announced DCS MiG-29A

[stuart666]

17 minutes ago, Aigle2 said:

From a gameplay perspective, what would an A-6E (AI or playable) bring more than a F-14 ? I feel like in terms of payload, F-14 in Bombcat configuration is equivalent to A-6E (except for a few exceptions like SEAD). Can anyone give me some details about the strengh of an A-6E compared to a Bombcat ?

Nevertheless, the A-6E is a gorgeous plane !

 

2 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

Sorry to disappoint, but 9.13 is not much less useless.

 

Against Eurofighter and DCS F-15/F-16/18 it has

 

-SA disadvantage

-much inferior missiles (horrible radar does not help here)

 

 

We need a MiG-29K to fight back at all, a Su-30MKI or Su-27SM3 for parity. Anything less can not survive in DCS and will generate poor sales.

 

That logic doesnt seem to have affected Mig21 sales at all.

[jojyrocks]

41 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

So you think that MiG-29S with R-77 is capable of dealing with 2000s planes? Guess you gotta play it a little

 

 

Chance of survival is considerably increased with it as both the R-77 and the AIM 120 share one common ability and that is fire and forget, we do not need to stay on target painting the said target with radar till our missile hits it. Some survival chance is considerably increased...we can focus on evasion after we had fired the missile with R-77...as in avoiding the missile...at least that way we do not waste a missile.

 

In the case of R-27 R and its various. We have to stay on target and when the targets wingman fires at us, we'll have to focus on evasion and that means one missile wasted from us.

 

Mig 29S is CONSIDERABLE improvement and increased chance of survival...but reality is we're getting a Mig 29A and thus we'll just have to settle for early timeline of the 90s fight, like gulf war era where USAF still used Sparrows.

 

We already have plenty of modern blueforce planes and blueforce campaigns. Not much campaigns on Redforce...at least those story driven types. Even FC3 F-15C has quality story driven campaigns. Same cannot be said for Redforce....

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:49 PM, Max1mus said:

We need a MiG-29K to fight back at all, a Su-30MKI or Su-27SM3 for parity. Anything less can not survive in DCS and will generate poor sales.

Apart from in Cold War missions... where if modern BLUFOR jets are present, they get restricted to period weapons, no JHMCS and no D/L.

You can't just say that because it's not equal capabilities it'll generate poor sales... Otherwise WW2 wouldn't be a thing would it? And yet in DCS, it's easily the most comprehensive, coherent and fleshed out era.

Still stuff to add? Sure, plenty. But as eras go, it's the only one that has a near equal number of REDFOR and BLUFOR modules, with more coming, as well as a roughly equal number of ground units and air defences all to roughly the same quality, as well as 2 dedicated maps (with a 3rd in the future). 

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Max1mus]

Just now, stuart666 said:

 

 

That logic doesnt seem to have affected Mig21 sales at all.

 

 

Which one has sold better, MiG-21 or Ka-50? MiG-21 or F-16?

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:55 PM, jojyrocks said:

but reality is we're getting a Mig 29A and thus we'll just have to settle for early timeline of the 90s fight, like gulf war era where USAF still used Sparrows.

9-12 is early 80s and that's where it is best suited to.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Max1mus]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

Apart from in Cold War missions... where if modern BLUFOR jets are present, they get restricted to period weapons, no JHMCS and no D/L.

 

Which missions? Singleplayer? Dont exist. Multiplayer? No players.

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:57 PM, Max1mus said:

Which one has sold better, MiG-21 or Ka-50? MiG-21 or F-16?

Look at WW2, if it wasn't successful they wouldn't keep pumping out new modules, assets and maps.

And right now it is the most consistent era, with the biggest number of high quality assets, with more to come.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[stuart666]

Well speaking for myself, im glad I bought the Mig21, and I hate and regret buying the F16. It ultimately comes down to what people want to fly.

 

I dont think people fly just to be able to win in multiplayer. Although speaking as a Tomcat driver, its nice to do that as well.

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:58 PM, Max1mus said:

 

Which missions? Singleplayer? Dont exist. Multiplayer? No players.

How the hell do you know? Near enough all of my single player missions are cold war 70s-80s, I don't have much to work with but it's something.

And MP represent the minority.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[jojyrocks]

11 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

And here's exactly why DCS should've picked a decade and stuck with it, instead of doing the mile-wide inch deep thing with very little era consistency.

 

Oh well, the ship has sailed, but eventually they're going to run out of feasible modern aircraft.

 

 

 

I believe they are aware of it and they did already say they have no interest in century series planes...pretty much roughly stating no interest in Cold war era planes.

