Hawkeye_UK

Tumbleweed - makes you wonder the point of the forums when a month later zero response, actually i will correct that.... SEVEN YEARS and still no response from ED>.....

one thing i would add time and time again people are asking about fuzes and how they are modelled in game, and what each fuze does in relation. This is something that ED need to document, with each fuze and specifically state what this is in relation to the game (so those that dont know can educate themselves). When i was last having a discussion about this i said they would be in the manual as knew what they where, and was surprised to be told they were not either in the base game manual , a supplement or the aircraft module. Is this still the case for both western and russian fuses? I would also expand this to weapons in general - its something that most kids will not have a clue about (thankfully).

ED, I know the DTC is early access, however when selecting the 3 airfields on some of the larger maps, say take Germany Cold War finding the airfields can be a bit of a PITA due to their random appearance in the list. Please can you have these in the drop down menu as Alphabetical in order, it can be quite tiresome at present having to search through for airfields and easy to miss one, then you have to start all over again. Sure i'm not the only one thinking this, would be a huge benefit to all of us, for any map! Please can the mods pass this onto the Dev team to get implemented before we get too far down the road with the DTC.

nope test it yourself, in mission editor you can have wing tanks on the mig29 A, i know as i already had a mission set up with an AI cap for long endurance, and sure enough have gone back in to check and still an option in the mission editor on the FC3 Mig29 A, but not on the new FF version. So not sure about historical real world on what was around in early 80s, just highlighting the difference we have ingame.

ED, On the FC3 version of the Mig29A it allows for 1150L wing fuel tanks to be fitted to pylon 3 & 5 (inboard stations). This is useful for longer flights , or fast ferry flights (aka in MP when you may need to go from a far base to front line quickly). Just curious the FF does not allow for wing tanks, please can they be added on the next patch? Thanks.

Yea Harlikwin i share your sentiments on this about the Mig23. Without going to off topic from the 29 and just briefly in reply I'm optimistic that this will still be done one day, and done with due justice with a stable third party or by ED themselves. It's simply too iconic not too, on that rationale alone is why i think it will come, one day, just not from who we first thought or announced it. Given the Harrier and M2000 development that doesn't actually bother me, i'd rather wait for it to be given justice without the pulling teeth battles that occured with the community at times over those modules. The Mig 21 is alot of fun, one of the better modules it has to be said (but i'm a long standing fan of it so probably biased in that regard). I also hope on a separate point that HB get to do the F111 given the pedigree they have brought in both swing wing and duel crew systems. Side by side, co-op MP would be immense fun in that thing.

@BIGNEWY@NineLine Just to add some context to this, many of us that have bought the NS430, are not able to use it for this exact reason. This is not just an issue for this one server but any that have dynamic ground games where creating farps that you don't want the other side to instantly know where they are as otherwise strategy becomes pointless. If I had a £1 for every time I heard why doesnt the 430 work etc as its affecting literally every module, well i'd probably have more spare cash than the MOD. Given that the NS430 has had some recent adjustments please can we get this to the dev team and at the same time whilst emphasis is on this new product address the other post on the databases raised in another thread, as i see in the folder there are still only displaying 3 maps (so i chased in the actual 430 forum section about this the other week re missing map data in south atlantic, but its actually every new map, also about radio functionality if that has not been resolved as yet (not been able to test in MP as per above). Not hijacking this thread, as i asked MartinCo about this earlier issue he posted and it all ties in with the overall issues of the 430 implementation. Please can we have some priority put into the 430 in general on the justification its for a new module launch, and a new product launch re the 430 kit for the Mig29. I mention about priority as i note in the forum post i chased last week i was bumping it after 18 months with no response. Many thanks.

