Jump to content

DCS MiG-29A


Krippz

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, Cmptohocah said:

Could you check what the number 23 represents, please? It should be the target's closure rate, but I could be also wrong.

22 - position of the horizont 23 - position of the radar viewing zone

  • Thanks 1

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cmptohocah said:

Could you check what the number 23 represents, please? It should be the target's closure rate, but I could be also wrong.

 

Maybe there was no closure rate indicator on the early ones.

 

Here is footage from what seems like a simulator mode from a more modern one (with R-77 capability).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiMHBxSp6f0&t=1107s

 

Closure rate appears to be the vertial line to the right of the right radar gimbal boundary. And to the right of it is its numerical value.

 

On Su-27 the closure rate is indicated using an arrow pointing from the right onto the right radar boundary.


Edited by BlackPixxel
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BlackPixxel said:

Here is footage from what seems like a simulator mode from a more modern one (with R-77 capability).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiMHBxSp6f0&t=1107s

 

Great video @BlackPixxel!!!
Shame that the HDD does not show the target's altitude/speed, so we can compare the 77's performance to DCS.

  • Like 1

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, okopanja said:

I am curious if you know how the hump was actually added to the Mig-29 in the first place?

The point was that there are MiG-29 variants with upgraded system's complex/expanded weapon's compatibility, while retaining the original 9.12 airframe - i.e. no "humps".  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

The point was that there are MiG-29 variants with upgraded system's complex/expanded weapon's compatibility, while retaining the original 9.12 airframe - i.e. no "humps".

My point is that you should observe a certain almost horizontal line between  hump and the rest of the aircraft. 🙂 I am curious about that line and difference to the old airframe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

image.png
HUD from the 9.12 manual... no jammer active indication on the left, for smart Aleks who are going to ask if it is not 9.13, nor it has section about using the Jammer... so plz update your information. If some army didn't field a certain weapon or the manual is before the weapon existed doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable carrying it.

Nor does it mean that the aircraft was compatible with a certain weapon before it existed without later modification for the purpose.

21 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Also I am pretty certain that some export version weren't capable on purpose 

 

Sure - certainly the case with the 9.12B, but why would the Soviets remove R-27T compatibility from MiG-29s supplied to their Warsaw pact allies, if their own aircraft had it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

Nor does it mean that the aircraft was compatible with a certain weapon before it existed without later modification for the purpose.

The hypothesis wasn't "aircraft is capable to carry a certain weapon before it exists".... the hypothesis was "MiG-29 9.12 isn't capable of carrying ERs and Ts", and that hypothesis is wrong

 

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

but why would the Soviets remove R-27T compatibility from MiG-29s supplied to their Warsaw pact allies

Since Warsaw pact allies in the 80's didn't have R-27T? Also, Soviets didn't give latest and greatest to the allies ether... since they had tendencies to invade them.... 

But again, hypothesis "MiG-29 9.12 isn't capable of carrying ERs and Ts" is wrong, we can go into details regarding Polish, Yugo, Iraq MiG-29 separately...


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 1

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Lets put this to rest, the airplane in that picture is tail 315, a famous prototype shown at various airshows as a tech demonstrator. It is however, not your everage stock 9.12.

 

1085168-large.jpg

 

1116322-large.jpg

1227441-large.jpg

 

1051644-large.jpg

 

1200px-Soviet_MiG-29_over_Alaska_1989.JP

Who is talking about 315, more so ever who has access to prototypes manuals if there is even one?


Edited by FoxAlfa

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2021 at 7:04 PM, Harlikwin said:

Mig 9.12 is like your bride on your wedding night...

 

9.13, a bit later, with a few more lbs...

 

9.15 etc... You know how it goes...

 

I actually prefer 9.13 looks wise, she needs a few curves IMO. 😜


Edited by Wizard_03

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

The hypothesis wasn't "aircraft is capable to carry a certain weapon before it exists".... the hypothesis was "MiG-29 9.12 isn't capable of carrying ERs and Ts", and that hypothesis is wrong

The question isn't whether a 9.12 can be made to carry ERs and Ts, but whether it had the capability from the start or whether it was backfitted later. 

 

2 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Since Warsaw pact allies in the 80's didn't have R-27T?

 So they removed it as an option from the WCS because their allies didn't have the weapon(why would they do that?) ....or the allies didn't acquire the weapon in the first place because their aircraft couldn't use it.

2 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Also, Soviets didn't give latest and greatest to the allies ether... since they had tendencies to invade them.... 

....yeah right.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

9.12 ftw but I must say that from this angle and armed 9.13 looks good too 😄

 

mig-29-serbia_72019.jpg

 

Yeah, big girls use angles to their advantage for online dating too 😉

  • Like 1

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

If we're talking big girls lol:

image.png

 

Definitely a fatty. 

3 hours ago, Oceandar said:

Just took the MiG-29S online and its been a while for me. Man, I missed MiG-29k in Flanker 2.5. It was a blast with it.
Hope we can have MiG-29 (any version) someday in the future.

 

Why didnt they keep the 29k for fc3? 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 6:57 PM, Seaeagle said:

The bottom line is that the 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T - just R-27R, R-73 and R-60M.

image.png

This discussion is pointless, since your bottom line keeps shifting.

Again, Hypothesis that 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T or R-27ER is wrong since I gave you clear info from the manual that both R-27T and R-27ER are listed both in the weapon load and on the HUD (and no, I am not posting it here since of the 1.16).

Like it was said lot of ppl have older manuals before the weapons existed or/and from air forces that didn't use or have access to the missiles, and they come to the wrong conclusion. 

 

If you follow the Russian missile thread you would have seen also that most of R-27ER range envelop graphs are from MiG-29 manuals. 

 


Edited by FoxAlfa
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Seaeagle said:

.

11 hours ago, FoxAlfa said:

Also, Soviets didn't give latest and greatest to the allies ether... since they had tendencies to invade them.... 

....yeah right.

 

Hungary 1956

Prague Spring 1968

Avganistan 1979

 

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Why didnt they keep the 29k for fc3?

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing... 

-------

All the people keep asking for capabilities to be modelled.... I want the limitations to be modelled.... limitations make for realistic simulation.

Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud, after a bit you realize the pig likes it.

 

Long time ago in galaxy far far away:

https://www.deviantart.com/alfafox/gallery

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing... 
Yeah... Pretty much this.

Mastering others is strength. Mastering yourself is true power. - Lao Tze

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Definitely a fatty. 

 

Why didnt they keep the 29k for fc3? 

I suppose they didnt have much info about this aircraft to make it beliavable. From what I saw on videos, the cockpit was taken from old variants. Real aircraft was based on MiG-29M, so It should have much more advanced avionics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...