Max1mus

You would think people would figure out how the weapon and radar work before bumping a "bug" report. Tip: Try not rolling over and spinning/spazzing around when supporting a missile.

What i still dont understand - with R-27 you are trying to match your data perfectly, but with AIM-120 you accept it having 11% to >23% too much range based on the same data? Why should R-27ER match the graph perfectly and AIM-120 have extra energy? CFD research? But then how can you say this when no research is being done for R-27?

Want tracks? The DCS R-27 only barely catches an entirely nonmaneuvering bandit within the graphs numbers, it infact will often fall behind by a few hundred meters. No room for any 3G maneuvering and still hitting the target. Im sure you have tested it. You think not much would change based on documents? Well, when you upgraded the AIM-120, they performed much better (>23%) than your interpretation of the same documents in the same manuals. How does that make any sense? I think you should just admit that you dont want to or cant work on russian missiles, and just remove them from the simulator. The same thing goes for missiles like R-33 and MICA, which have not been reworked for a long time. I dont understand what EDs strategy here is. I think you understand what it looks like to us paying customers. I dont think its normal for the 2 most used weapons to be modelled to such different standards. For 2 years. In any game.

You dont know the real kill probability of a lot of weapons that are in DCS. Do we know how often mavericks really fail to lock the target? What about hot desert environments, where many guided weapons have had issues and needed upgrades? What about GPS weapons in a real environment with jamming or Anti-Radiation missiles like the HARM, many of which have been fired on cheap decoy radars (13 on just one modified MiG-21 emitter in yugoslavia) and could potentially be defeated by using microwaves. Just do it the same simplified way with R-27EP, if in doubt, make it really bad and only work on almost entirely nonmaneuvering targets. Better than not having it in at all. Your F-18/F-16 customers deserve proper opposition and the full amount of threats, instead of just a selected bunch from the 80s.

No offense, but nearly all PVE groups have absolutely zero clue how to employ even basic tactical concepts. Youre going to find more of that in competent and disciplined PvP groups, which while in the minority, at least exist. Different levels of skills are normal and realistic. Watch the interviews with real pilots, there is an F-15 one who explains exactly how experienced guys and people will less than 100 flying hours were put together in the operation. Didnt you say a few posts ago that you just leave comms when youre ordered to do something in a dynamic campaign? Youre right about mixed aircraft, though it rarely happened IRL too with MiG-29A being used in mixed flights with NATO aircraft. Loadout limitations to a specific era is realistic. Most PVE groups (Hoggit, Grim Reapers just to name a few) infact just clap 70s MiGs with 2000s AIM-120Cs which does not have much to do with realism. To stay on topic, ive seen 3 posts here get deleted, so i dont recommend to continue this thread since EDs position on this issue is very clear. Dont vote on the forums, vote with your money. ED has excellent internal statistics for these kinds of things that go as far as showing peoples average sortie time. So if youre unhappy with what you consider a double standard, then dont pay and dont play.

There are settings in the editor to disable Link16, blue flag does it for their 80s server. But other than that, yes you cant change the radar, and removing JHMCS doesnt work properly. Airfield weapons and numbers of those also reset back to no restrictions every few patches, making restricting weapons impossible, without using scripts. And lets be real, is the average singleplayer dad simmer going to look up how to install scripts?

Because the effort is lower, and it would be done shortly after release. They can then make more modules and make more money. But what does it matter, ED did it and started applying "no more low fi" doctrine, despite knowing the sim does not have the redfor AI units or redfor flyable units for it.

F-14D, F-15, F-16, F-18, and Su-27 were still cutting edge technology in the 90s. Flankers made their real debut in the 90s when they were mass exported and equipped with better situational awareness (datalink on every jet) and pretty much an equally capable missile mix to the best missiles the west had to offer, perhabs even superior (though limited by the old N001 radar). The F-22 only got into service in 2003. Why always go back to the 80s. If youre worried about fun - i guarantee you that a 90s flanker vs a 90s AMRAAM bus with no Link16 is the most assymetrical and interesting fight you will ever have. Unfortunately DCS AI does not use the flankers very effectively, so this is more true in PvP, but still applies in PVE. MiG-29 9.13S should do as well as Su-27 in a 90s environment if it sticks to its niche point defense role. Su-27/Su-30 was more of an allrounder as thus much more popular on the export market. In short, ED shouldve made 90s hornets and F-16s, as should Razbam with F-15E. They shot themselves in the foot.

Agreed. 90s versions would have been fine too. But ED can only limit the damage now. Which in my opinion is not possible without low fidelity on OPFOR, especially given that the upcoming dynamic campaigns are supposed to support PvP. And i believe even PVE groups like to have some client aggressor roles sometimes.

