announced DCS MiG-29A

[Berserk]

10 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

I'm sorry but thats complete BS. Watch the video again. Look at how many small corrective movements the pilot is making virtually every single second, even in stable flight. 

Add to that he has full size 50cm flightstick.

[Volator]

1 minute ago, Berserk said:

Add to that he has full size 50cm flightstick.

 

So go and try a 50 cm extention and see if you get better results. I once tried a 45 cm extention on my TMW - the results were the same.

[HWasp]

The main difference is that in a real aircraft you feel the movements, making it easier to react quickly to small deviations. 

Here in the sim you rely on visual cues 100%.

Big difference

 

[Gierasimov]

1 hour ago, Pilot Ike said:

 

So go and try a 50 cm extention and see if you get better results. I once tried a 45 cm extention on my TMW - the results were the same.

 

No extension will help TMW, after one year with it, I can say that apart from greater resistance it differs not from Saitek X56.

I am now using WarBRD one and it is great with all modules, with TMW before MiG-29 was hardly pilotable for me. 

[Northstar98]

 

1 hour ago, Harker said:

Assuming you want to end up in a certain scenario, why avoid it? It's up to the user and the mission maker to make the most of the aircraft at hand. If you insist on ignoring VID or at least NCTR (which brings you close enough for a FOX1 shot) and launching an AMRAAM from 40 NM, then it makes sense that you won't end up in a dogfight. Remember that Super Hornet that launched an AIM-9X that missed and then used an AMRAAM? Why not try to bring yourself into more realistic situations like that, that bring you closer to the enemy, if this is what you want?

 

Well, if I want to be successful what I'm not going to do is purposefully fly aircraft in such a way that' degrades success, note and this is important - it's not the same as flying an aircraft that is less capable/survivable - in both cases I'm going to employ tactics that best works in my favour.

 

In a SEAD/DEAD mission against a strategic SAM system (i.e already know approximate location), the F-16 and F/A-18 are going to be better than say a Viggen, in the former 2 I might initially fly high to acquire the system on whatever sensor I have (might use ELINT even rudimentary with HAS/TOO and better AG RADARs/RWRs; or it might be more sophisticated with a dedicated ELINT platform like the HTS. I'm then more likely to engage at stand-off range using dedicated anti-radiation or stand-off munitions. I could initially fly high and then drop down, before popping up again, getting my munitions off before going low again.

 

Conversely in the Viggen, I'm more likely to fly super low and fast - maybe even faster than the Hornet can manage, high threat without much helping me apart from a less sophisticated FCS, I'll make one low pass over the target with bombs and rockets and then bug out. 

 

Of course I could do the same in either of the other 2 - there's nothing stopping me; but if I'm doing a high-threat low-level penetration strike, I'm going to take an aircraft that was more envisioned for that kind of role - not necessarily which is better, but what that aircraft was more geared towards and the modern aircraft with their modern weapons are more geared towards stand-off attacks with greater sensor and multi-sensor capability. Plus, when doing earlier aircraft there's always going to be something not quite right - okay that's maybe more of a me problem being pedantic about stuff, but it is true - an F-16CM isn't a Cold War aircraft, regardless of what I turn off or don't carry, and will never be - it simply is a different aircraft.

 

There's nothing stopping me from flying any aircraft a particular way - it's mainly down to how well I manage to fly them; but if I'm doing a low-level, high threat, penetration strike - I'd rather take and use aircraft that are more specifically designed for that kind of role: the F-111F, the Tornado IDS, the Viggen, even to an extent the A-6E and A-7E (both have TFRs (even if uncoupled) AFAIK). 

 

It sounds a bit convoluted but hopefully you see the point I'm trying to make. 

 

Quote

As for the complicated sensors, you only need to deal with them if you want to use them. Don't want to use the A/G radar or the TPOD? Good news, you don't have to, you can go for a manual bombing. You can create the kinds of missions that you want, without having to use any of the modern stuff.

 

You misunderstood me, I was saying that Cold War stuff is more complicated and difficult, because the sensors are less sophisticated and typically require more attention from the user; the Hornet is a push of a few buttons and maybe a wheel and that's completely it, the only other thing is the ACM but that's all one switch. With aircraft like the Tomcat (though that's more of a special case) you've got 5 different modes each with different quirks and limitations, even if it's just how contacts are displayed and what and how information is presented. I'm sure I don't need to go into detail here, but there's more stuff to keep you busy.

