zerO_crash

Generally speaking, it has to be remembered that when you listen to podcasts/interviews/documentaries/comments/etc... from active/former pilots, and a tactic that they used, you are listening to just someone operating in just one component of a whole air force/armed forces. Depending on how realisitic you wish to play it out, you may or may not have the same backup, that's to say an entire wing to help you out. With that out of the way, you should realize that at this point, you are asking yourself perform two missions at a time (first - bring down low an enemy aircraft, two - engage and neutralize it). If you are flying alone, there are easier ways to use the MiG-29 (and more efficient, as per capacity). Consider outmaching your target in altitude and speed. Use interceptor tactics. High and fast, give you extended range, higher kinetic potential energy for your missiles (x2, launch speed and altitude are both major factors for weapons range), higher energy if BVR turns into merge and also good capability to outrun an enemy missile with pure speed at that altitude. That's only one side of the coin, you. As to your enemy (which, again, depending on realism), will often (if a human pilot) be overweight with their F-16s, F-18s and definitely F-15s, will struggle to gain altitude like you. Often, the enemy pilot won't notice how slow they are moving, by trying to gain on you. A slow moving target, is an easy kill for you. This is a very safe tatic, and allows you to dictate the terms of the engagement, and turn away at a moments notice, should you feel that you are over-committing. The MiG-29 (if to imagine a single ship flight), is really a interceptor in pure AA. If you however still, are hellbent on running down in the weeds, that's all fair and square, but it is a tactic that puts you at a disadvantage, if not simulating real strategy (multi flights with all their tasks). As such, know that you don't, per se, need to have the enemy pulled down low. A known tactic, is to fly down low and fast, such that you negate a high-flying enemy any successful missile launches by pure rule of aspect. A missile will not hit much, if fired vertically down at an aircraft that keeps funneling and maneuvering. Consider the overspeed limits of an aircraft, and that it seldom can point straight down and go at high speed (bending of wing, overspeeding of engines, destructive G-loads, etc...). You, on the other hand, can climb at a ridiculous rate (easily 10km altitude in under 1 minute if at speed), R-27 are incredibly good climbers. If you approach from straight down, you literally won't trigger the RWR of any aircraft in DCS, given the deadzones for RWR sensors at the belly and the back of a plane. The flight profile would be such that you keep 800km/h +++ (avoid afterburner, of course) at low altitude, push to just beneath your target. Continue by pulling hard up (90* vertical if need be) until you are close enough. Finish off by launching R-27/R-73, and head quickly back down, regaining momentum. Generally, you might wonder how long you will live by pulling up, at times behind enemy lines, however consider the time it takes for a pilot to first gain SA and update their mental projection of the battlefield (an aircraft popping up where no one was before/there are many own flights). Two; a potential shooter will have to IFF you. Finally; have his weapons/systems in check in order to engage you. Again, it takes determination (don't second guess, commit to it fully), but if you know what you are doing, those are lethal and quick engagements. Something I will point out with the second method (down low). Generally, if you are realistic about your flying, this would seldomly work in a contested area (in particular, behind enemy lines), as you have SAM sites, manpads, GCI and AWACS to worry about. In addition, if the coalition is even poor at cooperation, they will be able to eloquently deny you to enter their airspace without prior knowledge of you coming. Therefore, I'm pointing it out, that depending on the scenario/target/difficulty, flying down low for AA might not be optimal at all.

Hi, I noticed ongoing efforts with having this issue solved, as per latest patch notes, however I'm still having problems. This morning alone, I made two attempts at saving a very small mission to test out the latest progress on Combined Arms (maximum 40 units; infantry/armor), and had two freezes (causing crash to desktop). This was on the Cold War Germany map. In addition, the saving process of a mission can still take time. For reference; - I have no mods installed. Everything is vanilla, and a fresh install (approx. 2 months ago). - Doing a repair atm. just in case. - PC specs: Intel I9 Ultra 285k OC (Intel stage 2 standardized OC), Corsair Dominator Titanium RGB DDR5 96GB 6000Mhz RAM, Nvidia 5090 FE, MSI MPG Z890I EDGE TI WIFI, Corsair MP700 PRO NVMe M.2 1TB & Corsair MP600 PRO NH NVMe M.2 8TB (DCS is on this one), 1kW Corsair PSU. If there is anything else, like a crash log or so, that I can provide, mention what you need. Also, if anyone still has similar issues in the ME, add to the thread. I'm sure it will only speed up the resolution process. -=zerO=-