R-27ER is still running on 6 year old code. Try AIM-120C from F-15. 50-55nm of range, ~23nm burnthrough range. This reminds me of another reason why this MiG-29A is doing more harm than good: ED is known to delay bug fixes and updates and combine them with module releases for extry hype and revenue. Example: MiG-29 RWR 2 1/2 years ago. Due to new 2.5 shaders, the RWR was bugged and unreadable for over a year, making the MiG-29 close to unusable. It had been long fixed on the Su-27. Guess when ED released the fix? When the PFM update for MiG-29 came out ... The R-27 CFD research and update (AIM-120 has it since 1.5 years now) has been delayed over and over again since last year. Now Chizh from ED confirmed that it will not be released until after "work the Mi-24 and Apache is finished". I think ED is going to do this to us again, making us wait 1-2 years for an essential fix just to generate hype around this MiG-29A.

Yes, ED is not making certain very necessairy low fidelity modules to fill gaps in the modern era, out of pride as you stated and as Bignewy/Nineline have told on EDs discord. ED created the most realistic public cockpit simulator ever. However, most realistic combat simulator is very far-fetched given that both of these full fidelity modules they are so proud of cannot be used for anything else than bombing insurgents (which DCS also lacks by the way) and recreating turkey shoots like libya 2011. Even for turkey shoots like desert storm or yugoslavia, the F-18s and F-16s avionics are way out place.

Ticonderoga class SM-2 burns through jammers at 10 miles further and has better CCM. So for defending against jamming targets (like a jamming F-14/F-15 attempting to kill an AWACS), Kirov is not better since it only shoots at 30nm or less. Im not sure the minimum altitude of S-300FM isn't worse either. Theyre both 90s ships.

The US also operates S-300PMU1 and Pantsir S1 systems, which are early 2000s variants. DCS OPFOR could only dream to be equipped with such things. How come it isnt?

Only on the surface. Heres why the full fi radars may even be less realistic than FC3. Full fi radars only feature that is not modelled in FC3 are ability to change scanned bars and thus increase or decrease detection speed. In FC3 you get that delay too, though it is artificial. F-18s difference between medium PRF, interleaved and HI is very low, its never worth switching between those modes. Real radars (like FC3) need to switch PRF a lot, increasing necessairy workload. However, you dont get RWR nails with every radar sweep. As such, an F-18 can be set to 140 degrees and 6 bars, with easily 80+nm range. The target at that range gets nails immedeatly, even though the F-18 needs 16 seconds to even detect it, and may never see it at all if he moves the cone away early. The only thing that happens is that the target may get a different tick rate on RWR, but thats simulated on FC3 radars too. Next up is memory mode, the FC3 aircraft all have trouble with it supporting missiles for a second or two when they are already off. However on the F-18, you can set that memory mode to horrendous lengths (32s) and until recently (may still work in stable), could not only fire and support an AMRAAM or AIM-7 using this memory mode while cold, but also fire a missile at a target that has disappeared off your radar since 30 seconds, yet the missile would make the turn and find the target. Making you obviously also find the target. Then, there is the feature on FC3 radars that makes you loose the track or lock when a target is running away from you at the same speed (+-50kph). This is not simulated in the F-18. I believe the reason why this filter exists in realistically modelled aircraft is because of sidelobe clutter. Then you have the fact that all full fi radars except F-18 are immune to jamming, FC3 ones are affected and it can actually make a good difference, especially without AWACS or EWR. And last but not least you have things like JF-17 not having a radar notch until a recent patch, where when it was reported the devs were pretending that it was fine.

When the US and its satellites have better Su-27 and MiG-29 than all of OPFOR in a video game. I remember how we used to joke about Uganda (or was it Angola?) having better Flankers than the russians in DCS, and that was years ago.

ED has no real concept for MAC, as Chizh has admitted in a recent interview. I doubt they have even started developing it. ED keeps saying that low fidelity is exclusively intended for beginners, despite the fact that 8/10 of those planes are soviet, chinese or in one case even russian (Su-25T). FC3 is the only satisfying product for people that want to fly non-NATO 4th gens on the civilian simulator market. What else are we supposed to fly? And believe it or not, most of these people will not be satisfied by a short range interceptor that is a GCI slave and can not build SA on its own (no tactical view/picture, only blips). And chances are it will be a blind and deaf slave. If you think that ED will release anything GCI related for the MiG-29A you have not learned anything. Otherwise the F-14 and AIM-54 would have been released properly with the engine adjusted to support the missile and its more complex guidance by AWG-9. Instead we got a broken mess with missiles that tracked with no support and to this day (2 years after release) are the most desynced in DCS. Fortunately, as i mentioned before, within 2 years ED will finally be put under pressure by competition wishing to fill the OPFOR gap that ED has left open for this long. Many times now have ED members like Chizh mocked critics with the argument that there is no alternative (for now) for russian aviation fanatics, shooting down any complaints with "we provide the most realistic simulation of [planes like] Su-27 on the market". The bad news is that no matter what, we will need to wait 2 years for anything to change. Until then i recommend you stick to solo and low pop cold war stuff, and if you get bored of that, just uninstall and take a break from DCS and check back on the entire simulator market in ~2 years.

