announced DCS MiG-29A

[Silver_Dragon]

Recomend take a look to the russian forum..... that put a diferent pespective about the other side.

[GGTharos]

It makes plenty of sense, you just don't want it to.   When you have a vindictive and corrupt government, you don't want to give it extra ammunition against you.   On a similar note, even if the previous sentence is not exactly the case, certain entities may simply decide to stop cooperating with you and you might lose contracts that aren't public.

[Northstar98]

I think there's a reason why the only modern Russian aircraft we see in video games are inside titles like Ace Combat...

 

And I don't think it's some conspiracy theory to deny players REDFOR aircraft.

Edited February 12, 2021 by Northstar98

[Skysurfer]

Wow, I literally got braindamage reading this thread. Reminded me to never open this section of the forum again. 

[Harlikwin]

23 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Recomend take a look to the russian forum..... that put a diferent pespective about the other side.

 

How bout you just tell me

2 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

Wow, I literally got braindamage reading this thread. Reminded me to never open this section of the forum again. 

 

LOL, we only want mentally tough folks in this thread

 

24 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

It makes plenty of sense, you just don't want it to.   When you have a vindictive and corrupt government, you don't want to give it extra ammunition against you.   On a similar note, even if the previous sentence is not exactly the case, certain entities may simply decide to stop cooperating with you and you might lose contracts that aren't public.

 

Nah, I get that part of it, where it doesn't square up is if 3rd parties can do something ED itself cant, since they own the whole thing. Like from the russian govt perspective they don't give a shit "who" does it, they care if it "exists" in the first place.

 

[GGTharos]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

Nah, I get that part of it, where it doesn't square up is if 3rd parties can do something ED itself cant, since they own the whole thing. Like from the russian govt perspective they don't give a shit "who" does it, they care if it "exists" in the first place.

 

It squares up.   Those parties are a distinct entity, who will get no documentation, no help from ED for creating those modules.  So, Russian citizens aren't doing anything illegal, ie. gather and/or providing information.

[Harlikwin]

38 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

It squares up.   Those parties are a distinct entity, who will get no documentation, no help from ED for creating those modules.  So, Russian citizens aren't doing anything illegal, ie. gather and/or providing information.

So the fact those capabilities are modeled in DCS, even if you don't have the piece of paper is ok is the argument?

[GGTharos]

9 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

So the fact those capabilities are modeled in DCS, even if you don't have the piece of paper is ok is the argument?

 

If you provably rendered no assistance in obtaining classified information, including talking about it, explaining bits of it etc.

[Harlikwin]

2 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

If you provably rendered no assistance in obtaining classified information, including talking about it, explaining bits of it etc.

 

But, its still there? And worse yet, on a user level "accessible" 

[Wizard_03]

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

But, its still there? And worse yet, on a user level "accessible" 

Harli, I think its the same for historically accurate liveries on the German WW2 birds. Its fine if someone puts its in the game, as long as ED didn't put it there. Because that someone is not under Russian law, and ED is not required to restrict that content.

[TotenDead]

7 часов назад, Wizard_03 сказал:

Harli, I think its the same for historically accurate liveries on the German WW2 birds. Its fine if someone puts its in the game, as long as ED didn't put it there. Because that someone is not under Russian law, and ED is not required to restrict that content.

Russian law doesn't prohibit the use hakenkreuz if it isn't used for propaganda

[*Rage*]

14 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

  Same reason the Ka-50 as stands is allowed : it was already done. It's also a lot more abstracted and based primarily on code from 10-15 years ago, aside from the 3d model and PFM itself.

 

  All bs aside, the Ka-50 was made during much less ''politically tense'' times, when Russia was on semi-good terms with everyone and looking to make a buck wherever they could. In the current environment, the Ka-50 would PROBABLY not be permissible. Either way, it's right on the edge of the 80s/90s cutoff they seem to focus on.

 

 

  The issue is only partially about the law itself. The REAL issue, is that the bulk of Eagle Dynamics is situated in Russia, meaning they are 100% subject to Russian politics, opinion, and law. If they were located elsewhere, they could pretty much give no sh*ts. For them, being located RIGHT THERE, getting crosswise with the political bodies there could easily result in jail time, persecution, sudden ''tax issues'' etc etc. THAT'S the real problem. It's not ''lack of access to information'' it's ''not wanting to burn bridges you can't easily rebuild from inside a jail cell''.

 

It's also why 3rd parties located outside Russia have been said to be potential avenues for this stuff, because THEY don't live there, and are somewhat insulated from the politics of it all. ED in that case could potentially fall back on ''we're just a platform''. They've always said THEY can't do one, not that one CAN'T BE DONE period. It's still potentially tricky, but it's a lot easier when the people most likely to be frowned at have an ocean's worth of buffer.

 

This. ED have said it over and over again. THEY can't, or won't because its "sensitive". But if an outside developer like Deka wants to do a modern Flanker then go right ahead. 

