announced DCS MiG-29A

[bies]

56 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

 

Too bad they are showcasing a plane which we won't be getting (9.13).

 

Or too good, 9.13 would be just another boring AMRAAM(ski) truck with omnipotent BVR without any real chance for close in dogfight. Shoot to some blip on the radar and run not seeing the enemy...

 

9.12 was lighter, had better acceleration, turn rate, climb rate - hot rod sport variant. And super interesting and intensive gameplay of 1980s - close air combat with guns and heatseekers, with very limited and rudimentary BVR R-27.

 

Plus 9.12 was being used by dozens of countries around the world and took part in many real wars, when 9.13 didn't see real combat.

Edited February 5, 2021 by bies

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

So instead of finishing the current MiG-29 or finishing all the other FC3 planes

We're getting a FF MiG-29A. Why exactly?

 

5 hours ago, Max1mus said:

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

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.

 

If they hope to con shmucks into paying 80 dollars for another EA module that's gonna be even more incomplete than the FC3 version for the next 3 to 5 years just so they can get off to feeling like a virtual shooting clay that is wonderfully optimistic of them.

 

Still think they should have gone with a MiG-29K to please the boat boys or a more humble Su-27SK, either would have been a more sound investment.

Edited February 5, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[mrprime]

5 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

So instead of finishing the current MiG-29 or finishing all the other FC3 planes

We're getting a FF MiG-29A. Why exactly?

 

 

What's unfinished on FC3 planes?

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

1 minute ago, mrprime said:

 

What's unfinished on FC3 planes?

Quite a lot for the most part Radars lack of certain DLs and displays

Certain panels and how they work

[Wizard_03]

On 12/31/2020 at 8:43 PM, lmp said:

The Western jets also have a huge SA advantage thanks to their RWRs, TWS radars, datalinks, superior human machine interface... It's not that visible in a straight up 1v1 or 2v2, but with multiple flights on both sides coming in at different angles, altitudes and ranges things will get very tricky for the Fulcrum. It will really benefit from a good human intercept controller.

Meh, I can deal with all that, between BRA calls and ownship sensors its not that hard to figure out whats going on, sure its nice having it served to you on a fancy collated Situational display but I can make do in the MiG without that.

 

There's absolutely zero I can do about 120s. Once someone gets in parameters with it, you loose the ability to take the initiative and are defensive until they run out of them or your dead. More SA doesn't fix that problem, Lack thereof can certainly make it worse but fundamentally its the weapon that kills me. Because of 120 the western jets can attack and defend at the same time, I can't in the MiG-29A. So they always have control over the engagement.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Wizard_03

[jojyrocks]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

Meh, I can deal with all that, between BRA calls and ownship sensors its not that hard to figure out whats going on, sure its nice having it served to you on a fancy collated Situational display but I can make do in the MiG without that.

 

There's absolutely zero I can do about 120s. Once someone gets in parameters with it, you loose the ability to take the initiative and are defensive until they run out of them or your dead. More SA doesn't fix that problem, Lack thereof can certainly make it worse but fundamentally its the weapon that kills me. Because of 120 the western jets can attack and defend at the same time, I can't in the MiG-29A. So they always have control over the engagement.

 

 

 

Yup. So at most, we can expect Gulf war timeline and campaigns where most of the USAF jets still were armed with Sparrows and they had only begun to add AIM-120 as the conflict got going.

 

Mig-29A could be restricted to early 90s fights.

 

If we got the Mig 29 9.13. Then it would be good match to tango with modern western jets. At least the Redforce would have just ONE modern clickable plane against Blueforce.

 

 

[bies]

3 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

Yup. So at most, we can expect Gulf war timeline and campaigns where most of the USAF jets still were armed with Sparrows

 

Exactly. And air combat of this timeframe is A LOT more interesting with guns and heatseakers + very rudimentary R-27/Sparrow than ~2000s spAMRAAM shooting to some blip on a radar and run not seeing any enemy.

 

Desert Storm was the last air war when fighters dogfighting turning and burning inside one or two miles for a kill. Later there was only BVR AMRAAM.

Edited February 6, 2021 by bies

[TotenDead]

3 часа назад, jojyrocks сказал:

 

If we got the Mig 29 9.13. Then it would be good match to tango with modern western jets. At least the Redforce would have just ONE modern clickable plane against Blueforce.

 

 

Wut? 9.13 production started in 1986, how is it even close to "modern". Even MiG-29S (9.13S) that we have was developed and went into production in the ussr. So no, not that much of a good match

[jojyrocks]

6 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Wut? 9.13 production started in 1986, how is it even close to "modern". Even MiG-29S (9.13S) that we have was developed and went into production in the ussr. So no, not that much of a good match

 

 

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.

