Hawkeye_UK

Thanks Flappie for the quick response. Of all the pages the sat position page is actually the worst (my rig is not slow either at just under 6ghz and 24GB Vram/64Gb RAM but this page alone can drop the fps by circa 20% from the on position, let alone when its switched off). I think the most concerning is the amount of issues listed through the NS430 forums, that have been around years, then they put it in what is a leading module (29A) and also include it in the sales blurbs, yet when you start digging deeper there are so many basics just abandoned. The fact that no maps have sid/stars since PG is another in the long list of problems. It's branded as NS 430 is particularly useful for older aircraft with less sophisticated navigation and communication systems. on the actual NS430 core module. Also on the sales page for the Mig 29 extra plug in module The NS 430 is fully wired into the electrical and radio systems of the MiG-29A . Not sure how they can state this when non of the communications side of the NS430 is operational, or ever has been. This is not just misleading, its false advertising. At @Wags please can you have the store page ammended, or provide a roadmap - I'm only including you as this has gone on for so long and it really needs senior producers to be across the issue to get resolution or direction. Doesn't need to be resolved in the next "two weeks" but I do think years later the community, and customers have a right to know what the plan is, with some circa timescales. This is nothing to do with EA either, the module is what 8 years + at this point with a feedback communication to the many early testers quite simply not at acceptable standard. I note many posts don't even get an acknowledgment let alone a thank you. Someone somewhere needs a metaphorical rocket firing in their direction to get the many issues logged, acknowledged and worked on, either that or don't sell it as a plug in for a AAA module. Sadly 2 years later its a good job you were not in a hurry lol!

Well Flappie how did that chat go? I'm guessing one way as law and behold as testing anything to do with the NS430 getting a 10-15% drop when in any of the nav or waypoint pages. The control page for testing is AUX, then see the dips as you select the pages from there. In its current state, along with the missing comm's feature, missing data points, missing airfields even, no updated sid/stars on any map since PG, missing F10 presentation for navigation it really is a box of spanners. The worst affected page for performance drop, you'll never guess, nothing to do with with the terrain page being diplayed, the Sat position page drops by 20%. Make this make sense, all GPU load according to the ingame dev page. Note this does not need a track file or log to post - after discussions online across a multitude of hardware and setup's everyone is reporting the same. @NineLine @BIGNEWY @Wags Please can someone explain why so much of the NS430 has been left untouched, without response and with zero feedback for the customers that have been trying hard to assist with the EA Process. We see posts on here, with valid bugs with not so much as a thank you, sometimes in excess of 5 years. Wags i never include you on posts but given the dereliction of not replying hoping you can add this to your long list, given its fresh release with the Mig 29. It is hard to recommend anyone buys the add in, for VR or standard given the state of play. With the launch of the Mig29, this should have had a clear brush up, with the core module and cleared the development backlog. This is not a case of an EA product, but something long established into the game. The Module as it stands is being misleading at the point of sale for many reasons. Note this is constructive feedback and just seeking general answers and would rather seek them here than have the conversation elsewhere outside of ED moderation.

I note some airfields don't have the ICAO code on the F10 map when you click on it, and sure enough they don't appear in the NS430....

I mean even a reply would be a start.....

buur sorry is there a way to import these into the mission editor on an existing mission template (I have some old long standing mission templates that took me along time to set up biut have alot of scripts in them and really don't want to start from scratch) Also the points listed are those that are already in the NS430 database file that you cannot see, unless on the limited screen ingame, or are these additional fixes you have added? Finally are any thoughts on cold war germany, i note i was at an airbase tonight and even the airfield wasn't in the database somehow!

I will just add in response as an edit buur to you reply, its not like anyone is after a monthly AIRAC cycle, but a base position would be good, even if that was 5 years old, or static for when the map was released etc or set to date. Doesnt have to be exact but a real base position is required.

Please feel free to get involved to push this agenda, its a disgrace at present the lack of response from ED, and i mean over years, I think we have been patient enough, its the lack of comms on this that is the issue, not just the lack of work.

Hi Buur thank you for commentating and I note your efforts historically in trying to push the progress of this module, not just today but I also came over your work few months back when trying to raise this point prior to the Mig 29 release. My whole point is for the majority of users, especially those of us who are not computer literate and haven't had a life in code or PC's it's even more problamatic. The points hidden within the internal structure of the NS430 should be clear for all to see on the F10 map with an overlay toggle, the fact they can't could actually be intentional given the lack of them! What i would say the whole module is really not fit for purpose and for too long now ED have just blatantly ignored any feedback or request for this module. The fact they then hyped up the selling of it for the Mig 29 is a bit of a sham it has to be said, feel free to correct me ED with how you are going to remedy this with a timeline and roadmap, but at present on the NS430 threads its just tumbleweed and no replies. All maps need supporting, day 1, not 7 years laters still nothing. Be it down to ED, or the third party at the end of the day a flight sim that cannot even navigate is poor. I've listed this many times over the years, it should be the base block and foundational stuff, not trying to add it it at a later point. Mission planning is everything especially as the sim is ramping up into gen 3 aircraft etc. Trying to do anything on the cold war map is basically just leads to nothing but frustration, the lack of nav points included is poor. It's worth highlighting that as it stands thus far only Caucasus and PG are really properly supported oh and Normandy i believe (although not tested) as i only use the map for warbirds and well never opened the ns430 in that map. I mention all this as wiht the c130 release, ED has an opportunity to bring in a whole new customer base, but they will not stick around as that type of player would very much be into the mission planning and flight planning, and for that it needs to be on the F10 map, not some plug in, not some extra import and trying to stumble around community input. Completely unnacceptable in terms of the poor communication back to the community over the years.