[Mars Exulte]

5 hours ago, TotenDead said:

Russian law doesn't prohibit the use hakenkreuz if it isn't used for propaganda

 

  Technically same for Germany, if I'm not mistaken... I still have seen recentish footage of the Bundespolizei showing up to a RC aircraft airshow and impounding WWII birds that had swastikas on them and arresting their owners, though.

 

  Back on topic, I am curious to see how the IRST sensor will be changed with a HiFi model.

 

@Skysurfer

You probably have too many wrinkles on your brain. This thread is for smooth brains only.

Edited February 13, 2021 by zhukov032186

[Gierasimov]

This is some nice stick action to keep it in formation. 

 

[Volator]

11 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

This is some nice stick action to keep it in formation. 

 

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. 

[Gierasimov]

37 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

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. 

I don't record my gameplay so I have no way o proving it, but this is exactly how it looks for me when I fly Fulcrum. 

I use 15 curve setting on pitch and 10 on roll. 

 

[sylkhan]

4 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

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. 

and don't forget the stupid; over exaggerate yaw axis occiliation when rolling the plane who make the DCS mig29 a dancing plane

Edited February 13, 2021 by sylkhan

[Mars Exulte]

4 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

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. 

 

  It probably helps that he's not using cheap plastic controls made in China that are 1/6th scale and severely lacking in anything resembling feedback or resistance. It also probably helps that he doesn't suck.

[Volator]

4 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

this is exactly how it looks for me when I fly Fulcrum. 

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. 

[Kev2go]

On 2/12/2021 at 10:21 AM, bies said:

 

It was clear right from the beginning, few years ago.

 

DCS before the Hornet was a sim for the military aviation enthusiasts - Ka-50 "niche/prototype hard to use helicopter", A-10C "not so exciting for kids" specialised CAS aircraft, MiG-21bis "too hard to fly not to menton to land".

 

 

It still is a sim for military aviation enthusiasts. MAC is going to be that middle ground for those who still want a realistic experience but without clicky pits just as FC.

 

Remember that at the end of the day those who only like more arcadey games like WAr thunder ( and remember War thunder been out since like 2012 or 2013?)  are never going to truly get into DCS. At least not for long term, as so far DCS/FC3 has never really been practical with a mouse and keyboard, and been more demanding requiring higher end hardware to  run more smoothly.

 

 for turly immersive experience, Players evnetually get around to investing gadgets like  track ir ( or go for VR) plus HOTAS and pedals to a basic flight stick.

 

Quote

 

 

With US 4th gen fighters Hornet and Viper some huge crowd of "gamers", often without the smallest knowledge about combat aviation, became attracted to DCS. They started to push "team", "balance", "competitive", "the best", "PvP", "nerf this", "buff that", "overpowered" - classic CounterStrike/WarThunder therminology - and maindset connected to that - to DCS community.

 

 

 

 

"insert,  always has been meme"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Air quake servers always existed for those who played FC3 modules. ANd most people who initially got into DCS came from LOMAC or Flaming cliff days. before Hornet or VIper, there were a fair share of Sukhoi drivers that complained about eagle Amraam spamming advtange.

 

 

But Something like the Hornet or Viper is what DCS always needed to be honest. I myself had long wanted 1 ( or both) of these fighters.  Before DCS remember that was older 3 lettered viper sim? That was for enthusiasts too. Viper In DCS if anything was going to attract members from that community to hop over.  We area also getting ED to working on dynamic Campagins., which was the 1 main selling point that 3 lettered sim had over DCS. IM myself have been playing DCS more regularly when pointy nosed gen 4's got added. Flying a pointy nosed fighter with 1:1 T/W or greater is simply more exhilarating   and "multirole" is popular because it allows get the most moneys worth from a module  and also have much more replayability as you can perform various functions.

 

DCS has done enough to grow larger, to become less of niche.  such modules have attracted plenty of new players. That is a good thing, because too niche and DCS wouldn't be sustainable, if they never added any further modules. besies the KA50 and A10.

 

Even if ED hadn't done these 2 fighters. Someone else from the 3rd party developers would have.  

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

 

Additional factor was availability: totally fresh guy without sim background coming to our squadron is somewhat "competitive pilot" with 4th Gen Viper or Hornet in - literally - one day.

It is enough to tech them just simple 3 point instruction:

• go fast (FBW will not let you make something stupid)
• fire self guided AMRAAM right before MAR
• run

Obviously it's possible to make it slightly more efficient with some additional steps, but still this one-day instruction alone is allowing completely fresh guy to go, takeoff/land FBW jet and kill being somewhat competitive in combat after just one day training! (He won't land on a carrier or refuel but still...)

Kind of low level of difficlulty you could say (and not because it's significantly simplified or something, no - technology of 2000s simply allowed that, "JDAM Blues" press the pickle - target destroyed)

 

With non-FBW, non AMRAAM+datalink planes like Sabre, MiG-15, MiG-21bis or even Ka-50, Huey, Mi-8 etc. where you have to do everything manually or semi-manually - it takes some considerable training just not to stall/spin/crash/kill yourself without any enemy imput. Let alone any combat - you need to master maneuver air combat basics to have any chance to kill something. And experience.

