Metric/Imperial options

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 9/20/2025 at 2:11 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

It has been requested before, and the need has been acknowledged by ED.

Funny thing is, that on my end the MiG-29’s cockpit is a mix of metric and imperial:

HSI says miles but is using kilometres, fuel gauge says NM but is using KM, airspeed indicator is in KPH, true airspeed indicator is in knots, radar altimeter is in feet

This truly shows how poorly thought out the system is, and highlights the need for special options.

Or they simply could have left the system as is was, then it would have worked perfectly, instead of trying to make an ‘80s Soviet aircraft display imperial units…

Agreed, I just want cohesion in the environment of the cockpit. The issue isn't so much that it's in metric or Imperial units, the issue is that it's a mix. I'd be surprised if an actual 9.12 had such a mix as a Soviet line bird.

Sure, the MiG-29Gs were in Imperial, but we don't have a G.

[MAXsenna]

7 hours ago, TotenDead said:

In nato that is? So, can you consider french worse and less professional than average nato pilot because their cockpits are in french? 

Come on dude. For real? You know exactly what he ment.  

[Phantom711]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb MiG21bisFishbedL:

Sure, the MiG-29Gs were in Imperial, but we don't have a G.

I agree with your wish for coherence, but still, the fact that we can chose between metric and imperial should be maintained. The MiG-29Gs were former MiG-29A (9-12A) that were converted to english/imperial and only very "moderate" changes on top of that. 

If I were nitpicky, I could as well say that it is unrealistic to fly the DCS MiG-29 with soviet liveries, because the announcement clearly states, that it simulates the Warsaw Pact export version (9-12A as opposed to the regular 9-12). Oh...and in that case also: AA-10C (R-27ER) and AA-10D (R-27ET)...nope...unrealistic....

See where we are getting with this?

Edited 1 hour ago by Phantom711

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

22 minutes ago, Phantom711 said:

MiG-29A (9-12A)

 

23 minutes ago, Phantom711 said:

If I were nitpicky

... then you wouldn't call it "MiG-29A 9.12A" since that doesn't exist: an aircraft can't be 9.11 and 9.12A at the same time, especially since 9.11 never materialised and was just an idea abandoned in 1976  

[Phantom711]

@Raven (Elysian Angel)

Quote from EDs Announcment thread: "Our MiG-29A, NATO codename Fulcrum, will be the export modification of the “A” version that was supplied to Warsaw Pact countries."

So "Fulcrum-A" might be the more appropriate term. In any case, I don´t see how that would negate anything that I stated.