 

What I think it is...it is that ED would focus on other developments full swing like DCS engine, features, comms, AI 3D models etc etc..

 

Yes...we certainly do have plenty of nice modern blueforce planes and well supported SP campaigns at least more focus and story driven on them....including the FC3 F-15. There is not much Redforce story driven good voiceover dialogues etc campaigns. I hope to see some focus on Redforce...

Edited February 6, 2021 by jojyrocks

[jojyrocks]

7 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

9.12 is early 80s and that's where it is best suited to.

 

 

Maybe so...

 

But since we already have Persian Gulf and Syria Maps...we could play hypothetical Middle east wars. I mean, there is Iranian air force, Syrian air force.

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 1:01 PM, jojyrocks said:

I believe they are aware of it

That's news to me and given that they're not interested in doing Cold War (unless it's REDFOR Cold War apparently) they're either not aware of the issue, don't recognise it as an issue, or they just don't care.

Quote

What I think it is...it is that ED would focus on other developments full swing like DCS engine, features, comms, AI 3D models etc etc.

Absolutely!

The AI and radio communications, the engine etc are all things that should be the absolute #1 priority above everything else. Getting stuff fixed and up to standard, I'm absolutely all over that stuff.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

3 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

Key part "...as including just the most essential cockpit systems..."

 

So it would seem that capabilities would be missed out, like I've said. They're much more simplified than just how you interact with them...

 

Radios? Simplified

RADAR modes? Only the 2 most basic ones.

NAVAIDS? What NAVAIDS? ILS and that's it.

 

I could go on.

 

Though what is present should be performing as it should.

 

That argument would work, if it wasn't that the 27 DL didn't exist at all in DCS, it does exist in SP. It didn't exist then in MP because of coding limitations, now it can exist.

 

Clearly when it was made a feature like that wasn't seen as something that could be omitted like canopy deicing or something like that

Edited February 6, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 2:05 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

That argument would work, if it wasn't that the 27 DL didn't exist at all in DCS, it does exist in SP. It didn't exist then because of coding limitations now, it can exist.

 

Clearly when it was made a feature like that wasn't seen as something that could be omitted like canopy deicing or something like that

BN just said that FC3 is feature complete on the official discord, it was unrelated to this, but there's that.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

5 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

BN just said that FC3 is feature complete on the official discord, it was unrelated to this, but there's that.

Thats interesting doesn't fall in line with what other ED people have said

 

 

[killkenny1]

1 hour ago, Northstar98 said:

Oh well, the ship has sailed, but eventually they're going to run out of feasible modern aircraft.

 

 

At that point ED will make DCS World v3 and will start updating modules a la A-10.

[Max1mus]

2 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

 

 

Maybe so...

 

But since we already have Persian Gulf and Syria Maps...we could play hypothetical Middle east wars. I mean, there is Iranian air force, Syrian air force.

 

Redfor in DCS can not even recreate the obsolete Syrian air force. Syria uses MiG-29SM, which can use guided air to ground weapons.

 

I refuse to believe that anyone could consider this acceptable, playable even.

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 2:20 PM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Thats interesting doesn't fall in line with what other ED people have said

 

 

To be honest that's a bug, not a new feature. It's something already in but doesn't work in MP.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 minute ago, Northstar98 said:

 

To be honest that's a bug, not a new feature. It's something already in but doesn't work in MP.

That is the crux of the issue, these bugs have yet to be fixed after what how long?

The most pressing of which being the Radar detection and the DLs

[jojyrocks]

56 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

Redfor in DCS can not even recreate the obsolete Syrian air force. Syria uses MiG-29SM, which can use guided air to ground weapons.

 

I refuse to believe that anyone could consider this acceptable, playable even.

 

 

Syrians did use Mig 29A during 1989 and two were reportedly shot down by the F-15C of IAF for reasons unknown. At those times they did not have the SM versions. So....it can be playable. Now I am not sure of the shootdown incident...

 

The Syrian government had acquired around 48 of the Mig 29 series fighter jets, a mix of single-seat MiG-29A fighters and two-seat MiG-29UB trainers, from the Soviet Union in the late 80s, with them formally entering service around 1989...

 

 

1. We already have Syria map and Israeli F-15C

 

2. We can have a hypothetical campaign or a based on Campaign during the late 80s or 90s...

 

3. DCS ED is already possibly doing a 9.12 A version and Syrians first Mig 29 were of the A version. Iranians as well use the A versions

Edited February 6, 2021 by jojyrocks

[Seaeagle]

21 hours ago, Max1mus said:

WIll never happen. Accurate matchups by time frame is not what ED or the majority of its customers want.