 

Of course the Hornet has lots of A/G modes, but they're one mode for one thing; need to spot a building/airfield/whatever or course stationary target acquisition, or just general navigation? MAP; need to spot a moving ground target? GMT; need to spot a ship? SEA; need to fly at low level in the dark or in otherwise poor visibility? TA. The management is the same as anything else - i.e the only real management is scan zone and slewing and turning them on - they are more sophisticated with less limitations. 

 

Quote

 

Then do that, play the way you want. That's what I've been trying to say. Set the date to 1982 and you don't have GPS at all, remove the JHMCS in the Editor and don't turn on the D/L. There you go. And at the same time, people who want to fly a 2005-ish Hornet, for example, can do so, with the same product.

 

I agree with 'play the way you want' but then if I'm doing an 80s mission, I'd want an 80s Hornet - same for the Falklands, I wouldn't want to use the AV-8B N/A as a stand in for an FRS.1 or GR.3 - it would be better to have the appropriate assets, rather than having time travelling aircraft with limited weapons.

 

Of course I can limit stuff like weapons on the F-16C to approximate an earlier pre-CCIP block - I still have the wrong displays, in the case of the Block 40 I have the wrong HUD and no LANTIRN. Having no LANTIRN is realistic for our post CCIP F-16CM Block 50, so I'm not going to advocate for its inclusion - if I want to do a mission that would use a block 40 if it were done real life, I'd want the block 40. 

 

And it gets worse with the F-16CM too - if we ever get a Germany map c. 70s/80s the F-16 flying would probably be the F-16A Block 15 - in many ways the perfect contemporary to the 9.12 MiG-29, only if I do whatever to restrict it, I'm still flying an aircraft with a completely wrong RADAR, completely wrong cockpit, FDM, engine etc.

 

Only thing is this is more work for developers, and stuff like the F-16A Block 15 are riskier, they have to basically start from scratch (might be able to modify the existing 3D model but other than that, it's a lot different), without the financial incentive because a more capable F-16 is present.  

 

Quote

Agreed on that, we need more modern air defenses on both sides and that IADS module cannot come fast enough. But you can create very challenging scenarios already, by using triggers, limiting max engagement range in the unit tab and setting up a serious layered network. I see a lot of people talking about just launching a couple of HARMs and JSOWs against an SA-10 and calling it a day and an equal amount of people who like to go low and fast with Snakeyes. What both groups forget is that if there's a serious network in place, with supporting multiple supporting SHORAD units and scores of AAA units, which is currently achievable, the first approach will likely do nothing unless you increase the number of HARMs significantly and the second approach will see you shot down before you even see that SA-10.

 

I'm glad we agree. But even so, there's a lot more on the user side to set-up even semi effective air defence systems (which even at that might use the wrong guidance method (such as the SA-2) and I'm pretty sure all of them have simplified flight models.

 

You also can't employ real life tactics, for instance the Serbs would sometimes fire their SA-6 blind but in the rough direction of enemy aircraft, and then only illuminate them once the missile got close, giving them much less time to react if they weren't already eyes on - you can't do that in DCS even with scripting (to my knowledge anyway).  

 

Of course I could decide to learn this stuff properly and devote the time to set up an air defence system that only fires its RADAR up on the precipice of launching a missile, and stuff that turns off once an ARM has been fired at it etc, but this should be built in with user configuration - which I'm glad the IADS module might do, if it comes (it still doesn't seem confirmed, and the ED one has been on the to do for a while and we don't know what features it'll have). Another thing, is don't forget (and I find this quite baffling personally), is that we don't have a lot of these long-range RADARs for GCI/Early Warning/Surveillance - we only have 3 that are functional, 1 of them is WW2 era, the other 2 are early 80s and are in absolutely dire need of a graphical rework. There is another RADAR (the P-37) but it's only eye-candy at airfields on the Caucasus map, which aside from being animated has no functionality or control over, you can't even remove it with triggers.  

 

The SA-15 for instance is something I find a little more visible than it otherwise would be in real life; in DCS the missile flies vertically a fair way before making a sharp turn towards the target, the real system has the missile ejected, with small rocket motors/squib thrusters that rapidly pitch the missile to the correct attitude immediately after ejection. In the first case, if you're low you'll see the missile climbing and it's more obvious than a missile coming straight for you.

 

Then there's the RADAR modelling of ground units and ships which leaves a lot to be desired.

 

We are drifting off-topic here and it would be better to do this in a more appropriate thread, even if I have to make one.

 

Quote

 

The aircraft would probably fly very similarly to how they fly now - these were FBW birds from the beginning. And you get systems management for sure, but you get fewer systems. Why would someone who enjoys system management say no to more complicated and modern systems?