Yea agreed with alot of what you have wrote. That said i would also say it's never been in a better state that what we have now. F4 vs Mig 29 in the BVR role will be interesting, but yea inclose put me in the mig everytime lol, countermeasures, not needed! I've noticed a few wacky things with certain fox 1 shots tracking post launch and post lock lost, interesting, on non emitting (HOJ) targets. I need to replicate and turn on track recording though to get it posted (still playing around at present and just having fun). F14A is by far the most competant, especially if your in the back seat at range. The 29 will not compete up high with that. But for me it will be used in close, sneak, pull up attacks in places with lots of terrain cover to dip into and pull right up into high flying targets. The fox 2's 73's seem to have had a boost also, unless im just getting alot of "lucky" shots. I think there is going to be a lot of fun as this era pads out more - also big advocate of the F1, despite its radar being "cheat" mode at present but that aside its great fun. As for the sea harriers, the chaff bundle in the airbrakes was a thing, i think it was more for the early days however and/or the fear of roland, but don't quote me on that. They would have benefited though no doubt from a whole host of ECM from other assets too not airborne. Your first point, 100% - there is a reason why flares are emergency jettisonable enmasse!

Countermeasures not needed comrade, I drink the radar magic cooling fluid Wow that's quite something didnt know that, like i can imagine the prototype not having any but actual production aircraft for front line squadrons, esp 1983 it was a very hot time that's quite something if what you state is accurate. More you know about it more you get that foxbat feeling of headline stats but limited combat application, then again i guess 91 and the Iraqi airforce demonstatrated actual capability and combat effectiveness of both 25 and 29's against was was classed as a peer adversay with the 4th gen F15/F16/F18, then again in the Balkans later in the 90s. Add in the DL/C3 stuctures for the timeframe, starts to make sense just how vunerable they where, and also why many fled west to Iran. Ps before a rivet corrects me on how the coolant worked on the 29 and what it was, this was a poor attempt at humour.

Thank you for clarification that the emergency panel will be added at a later date and the systems behind it. I sure you can understand that such elementary systems like fuel shut off and air relight are what would be within the scope of full fidility. You will also appreciate why i have raised the issue given the manual is very clear on these titled "not available" whilst other systems state "not implemented yet". Implicit implication of what will be done long term, what won't be. This is the original reason for this post and there are quite a few systems as not available that would be argued to be essential basic functionailty away from the emergency control panel. I'm with you on bit tests, i think it would only be relevant on HB modules long terms where they are planning like the F4 systems level of degredation and continued wear and tear. It's also to be honest way past my interest levels. When i play I take it for granted that the virtual jet im taking is factory new (not always a good thing lol) and working 100%. THe reason for this is that with wear and tear and with respect all round it can lead to is that a bug, or is that a feature lol. But I, and like many others that i fly online with, that do play esp in MP where getting that life back is important, having back up systems and being able to model that damage and also limp home if possible by managing the systems is absolutely part of the fun and gameplay. Perhaps it is worth revisiting, the manual, which i appreciate is early access in itself to double check the scope of the systems of not available / not implemented yet to check that they have been marked up correctly to avoid other people asking the same questions, it will also define the product and manage expectations also. Don't forgot we invest into EA in blind faith, to support ED and get access early, and i will state till im blue in the face this is not a critism of early access, I happily involve and buy into that for a number of reasons, but its about just clarification of the direction of the module longer term. I'm not the type of person to be bothered if we get it this month, this year, or 2 from now etc unless its game breaking issues such as IFF, or radar suddenly not working due to a bug etc then it becomes more time critical. As I said its a fun module, stunning in many ways and would recommend it to anyone to buy, in this early access period, certainly its not another F16 launch! I do believe however though that the community is there to provide feedback and also provide the checks and balance on the long term specification i do believe is important to community/consumer management.

