Temetre

This talk reminds me of the F4. Realtively high thrust compared to same era planes, but also inefficient engines at low/medium altitudes. Otoh you can stretch range a lot by flying optimally and high altitude. So a good range advantage over older interceptors, but the combination of fuel fraction and 'all around' engine efficiency is weaker compared to other jets like the F14B/16/18 or so. Requires more careful flying if you need some range than some other planes. If that means 'can go far' or 'no range' is more of a semantic discussion, and dependant on what you compare it too.

I wouldnt oversell the GCI aspect either tho. Even if there was an assumption that american planes dont get the same 'direct GCI control', they were still built to fly pre-planned and directed missions. Our heavily upgraded 75' F4 isnt very good in terms of SA either, despite one of the best pulse radar setups and RWRs at hand. Neither red nor blue gets the luxury of real world level of direction and guidance, thats why most servers use super powerful AWACS mods.

It depends. The F-4E RWR (ALR-46) is in some ways more advanced, one of the first digital RWRs. It wont get blinded by its radar and has a real digital threat library; not enough symbology for everything, but for most ground based stuff. You only get launch warnings for some early to mid cold war threats, like the SA-6/8. With modern SAMs or fighter missiles/radars you get symbols, but not launch warnings. Technically with handoff/close attention you can hear suspicious radar mode changes (eg going search to track/guide), but that is more advanced and gets some needed fixes with the next update. Even for noobs like me, it is very useful when you encounter older radar guided SAMs. Identifies the most important track/search radars of SAMs. With fighters its hard to even differentiate friend/foe, unless you modify the threat library (its LUA). Dont got the module, but Mig-29s SPO-15 seems to be more of an analogue system, and one thats not overly sensitive/complex. But according to ED, its still somewhat purposeful: It can detect CW guidance, and that way give (audio?) launch warnings for some STT/SARH missile launches. They also say its not fully reliable, limited in sensitivity and can have radar conflicts tho. Still more of a 'fighter aircraft' RWR than the F4s in that regard tho. From my F4-RWR experience, Id say let let the smart players figure out how it works, and in what situations it can be helpful the most. A bad RWR is often better than none at all. People talk a lot about GCI, but in DCS and pre-datalink fighters without the most modern RWRs, most of your SA usually comes from AWACS+mods like EWRS anyway.

Jop das funktioniert, vielleicht wars ein Missverständnis. Du hattest nicht nur den Thread verlinkt, sondern spezifisch meinen Kommentar über dem Video-Kommentar. Deswegen bin ich auch im Preview^^ Ist natürlich keine Problem oder irgendwas, hab nur einen Ping bekommen und dachte es wär vielleicht hilfreich das dir zu sagen

Du hast den falschen Post gelinkt^^ Das hier ist das Video:

It seems like the 29s capabilities (range/SA/multirole-potential) did lag behind the other 4th gens, even the little F-16. Maximum dispersion yes, but not great for the modern battlefield and when you go from the Soviet Union to a much 'smaller' Russia. And IIRC even the SU-27 was not as demanding as an F-15 for example. Even western countries struggled to support their expensive fighter fleets and airport fortifications after the end of the cold war. Well idk about that one. I imagine it had something to do with inheriting an insanely large weapons stockpile large enough for the next 3 wars while the economy is collapsing. But thats a different topic^^

Funnily enough the Viggen has the same issue, cant really mix loadouts. But for very different reasons; it being a complex, purpose built jet for specific A2G missions.

Thx, I see. At least from my limited perspective, switching to Su-27 seems to makes sense? The Mig-29 is cool, but it always had the issue of being a 'lower budget' and somewhat more of advanced version of older interceptor designs. The 27 probably had more space for avionics upgrades. And considering how expensive avionics got, it mightve made more sense to put it in the more expensive airframe from the get go. A 29 with much more modern tech probably wouldve gotten expensive quite fast.

Oh thats interesting, like actual MFDs! Is that one of those prototypes/features that got skipped due to cost reasons? Eg on wiki I can only find references to the .15 as 29M, which got introduced in 2005 apparently. And even in development in the late 90s has more western style MFDs with grey buttons.

Tbh I love those kinda details being simulated. Makes planes feel much more alive and real than 'just' FC3 planes. Having to use equipment and understand its strengths and weaknesses for all theyre worth. Part of why I love the F4. That said, the RWR experience seems somewhat painful. Apparently worse in some ways than the F4s RWR, despite 10 years later. At least it got some STT warning tho. Oh, is that why it has that TV screen? I always wondered why they put a full screen in the plane and just used it for HUD reprojection.

Btw, if you hear an AI voice, it might be youtubes auto translation feature. I noticed it being enabled by itself a few times recently.

Yup! They couldnt even test how it would perform against active missiles. And its not like modern RWRs are amazing in this regard, they can give you seconds of warning time at the best of times. Seems like there is a specific SARH warning, but this isnt completely reliable either: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2025-07-12/ Tbh I think its pretty cool to have this kind of detail modelled. Already like the attention of detail in the F4, and looks like ED is also stepping it up!

Hm idk. Have you seen the interview, ED talked specifically about the RWR and active missiles. The way they describe it makes it sound like the SPO-15 is hardly capable to detect active missiles, let alone have specific warnings: https://flyandwire.com/2025/09/04/mig-29s-spo-15-rwr-qa-with-eagle-dynamics/

Tbf the 120s might be fired in STT mode, which RWRs should be able to pick up afaik. Nor does this mean the RWR was the only reason they managed to dodge missiles; pilots IRL are much more aware when they are in dangerous zones and will often go defensive as a precaution. Even with the F4s RWR, you get notified when the frequency of a detected radar changes. That way you can technically tell a lot of the time when a SAM or Fox 1 gets launched, if you were listening. Tho its pretty hard to be attentive enough to spot such a signal. Otherwise the SPO-15 is still an analogue RWR, so might be less evolved than the ALR-45? Wouldnt get my hopes up for it. Personally I hope the strengths and shortcoming are simulated; its already pretty weird how soviet FC3 planes have IRST act like stealth radars, when they had lots of limitations in reality. Imo the wrong logic, DCS is generally about being realistic. If you put an F4 vs a Mig-29, then 'blue suffers' too. Gotta put the planes in the fitting environment and it should be fine. Mig-29A would be 80s. And anyway, 'Redfor' is a made up thing. F16 is one of the most used red planes on those servers, while older settings see lots of Mirage F1s.

I see. Its not unusual for DCS AI being focussed on one objective to the point where it ignores everything else, but that should be fixed for sure^^ Maybe its one of those software bug things: The supernatural flight capabilities either concealed other AI problems like the one you describe, or were used as a bandaid to put an indefinity temporary fix to problematic behaviours. I hope this improvement kicks off some more AI reworks, generally I think the Mig-21 flight model changes made the AI fights (both PvE and EvE) a LOT more interesting and believable.

Tried it. For my Rookie Mig-21, flying in a line and navigating was no problem, even if it couldnt reac+hold high altitude. Mig-21 had 4x missile + small fuel pod (unlimited fuel), it went no-AB and got up to 27000 feet, then dropped a bit. Maybe they need some more adjustment, but at least they cant just cheat physics. Interestingly, the Mig-19 climbs slightly faster and goes up to 40.000 feet with fuel and missiles. And, typically, the Mig-15 goes up to 46.000 feet no problem, climbing better than Mig-19 and 21. Stays up at 210 IAS and 3-4 degree AoA. --------------- edit: The default speed setting for waypoint is 430 knots for the 21, a bit lower than 19/21. Put it to 800 and they use AB and go up to+stay 33k feet altitude.

Btw, tangentially related: On a first glance, the Mig-21 AI update seems pretty solid. Now a player-flown F-4E can actually outrate a (low AI skill) Fishbed, as it should be IRL. Im sure ACE skill will still do things that are beyond physics, but thats kinda the point.

Especially annoying since these are some of the most famous/relevant opponents to have in cold war DCS! From my tests a while ago I found the Mig-19 was a more reasonable opponent, tho maybe too weak for good players. I do also like the 90 degree off boresight trickshots

Ive seen that Liberation and EW still use this mod (and it adds so much to the missions/matches). Does it still work fine dropping it into modern DCS missions, or are there fixed/updated branches/versions? Are there alternative AWACS/early warning mods? Also idk if youre still around @Steggles, but thanks for this amazing piece of work!

IIRC the current stance is 'GFM is gonna come in the future', and thats about all we know. Its not in the game and who knows when if ever itll be a thing. I suspect its so broken that ED wants to just redo a lot of stuff with the GFM, and therefor doesnt bother with bandaids? Theyve done some improvements for Mig-29, but not much more. Cant say I like that logic; considering how far away the GFM seems and how damaging these issues are to the experience, bandaids could go a long way. See the Mig-15 mod, a single person fixing a lot of stuff.

Thats interesting, so the SFM values arent actually very accurate? Implies OPs basic calculations are wrong, not just his assumptions about the application of those numbers. Do you know if theres similar AI mods for planes like the Mig-21? Thats another classic offender.

Yeah, I feel like I couldve made the conclusion earlier, but there is this morbid bit of curiosity xD

Yeah no question, this entire thread is some weird attempt to troll.

@Lidozin Frankly, this thread tells more about pyschology than any aspect of mechanics and simulation. You wrote these two things in the same post: First this: And then this: In one you say everyone else is wrong, because factual arguments have a hard time against group consensus (which is a funny thing to say btw). In the second you say you dont need to present facts, analysis or evidence regarding applicability of your analysis, because group consensus supports your position (also funny in context of this topic). How do you rationalize these two contradicting lines of argumentation?

You definitely got a strong point there. I probably confused or misremembered the Mig-15 with a Mig-19 or 21, my bad!