Well I think you might be right about that - at least when it comes to the "modern era". I really don't understand it - I mean why not apparoach this in the same way as they do with the WWII stuff?

 

21 hours ago, Max1mus said:

The main purpose of DCS MiG-29A will be as pornography material for people who enjoy NATO stuff ("look how bad this is, im going to fly it because of how bad russian planes are"). For all other purposes (including BFM) the Flaming Cliffs variant is enough. Especially given that on top of the exactly same flight model, you get 3 different variants, including the slightly superior S one.

ED is setting themselves up for failure, and the poor sales of this module will not motivate them to ever make something more modern, even if they could. I think they should cancel this instead of wasting resources.

I don't agree with that - there are plenty of other FF modules that are far less capable than the "baseline" MiG-29 version and a lot less "iconic" as well. I think the 9.12 will do well enough sales wise, but I agree that it would have been a lot better if it came as part of an 80'ies setup with contemporary counterparts instead of just being thrown into the current "modern" pool with only mid-2000 Bluefor counterparts.

[Seaeagle]

8 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

Do I need to stress on everything...every single minuscule point? Its too troublesome to type and specify each model and their specifics of modernity in regards to blueforce.

Well its necessary because....

8 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

The Mig 29 9.13 or S version can carry the ARM missiles to toe in with the Blueforce that majority of them has the AIM 120 ARM. (Fire and forget Active radar missiles for ARM).

The MiG-29(9.13) cannot deploy ARH missiles. The MiG-29S(9.13S) is a 9.13 with a modest radar/WCS upgrade making it compatible with the R-77/RVV-AE and as such the only difference between them.

8 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

That gives the Mig 29S a form of modernity. To me its modern enough...if it can carry ARM missiles.

Not really. From 9.12 to 9.13 you basically got a little extra internal fuel + wing drop tanks and ECM and from 9.13 to 9.13S you got R-77s - improvements, but not exactly amounting to "modernity".

 

 

[Seaeagle]

7 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

IHell even the (not carrier capable) MiG-29M (which the K is based off of), even if it was a prototype/tech demo. If you can get the data for it, fine.

If you could get data for a MiG-29M(9.15) then why bother with it - the MiG-29K(9.31) is practically the same aircraft, but is "carrier capable" and can also do inflight refuelling(the M did not have an IFR probe).

 

Edited February 6, 2021 by Seaeagle

[jojyrocks]

39 minutes ago, Seaeagle said:

Well its necessary because....

The MiG-29(9.13) cannot deploy ARH missiles. The MiG-29S(9.13S) is a 9.13 with a modest radar/WCS upgrade making it compatible with the R-77/RVV-AE and as such the only difference between them.

Not really. From 9.12 to 9.13 you basically got a little extra internal fuel + wing drop tanks and ECM and from 9.13 to 9.13S you got R-77s - improvements, but not exactly amounting to "modernity".

 

 

 

 

You are not making sense at all...Mig 29 cannot fire ARH missiles?! What?!

 

You basically confirmed Mig 29S that is 9.13 can fire the ARH missile ( Active radar homing) by already stating it can fire R-77 and that makes it a fire and forget weapon just like AMRAAM. R-77 is the Russian counterpart to the American AIM 120. R-77 is fire and forget just like the AIM 120.

 

So I do not know what you are trying to say now...

 

Again, I have to stress each and every word...

 

The key ability we want is a fire and forget air to air missile and Mig 29S has it. That is what I have been stressing.

Edited February 6, 2021 by jojyrocks

[Northstar98]

On 2/6/2021 at 5:28 PM, jojyrocks said:

 

 

You are not making sense at all...Mig 29 cannot fire ARH missiles?! What?!

 

You basically confirmed Mig 29S that is 9.13 can fire the ARH missile ( Active radar homing) by already stating it can fire R-77 and that makes it a fire and forget weapon just like AMRAAM. R-77 is the Russian counterpart to the American AIM 120. R-77 is fire and forget just like the AIM 120.

 

So I do not know what you are trying to say now...

 

Again, I have to stress each and every word...

 

The key ability we want is a fire and forget air to air missile and Mig 29S has it. That is what I have been stressing.

Seaeagle is saying that the baseline 9-13 MiG-29 Fulcrum C isn't compatible with the R-77, whereas the 9-13S MiG-29S Fulcrum C had a WCS upgrade that made it compatible, but was otherwise identical to the baseline 9-13 MiG-29S.

Kinda like our F-16CM Block 50 isn't compatible with GBU-39 because it's a M4.3 aircraft. If it was an M5.1 aircraft it would be compatible.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting