announced DCS MiG-29A

[Mike_Romeo]

1 hour ago, okopanja said:

Could you post the original link please?

 

Of what ? The R-27 report, the russian interview or the translation of the interview ?

[okopanja]

6 minutes ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Of what ? The R-27 report, the russian interview or the translation of the interview ?

Sorry meant R-27, but actually I did not read the link you already sent. Thank you!

[Silver_Dragon]

16 minutes ago, okopanja said:

Based on your insight, what would be a motivation to update the weapons of a legacy module?

Clearly we see new 3D models there.

With software development you do not get such things unless the company hopes to make a revenue.

Otherwise, the best you can hope for are cosmetic changes and limited bug fixes.

Is this a sign that ED is actually hoping to make revenue on FC3 or in this case Mig-29A?

ED need maintain all stuff update to maintain a quality standard. We need remember ED has release the Mi-24P that year and great quantity of red weapons has been update (S rockets, rails, rocket launchers, missiles and bombs) and add some new, that affect to old red modules and that has been update (FC-3, L-39, Mi-8, Su-25T, etc). About Mig-29A, ED has confirmed the develop of a Hardcore module, after the incoming Ka-50-3 update.

The same situation has show on the blue side, with AI and stuff updated. the weapons and other stuff has none exclusive of a module, has into the core directories.

About the 3D models, check here on the Unofficial roadmap:

 

Edited November 29, 2021 by Silver_Dragon

[WarbossPetross]

40 минут назад, okopanja сказал:

Based on your insight, what would be a motivation to update the weapons of a legacy module?

Clearly we see new 3D models there.

With software development you do not get such things unless the company hopes to make a revenue.

Otherwise, the best you can hope for are cosmetic changes and limited bug fixes.

Is this a sign that ED is actually hoping to make revenue on FC3 or in this case Mig-29A?

Well, aircraft weapons tend to be used by more than one type or even generation of aircraft. The fact that it was MiG-29A carrying these in no way prevents Su-25, Su-27 or pretty much any contemporary Russian aircraft with the necessary mounting and wiring from carrying them. And that makes the aircraft a better bargain, both for governments and us simmers (imagine buying an F-16 A/A version, A/G version and Wild Weasel version separately for $80 apiece). And gee, it's a topic for a full-fidelity MiG-29A, go figure

[okopanja]

12 minutes ago, WarbossPetross said:

Well, aircraft weapons tend to be used by more than one type or even generation of aircraft. The fact that it was MiG-29A carrying these in no way prevents Su-25, Su-27 or pretty much any contemporary Russian aircraft with the necessary mounting and wiring from carrying them. And that makes the aircraft a better bargain, both for governments and us simmers (imagine buying an F-16 A/A version, A/G version and Wild Weasel version separately for $80 apiece). And gee, it's a topic for a full-fidelity MiG-29A, go figure

I am not here for a deal, I would not mind paying $80 for the FF Mig-29/Flanker, even if developed and sold at the same time, since I would consider that as separate software product in contrast to FC3, properly supported and maintained.

[Minsky]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

Decreased? Do you mean the charts (they show actual increase), or some other undisclosed changes?

As I understand it, they're now using a virtual wind tunnel to rework their missiles, and this process takes a lot of time and effort.

They did the basic R-27 rework using this method, and now the missile needs to be fine-tuned by testing it in other modes, energy states, and whatnot. Chizh suspects that this new refined data may slightly decrease the missile's performance.

The R-77 is pending the same rework, but it will be much more challenging. For the wind tunnel thing to work, the 3D model (they've yet to create) has to be extremely precise: down to a millimeter, according to Chizh.

[sylkhan]

delete : bad topic

 

Edited November 30, 2021 by sylkhan

[GGTharos]

Yeah, because random youtube comments determine aircraft performance.

A video is worth nothing compared to the aircraft's performance charts.

Unless of course you let ED know that in your lifetime of flying MiG-29s you can tell them how they got it wrong, they'll take your experience into account

[okopanja]

Youtube? I gather there was some video posted here, but the topic is: Mig-29A

 

[Ironhand]

3 hours ago, okopanja said:

Youtube? I gather there was some video posted here, but the topic is: Mig-29A

 

He posted it in the wrong topic. At the moment, it’s the last post in the Thrust to Weight Ratio: Confused thread

[Cmptohocah]

Does anyone here have any idea what's the difference between AMRAAM's short wings and Alamo's (relatively) huge wings, when it comes to performance?
Is it a case of different technology/knowledge at their respective times of development, or are there some design tradeoffs at play here?

 

[Top Jockey]

27 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Does anyone here have any idea what's the difference between AMRAAM's short wings and Alamo's (relatively) huge wings, when it comes to performance?
Is it a case of different technology/knowledge at their respective times of development, or are there some design tradeoffs at play here?

 

 

I suppose the AMRAAM's developers / contractors, were more interested in getting every bit of available "reach" out of it, and hence its relatively small wings / control surfaces to lessen the aerodynamic drag...

[Cmptohocah]

40 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

I suppose the AMRAAM's developers / contractors, were more interested in getting every bit of available "reach" out of it, and hence its relatively small wings / control surfaces to lessen the aerodynamic drag...

Would that imply that it should have better range but worse relative turning performance?

I am trying to figure out, is it like comparing MiG-21 to a MiG-29 (totally different technologies) or a MiG-29 to a MiG-31 (different concepts)?

Edited December 3, 2021 by Cmptohocah

[Top Jockey]

3 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Would that imply that it should have better range but worse relative turning performance?

 

For my VERY limited knowledge on those matters, that is a more complicated question.

(Several physics matters interact here.)

 

My perception is that for A-A missiles, the last remaining airspeed when intercepting a target, can be of even more paramount importance than its control surfaces design, why ?

Because contrary to a fighter jet, most A-A missiles do require a somewhat high airspeed to be able to turn reasonably well, and also maintain altitude if needed.

 

Most fighter jets, can maintain a slow turn even at less than 200 kts airspeed.

Most A-A missiles, will be falling from the sky already quite before slowing to those speeds, (and much less would turn effectively).

Without enough kinetic energy, there's no control surfaces which might help.

 

[okopanja]

50 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

Because contrary to a fighter jet, most A-A missiles do require a somewhat high airspeed to be able to turn reasonably well, and also maintain altitude if needed.

Not an expert at all, but I see 3 reasons for giant fins on R-27:

1. turn better at high altitudes with less dense air, while still possessing high kinetic energy

2. turn and fly in low energy state for limited amount of time, before the speed totally bleeds.

3. provide some stability (this is typically done with read fins, so I doubt it)

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Would that imply that it should have better range but worse relative turning performance?

No.  Maybe at subsonic speeds.  Notice how everything is going to small fins, and the clue is tail control.   The R-27 and AIM-7 both have huge mid-body flight control surfaces while new missiles all have small tail-control fins, and they are capable of a greater g load over all.  In all cases there are significant miss distance improvements as well, though a huge chunk of that is seeker technology and guidance.

[Cmptohocah]

14 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

No.  Maybe at subsonic speeds.  Notice how everything is going to small fins, and the clue is tail control.   The R-27 and AIM-7 both have huge mid-body flight control surfaces while new missiles all have small tail-control fins, and they are capable of a greater g load over all.  In all cases there are significant miss distance improvements as well, though a huge chunk of that is seeker technology and guidance.

Yeah I guess that makes sense. It looks like a case of old vs new technology.

[Seaeagle]

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

Yeah I guess that makes sense. It looks like a case of old vs new technology.

Yes but R-27 and AIM-7 are also much heavier than the AIM-120, so I guess that has something to do with it as well.

[okopanja]

Re-transmitting:

 

[Silent Film]

So when this full fidelity MiG-29A is going to arrive?

[Mike_Romeo]

47 minutes ago, Silent Film said:

So when this full fidelity MiG-29A is going to arrive?

Nobody knows. Maybe it wont come after all.

[Silent Film]

31 minutes ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Nobody knows. Maybe it wont come after all.

Probably not in my lifetime lol. I was hoping for a full fidelity MiG-29, but now I will probably go for F-14 I wanted since I watched Top Gun as a kid.

[Mike_Romeo]

9 minutes ago, Silent Film said:

Probably not in my lifetime lol. I was hoping for a full fidelity MiG-29, but now I will probably go for F-14 I wanted since I watched Top Gun as a kid.

Well its planned by ED to realise the MiG-29A 9-12 after the Black Shark 3 update but who knows how long that takes.

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Mike_Romeo said:

Well its planned by ED to realise the MiG-29A 9-12 after the Black Shark 3 update but who knows how long that takes.

 

Late next year!

[Silent Film]

12 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Late next year!

Thanks! I hope you are right.