Hate the SPO15 :/

[primus_TR]

Kudos to ED for doing a great job with the Fulcrum. I love the module. Was totally worth the wait. 

That said,  with the now realistic modeling of the SPO15, specifically no front quadrant reception when ownship radar is illuminating, Fulcrum's survivability will be zero to nil (which is also real-to-life by the way). 

Anyhow, unfortunately, ED did a great job of providing us with a truly realistic Fulcrum lol.

I'll go practice more to git gut 

[Dača]

MiG-29 is not an air superiority aircraft. So...yeah

Edited 7 hours ago by Dača

[bies]

Modeling real life, both, strong sides and limitations, is the beauty of full fidelity modules and DCS overall.

[primus_TR]

53 minutes ago, bies said:

Modeling real life, both, strong sides and limitations, is the beauty of full fidelity modules and DCS overall.

Indeed

[Pavlin_33]

2 hours ago, bies said:

Modeling real life, both, strong sides and limitations, is the beauty of full fidelity modules and DCS overall.

Ans yet we have no realistic IFF in any of the modules except JF-17.

[sleestak]

Probably beating a dead horse here, but understanding the context of the MiG-29s mission is vital. Moving it outside of those guardrails turns it into a sitting duck. In theory, the radar wouldn’t be on for building a situational awareness picture along with the RWR like in a modern western platform. We need the Lazur datalink and a GCI system to really see how the MiG-29 was intended to be utilized. The radar would have only come on to guide R-27s to the target in a contested environment. Given these parameters, it’s safe to say its designers didn’t see a lot of benefit to both of them working in harmony.

It’s a fun plane and working with its quirks adds a lot of character.

[AeriaGloria]

5 hours ago, Dača said:

MiG-29 is not an air superiority aircraft. So...yeah

The Su-27, an air superiority plane, is no different 

[falcon_120]

The Su-27, an air superiority plane, is no different 

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

[sylkhan]

38 minutes ago, sleestak said:

 We need the Lazur datalink and a GCI system to really see how the MiG-29 was intended to be utilized. 

^ This.

[falcon_120]

Kudos to ED for doing a great job with the Fulcrum. I love the module. Was totally worth the wait. 
That said,  with the now realistic modeling of the SPO15, specifically no front quadrant reception when ownship radar is illuminating, Fulcrum's survivability will be zero to nil (which is also real-to-life by the way). 
Anyhow, unfortunately, ED did a great job of providing us with a truly realistic Fulcrum lol.
I'll go practice more to git gut 

Now with this FF implementation is more important than ever to play the way it's meant to be used, in servers were they simulate GCI support and radar in an 80s/SARH only context

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk

[Кош]

Being blinded by own radar is listed as "Common malfunction" in SPO-15 manual for ground personnel. To make SPO-15 not blinded by own radar, technician must perform service stated in SPO-15 collection of technical cards, book 3 card 9. It explicitly states that radar bleed into display is a malfunction.

[primus_TR]

16 minutes ago, Кош said:

Being blinded by own radar is listed as "Common malfunction" in SPO-15 manual for ground personnel. To make SPO-15 not blinded by own radar, technician must perform service stated in SPO-15 collection of technical cards, book 3 card 9. It explicitly states that radar bleed into display is a malfunction.

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.' 

Edited 1 hour ago by primus_TR

[Кош]

20 минут назад, primus_TR сказал:

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.' 

I noticed. I tend to beleive irl maintenance manual over it.

Edited 1 hour ago by Кош

[AeriaGloria]

53 minutes ago, primus_TR said:

ED's manual characterizes it as a standard 'feature.' 

Not really, I’m not sure it says. When talking about same thing Su-27 manual says “possibly.” 
 

It’s in the manual as a warning near the end, which isn’t usually the standard stuff 

1 hour ago, falcon_120 said:

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk
 

why? What’s different then a F-15 with Sparrows? 

[Wizard_03]

2 hours ago, falcon_120 said:

Let's say it's not an air superiority fighter by USAF standards.

Enviado desde mi RMX5011 mediante Tapatalk
 

It's not an air superiority by anyone's standards. An air superiority fighter is meant to go to the enemies airspace and take control of the sky from them. For that role it needs robust independent search and track cabilities, lots of range and lots of weapons. It has to be able to see, fight, and survive in contested air space outnumbered and often behind enemy lines. The Flanker filled that role for the Soviet Union.

 

The Fulcrum is very much optimized for defensive counter air. As such It lacks the range, payload and most importantly the sensor suite to go establish air superiority somewhere else. It's a point defense asset and meant to be intergated into a comprehensive layered air Defense system. It was designed to be cheap and easy to mass produce, and it relies on things like GCI to provide situational awareness. Outside that environment, isolated and independent the MiG is not very survivable. 

Edited 2 minutes ago by Wizard_03