You are going to have to produce a source for that statement. Particularly about the "failiure" part. I don't take you seriously on the initial one, as you are giving baseless arguments. What was more advanced, and in what specific way?! How does that contribute to the efficiency of a radar, and in what condition. Just to disprove what you just stated; one specific place where the APG-63 wasn't any superior to the N001, was automatization. Based on flight manuals and available information, both aircraft have a very similar part for attaining, what is today regarded as, a kill chain. Both aircraft have very similar workings (from the operator perspective) when it comes to finding a target, identifying it, locking it on and finally, engaging. I see no evidence whatsoever of either one or the other being ahead in this department. (This does not conclude the underlying operation, as scanning time vs. volume of air, ability to operate in ECM-heavy environment, or other peculiarities). The integration of a datalink feature on Su-27, is yet another part of the whole sensor suite which APG-63 doesn't have. Want me to go on? You are obviously out of your league. Throwing around "lobes" and "more advanced" is pointless, unless you trully understand what's talked about here. Also, "specificity" is a coin term here. I replied to this already, but just to show you that you are again incorrect. SAGE was by any means impressive, especially given the early and advanced it was. However, it becomes ludicrous to compare to a mid-/late- Cold War GCI which is not only two-way (and inter-flight, meaning interceptors exchanging information with one another), but also relatively advanced functionalitu like guiding the missiles for a particular flight/aircraft... yeah. Let's throw away the bias, and consider the systems at hand. Though not in this thread.

YOU continue to spew bull<profanity>! First and foremost, re-read what I wrote! The statement is that GCI came much earlier than AWACS, period! Two, I made no assumption as to GCI overall, other than stating that USSR pulled the initiative to a much later point, capability wise! Three, USA was absolutely NOT the birthplace of GCI. You slept in class at that time, but during WWII and The Battle for Brittain, UK famously used a national and unified radar system in order to coordinate its air force to down Nazi German aircraft. US wasn't even the second country to make use of GCI, as Germans were also making early attempts (learning from UK) at a national coordinated defense initarive concerning ground radar stations and own fighter/interceptor aircraft. That's that! (If I'm to be perfectly honest with you, read about what constituates a source of a primary, and thereafter, degree, and then as such, contribute with something more reliable than Wiki. We can stick to your level until you catch up on this.) I also recognize that "Later additions ..." to the SAGE system actually featured the onboard equipment for F-106 to recieve automated (one-way) telemetry regarding rargets intented for a unit. I saw an earlier systems diagram, pre- use of such a reciever (early on, it was all radio comms as stated by me). May I stand corrected. Still, this was neither the thread, nor the discussion. I suggest again, that you stick to it. (I won't repeat what's written, but you seem to be arguing with yourself.)

Again, very basic metric. Tells you nothing about for how long it can hold that power level and in what conditions. Apparently I do know it very well, as we're not comparing who was first in terms of a singular (or few) systems, but rather how expansive it was, and how well i corporated. We already derailed from a thread on SPO-15, so let's not hijack it further, but do know that SAGE was a system meant to synthesize a large amount of data from a multitude of sensors (radars) and project it on a general map of the world. That data still had to be verbally transferred to the pilots. It's strength lie in the collection of all data, supposed easy to read translation as well as automation with ground SAM sites. Soviets' however, took that a step further and integrated such automation on their planes. This was done in secrecy pre MiG-21 era. (Let's also not forget, that the radar, was a British invention, same as e.g. the jet engine). Anyways, if you wish to talk about this in depth, shoot me a PM.

