quantum97

Where do these assumptions come from? It seems to me that the only thing ED said was that the SPO-15 won't detect ARH missiles. I mean, it will only detect it a few seconds before impact. And as far as I know, a FOX-1 will not be detected only when, as you mentioned, it's launched via datalink and It might have something to do with range, because AIM-54 might be shoot that far away that signal is to weak for SPO-15 to detect and it will show up just as fighter and only when F-14 radar is doing PDI for AIM-54. The only other thing that comes to mind is that it will also not detect the R-27P/EP, which works similarly to the HARM on ground radars, but in the air. As for the interference of the SPO-15 by the radar, I don't think it is modeled because we have too little information.

The scale still matters here too, to truly get a sense of how big the mirror actually is and how far away it is, you would need to see the photo on a 55-inch TV. Unless you have some magical way of determining how big the mirror actually is and how far away it is, the best option would probably be to just hop into the MiG and check it out. Maybe someday I’ll do that when I will be heading towards the Czech Republic and see that MiG that ED scanned.

Maybe it's just flatscreen issue and now I tested this in F-14 when I am sitting normal everything seems fine but when I changed angle to similar like in last screenshot something is not right but if you think about this it may be right because you aren't used to look on mirror from that angle and you can't just judge distance between mirror and your view. Keep in mind that not all mirrors are flat just like in your car, and this also can be a point I tested this with mirror in bathroom but it's to much my brain, it's overheating. And for example when you look on upper mirror in truck lower seems wired and if you look at lower longer, upper seems wired. That because they are not flat, the are spherical, maybe in MiG-29 mirror are flat, and thats why they are wired and have 'low FOV'.

Presumably, it's due to optimization. I used to work with Blender, and it's easier to render 2 cameras at once than 4 that's pretty logical. Currently, new graphics cards could probably handle it, but in VR, it would be a problem. They could give an option to simply render 4 cameras: our view and 3 for the mirrors, so that, just like in the real world, the angle of reflection would equal the angle of incidence if someone is playing on a monitor. However, if someone is playing in VR, they could just render 2 cameras, with the mirrors still working, but the reflections would be calculated with some kind of algorithm, like in the screenshots you sent. Probably, one camera is 'attached' to our view, but in the opposite direction, which is why the angle of reflection isn't equal to the angle of incidence. There could also be an option to set the resolution of these cameras, like for MFDs so players could customize the quality of the reflections and get <profanity>ty but correctly working mirrors and more FPS. Although now I see that in the right mirror on the last screenshot, the resolution is still lower.

I put it here for you, we have independent mirrors and a nice parachute. DCS_MiG29_Mirrors_1.mp4 DCS_MiG29_Mirrors_2.mp4 DCS_MiG-29A_Drogue_chute.mp4

Maybe for EURs tax is included but still that does not explain why in some countries prices are cheaper even after tax. Edit: To put it mildly, I am really upset. I think I will switch to standalone. It will be better for me and ED. I will pay less and they will get more.

Translation: Sales tax will be calculated when you proceed to checkout (if applicable). And for example in Poland (VAT) Tax is 23% if we will add 23% price looks like after tax but for example in Russia (НДС) Tax is 20% but MiG-29 is 25% cheaper like what is wrong. If we will convert 3379 RUB to USD for now it's 41.61 USD + 20% = 49.93 < After Tax. Something have to be wrong.

I hope the prices will be changed before the release. Besides that, I created a thread where I posted a table showing how much the prices vary. This is probably due to the fact that Steam hasn't updated its currency conversion rates in 3 years, so if a price was entered in USD, it was converted using that outdated exchange rate from three years ago. However, as far as I know, the publisher can also manually adjust the prices for specific regions, and it looks like this will simply have to be done manually based on the current exchange rates for each currency.

Early Polish Air Force liveries:

Prices of the MiG-29 vary significantly in terms of E-Shop price roughly half of the buyers paying in currencies other than the US dollar end up overpaying on Steam.

Around 2018-2019 steam changed Polish accounts from EURs to PLN.

Preorder price in EShop is 55.99USD converting USD to PLN shoud give us 204.31 PLN but on steam it is 50 PLN higher. Even if we will take steam conversion where default price is higher 294 PLN -30% it's 205.8 PLN with gives us 56.40 USD. No 1 USD is 3.65 PLN. 3.65 x 80 it's 292.

Why it's only 13% off not 30%?

The module is already in a flyable state, and we still not received any information regarding Steam pre-order in newsletter. Is it still planned, or no steam preorder like always?

@BIGNEWY What about pre-purchase on Steam?

Maybe you're right.

It seems to me that the best solution to this problem would be to give people a choice, just like in the Ka-50 III module, where in the mission editor we can select either the 2022 or 2011 version. A similar approach could be applied to the MiG-29A, where one version would be in line with the official documentation provided to the Warsaw Pact countries, and in the other version, they could, for example, allow the integration of the R-27ER or even the HARM, which are weapons that were actually used on this platform but not on the unmodernized version. Especially since it doesn't seem like we'll be getting a newer Russian fighter anytime soon. I think this would leave no one unsatisfied.

@Esac_mirmidon I understand your point of view, and I don't have any issues with the people I’m discussing this with. The only issue I have is with ED. On one hand, they claim to replicate the aircraft as accurately as possible based on available data and refuse to add, for example, the AGM-154-A1 to the F-16. On the other hand, they make such a mistake and plan to add a missile to the MiG-29A that wasn’t in service at the beginning of the aircraft's operational history because it hadn’t been upgraded to carry that missile yet. To me, this is pure hypocrisy on ED’s part, and they really need to decide exactly what they're doing and what we can expect from them. Here we have an example of ED's hypocrisy: I personally hope that the MiG-29A in DCS will be modeled as accurately as possible, which is why I participate in the forum and do so to prevent ED from making any glaring mistakes. I hope they will approach this module with the same care they have shown with previous ones, at least in terms of making it as realistic as possible. As for unrealistic missiles, we have modders who do an excellent job. I think the implementation of the R-27ER by modders for the MiG wouldn’t be a problem, and they would do it on the first day after the release, especially since we already have the R-27ER in DCS.

What @AeriaGloria presented above are anecdotal pieces of evidence. We're talking about the MiG-29A here, not its modernizations, updates etc. Nowhere in the publicly available manuals that were provided to Warsaw Pact countries is there any mention of the R-27ER. Even in the scientific paper comparing the capabilities of the F-16 and MiG-29 from the Polish Air Force Academy, the R-27ER is not mentioned. Additionally, on airwar.ru, the MiG-29 in its A version is not listed as a user of the R-27ER. The fact that someone said something in the past is not proof of anything if we don't have confirmation from reliable sources. Sources: https://www.airwar.ru/weapon/avv/r27.html The PDF contains the scientific article. Analiza_możliwości_bojowych_samolot.pdf

As for the MiG-29 in the Russian version, it may be true, but ED itself said that it is making an export version. Regarding the other threads, I will review them, although it would be best to have a clear statement from someone at ED.

I’ve noticed a small inconsistency in the FAQ regarding the upcoming MiG-29A. In the section detailing the missiles that will be available for the aircraft, it states that the MiG-29A will be able to use the R-27ER and R-27ET. The issue here is that, based on available historical and technical information, no Warsaw Pact country ever equipped the MiG-29A with the R-27ER or R-27ET versions in its unmodernised version. The R-27ER and R-27ET were developed and deployed later, on upgraded MiG-29 variants such as the MiG-29S and MiG-29SMT, which featured more advanced radar systems and modernized engines. In Yefim Gordon's book "Mikoyan MiG-29. Famous Russian Aircraft" on page 371, there is a diagram confirming that the MiG-29 (izdeliye 9.12) did not carry these missiles. Additionally, on page 378, in the table comparing different versions of the aircraft, the last few rows do not contain any information regarding the R-27ET/ER; this is only included in the table for the MiG-29S (izdeliye 9.13S). In the manuals regarding MiG-29A, there is no mention of the R-27ET/ER, at least I couldn't find any references to them in any Polish or Czech language manuals. So, I would like to know if in the FF MiG-29A version for DCS we are bending reality, or if there was a mistake in the FAQ. I also understand that some people expect these missiles, but it seems to me that the module you release should be as accurate as possible to the original, and adding missiles and bending reality is something for modders to handle.