 

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

 

With Mig 29A, fighting against an USAF F-15 equipped with AIM 120 is a clear loss. They'd steamroll the Mig 29.

 

Even if it is 6-8  Mig 29A against two USAF F-15 armed with AIM 120. They can fire all those missiles, fire and forget or fire multiple targets at once simultaneously, like 6 or so in one go, focus on evasion all the while the Mig 29A will have to maintain its radar lock for the SARH R-27 series guide. It has to keep that lock and cannot do evasions till the missile hits the intended target.

[killkenny1]

9 hours ago, bies said:

 

Or too good, 9.13 would be just another boring AMRAAM(ski) truck with omnipotent BVR without any real chance for close in dogfight. Shoot to some blip on the radar and run not seeing the enemy...

 

9.12 was lighter, had better acceleration, turn rate, climb rate - hot rod sport variant. And super interesting and intensive gameplay of 1980s - close air combat with guns and heatseekers, with very limited and rudimentary BVR R-27.

 

Plus 9.12 was being used by dozens of countries around the world and took part in many real wars, when 9.13 didn't see real combat.

 

 

That would all be true if it wasn't thrown against existing AMRAAM trucks.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I think some people are overstating the ability of the RVV AE.

 

It by no means is a match against the 120C5.

 

And on the same note many people are overlooking a key fact, the MiG-29A's poor weapons load. It will be limited to R-27Rs R-73s and R-60s

No R-27ER/ET or base line T.

 

The R-27ER and ET, ER especially are some rather strong tools and its because of those missiles performance that the Su-27 can compete vs current bluefor if restricted to 1990s weapons (so AIM-9M, 120A/B) in a many vs many encounter (2v2+)

 

Something like a Su-27SK if you ask me better pleases both those fans of the 1980s 1990s+ Air combat. So it makes more sense to go down that path imo

[Nipil]

Firstly, we have Mirage 2000C and F-14A from the same era, so there is already a small, but still adequate roaster for 80's scenarios on the blue side, MiG-29A wouldn't have to fight itself, as Hornets do on the 2000s servers. Opponents are already there. Though having early Falcon would sure be great, it's not really indespensable.

 

Secondly, though it's offtop, people complaining about modern combat being boring are right... Assuming that you have to fight 80s planes while piloting 2000s ones. Than it's of course a turkey shot. But when you and your opponents have comparable capabilities, than it's quite challenging in it's own way. It doesn't demand tactical thinking to shoot down 80s MiG with AMRAAM, but to shoot down a MiG with R-77 (especially R-77-1) and not get shot down yourself requires you to plan well your engagement. It's not boring, it just requires a different approach.

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

So instead of finishing the current MiG-29 or finishing all the other FC3 planes

 

FC3 is basically a feature complete product, it was supposed to be simplified and that's why every single aircraft that's in has missing functionality; none of them have any NAVAIDS apart from ILS, F-15C is missing a few RADAR modes (VS, RAM), MiG-29s and Su-27 are missing D/L, I could go on.

 

9 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

We're getting a FF MiG-29A. Why exactly?

 

Because a fair number of us are interested in it, it fits the majority of current AI assets, fits on the current free map. Just missing appropriate BLUFOR modules.

 

9 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

If they hope to con shmucks into paying 80 dollars for another EA module that's gonna be even more incomplete than the FC3 version for the next 3 to 5 years just so they can get off to feeling like a virtual shooting clay that is wonderfully optimistic of them.

 

A 9.12 MiG-29 is probably going to be much easier to finish than the Apache or the Hornet.

 

9 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Still think they should have gone with a MiG-29K to please the boat boys or a more humble Su-27SK, either would have been a more sound investment.

 

If they could've done a later MiG-29, I'm sure they would've. And yes, sure I'd love a fixed wing REDFOR carrier aircraft, even if it was a freaking Yak-38M (provided we got a Kiev to go with it).

 

Hell 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. Though production models should take priority.

 

Given that Russia are being a pain about this, a 9.12 MiG-29 is just way more feasible to do.

4 minutes ago, Nipil said:

Firstly, we have Mirage 2000C and F-14A from the same era, so there is already a small, but still adequate roaster for 80's scenarios on the blue side, MiG-29A wouldn't have to fight itself, as Hornets do on the 2000s servers. Opponents are already there. Though having early Falcon would sure be great, it's not really indespensable.

 

Secondly, though it's offtop, people complaining about modern combat being boring are right... Assuming that you have to fight 80s planes while piloting 2000s ones. Than it's of course a turkey shot. But when you and your opponents have comparable capabilities, than it's quite challenging in it's own way. It doesn't demand tactical thinking to shoot down 80s MiG with AMRAAM, but to shoot down a MiG with R-77 (especially R-77-1) and not get shot down yourself requires you to plan well your engagement. It's not boring, it just requires a different approach.