I am aware of the underlying logic, but at what frequency does this happen? Obviously, tens of times a second. In an ECM environment, the radar has to work longer at peak and sustained power in order to obtain a target. Again, how does it affect the electronics for the duration required? It is true that west has had more AWACS than east (afterall, US is the nation that requires a fully mobile force in order to virtually go anywhere (oceans on both sides of the continent)). That said, GCI was available way before AWACS, and US never had anywhere near the datalink/intercept capabilities that Soviets had. It's a pretty major capability to be able to infercept a target based on GCI telemetry, with your own radar in passive mode. It gets even worse, when you know that R-27T/ET can get you at BVR ranges, and that, covertly. That's a DCS/open source peculiarity where west discloses more. While I agree, that it is a much later iteration of a F-15 (C, not A - same aa F-16 btw...), I still do know for a fact that it will be morw difficult to learn and operate. While more automated electronics are in place, with realistic settings (radar, HOTAS, generally cockpit), you'll have to better understand the aircraft you fly in order to utilize it. That goes for use of onboard systems, that goes for radar competence and what works where and how. F-14 has a pretty good radar for its time, yet, being proficient at using it requires you to dedicate yourself to that rear seat as if it was a separate module itself. I haven't come across anyone who has been proficient with it yet. Same with AH-64D, surprisingly not as popular of a module as one would think. Why? - because it's too advanced for the common head to wrap around. F-15 with ASM, should be very much that. You have a decent amount of capability, but bringing it to good use, is not a point-and-click exercise. (Some westeners are surprised at how advanced MiG-29 is in its systems, and seek a simplification (FC3) already. Good luck with F-15 and some 34 HOTAS bindings x3 (Air/Ground/Cruise) alone...).

Hence me stating that F-15 has more modern digital suite (electronics is an obvious one, west had started with miniaturization of designs by that time). Still, how does "more modern antenna design" impact the real world performance. We sinply don't have that data. As to peak power - that is a simplified metric. Peak, means most often "not sustained". How long can it hold the peak, before overheating? What's the sustained power output, and how does it stack up against Su-27S's? Again, anything non-metric (numbers) is a best guess, and that seldomly conforms with reality. Even with all this taken into consideration, the eastern doctrine requires that at optimum, you compare a F-15A/C to a Su-27S with GCI/AWACS, along with its datalink and the whole shebang. Any aircraft radar is a big compromise of weight/size/power draw compared to their ground/sea counterparts. As such, from a doctrine - doctrine perspective, its a whole different equation. (Even though west started getting AWACS at some point and ground radar stations, it never had anything like the infrastructure that USSR had. It becomes wrong then to judge an aircraft vs. aircraft without taking into consideration the whole ideology, as it gives a skewed perspective of the contemporaries.). As a side note; as much as the ED MiG-29A (ASM) introduced the real MiG-29 with all its features and limitations, I do believe that the community will benefit from having a real F-15C modelled. That just to clear up the confusion from the FC3 fantasy.

Comm shouldn't work on a military aircraft. Remember, the GPS offers non-encoded transmission, which isn't ideal for a military force to be using. Basic navigation, coordinate verification, altering of flight plans, extended flight plans (more waypoints than what the onboard INS can handle/was designed for (6 maximum)), SA (have a basic map with airports/VOR and other points of interest mapped, an additional (and reliable) navigation aid, +++. It's actually quite a lot, depending on how creative you are, and how realistic you wish to go.

My pleasure!

Wrong in all aspects. Those nations have a different approach to the resolution of aerial combat. IF, we consider all aspects in each given system, then the following applies: - The radar capability between F-15A and Su-27 are somewhat mixed. F-15A has more modes, and they somewhat more advanced digital suite, whereas Su-27 has the sheer size and power. This is actually a very nuanced topic, as it all depends and what conditions the radars operate in (ECM, range, altitude, meteorological conditions (wet/rain, clouds, etc...)). This topic is too expansive to be written about in a couple of sentences. It is widely regarded, and rightfully so, that the aircraft had very simmilar, yet different capabilites. The difference lie in the approach. What you fail, however to understand, is that Flanker/Fulcrum (and going all the way back to pre- MiG-21/Su-7, the Soviets "demanded" reliance on GCI for better strategic picture. As such, the Su-27 had datalink, when the F-15A (even C) had none. Question about radar - Soviets relied on GCI and AWACS heavily, that was before US really got into AWACS as a support element, properly. Hence, when you compare Su-27/MiG-29 to whatever, it is both what is on the aircraft, as well the GCI supporting the aircraft (they can tell the pilot when missiles are launched, what maneuvers to make in different situations and guide the missiles for the fighter, +++). US aircraft simply don't have those capabilities at the time we are talking about. - Relating to the above, SA is the whole situational awarness picture, not only what your radar shows. Tell me, who has hypothetically the better SA; the US pilot with his radar/RWR, or the Soviet pilot with radar/RWR/GCI/datalink?! This answers itself... It's often not taught of, but with a competent GCI, the western pilot would go up against two (pilot + dedicated GCI operator), and that's two heads vs. one. That alone, should put one on edge. - Again, you write in too broad terms. What specific AIM-7? What specific R-27? In history, there is always a cat and mouse game with whoever has the newest tech, is the king only until someone else develops something better. If you wish to be objective, then you won't chose to mention F-16 until it got BVR missiles, as before that, it was the underdog in just about every way to the MiG-29 (e.g.). Forgetting even the (often stupid) notion of dogfight. In real combat, if doctrine would be followed on both sides, F-15 would meet both Su-27s as well as MiG-25s. MiG-25's dynamic field of interception and missiles (R-40R/T) would pose serious problems for F-15s. I'm not even counting the different ground installations (AAA/SAM) which would plague both sides.