I'm not calling out community members when you posted my response to dudikoff, i was thanking him for his contribution? Ehhh that's not calling them names, thats thanking them for their contirubution, common big newy i'll let you off with it being no doubt its been a long few weeks of screen time getting upto launch week! This is not about EA Bignewy, im well aware of that process, I'm seeking clarification of what full fidility is because the branding of the product from day one has been full fidility to most long term customers will think A10C/KA50 etc level. I also note from the sales blurb - Fully interactive and highly detailed cockpit based on 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry. "Fully interactive" to me, means full fidelity, it does not imply that important panels such as fuel shut off and air relight would be not available or not able to interactive with. These are vital and basic controls for any simulation, surely? What im seeking is a clarification of just what the "full fidility" level is for this module and at this stage you haven't answered that, rather pointed me to the module being well received. I have also stated in my post many positive aspects and recommend buying it, but that is not my point. Please can you provide clarification to the original question please - also i would like to have this conversation in detail here, rather than the thread be closed down and locked and then it has to be discussed elsewhere outside of ED control. Many thanks Bignewy, as i said this is not a hate post, i've very much been defending ED online with the product and privately saying its worth getting, but its not just me seeking clarification on what the level of full fidility means, and is this the standard now going forward. This is not about EA, or my lack of understanding or patience for that process, to say otherwise is not accurate or factual. PS can i also ask why the change of title has gone from what i posted - "Mig 29 Full fidelity or just an EA issue - is this product more realistically medium fidelity" it was changed from my orignal title to "the good, the bad and the ugly" for a few mins then to "customer feedback" all whilst i was writing this reply?! Changing this to customer feedback is just going to get the post swamped with various other issues - this is a very specific point. Please can you title the post back to the actual point i was raising - "Full Fidility"

Dudikoff agree with your point in principle, its probably not that high though, alot of community are rivet counters ( I will add i'm not, its a game etc etc but i do like to be able to do the basic's when it comes to damage and being able to control the systems, i mean it is a "combat" sim after all). I think my primary concern is the fact we have this clear distiniction in the manual of not available, and not available yet. Being able to turn off the fuel to each engine i would say is pretty elementary stuff, and makes me wonder about the overall damage model etc and the model behind it. As i say its about branding this as full fidelity if the manual is correct and these systems won't be available. Thank you for your feedback on the thread.

Well aware of Early access hence why i reference it, but congratulations on not comprehending the point i raised and the aspects of why.

ED, On first impressions, short of a few issues like IFF for MP (this as i say to all dev's on any module has to be a day one release feature these days) and the att hold for autopilot and few other niggles I think ED have done a great job with the fulcrum. Its alot of fun to "fly", brings a much needed improvement over the Mig21 in terms of Gen 4 for the red side and on superficial play looks and feels great. Night 1 a solid 6 hours of learning the basics, circuits, handling capabilities, playing around with rudder and splitting the throttles, high alpha moves and navigation systems, zero vis landing etc to get a really good feel for it, its instant nose authority and sustained speeds ingame for rate fights etc i noticed the engines can flame out in certain conditions which "auto relight" with windmilling and throttle to idle. I thought I will move onto the emergency procedures post learning the radar and attack. Night 2 of learning its A2A radar, and ground delivery modes all seem good, well worth highlighting the IFF friend and foe lock that i see most people complaining about cannot lock on (when testing say and trying to lock a friend). Night 3, starting to take a deeper dive and here comes the wall, there isnt any. Past superficial play and once going into emergency regimes i note alot of the panels and features are not selectable and do not work. I've worked through the manual and note they say not available. So none of the Emergency control panel works such as ramp retraction, air relight left and right, ab emergency cut off, fuel shut off left and right, they are all listed as not available. I note other features such as the feel control unit states not implemented yet, a clear difference. Considering the heritage of what DCS Full fidelty means and i refer to modules such as the A10C or the KA50, there clearly is a large gap in what full fidelity means and what concerns me is the engine/model behind this. If this is the final state of the Emergency control panel and other panels not available one could very easily interpret that the back system for this is not there also re damage to systems? Please could you clarify if this is the new standard of full fidelity because if this is the case its a very clear departure from past modules for example in the A10C i can literally control all aspects which actually during play is super useful when taking damage can manage the failures and in alot of ways the A10C is still the gold standard all those years ago. If the manual is correct and these are not going to be available i would suggest a rebrand to Mid fidelity. Look forward to the clarification, hopefully this is just a translation issue and the systems will be modelled. This is not a "hate post", far from it, as i said really enjoying what it brings to the game and recommend people buy it but just seeking the direction of this module and futures ones like it (as in conversions from FC3 re F15C).