 

Well, the only thing you really need to manage in the current configuration is turning them on, most of the time the channels are automatically assigned, all you do is turn it on and look at the display with minimal 'management' so to speak. Compare this to the legacy RADAR and D/L in the Tomcat which a RIO has to be on top of and most likely fiddling around with it for much more.

 

Quote

Exactly, a second person. Not you. It's funny that you mention SP, because the F-14 specifically is a pain in SP. You just fly, press the trigger and interact with an awkward wheel interface to micromanage Jester, who is a borderline incompetent RIO.

 

That's why I do it for him, I get the best of both worlds, I only use Jester when I really need to, but that's just me. Obviously I can't do both at the same time, and Iceman can even be a pain as well, messing around with the throttles.

 

Though he is especially annoying when using LANTIRN; I'll switch to RIO to use LANTIRN to spot targets and set-up the pod, but when I switch to the pilot to fly the attack, jester will have switched the TID back to AC STAB, so if I need to make any corrections I'll have to reset it back to TV, which while it only takes a small amount of time, that small amount of time might be vital.

 

Quote

Anyway, I'm going way off topic here, but TBH, I enjoy the conversation and debate. IMO, the MiG-29A will be welcomed by the DCS community, simply because it's a MiG-29. Some people are disappointed that it's not going to be a contemporary match for the modern BLUEFOR jets, but that's that. I don't get the unnecessary comparison of Cold War vs Modern, DCS is a sandbox and as such, can and should accommodate different playstyles, with the limiting factor being an uncompromising approach to realism. I fly modern BLUEFOR jets and I'll probably pick up the MiG-29 (once it's completed), simply because it's an iconic aircraft.

 

I absolutely agree on every point.

 

Bloody hell that was long, right back on topic - but feel free to PM me if you wish to carry it on, this maybe isn't the best place for it.

Edited February 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[Gierasimov]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

Well...

 

 

I wish that wall of text was relevant to the topic of this thread...

[Northstar98]

22 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

I wish that wall of text was relevant to the topic of this thread...

 

And I wish this snarky comment was too...

 

And to be fair it sorta-ish is, a fair bit of what I said applies to the MiG-29, namely when it comes to scenarios - I just used different examples.

 

Can we move past it? Ironic as that was one of the things I even said in that wall of text...

Edited February 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[Gierasimov]

@Northstar98 - yes!

 

Hey, nice hands workout there. No wonder MiG-29 range is limited, not by fuel but physical strength of a pilot

 

 

 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

@Northstar98 - yes!

 

Hey, nice hands workout there. No wonder MiG-29 range is limited, not by fuel but physical strength of a pilot

 

 

 

 

Crikey!

 

Though one thing with DCS, it seems that moving the stick less makes a bigger movement on the control surfaces than as seen in these videos, making the stick in DCS very sensitive.

 

Just to clarify, talking about the in-cockpit stick, not the stick I use (which I have a hefty curve on, as it's desktop mounted without an extension).

Edited February 15, 2021 by Northstar98

[SharkWizard]

Don't forget that some of the stick movements are from the dampers which not only affect the flight surfaces but move the stick as well so the pilot can feel where the surfaces are moving.

 

Something which we don't have in DCS (the damper effected stick movement).

[HWasp]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

@Northstar98 - yes!

 

Hey, nice hands workout there. No wonder MiG-29 range is limited, not by fuel but physical strength of a pilot

 

 

 

Great vid!
 

Late spring, over the city low, lots of thermals and turbulence, no wonder they are working hard.

[Volator]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

The main difference is that in a real aircraft you feel the movements, making it easier to react quickly to small deviations. 

Here in the sim you rely on visual cues 100%.

Big difference

 

So you're saying one can't simulate smooth and stable aircraft control properly in a PC-based simulation because of that? Even if in reality the aircraft characteristics are smooth and stable? I think that's the wrong approach by the FM designers.

 

As for the TMW vs. Virpil thing: I don't know, maybe you've got a point. Most aircraft in DCS are very well controllable as they should be with a TMW. I'm only having issues with the MiG-29 and - to some extent - with the MiG-21, as these oscillations around the pitch axis are a real annoyance. I think they are FM induced, not related to the stick. The TMW - with an extension - is a fine stick, very precise, and a real flight stick or yoke has similar if not larger forces on it, so I think the TMW forces are quite realistic.

 

Spoiler

 

And now - next on this forum: Angry commentators that claim

• the MiG-29 is non-fly-by-wire and therefore hard to control
• the MiG-29 is constructed instable because it's a fighter 
• the MiG-29 is meant to be hard to control because that's realistic as there were some planes that were also hard to control
• that some people just don't have what it takes to control it properly whereas the commentator is an ace of a pilot and has no problem whatsoever
• *put any other nonsense in here*, 

posted in 3,2,1...

