Volator

Yes, you are right. The issue is more complicated in this case though. The devs did a pretty good job in recreating some of the real MiG-29s intricacies in their FM (decrease of elevator effectiveness during flare and at Mach 1) - maybe somewhat exaggerated, but still... one has to give them that. I think they sticked to written sources mainly/only and physical calculations, that in itself are all good and true, but they failed to listen to RL (MiG-29) pilots input and - as far as I was able to understand the discussions in the russian forum - still are. Maybe because they rightfully can say their calculations are mathematically correct and they can rightfully claim that the intricacies are there, so it's gotta be right... I don't know. With XPlane sim it's the same: Great physical simulation with real-time calculation alright, but this is still no guarantee that the simulated plane will perform exactly like the RL one. So when pilots say "It can't really be that twitchy and instable, I've never seen that before in any other plane I've flown so far" and they say "But that's what our wind tunnel tests and calculations for XY have shown, so you must prove mathematically that we are wrong", then that's no real basis for a discussion. My bottom line is the plane in the sim shouldn't be harder to control than the real thing, and devs must take into account that people want to fly it even with crappy joysticks (which the TMW isn't - not saying it's perfect, but it's not a low-end joystick either), and that it's questionable to claim "If you fly it with this joystick or that, you can never do it properly, you need to get this or that joystick", or "Because of the lack of lenght of the stick you cannot simulate it correctly" or "Feel in RL is different, we only have visual cues and that's why..." This is and will always be a PC-based simulation with the respective hardware, not a full-blown millions of dollar hardware military full-flight sim, and the devs need to cater to this.

OP is right, but the turn radius without brakes is so large that it's not an issue really. You can keep the aircraft on the taxiway centerline, which might be unrealistic at low taxi speeds, but you will not make any sharp turns on taxiway without using the brake. I can live with the current state, there are other issues more pressing. But yes, it's not realistic (at low taxi speeds).

Sorry, but no, my time is too precious for that. Check the FC3 Mig-29 forum, there have been a lot of discussions about the topic, and especially the Russian forum, there some supposedly RW Mig pilots also raised lots of concerns.

Do you? In general I always do, but here, in this specific case, seeing the fact that there are many posts here on the forum supporting my point (some even saying they have real MiG-29 stick time), no, I don't think so.

So you're saying one can't simulate smooth and stable aircraft control properly in a PC-based simulation because of that? Even if in reality the aircraft characteristics are smooth and stable? I think that's the wrong approach by the FM designers. As for the TMW vs. Virpil thing: I don't know, maybe you've got a point. Most aircraft in DCS are very well controllable as they should be with a TMW. I'm only having issues with the MiG-29 and - to some extent - with the MiG-21, as these oscillations around the pitch axis are a real annoyance. I think they are FM induced, not related to the stick. The TMW - with an extension - is a fine stick, very precise, and a real flight stick or yoke has similar if not larger forces on it, so I think the TMW forces are quite realistic.

So go and try a 50 cm extention and see if you get better results. I once tried a 45 cm extention on my TMW - the results were the same.

@The_Tau I don't think so. I think it's simple: As long as the Ka-50 is available on the CWS, the AH-64 should be available too (without the Longbow radar, if ED provides that option). I could very well live with both missing on the CWS though.

That would be fantastic!

Once the AH-64D is available, will we also see it in reduced numbers on the CWS, like the Ka-50?

Range? Infantry only has a range of about 500m max. I think. Machine guns a little bit more maybe, assault rifles a little bit less.

Yes, I can too, but it's still way too twitchy and takes much more effort and smallest steering inputs than it should, even with my TMW with a 10cm extension.

Very nice, Fragger. I really want this whirlybird in DCS! Let's hope RAZBAM gets to work on its code soon.

Look at the smooth rotation on take-off, the stable approach and the general stability and smoothness in the pitch axis... and then compare that with the much-appraised flight characteristics of the current DCS Mig-29.

Ähnlich wie Du. Manche tendieren dazu, das Flugzeug bis zum oberen Limit vollzuladen und allein gegen den Rest der Welt antreten zu wollen. Besonders witzig auf MP-Servern. Unrealistisch, nicht mein Ding.

Or just go Cold War and enjoy some very exciting, well-balanced match-ups and scenarios, where it's a little bit more the pilot that matters than the computers, without (most of) the constraints ED feels limited by.

That's disputable, and we don't have any hard figures. The SA-9 (Strela-1) yes, it's inferior to Stinger. SA-13 (Strela-10) and SA-18 (Igla-S) are on par with Stinger in terms of missile/seeker performance. The only disadvantage of the SA-13 system in-game is that the AI will use radar for ranging and is therefore detectable by RWR.

I've written it once, I'll write it again: This is not correct. You think of MP only in terms of certain servers like BF, GS, GR and what not with non-sense planesets. There is at least one Cold War server out there that is highly popular and will be a great place for the MiG-29A Not true, see above.

Looks like you are doing everything correctly. The amount of flares dropped is crucial though, the more, the better. You should also avoid a second pass, deliver your ordinance in "one pass and haul ass." Doing so you can afford to drop more flares in your attack run. On another note, when you fly by an Avenger (at 90° angle or similar) at higher speeds (> M0.8) their Stingers are pretty harmless. Even though they track, most will not hit you.

People seem to be really spoiled by this multiplayer nonsense-planeset competitive thinking (looking at you Blue Flag and others!) Noone forces you to go on a server where you have to fight a Meteor-equipped Eurofighter in a MiG-29A... On a good Cold War server the MiG-29A will be a blast.

@ When the mountains cry: Could you please remove respawning EWRs for Redfor. Bluefor doesn't have it, and it takes away the fun of trying to blind the enemy. Also, Redfor has invisible FARPs (according to Tacview), Bluefor doesn't. I'd love to see that for Bluefor as well, it's way more realistic and makes FARPs a little bit harder to find and attack.

Maybe we can hope for improvements in mission planning in DCS when the dynamic campaign thing arrives. I just hope they adapt it for multiplayer as well. @BIGNEWY Can ED drop some information on integrated mission planning in DCS?

It doesn't seem to work with the latest issue of the MiG-21 unfortunately. And it makes integrity check fail.

This is great! Let me guess, you have an original copy lying around...

Yes, but unfortunately every DCS update will revert the changes to the lua, doesn't it? This is something (very simple) that ED should fix once and for all.

In "Catch me if you can" the red EWR aren't. https://www.file-upload.net/download-14467713/CatchMeIfYouCan-20210203-175721.trk.html