Blanker removed default

[Dejan]

10 hours ago, Vakarian said:

This basically kills all the credibility you had

I have no official credibility here to explicitly claim anything. I am not a pilot, engineer, or SME as you say here, I have information from pilots who flew Mig 29 combat missions in 1999, I have a manual for operating the Mig 29-original aircraft. I used the GPT chat as an aid in searching the internet for available data, I know it is not very reliable, but at least it searches faster than I would google.
The only source that GPT finds that claims that SPO does not work is ED, no other.

Edited 7 hours ago by Dejan

[Dejan]

8 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I have talked to multiple pilots who mentioned the SPO-15 being filled with junk when the radar was on. You can see circuitry diagrams ED posted with Polish and German descriptions showing a direct connection between different Radar/CPU blocks and RWR blocks. They are not unconnected braids. 
 

It is clear that if synching did work, it must’ve been a small amount of aircraft and a temporary period. For those that have own radar interference, there is likely even plenty variation between airframes with some showing more or less radar interference then others. And ED might still model one of these examples that had the blocking wire removed (or imperfect blanking) that while not perfect still allows you to get some use from SPO if you ignore false readings. 
 

I believe that you can still kick ass in the Fulcrum, it just takes some practice and getting used to. 

I haven't trusted ED for many years, almost nothing. What technical drawings and diagrams? Someone here, I think it was KOŠ, asked to be told the exact name of the document from which the diagrams are and as far as I know, he didn't get an answer. And I think he asked for the reason that he would try to investigate a little better. But, no We are the big ED, who are you to doubt us?

And do you think that only Russian planes break down? How come our F 14, F 16, F 18 are so perfectly serviceable and polished? Why didn't they find some technical instructions from the F 18 maintenance and implement some characteristic flaws for us?
You started changing the story and mentioning that some worked, but some didn't. What does that tell us? Knowing the situation about the MiG 29 aircraft users, it is obvious that ED modeled the broken plane based on service documents from Germany, Poland and Slovakia and not on the basis of the technical specification of how a serviceable plane works.

Here I found a post in which LOGAN54 asked for the exact name of the document. I will quote only that part.

"For being realist, I need something looks like proof, not as company blind faith.
No one tech data that I`ve read not have any SPO limitations. SPO-15 scheme can not be proof, if there is no mention in main documents.
By the way, can we see the full scanned SPO-15 (that ED showed), with year of document and name of the model? I want to be sure, this is not repair kit or non official part."

Edited 6 hours ago by Dejan

[AeriaGloria]

2 hours ago, Dejan said:

I haven't trusted ED for many years, almost nothing. What technical drawings and diagrams? Someone here, I think it was KOŠ, asked to be told the exact name of the document from which the diagrams are and as far as I know, he didn't get an answer. And I think he asked for the reason that he would try to investigate a little better. But, no We are the big ED, who are you to doubt us?

And do you think that only Russian planes break down? How come our F 14, F 16, F 18 are so perfectly serviceable and polished? Why didn't they find some technical instructions from the F 18 maintenance and implement some characteristic flaws for us?
You started changing the story and mentioning that some worked, but some didn't. What does that tell us? Knowing the situation about the MiG 29 aircraft users, it is obvious that ED modeled the broken plane based on service documents from Germany, Poland and Slovakia and not on the basis of the technical specification of how a serviceable plane works.

Here I found a post in which LOGAN54 asked for the exact name of the document. I will quote only that part.

"For being realist, I need something looks like proof, not as company blind faith.
No one tech data that I`ve read not have any SPO limitations. SPO-15 scheme can not be proof, if there is no mention in main documents.
By the way, can we see the full scanned SPO-15 (that ED showed), with year of document and name of the model? I want to be sure, this is not repair kit or non official part."

I literally linked you the post with the diagrams with my previous reply to you on the previous page. It is a LAUNDRY LIST of evidence and if you won’t atleast look at it there’s not much point having a conversation if you prefer GPT when you have a great resource right there that just happens to disagree with your preconceived notion. The ED evidence even goes through multiple ways they could implement it and reasons/things that would need to change for that to happen.

Here is my post just click on the link and go to last post  

 

Sources are Polish/German/Russian documents, Pilot accounts, Air Force training manuals, Russian manuals, etc. Reports of engagements, more pilot accounts

 

Like I said gpt is not being reliable when it says only ED says so They are just an easy source to find for it. 

I never said only Russian planes break down. Come on 

Yes it would be nice to have more of the intricacies of western planes modeled if there. But MiG-29 also suffers a bit here becuase it’s so well documented we know all these things. It sounds like things like AIM-7 and RWR will be brought to same standard. 
 

Changing the story? Also come on. Saying that different planes might’ve worked differently in one production batch is not unique to any country. And this is only with blocking wire removed,  not on as it is in our module (see entire subject of the thread). 
 

By different, if you read my post, it’s different in “some showed more or less false contacts on SPO-15 then others.” Not “some worked fine and some didn’t,” I’m only theorizing that it’s possible there is a rare few perfectly working examples out there restricted to not only few numbers but a temporary time. If you want to find the truth you don’t discount options until you get hard evidence. 