 

I've been through all that before. People who don't even have a single hour of real stick time explaining how an aircraft should fly and feel.

 

 

[Gierasimov]

37 minutes ago, SharkWizard said:

Don't forget that some of the stick movements are from the dampers which not only affect the flight surfaces but move the stick as well so the pilot can feel where the surfaces are moving.

 

Something which we don't have in DCS (the damper effected stick movement).

 

Which could be improved if ED makes the module - making visuals to the stick animation...

[HWasp]

26 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

So you're saying one can't simulate smooth and stable aircraft control properly in a PC-based simulation because of that? Even if in reality the aircraft characteristics are smooth and stable? I think that's the wrong approach by the FM designers.

 

As for the TMW vs. Virpil thing: I don't know, maybe you've got a point. Most aircraft in DCS are very well controllable as they should be with a TMW. I'm only having issues with the MiG-29 and - to some extent - with the MiG-21, as these oscillations around the pitch axis are a real annoyance. I think they are FM induced, not related to the stick. The TMW - with an extension - is a fine stick, very precise, and a real flight stick or yoke has similar if not larger forces on it, so I think the TMW forces are quite realistic.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

And now - next on this forum: Angry commentators that claim

• the MiG-29 is non-fly-by-wire and therefore hard to control
• the MiG-29 is constructed instable because it's a fighter 
• the MiG-29 is meant to be hard to control because that's realistic as there were some planes that were also hard to control
• that some people just don't have what it takes to control it properly whereas the commentator is an ace of a pilot and has no problem whatsoever
• *put any other nonsense in here*, 

posted in 3,2,1...

 

I've been through all that before. People who don't even have a single hour of real stick time explaining how an aircraft should fly and feel.

 

 

 

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that certain things like countering turbulence or pitch oscillations might be easier IRL feeling the actual aircraft motions.

 

The MiG-29 in DCS can be flown without oscillations, that is a fact. Also I'm not saying that it is 100% correct for sure, but it is not the horrible uncontrollable beast some people say it is.

 

MiG_29Mozd.trk

[Lurker]

58 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

I think they are FM induced, not related to the stick. The TMW - with an extension - is a fine stick, very precise, and a real flight stick or yoke has similar if not larger forces on it, so I think the TMW forces are quite realistic.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

And now - next on this forum: Angry commentators that claim

• the MiG-29 is non-fly-by-wire and therefore hard to control
• the MiG-29 is constructed instable because it's a fighter 
• the MiG-29 is meant to be hard to control because that's realistic as there were some planes that were also hard to control
• that some people just don't have what it takes to control it properly whereas the commentator is an ace of a pilot and has no problem whatsoever
• *put any other nonsense in here*, 

posted in 3,2,1...

 

I've been through all that before. People who don't even have a single hour of real stick time explaining how an aircraft should fly and feel.

 

 

 

I can manage with my 20 cm stick from 20 years ago (MSFFB2) and get the Mig29 and the Mig21 to behave, without any curves. All the videos show how much work pilots need to input into their stick movements, including the one you yourself posted, the designer of the Flight Model has stated multiple times that the flight model is okay....

 

Seriously, do you think that maybe just maybe you are wrong about this, and everyone else could be right? 

Edited February 15, 2021 by Lurker

[Gierasimov]

24 minutes ago, HWasp said:

 

No I'm not saying that. I'm saying that certain things like countering turbulence or pitch oscillations might be easier IRL feeling the actual aircraft motions.

 

The MiG-29 in DCS can be flown without oscillations, that is a fact. Also I'm not saying that it is 100% correct for sure, but it is not the horrible uncontrollable beast some people say it is.

 

MiG_29Mozd.trk 3.66 MB · 0 downloads

I can only recommend all to enjoy this excellent MiG-29 superb driver skills track. Very good airshow practice there @HWasp!

[Volator]

14 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Seriously, do you think that maybe just maybe you are wrong about this, and everyone else could be right? 

Do you?

 

In general I always do, but here, in this specific case, seeing the fact that there are many posts here on the forum supporting my point (some even saying they have real MiG-29 stick time), no, I don't think so. 

[Lurker]

3 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

Do you?

 

In general I always do, but here, in this specific case, seeing the fact that there are many posts here on the forum supporting my point (some even saying they have real MiG-29 stick time), no, I don't think so. 

 

Yeah I change my opinion all the time. Based on facts, and new information. 

