Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Ironhand

  1. It really depends on what your primary interest is. If A2G, then I guess it has to be the A-10A from the list you submitted. I would, however, urge you to consider also either the Su-25 (or the Su-25T if you're into SEAD). Either would give you the Russian perspective on A2G combat for a taste of something a bit different. In the A2A realm, I would take the Su-27 (Su-33 if you're into carrier operations such that they are with FC3 aircraft). Again, either provides you with the Russian perspective while also providing you with the best situational awareness of the listed Russian air
  2. One can always ask. FC3, however, is more or less at the end of its life. So I wouldn’t expect too much other than fixing a significant bug that might pop up.
  3. The ground in DCS world varies. In places you can use it successfully. In other areas you can’t. In the real world, of course, the same is true. The following is a video I made after selecting a random field on the map—IIRC, A-10 is the 2nd aircraft. Some [aircraft] handle it better than others: https://youtu.be/UANy9VOlYCw
  4. I’m not sure you’ll find a definitive answer to your questions because the composition of individual sites will vary. This article Soviet/Russian SAM Site Configuration Part 2: S-300P/S-400 / SA-10/20/21... , assuming you haven’t already seen it, may prove helpful. If nothing else, provides satellite imagery of a few sites that will give you clues as to spacing and other requirements. EDIT: If you haven’t already seen it, here’s a video about the necessary units and allowable distances in the sim: https://youtu.be/OIZs3nxxNvA?t=1202
  5. Deleted the content. When I posted, I hadn't realized this thread had been necroed. Getting to 55,000+ feet isn't a problem. If it was back in 2018, it isn't now.
  6. It’s the way they decided to do it. Been that way since 1998 (?). Maybe a bit later but not by much. So they obviously don’t consider it a bug. Be interesting if the new weather modeling brings a change.
  7. This was discussed awhile ago ( kuznetsov-landing-pattern-or-not ). It's an interesting read but the long and short of it is that there's nothing anyone has found written that describes it--this includes on the Russian side of the forum. The concensus was that it must be similar to the the "box" pattern used for runway landings (touch-and-go, etc) but the particulars for applying it to carrier landings are a bit murky. The "box" for the Su-27 includes lowering the landing gear at a speed of less than 500 km/hr on the downwind leg. Flaps lowered before making the 4th turn onto base
  8. Is it still too large if you compress it into a ZIP file? In the past, the ZIP file allowance was always higher than that of a TRK. Hopefully it still is.
  9. I had also tried it with the F-15 and gained an extra 3km or so. It’s not the -17.
  10. Viewing your TRK in which you and the target were roughly co-altitude, detection was lost at a range of 35km; ability to lock was lost at 30km. Using that as a baseline, I flew two other samples with the J-17 1500m above and 1500m below me with my altitude around 9000m. Look Up: Detection lost: 35km Ability to lock lost: 30km Look Down: Detection lost: 23km Ability to lock lost: 21km So all three are definitely very different compared to the ranges cited in the manual. EDIT: Added TRKs. They are sped up, so slow th
  11. Unfortunately I’m not where I can download and view your track. Am I correct in assuming that you controlled for the closure rate? It’s been a long time since I last looked at this but I don’t recall it being that far off.
  12. Given the airspeed (comparable to 860 TAS for the Su-27) it’s the intercept profile for full mil power. So it’s speed with fuel economy.
  13. Just wanted to thank you for posting this. I finally took the time to test this pitch axis customization and what a difference it makes. Thank you. In case some folks are wondering, I'm not seeing any difference in turn rate, etc between Mateo's setting and the slight curve I had been using.
  14. You’re quite welcome. Hopefully it was helpful.
  15. Not sure how precise you want things to be and this isn't absolutely by the numbers. It's been awhile since I've been in this cockpit and even longer since I've landed the thing. But here you go. The 2nd landing sucked eggs because I landed a bit short but, in my defense, I was still getting the feel of landing the aircraft but the rest aren't bad. I apologise for the views. Didn't have much time to fly it and have to head into work. I usually "pretty up" the views before posting something like this. MiG-29 Touch and Goes.trk
  16. Just find the 0,0 point. It’ll take some experimentation but you should be able to figure it out. On the Caucasus, for instance, it’s in southern Crimea.
  17. Not according to the manual. I suppose it’s possible that I’m in error but the manual states “Vпр“. EDIT: It does say to climb at 1200km/hr until reaching M 2.0
  18. No t sure exactly what you're trying to figure out but... Are you aware of this from the RW manual?
  19. Just flew your mission and all went as it should. Some of your confusion might stem from the fact that you placed your 1st WP just about on top of the IAF. So when you hit your last WP, it switched automatically to the IAF. Unfortunately that was almost the same place that you designated as your first WP after takeoff. So you probably thought that it had cycled back to the first Wp instead. Anyway, I jumped into the mission. Turned on electrical power and hit the "1" key to select Nav mode. Started the engines and taxied to the runway. Since your start position in designated as WP1
  • Create New...