 

Like I said, read ED’s page of graphs and evidence and come back. 

And Like I said, the best we can do is get used to using our eyes, assuming launches, and we will still be able to kick ass. I know you can. The module still has so much to enjoy and might as well improve your SA. Keep radar off as much as possible to keep using RWR, use IRST only when possible.

There is even a trick to turn radar emission to dummy for a few seconds to read SPO during lock then switch it back to Illum, and the radar will maintain lock by going in and out of memory mode as long as you keep this short enough and the enemy doesn’t maneuver too much in the less then 6 seconds that memory mode words 

If you have “trouble” finding evidence just go into the SPO-15 feedback thread in main MiG-29 forum section, that will solve your problems. 

Edited 4 hours ago by AeriaGloria

[Muchocracker]

There's no point in engaging with this guy Aeria. He will only accept answers that confirm his pov, as evidenced by using chat gpt as a source. I have explained to him multiple times in the other thread why ED made the conclusions they did and pointed the evidence at him. I have asked him to provide factual evidence to support his contrary view and he refuses to do so. Just deflecting to pilot accounts that dont actually disprove anything. 

[rob10]

3 hours ago, Dejan said:

I haven't trusted ED for many years, almost nothing. What technical drawings and diagrams? Someone here, I think it was KOŠ, asked to be told the exact name of the document from which the diagrams are and as far as I know, he didn't get an answer. And I think he asked for the reason that he would try to investigate a little better. But, no We are the big ED, who are you to doubt us?

How much time/manpower would you like ED to devote to all these requests for specific documentation?

And WHY would ED give out all the details on stuff they have spent years collecting for each module?  You can choose to believe them or not, but it would make not sense to share all the stuff they've found so a competitor can suck it up and use it with little or no effort.

[AeriaGloria]

36 minutes ago, Muchocracker said:

There's no point in engaging with this guy Aeria. He will only accept answers that confirm his pov, as evidenced by using chat gpt as a source. I have explained to him multiple times in the other thread why ED made the conclusions they did and pointed the evidence at him. I have asked him to provide factual evidence to support his contrary view and he refuses to do so. Just deflecting to pilot accounts that dont actually disprove anything. 

Thanks, you’re right. 

[Harlikwin]

23 hours ago, Dejan said:

Wait a minute, so the MiG 29 had synchronization. The SPO worked in the front hemisphere together with the radar turned on. That's how it was designed and built? Did I understand this statement correctly?
If so, then I was right when I said that the ED modeled a broken plane for us. This gives me a feeling of bitterness because it seems to me that it was done with the intention of degrading the plane itself in the simulation based on the history of using the plane in the very bad period of the collapse of the Soviet Union and other user states that used it, all in order to confirm the claim in the simulation itself that the MiG 29 is a wreck of an airplane and a clay pigeon. We all know that Germany was reunified in 1990, those planes have been questionable since then regarding their maintainability, and there is also a big question mark over whether the Soviets deliberately sabotaged the remaining weapons during their withdrawal. They were then handed over to Poland, I don't know how and in what way they maintained them, oh yes, in Germany they were immediately converted to NATO standards. Perhaps Western engineers damaged the SPO devices, trying to repair them.
As we know, the MiG-29 was modeled for DCS based on those planes and documentation. What do the Russians say? Is it known? If they are silent, why don't they take the beginning of this text and make the plane the way it was designed and intended to work?
I would like to mention the fact that in every air force, except perhaps the American one, which has an enormous budget, a smaller number of planes are fully operational, precisely because of the sensitivity of the equipment and the lack of money in the budget. So there are always some semi-functional and some under repair in the hangar.
I hope you get my point?

The most likely take here is that it did work, but either not well or it rapidly failed in use and was hard to keep working. So you got the "Degraded" mode, which is what ED modeled. You have 29 manuals basically saying it could show strong spurious signals, and the 27 manuals say the same thing. You'd see those if the blanking was out of synch slightly, i.e. you were catching the leading or trailing edge of the your TX radar pulse and that was leaking into the SPO processing chain. If you got the full pulse it would likely just shut the whole thing off which is what ED actually modeled. 

[Dejan]

3 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

I literally linked you the post with the diagrams with my previous reply to you on the previous page. It is a LAUNDRY LIST of evidence and if you won’t atleast look at it there’s not much point having a conversation if you prefer GPT when you have a great resource right there that just happens to disagree with your preconceived notion. The ED evidence even goes through multiple ways they could implement it and reasons/things that would need to change for that to happen.

Here is my post just click on the link and go to last post  

 

 

I missed this post, I didn't see it.

[Dejan]

2 hours ago, rob10 said:

How much time/manpower would you like ED to devote to all these requests for specific documentation?

And WHY would ED give out all the details on stuff they have spent years collecting for each module?  You can choose to believe them or not, but it would make not sense to share all the stuff they've found so a competitor can suck it up and use it with little or no effort.

It means "Take my word for it," but it doesn't apply to someone else. I get it.