Actually, NS 430 is just GNS 430 - with the "G" for "Garmin" removed. It's this exact system: https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/82/ As to your original question, I haven't personally seen any MiG-29 flying with the GNS 430. With that said, there are far fewer cockpits recorded, than the total amount being flown. Also, you'll find a plethora of other GPS systems, some mounted like our NS 430, others to the side of the HUD (mobile GPS) or really anywhere in the cockpit. In terms of functionality and what information you are provided, it's fully realistic. In particular in the former eastern bloc, you'd see differences between squadrons and what they've been able to get their hands on for cheap. Commercial products have become more and more normal in the military overall. You'll often see western pilots use e.g. tablets (commercial) with military software installed. Typically, branding is removed, but hardware untouched.

Exactly, so not a "slot-machine". That'd be too random.

Again, you are judging something by your own square metric. It's not a slot machine - if it was, it wouldn't be in the aircraft. From my personal experience, it is incredibly accurate. What you have to understand, is that it doesn't give you the range across the ground, rather, it gives the range of the jet in the current state (all things considered). As such, the jet will travel further/less in air during windy days, in order to reach it's destination across the ground. Also, you have to remember that there is a slight error to be incorporated into the indication, given that the weather might be completely different 200km away (which the jet has no way of knowing). Remember, this is pre GPS- and weather radar- era. Still, if I set the engine on a given thrust-setting and maintain altitude, then the km I'm passing, are most often 1:1 with those passed according to the map/INS/NS430. That's my experience with it.

You really don't get it. No matter what flight profile; if I can get at least 1200km on internal fuel alone (and I am able to squeeze out more), than that is not short legs. We'll just have to disagree on that. This discussion is complex, hence why you cannot simplify it in a few words. The way you evaluate it, however, is flawed at best. We derailed btw. completely from the main thread.

No one states that MiG-29 is the explorer of the worlds. However, stating that it has short legs is stretching it, because it can go respectably far, for an otherwise insanely versatile airframe. F1 is a cruiser, but a horrible dogfighter. Again, it was built for a particular job, but not it's not a one to rule them all. Mirage 2000 (more appropriate in function and time aspect) is surprisingly versatile, but as a delta, doesn't have the power to maintain it's maximum turn rate and even stated sustained (given higher altitudes). It also has very high landing speeds (you cannot land it anywhere unless you always use the chute) and it's engine will potentially give you a catastrophic failiure given, at times, light to medium abuse. For comparison, MiG-29 didn't have a section on engine limitations because there were none in the envelope it was designed to operate in. That alone, is a first for the history books, and highly regarded by combat pilots, as I've heard. It seems to me that the MiG-29 might just not be for you.

