, once MAC is released, any new modules added would already exist as FF modules. There were no plans to start from the “relaxed” fidelity end of things.

The spaces currently missing still existed in 2014 but look like they might not have been in use. (Edit: The map and base were first released in 2009, IIRC.) Imagery from 2016 shows the area torn up. Subsequent imagery shows the area repaved as it exists currently.

I’m convinced and I will! Just waiting for an Su-27 or MiG-29 or some such to be released. Looking forward to it with quiet anticipation.

Assuming you are on your coalition’s base, with engines turned off, press the “/“ key, select Ground Crew, Repair.

Yes, ED has moved on to bigger things. Lowly FC3 is on life support and waiting for the plug to be pulled…unfortunately.

All you can do is fast forward and press the required keys, until you reach the point you want. That’s one of the limitations of the track system.

As razo+r notes, in the simplified world of FC3, frequencies are auto-selected. But the Russian aircraft do not use TACAN and ILS. They use RSBN in place of TACAN. In place of ILS, they use PRGM. The only problem there is that only 6 runways in the sim (as far as I’m aware) are PRGM equipped by default. All are in the Caucasus. You can tell which that are in the Mission Editor. Their information is given in blue (or is it green?) instead of white text. Belsimtek’s MiG-15bis comes with RSBN/PRGM for the entire Caucasus which allows you to actually navigate as long as you’re in their aircraft. Don’t know if they’ve added it for any other map.

The radar always scans as far as it can. Changing the range scale on the left side of the HUD changes how much of the sky ahead you want the system to display. That’s all. Anything it "sees" beyond that range will be displayed at the very top of the range, an indication that it's beyond the range being displayed.

I’m a bit confused as to what units you’re placing. You start by saying that you were placing static tanks but end by saying that you couldn’t see way points or move them. Static tanks are window dressing. They’re used to add atmosphere. They do nothing but sit there. How were you trying to view them in the mission? If you were using F keys, then F12 is used to view static objects. Active ground units, on the other hand, use F7. Which F key, if you used them at all, were you using?

Either they’re not correct or I’m using them incorrectly. Either can be true. A 40 mile fetch was much smaller than what I was using. Anyway…here are two: http://csherwood-usgs.github.io/jsed/Fetch and Depth Limited Waves, USGS.html https://planetcalc.com/4442/ A 28-footer is the closest I’ve every gotten to a tall ship and I’ve only crewed at that. Never had a # for how hard the wind was blowing. Worst was with the main reefed and only the storm jib up. That was exhilarating enough. I also kayak. That’s a boat that will convince you that the sea lives and breathes in case you doubt it. Worst experience there was not seeing the boat I was wearing for what felt like a few hours at a time. I’m sure the latter experience was not a 40 kt breeze.

I know some people feel that decoupling the wind and wave height might allow unrealistic scenarios but what we currently have is unrealistic as well. If you use any of the publicly available wind/wave calculators out there, you will realize that, currently, significant wave height is roughly 1/4 of what it should be. As an example, a 20m/s (38.9 kt) wind with a decent fetch and bottom depth should produce a significant wave height of around 71ft. In the sim, you get about 17ft. There are a number of other issues with the modeling of the sea state but, at least where wind driven wave height is concerned, allowing users to set the wave height would solve the wave height problem. Of course, simply adjusting the wave height to wind speed ratio would solve the issue, too. And that might be even simpler.

The Flanker. It’s been my favorite ride, since 1998.

It works in concert with the target altitude setting but, for the most part, it's nothing you need to worry about. If someone gives you the bearing range and altitude of a target they want you to lock, set the expected range, set the target altitude to the number of kilometers above or below you the target is, and put your nose on the bearing. The target will be sure to be in your scan zone. Other than that, leave it alone. If you play with it, you'll see that it changes the number of degrees the target elevation setting points the radar above or below your nose. A target range of 10 with a target elevation of 2 will be much higher than the same target elevation with an expected target range of 80. EDIT: This is a tutorial I began but never finished years ago so it’s missing arrow pointings, etc, but it explains all of this. Jump to minute 12. It might prove helpful:

If you provide a short track with either the TF-51 or Su-25T (the two aircraft everyone has access to), it’ll be a lot easier to figure out what the issue might be. 250 kts, in a jet, is fairly slow for a turn. It won’t allow much back pressure on the stick without falling out of the sky. You might find some of this helpful:

It is definitely the side slew that caused the lock issue. Centered, there is no problem. Slewed right or left, there is no ability to lock as BlackPixxel stated.

Yes, it would.

The results feel more like the discovery of a bug than a modeling of reality. EOS itself is passive and I doubt that the laser would be randomly lasing the sky. Even if it were, your warning should only go off, when it randomly hit you. FWIW, the Su-27 manual makes it sound as if the laser rangefinder engages after target lock. “Upon locking an aerial target…the laser rangefinder is engaged…” Further, it notes some time limits on its use. @Pavlin_33 Have you checked to see if BlackPixxel’s explanation of why you couldn’t obtain an EOS lock was correct?

Without knowing the actual circumstances (range, altitudes, etc), at a minimum, check your heading and remember it along with his relationship to it before you maneuver. He will be in that general direction. The greater the range, the less his general position will have changed. At close range, the converse is true. If he was high, check mid-to-high altitude for him first, mid-to-low next. How much his orientation to you has changed will be a function of time and distance. Low time and high distance will leave him more or less where he was. High time, low distance is to be avoided for obvious reasons.

Yes. Without a lock, how does the laser know what to measure the range to? The lock comes first and, then, range gets measured. Not sure about the MiG-29’s laser but according to the Su-27 real world manual, if the target is < 1600 m away, the laser is the primary tool for measurement and uses a 2Hz emission frequency. If > 1600 m, it plays a supportive role at .25Hz. In that situation, the radar, in “quasi-search” mode, provides the primary range measurement. I would imagine that the MiG’s system would be something similar. @BigBorner Whether or not it would trip the warning would depend on the frequency range it scans, I would imagine. In the sim, I don’t know if the laser use in the MiGs or Sukhois is even modeled separately. All you see in the cockpit is a range measurement.