With the release of the NS430 for the Mig 29A , I had at long last hoped that the NS430 module was going to get some much needed work and development, sadly with the exception of some very limited map work it's largely as was. Performance, which can be found on the NS430 forums, has been ignored for years, literally no reponse. On the sat page alone there is a 15% drop in FPS, and any of the nav pages show similar, its not just the terrain page. Clearly there is a long standing issue as per the forum page about memory leak that has not been resolved. Apart from the module being sold with a blurb "The NS 430 is particularly useful for older aircraft with less sophisticated navigation and communication systems. Can someone explain to me how the NS430 module is helpful as a communication's system when 7 years on its still not modelled? Also how is anyone meant to navigate when the list of waypoints is so random at best, take cold war germany map for example, you know given that the Mig 29A module is a natural fit for that map and also the fact was heavily sold showing that terrain, how are we meant to navigate with so many of the real world nav fixes just not present, even airbases. SID/STARS not completed for the module since the PG map, anything after just not in the database. How are players meant to plan a mission to navigate using the NS430 when we cannot even see the points on the F10 map. This is completely unnacceptable as a product and as a "flight sim" game. If ED ever want to move from cockpit simulator then it needs to get serious about mission planning and also ensuring that all map makers (and i single out OnReTech) have all nav beacons working correctly, including ILS etc and that they are displayed on the F10 map. This is a BASIC, day 1, requirement. Moving on with the introduction of the C130, how do you think new players coming into the sim, looking at the F10 map, who are used to say planning flights with navigraph etc, are going to find the product, and the NS430? They are going to evaluate for what it is , substandard, and not stick around. You don't get a second chance to make a first impression, and the first impression is terrible. So the point being with the sales for the Mig29A NS430 add on, and no doubt players that have bought in for the first time to the NS430 module is this ever going to be incorporated as sold re comms and nav database. Also the F10 map actually be useful for mission planning with all relevant nav fixes that are hidden in the NS430 displayed, because at present its frustrating to have a route planned to then just have trial and error on what is and isnt included/available. Not good enough ED, not good enough by a long shot. EDIT - i would have posted this in the NS430, but as it specifically relates to the Mig29 posting here, especially as anything in the NS430 has topics that have not been replied on in Years, despite recent jogging prior to the mig 29 release.

also worse if if you hit and reset defaults it does not change from manual back to auto on the display page - this is a problem! The whole module is like a bag of spanners, on auto brightness its blinding at night, on manual can't get it back to auto it seems. Manual is less then useless. Truing to go from manual to auto, the small knob does nothing, its not like the real system. If someone in Englight can provide a 1, 2, 3 exactly what to press and how to get back from MANUAL to AUTO would be greatly appreicated. @BIGNEWYcan you elebvate this mess back to the dev team to get the implementation correct and also to ensure that when hitting RESET DEFAULTS, it does just that, aka taking the module back from manual to auto brightness. The nighttime needs looking at, the way it calibrates for time of day. For what is a "New" module release for the Mig29 plug in, its dissapointing and this is nothing to do with EA, its a years old problem

It's only been 7 years.....but your 100% correct the product is hugely misleading at the point of sale, the problem is @BIGNEWY @NineLine didn't respond to any of these posts....I'd actually foreseen the missing comm's integration would flag issues when launching for the Mig29a and all we got was tumbleweed. I was actually hoping that with the NS430 being added to the Mig29 it would have spurred some work on the module, given its largely been forgot about, but no, minimal bits on few map updates but that was it. The comm's should be implemented, purely for the reason of in MP it allows to change to freq's that might not be preprogrammed in, or towers etc.

This needs attention, esp for the germany cold war map - can able to remove the lamposts to make a road landable by a trigger, but yea civ traffic off on the whole map make it look dead, we need it to by not enter a trigger zone @BIGNEWY

Have to sat spotted this tonight, but also thought no big deal really, fascinated to hear the background on how it worked in real life! What I would say however, the loss of the VSI is a nightmare, and really does need a hotfix rather than running metric or waiting until the next big patch update. BUt yea really was fascinated that it was a camera roll perforated in cockpit, and then there for analysis post flight. I also thought it didnt look that bad that people are going on about, but thats just me. Yea a camera film will not be affected by an EMP pulse

@BIGNEWY@NineLine Great to see this in the patch !!

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"