Yea we've seen this before, no worries. Given that the EA access is now close for release - and the EA manual is not going to change much prior to release (I mean it may release tomorrow with a fair wind), any chance we could make this file available to get slightly ahead of the curve, you know for those that would want to read the EA manual Thoughts? Just be great to get a little upto speed.... @BIGNEWY @NineLineineline

yep agreed, however my point was to the gentleman making the reference to the english cockpit, for those that want to fly in metric, keep the cockpit in its native form Cyrillic. Yep my point was someone was asking for metric in the english cockpit - when in the western world we don't use metric. If you want metric use the native Cyrillic, no need for additional waste of dev resources for people that want to fly metric but not prepared to think russian lol.

Never seen an approach chart in KM.....feet and miles.

Just caught up with Wag's video's and cannot unsee the helmet sight optics flickering either side of the HUD control unit, aka in direct eyeline, pretty annoying especially the RHS which has alot more white in the image flicker. Looks like there are 2 metal levers above them is this some slide down door to protect the glass and can be shut when not required (aka 80% of the flight). I'm asking as in VR this will be even more annoying - can there be a special option to have these static, its enough to make me not buy the module and sure it will annoy others also.

Guys, It is not 2017 anymore, we now have Cold War, Afganistan, Iraq, Kola, South Atlantic, Syria To pull together the nav data for each of these is a day's work and publically available for it to be entered into a data file. Can we explain why the NS430 is not being supported with "new" map data. It has to be said the current lack of navigation as a critical process in flight simulation, is very much out of focus within both the mission editor and F10 map. All the normal routes, low and hi, intersections points and beacons, sid/stars should be present for each map. This adds in additional importance when you consider the upcoming c130 release. Please can one of the team get this in order and updated. Even a base standard would be a start, i dont think anyone is asking for a monthly AIRAC cycle but a base requirement is going to be required. Also as a heads up the C130j has the potential to pull over a new crowd into DCS, but you never get a second chance to make a first impression and as such the nav modules and presentaton within DCS needs dramatically improving, and its not complex surely?

Bumping, Afgan, Cold war, Syria, Sinai Its a valid point at AIRAC also another user highlights, especially with heavies coming into the game re C130J. Even a base as at such a date would be a start. This should be mandatory for all maps, and all third parties making them. Good example is Sinai that was and is in a terrible state re nav beacons, or rather lack off on what is meant to be a flight sim. We need to get to a point where not only does the NS430 have the data, but for those that own the module all this is selectable on the F10 map, and a tick box at the top to push on and off. Its fair to say that the nav part of the game is often so overlooked.

Cold war and Kola? Question I thought i knew the mission editor really well, how are you getting these displayed @buur The maps displayed so far are you saying that all of these have the intersections built into the 430 (i know they did on the cauc map). I know elevation data is missing on some, think syria from memory etc. If they are there, my question to ED is why cannot they be displayed on the base map in the mission editor if you own the NS430 with a tick option to display them. I see this being even more important with the impending C130J module coming out also. Its always been a big critism, a flight simulator with such a poor nav database, and how often to maps come out and the nav file is shocking, Sinai case in point. @BIGNEWY

Bumping @BIGNEWY @NineLine 19 months on. The ability in the Mig 29 to talk to towers and freq's not pre programmed will be very much needed for unplanned landings etc.

Yea It was purely for when you have an hour's downtime thought it might interest you, some great shots. Our greatest generation bar none, its when you hear the combat losses at the end, some groups think I heard 9 of 18 returning etc for one mission, then to go and do it all again the day after. B17's that's 90 men, one sortie, one group.

Reflected - Saw this on youtube and thought you might enjoy it, probably already seen it but well knowing your interest in WW2 flying and authentic recreations I thought I would post on the off chance you haven't. Might not be of direct help to campain building but sent purely for your viewing.

That's great i guess you are one of the dev team, wishing you the best for the project. Any thought's on the other points i raised reference ECHS MFCD loadmaster panel, duel stage cargo drops, weather impacts, varied canopy requirements depending on load, JPADS. I mention JPADS as this could be used for so many mechanics within the game for MP object placement and third pary campaign dev's (as in once the cargo lands it then converts into an asset with additional lua framework etc) and give the module a greater escape window/accuracy. Are the CARP/HARP points relayed into the flight management systems such as the HUD etc?