You are comparing! I mentioned F-16 as anecdotal and MiG's natural counterpart. I cannot comment on your performance as a pilot, as I haven't seen you fly, but 2000ft is a very low altitude for these engines. They are efficient up high, but down low, you pay a massive penalty for carrying the power. Still, they are different designs, so treat them as such. On the other hand, F-16 isn't underpowered, but MiG-29 - it is not. If you want to fly at 2000ft, then I'll be straight forward with you - accept what you got, or else the MiG-29 is not for you. The moment you wish to travel further, is the moment you have to accept that "high" has to be incorporated into your flight plan. It's that simple. Even though emergency drops for fuel/weapon stores exist in the aircraft, doesn't mean that a mission relies on them being used. It is in the name - an emergency. Remember, that you might be caught very quickly in an uneven fight (WVR/BVR) and be forced into a defensive (high-G) position. There are pre-requisites when using emergency drop. It's not something you can do in the majority of the flight envelope due to the hazard of hitting your own aircraft/other potential self-threatening situations (partial jettison/uneven jettison/etc...). Hence, you cannot rely on it as a be all saver. I'll tell you this though: the sheer simplicity/ruggedness/automatization in MiG-29 won't be truly appreciated until we get more realistic damage modelling in DCS. Razbam did a fantastic job here with e.g. F-15E, to show how quickly you will bend the airframe (and ruin it) by running down low and fast (a typical on quake servers). When, due to bad piloting, you'll be able to cause a critical failiure to an airframe among all aircraft, you'll finally realize what was so revolutionary about these aircraft. Flaming Cliffs has given a bad perspective of that so far, because everything is stupidly simple and effects not simulated. It's much the same with e.g. helicopters, where you won't truly grasp where the value of co-axial lies, until absolutely all effects get simulated (including tail rotor vortex ring state). Only then, will you finally start to respect which way wind blows, and focus like you never have in your life, when transitioning to a hover. Until now, many people in this community have the wrong sensation that the AP and co-ax is trying to kill them, while IRL, nothing could be further from the truth. Not to divert the discussion, but you seem hung up on a particular with the MiG-28, which I told you that you can mitigate with altitude and lower average thrust, yet you somehow have made up your mind that you want to fly it low and do Magellan across continents. It's no different than trying to use a Sa342 with Mistral as a dedicated dogfighting platform, be cause you want it to... That's my point. It's the wrong mentality.

Why would you compare a MiG-29 to a F-15?! That's exactly why I state that you are making a ludicrous comparison. F-15 is a superiority fighter meant to operate behind enemy lines. It's counterpart was/is Su-27, which btw. outperforms the F-15 in many aspects, range being one of them. The MiG-29 is rather comparable to F-16, and you might as well complain that the F-16 has little internal fuel. F-16 has higher coin speed, thus BFM requiring energy to boot - higher energy means higher speed in this case. Higher speed, means less fuel efficiency for a non-delta design. In whichever way you want to look, it does not look favourable for either a F-16/F-15, least of all, costs. What is seldomly discussed as well, is that you wouldn't want too much fuel on an airframe if it is to operate in a relatively close vicinity to an airfield, simply because once the pilot theoretically expends his ammunition, he'll have to waste time eating up fuel to get down to maximum landing weight. A country like Israel has that worked out to perfection, they'd know (with 7 minute turn arounds and sustained airfield operations regime for at least 18-24 consecutive hrs). MiG-29 does not have little fuel at all, it's just that it has the ability to consume whatever fuel it has, incredibly quickly.

The actual amount, is rather irrelevant in itself. What is important, is the amalgamation of aircraft design, mission and ultimately execution. For reference, SR-71 had loads of fuel (140k lbs as I remember). However, if you watch a interview with any former of its pilots, they all state very clearly, that for the pilot, the main task was to fly such that you were fuel efficient. Often, the success of a mission, and safe return depended on whether the pilot was able to have the aircraft consume less fuel by adjusting the intake spike geometry, speed and altitude for a more optimal flight profile. Hence, what I'm saying is that you are having a wrong mentality with regards to the MiG-29. It can perform CAP for a good amount of hours, however, given the limited number of weapons and how they are deployed, it ought to be thought of as a interceptor, with a typical combat radius of no more than 200km (this also depends, it's normally a function of how far it is inbetween nearby airfields). When you then consider that you can pull at least 1200km (internal fuel only) at a high-high-high profile, then 200km, even 600km combat radius is not bad at all. There are also immense benefits of such an airframe. You will never really end up in a A-A engagement feeling that you are overweight (unless kitted out for A-G). Should you have "too much fuel", kick in the AB and, just like Su-27, see the engines make you lighter faster and more agile at a faster rate, than your opponent. Then again, stick to what you are meant to do. In a A-A configuration, you often don't need AB to outmatch your opponent. You use it, only to handle the threat in the shortest amount of time possible. A bit of practice, and you'll see what I mean

Precisely Raven

Very educated opinion based on demonstrated deductive reasoning and advanced mathematical ability to divide fuel by the amount of engines a plane has. I'm glad we got that out of the way. MiG-29 is among one of the most popular aircraft in the history, and that, for a reason. Good luck trying to disprove it's capabilities, especially with that thought process. Sounds to me like you've been flying too much quake and forgot that there is a wide margin between idle and full afterburner. If you are dialing up the realism to a maximum, then stick with the missions that the aircraft was designed for, and have a proper flight plan with dedicated attack points before lifting off. If you aren't attempting at making it a CAS platform, then you'll likely find out that you need to, upon retunring back to the aerodrome, do a loop or two in full AB just to get rid of excess fuel before landing. Beyond that, it's a skill issue!