With modern air defenses just pressing pickle isnt enough. You need a large enough group launching at the same time, timed properly and from multiple angles even. DCS doesnt have modern air defenses, but has modern stealthy JSOWs and JDAMs. Same thing with modern BVR combat. When you move away from AMRAAM vs AMRAAM boredom you get a very diverse and asymmetric fight. That is, you would, if ED was smart enough to add the necessairy modern OPFOR platforms to AI or as low fidelity planes. But they didnt, and as such its AMRAAM vs AMRAAM which while certainly more advanced than "shoot missile and turn around", is definitely the least diverse fight that requires the least group tactics. Both of those issues are easily fixable through the addition of actual modern AI OPFOR units. And you can please the PvP crowd too, by giving them low fidelity stuff to fill the gap. Dont forget that dynamic campaigns will be released for modern scenarios and with PvP support. Why not include a low fidelity MiG-29K as a bonus when people buy the DCS: MiG-29A?

Yet Chizh from ED has come to these conclusions and claimed that even an SU-35 would sell worse than the F-18.

I think people have been starved so much by EDs years long neglect of OPFOR in DCS (Making AI units will not send you to jail) that they will praise anything, even if its as mediocre as one of the worst 4th gen fighter variants that is not even a real multirole. The problem with this is that if it flops, ED will never even consider making something russian again (When asked about the lack of russian modules, they keep bringing up how russian stuff sells worse). Think about the people that are not building massive cockpits and not buying most, if not all DCS modules anyway. People from eastern Europe, Russia and Asia are a huge potential market for non-NATO aircraft, but they dont make enough money (average wages of less than 500$) to just spend so much on such a mediocre product. Why would they buy MiG-29A when they have a MiG-21 or MiG-23MLA already?

MiG-29 9.12 is in DCS. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/flaming_cliffs/ Where is all this content you mentioned? This thing has been out for years now and im still looking. Do you think it will be any different after they re-release it for 79.99$?

Then show me one group that restricts the heck out of themselves in their PVE missions. I have checked many, and all large communities do not.

All larger PVE groups in DCS that feature the MiG-29A have featured it as a practice target for AIM-120C5 and 9X. Time travel scenarios, just like Multiplayer. Aerobatics: Yes! If you have the money to spend 80$ for an aerobatics aircraft (That is already in the game with a PFM), go ahead. Buy it. To all other people, including aviation fans in eastern Europe and Asia, that have a 200-300$ wage and are perhabs the biggest target audience of such modules: Better luck next time.

People are not happy with it, given that all the servers are F-18 vs F-16. And in singleplayer, most campaigns are also these time travel scenarios, where if a Su-27 user wants to complete it, he is forced to essentially abuse AI weaknesses like them not shooting back when they are launched on. You mentioned advantages and throwing around one of the most nippy and agile fighters. Which advantages? More agility than what? - The MiG-29A in DCS looses most if not all guns only matchups against 4th gens because the earlier versions lacked fly by wire and because mid 2000s NATO fighters have upgraded engines and stuff like speed showing up on JHMCS. - IRST? Less than 8 kilometers of range head on, sometimes as little as 6. The F-18s targeting pod in A/A mode is better than that, and you can detect missile launches with it. - Missiles? R-27R and T are not only of inferior range and speed than any AIM-120, but even loose against the AIM-7, only managing to get a trade close to rMin (4km). - Radar? Nope, for all the reasons stated. - Speed and acceleration? Nope, DCS F-16 beats it, while not running out of fuel after a minute in burner at low altitude - SA? Nope, for reasons stated. - Merge with off bore heaters? Nope, too bad AOA and lacks any upgraded archer. On top of only 30 flares, no chance against AIM-9X. Again, where is even one unique advantage? Or better agility?

Even you admit that you dislike restrictions. And so does the rest of the DCS playerbase. As such the MiG-29A WILL be put against mid 2000s amraam busses and the 2020s Meteor - hooray. Think about how much money 80 dollars are. With Syria and the MiG-23 on top, thats 200 dollars at least. There is so much fun stuff you can do with that money. Thats 20 cinema tickets, 5 or more really good games on steam, 10 restaurant visits. Heck, you could get 200 1 dollar bills and toss them around. Or you can get shot down repeatedly in an incomplete 70s/80s soviet museum escapee by Eurofighters with missiles that they didnt get until 2020. If ED adds tools for the GCI and MiG-29 with the IADS module, thats another 50 bucks. If you really like getting shot down, you can just use the FC3 MiG-29A for 10$. Its the exact same experience minus startup and slightly faster radar (with all the same key/HOTAS bindings). You want to pay 80 dollars for startup procedures?

Everything that actually matters is worse. You cant scan an airspace properly and DCS doesnt offer proper GCI/GCI DL: SA is awful. You will spend most of the fight defensively and need to get SA from your RWR... whoops, its just a bunch of lamps. Maybe ask GCI for a pictu.... oh. But at least when you merge, you can beat AIM-9X carriers right? A MiG-29K will do decently well since it has fly by wire. MiG-29A FCS will not help you at all. Neither does the fact that modern fighters have their speed showing up on their JHMCS so they never loose sight of you checking their speed. On top of the inferior original R-73 variant, where as -29K carries an improved one.