 

Actually I learned the F86F as a first module because the A10C seemed too daunting at the time. Whilst everything is manual there is far less learning and  instructive manual reading because you dont need to learn all the different  digital avionics, and weapons systems. Just fundamentals of flight and basic instrumentation.

 

Those early jets in thier own right those are actually simpler planes to learn, merely takes more time to master.

Edited February 14, 2021 by Kev2go

[Gierasimov]

11 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

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. 

That's something right there. I too was using TMW (no extension) and MiG-29 was way too funky with that base to drive it correctly. 

When I replaced my base to Virpil's one, it's a day and night difference for me. 

Even Viper and Hornet are better for me now. 

Try experimenting with axis tuning I think, although I had little luck with MiG+TMW in the past.

 

[bies]

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

But Something like the Hornet or Viper is what DCS always needed to be honest. I myself had long wanted 1 ( or both) of these fighters. 

 

I definitely agree, i was waiting for them as well. Maybe just not exactly the precise variants have been chosen.

 

F-14, F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29, Su-27, Viggen, Mirage 2000 - are all 1970s/1980s planes.

 

In mid 2000s they are all somewhat outdated, closer to retirement, surpassed by Raptors, Rafales, Eurofighters. And not completely replaced by Raptors, MiG 1.44s only because of dissolution of the Soviet Union handicapping both Westen and Eastern development.

 

For me it looks like chosing some earlier variants, when this planes were still modern cutting edge technology and forefront of innovation and taking part in all out wars like F/A-18C Lot 10 or F-16C Block 30 would fit DCS better since they would represent timeframe of all the other 4th gen fighters Viggen, Mirage, FC3 planes, ground assets etc. And be able to see full fidelity OPFOR opposition like MiG-23MLA MiG-29 9.12 in the future.

 

In late Cold War scenario, when skilfully used, even MiG-23MLA would still had same chance against 1980s Hornet with MiG-23 having better kinematic performance to boost it's R-24 against Hornet's AIM-7M. Or against 1980s Sidewinder only, dogfighter Viper.

Against 2000s AMRAAM/HMCS/Datalink - absolutely not, it would be mismatch bigger than Sabre in WW2.

 

And i.e. F-16C block 30 from the Cold War had even better kinematic performance, since it was important factor those times, than our heavier late more multirole Block 50 - just less electronics JDAMs, JSOWs etc.

 

But yes, 1980s Hornet with AIM-7/AIM-9M forced to dogfight more often than not and dumb bombs/rockets/Mavericks in A/G would require a lot more skill and training to be effective than 2000s AMRAAM/HMCS/Datalink/JSOW point and click.

Edited February 14, 2021 by bies

[Harker]

I agree with the above. The Hornet, Viper and Tomcat brought heaps of people into DCS. The Tomcat is the Tomcat, but the Hornet and Viper are attractive because they pair iconic airframes with complex avionics and system management. And I, for one, love the avionics side of things. The amount of control and SA you have over the battlefield, the easiness of communication, coordination and target sharing is amazing for MP, for example.

And that doesn't detract from learning the more fundamental aspects. Very often, these people are interested in learning the aircraft properly, modern and older weapons alike. I run a squadron and one of the things that we require and train is correct manual bombing with dumb bombs.

While ED building the most modern versions they could is easily understandable to me, another reason might be that they wanted to include a variety of PGMs, since unguided weapons are largely ineffective in DCS, owing to the very basic damage model of ground units and the lack of frag effects. A rocket run sounds good in theory, until you empty your pods and realize that you killed 3 soldiers and a truck.

[Mars Exulte]

17 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

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. 

 

 You know, all bs aside, I keep hearing that repeatedly, usually in referencing the TMW (and the other guy mentioning Virpil). I've never used one, in the past using X52, X55/56, and an ancient integrated stick only with throttle on the base (also Saitek). They were obviously shite in comparison to what I use now (a full length, curved Gunfighter w MCG Pro).

 

I had trouble using a X56 briefly trying to demonstrate to my dad, but I wonder how much difference the actual sensors themselves make. You're using an extended stick of decent quality, like me in theory, but I absolutely have zero issue controlling the 29 at all. It's definitely sensitive, but I have no issue maneuevering it precisely.

 

The TMW uses the same sensors as the X56 more or less, whereas the Virpil and VKB sticks use considerably higher quality sensors. Hmm. Very interesting. I'm increasingly of the opinion the TMW is really not any better than the cheaper Saitek stuff and people are paying premium for the same junk electronics, just bedded in pot metal instead of plastic and with expensive ''US Air Force endorsed'' branding. 

 

 

[Gierasimov]

Is MiG-29AS basically an A version with S denoting Slovakia?