I cannot comment on that Andrei, as I practically fly no western aircraft. I would, however, guess, that aside from failiures, the systems are more in-depth modelled (given the total complexity and scope of the aircraft), as opposed to what we had before. We are finally getting e.g. datalinks and IFFs with all their bells and whistles. Notice the main reason why why AH-64D isn't as popular as one would think - it's too complex for the average mind. That's a known fact. My point is, I've been the one on these forums who has advocated for raising module prices, just to cover for more in-depth detail. As I've stated on many occasions, I don't mind paying $200 for a module. I'd gladly pay a $1000 for a fully functional Ka-50, with all systems simulated to the maximum detail. The problem is, that's not the mainstream in the community. Because of that, ED will naturally have to make sacrifices in order to make ends meet, yet pump out ever more complex aircraft. It's that, which causes us to see a certain shift in certain modules. D amage modelling is another example of a aspect which has indeed landed on its back legs. F-16 still doesn't have a proper damage model, and it ain't the only one... @Raven Don't get your hopes up, sadly. Notice how with Apache, you can select individual amount of hellfires on each station to outfit. For a comparison, the Ka-50 BS3 was shown with similar functionality in WIP images, yet came out with the APU-6 fixed to six tubes, no questions asked. I made a note and request about that (among other things), on the RU-side, but as always, it's a question of budget vs. popularity of a module. It apparently costs $ and time (and much so) to model new loadouts, as well as asymmetric ones, and as such, it's not deemed worth it by ED, even though I would argue that it makes sense to grab two Vikhrs instead of six every time, all the time. I argued equally, that one of the main design principles of Russian combat helicopters (chief amongs Kamovs (50/52)), are their duplicated hydraulics systems which grant them increased survivability. This is a must have! Yet, as of now, we don't have it. If your main hydraulics gets damaged in the Ka-50, you better land immidiately, or else - dead stick. Chizh did hint that due to some of us pressuring ED on this, the team "might" model it at some point, however nothing is certain. I don't blame him, budget, priorities and company survival come first, but it puts aircraft other than western in the worst possible spot.

I get you completely, but then again, you aren't new here. As you know, russian aircraft are developed by the RU-side of the team. Everything from manuals to official announcements (including patch notes) clearly shows, that there is no uniformity in the way information is distributed. These people are competent, but English isn't their primary. Hence, the different wording you are reading into, is nothing else than a translational 404. It's just something you have to cope with. On tbe other side, I gave you a clear, albeit not final, feedback which is based on the RU forums (trust me, things get raised there quick if they fall out of line). So yeah, no worries, it'll come, I'm sure.

I've been away for a while (business), neither have I heard anything on this topic from ED. That said, having skimmed through the technical manuals (this issue was raised before), I don't find anything that should be in any way sensitive. Since we are getting IFF (which has been the most sensitive subject), I wouldn't worry about the above mentioned. I'll check with with RU-devs when I get the chance

For whatever reason, I'm not able to have my NS 430 show as a 3D addon in the cockpit... What's weird to me, is that if I go under "modules"-section, where one can see which ones are bought and activated, I do not have the "NS 430 Navigation System for MiG-29A Cockpit". Yet, if I go to the "Special"-tab under settings, I have both the "NS 430 for MiG-29A" and "NS 430 3D model in MiG-29A" (both hooked off (as in, "ON")). I can also verify that in the mission editor, I have the option for "Allow NS 430 in cockpit" set to on for the specific MiG-29A. In other words, all three requirements are satisfied for it to show, yet it doesn't for me. Did I miss something? Is the 3D model of Garmin a feature to come, or is it already in? EDIT: Fixed, apparrently DCS showed that I had the 3D module for MiG-29A, even though I didn't... After purchase, all works as expected.

"Early Access" When purchasing the module, you signed the EULA, with the understanding that you have immersed yourself into what you are purchasing. Positive news: Down the line, it'll all work!