 

This!

 

And yeah IMO, modern air combat does get pretty boring, especially in SP (where the majority of the player base is), not only am I fighting something 20 years out of date (at the very least), but because of DCS' AI, it has all the tactical proficiency of a chunky fart.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

3 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

FC3 is basically a feature complete product, it was supposed to be simplified and that's why every single aircraft that's in has missing functionality; none of them have any NAVAIDS apart from ILS, F-15C is missing a few RADAR modes (VS, RAM), MiG-29s and Su-27 are missing D/L, I could go on.

 

 

Because a fair number of us are interested in it, it fits the majority of current AI assets, fits on the current free map. Just missing appropriate BLUFOR modules.

 

 

A 9.12 MiG-29 is probably going to be much easier to finish than the Apache or the Hornet.

 

 

If they could've done a later MiG-29, I'm sure they would've. And yes, sure I'd love a fixed wing REDFOR carrier aircraft, even if it was a freaking Yak-38M (provided we got a Kiev to go with it).

 

Hell 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. Though production models should take priority.

 

Given that Russia are being a pain about this, a 9.12 MiG-29 is just way more feasible to do.

 

This!

 

And yeah IMO, modern air combat does get pretty boring, especially in SP (where the majority of the player base is), not only am I fighting something 20 years out of date (at the very least), but because of DCS' AI, it has all the tactical proficiency of a chunky fart.

FC3 is supposed to be a simplified interaction with the systems

 

It doesn't justify having severely underperforming radars for starts and lacking abilities core to the aircrafts kit

[Northstar98]

Just now, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

FC3 is supposed to be a simplified interaction with the systems

 

They're simplified full stop, I already gave you an example of NAVAIDs, RADARs, they also have simplified radios etc.

 

Just now, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

It doesn't justify having severely underperforming radars for starts and lacking abilities core to the aircrafts kit

 

If RADARs are underperforming (I noticed the F-15C's RADAR seemed to be underperforming but didn't look much into it).

 

As for lacking abilities, they all do, across the board, from whichever way you look at it. At the very heart of it FC3 was essentially LOMAC ported to DCS with a FM and graphical update - that's it.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Just now, Northstar98 said:

 

They're simplified full stop, I already gave you an example of NAVAIDs, RADARs, they also have simplified radios etc.

 

 

If RADARs are underperforming (I noticed the F-15C's RADAR seemed to be underperforming but didn't look much into it).

 

As for lacking abilities, they all do, across the board, from whichever way you look at it. At the very heart of it FC3 was essentially LOMAC ported to DCS with a FM and graphical update - that's it.

You should look into it.

The F15C manual says its a 63v1, it is considerably off to even be the F15As radar.

 

And the N001 and N019 have nearly half the look down detection they should have.

 

Your example is fine but the current implementation is at odds with what ED said the product would be. And even their own definitions

[Northstar98]

9 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

You should look into it.

The F15C manual says its a 63v1, it is considerably off to even be the F15As radar.

 

And the N001 and N019 have nearly half the look down detection they should have.

 

Yeah I've heard about this, I just haven't done the testing or the research as I hardly fly FC3 aircraft. But these should be corrected.

 

Quote

Your example is fine but the current implementation is at odds with what ED said the product would be. And even their own definitions

 

Well I'm not seeing it on the product page, all I gather is that its an evolved LOMAC:FC2 ported to DCS.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[jojyrocks]

36 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

I think some people are overstating the ability of the RVV AE.

 

It by no means is a match against the 120C5.

 

And on the same note many people are overlooking a key fact, the MiG-29A's poor weapons load. It will be limited to R-27Rs R-73s and R-60s

No R-27ER/ET or base line T.

 

The R-27ER and ET, ER especially are some rather strong tools and its because of those missiles performance that the Su-27 can compete vs current bluefor if restricted to 1990s weapons (so AIM-9M, 120A/B) in a many vs many encounter (2v2+)

 

Something like a Su-27SK if you ask me better pleases both those fans of the 1980s 1990s+ Air combat. So it makes more sense to go down that path imo

 

 

Its not about the overstating...the stressing here is the Fire and forget ability. The blueforce has this, the redforce does not except the FC3 Mig 29 and J-11.

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

Check where it talks about Standard System Modeling

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209

 

It being FC3 doesn't mean it should be any less authentic in capabilities depicted, only that the interaction is done through keybinds not switch flips

 

Otherwise the FC3 planes would retain fictional capabilities like R-27EAs Kh31s and other things they once had

[Northstar98]

11 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Check where it talks about Standard System Modeling

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/general/#1512209

 

It being FC3 doesn't mean it should be any less authentic in capabilities depicted, only that the interaction is done through keybinds not switch flips

 

Quote

Standard Systems Modeling (SSM). A DCS module using SSM is characterized as including just the most essential cockpit systems and using keyboard and joystick commands only to interact with the cockpit. Examples of SSM in DCS include all of the Flaming Cliffs 3 aircraft.