Could you please point me to the posts of real Mig29 pilots saying that the DCS Mig29 flight model is bogus? 

[Volator]

6 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Could you please point me to the posts of real Mig29 pilots saying that the DCS Mig29 flight model is bogus? 

Sorry, but no, my time is too precious for that. Check the FC3 Mig-29 forum, there have been a lot of discussions about the topic, and especially the Russian forum, there some supposedly RW Mig pilots also raised lots of concerns. 

[HWasp]

47 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

 

 

Thanks!

[HWasp]

18 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

Sorry, but no, my time is too precious for that. Check the FC3 Mig-29 forum, there have been a lot of discussions about the topic, and especially the Russian forum, there some supposedly RW Mig pilots also raised lots of concerns. 

 

Thing is, that if something really is wrong with the plane, then someone will have to sit down and put some time into finding out what is wrong exactly and write a report in a way that really shows off particular differences to some RL sources. Need to try and pinpoint this thing, posts like "plane flies funny" don't achieve anything ever.

 

It completely possible, for example, that the FM itself is spot on, but something in the FCS modeling is off a bit...

[jaguara5]

https://www.facebook.com/SIMpleSIMpit/

Edited February 15, 2021 by jaguara5

[Volator]

2 hours ago, HWasp said:

Thing is, that if something really is wrong with the plane, then someone will have to sit down and put some time into finding out what is wrong exactly and write a report in a way that really shows off particular differences to some RL sources. Need to try and pinpoint this thing, posts like "plane flies funny" don't achieve anything ever.

 

Yes, you are right. The issue is more complicated in this case though. The devs did a pretty good job in recreating some of the real MiG-29s intricacies in their FM (decrease of elevator effectiveness during flare and at Mach 1) - maybe somewhat exaggerated, but still... one has to give them that.

 

I think they sticked to written sources mainly/only and physical calculations, that in itself are all good and true, but they failed to listen to RL (MiG-29) pilots input and - as far as I was able to understand the discussions in the russian forum - still are. Maybe because they rightfully can say their calculations are mathematically correct and they can rightfully claim that the intricacies are there, so it's gotta be right... I don't know. With XPlane sim it's the same: Great physical simulation with real-time calculation alright, but this is still no guarantee that the simulated plane will perform exactly like the RL one. So when pilots say "It can't really be that twitchy and instable, I've never seen that before in any other plane I've flown so far" and they say "But that's what our wind tunnel tests and calculations for XY have shown, so you must prove mathematically that we are wrong", then that's no real basis for a discussion.

 

My bottom line is the plane in the sim shouldn't be harder to control than the real thing, and devs must take into account that people want to fly it even with crappy joysticks (which the TMW isn't - not saying it's perfect, but it's not a low-end joystick either), and that it's questionable to claim "If you fly it with this joystick or that, you can never do it properly, you need to get this or that joystick", or "Because of the lack of lenght of the stick you cannot simulate it correctly" or "Feel in RL is different, we only have visual cues and that's why..."  This is and will always be a PC-based simulation with the respective hardware, not a full-blown millions of dollar hardware military full-flight sim, and the devs need to cater to this.

[Dragon1-1]

9 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

My bottom line is the plane in the sim shouldn't be harder to control than the real thing, and devs must take into account that people want to fly it even with crappy joysticks (which the TMW isn't - not saying it's perfect, but it's not a low-end joystick either), and that it's questionable to claim "If you fly it with this joystick or that, you can never do it properly, you need to get this or that joystick", or "Because of the lack of lenght of the stick you cannot simulate it correctly" or "Feel in RL is different, we only have visual cues and that's why..."  This is and will always be a PC-based simulation with the respective hardware, not a full-blown millions of dollar hardware military full-flight sim, and the devs need to cater to this.

At the same time, they really should take into account people who take time and effort to build their own realistic sticks, either by using extensions, or full-on custom setups. If someone wants to recreate the way the real plane is controlled, DCS should allow it.

 

I didn't find the current MiG-29 especially hard to fly, BTW. It's a bit funny on takeoff and landing, but I flew the campaign with no issues other than a few bugs. 

[GGTharos]

16 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

Maybe because they rightfully can say their calculations are mathematically correct and they can rightfully claim that the intricacies are there, so it's gotta be right... I don't know.

 

 

And because those same intricacies are described in the aircraft's manual.

 

16 minutes ago, Pilot Ike said:

My bottom line is the plane in the sim shouldn't be harder to control than the real thing, and devs must take into account that people want to fly it even with crappy joysticks

 

Maybe people should focus on their flying technique.