 

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.

 

[bies]

After few months of close to daily flying on PvP servers, "modern" BlueFlag i can safely say modern 2000s air combat indeed is a bit boring and repetitive, mostly due to 3 factors.

1. AMRAAM + datalink makes visual maneuver air combat impossible. During few months and more than hundred of flights i saw only two dogfights, one time some new guy without slightest idea what to do just tried to learn, second time guy in Su-27 - i didn't shoot AMRAAM and simply allow him close combat, for fun. 
2. Semi modern missiles like AMRAAM are not as realistic as earlier missiles. They are simplified, changed and guestimated - because they HAVE to be for obvious reasons, they are still in service. They lack guidance logic, realistic mid course update, MRF/PRF radar modes etc. Not even mentioning R-77 which is basically a prototype, not accepted by Russian air force where everything has to be guestimated.
3. AMRAAM + datalink is a lot more repetitive than earlier VVR. After few dozen of fight you simply know what to do. If you respect MAR you are untouchable - that's basically all you have to do. That's why in 2000s BlueFlag some guys can have ~100 kills with 0 losses, but not in 1980s BlueFlag You simply respect MAR, if your opponent do the same you both fire, slice, run - nobody get hurt. If you meet some complete beginner he will push a mile too far because nobody told him what to do yet and he gets hit with AMRAAM.
4. There is not much variety, every single platform, given it has AMRAAM+datalink is nearly identical combat wise giving nearly identical experience. Unique features like i.e. F-16 has better sustained turn, F/A-18 is better at slow speed, MiG-29 can flip over at lower speed, Mirage  allows higher AoA, Su-27 can decelerate the quickest - are no factors in 2000s air combat.

But that's my opinion, if such thing is interesting for someone I'm perfectly fine with that, i accept people are different.

 

After that, for me, 1980s first lightest, slick, manual MiG-29 9.12 with only most rudimentary BVR will be the dream come true.

Edited February 6, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

50 minutes ago, bies said:

After few months of close to daily flying on PvP servers, "modern" BlueFlag i can safely say modern 2000s air combat indeed is a bit boring and repetitive, mostly due to 3 factors.

1. AMRAAM + datalink makes visual maneuver air combat impossible. During few months and more than hundred of flights i saw only two dogfights, one time some new guy without slightest idea what to do just tried to learn, second time guy in Su-27 - i didn't shoot AMRAAM and simply allow him close combat, for fun. 
2. Semi modern missiles like AMRAAM are not as realistic as earlier missiles. They are simplified, changed and guestimated - because they HAVE to be for obvious reasons, they are still in service. They lack guidance logic, realistic mid course update, MRF/PRF radar modes etc. Not even mentioning R-77 which is basically a prototype, not accepted by Russian air force where everything has to be guestimated.
3. AMRAAM + datalink is a lot more repetitive than earlier VVR. After few dozen of fight you simply know what to do. If you respect MAR you are untouchable - that's basically all you have to do. That's why in 2000s BlueFlag some guys can have ~100 kills with 0 losses, but not in 1980s BlueFlag You simply respect MAR, if your opponent do the same you both fire, slice, run - nobody get hurt. If you meet some complete beginner he will push a mile too far because nobody told him what to do yet and he gets hit with AMRAAM.
4. There is not much variety, every single platform, given it has AMRAAM+datalink is nearly identical combat wise giving nearly identical experience. Unique features like i.e. F-16 has better sustained turn, F/A-18 is better at slow speed, MiG-29 can flip over at lower speed, Mirage  allows higher AoA, Su-27 can decelerate the quickest - are no factors in 2000s air combat.

But that's my opinion, if such thing is interesting for someone I'm perfectly fine with that, i accept people are different.

 

After that, for me, 1980s first lightest, slick, manual MiG-29 9.12 with only most rudimentary BVR will be the dream come true.

 

Agreed. I'm basically SP only and the problem there is even worse. Without restricting weapons or setting up a survival style scenario, I mostly fly like an airliner, acquire the target, press the weapons release button until whatever I've acquired gets hit, rinse and repeat and then fly home.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

3 часа назад, jojyrocks сказал:

 

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

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

[Max1mus]

8 hours ago, jojyrocks said:

If we got the Mig 29 9.13. Then it would be good match to tango with modern western jets. At least the Redforce would have just ONE modern clickable plane against Blueforce.

 

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.

[Northstar98]

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.

Edited February 6, 2021 by Northstar98