announced DCS MiG-29A

[Wizard_03]

14 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

They should nut up and just do both if they can. They aren't that dissimilar. They already have the FM done for both more or less. other than that its some differences in avionics. 

 

haha agreed, well it would certainly make a big difference in game play value. A little more fuel and active missiles is literally all it needs IMO to be competitive. 

[Harlikwin]

58 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

haha agreed, well it would certainly make a big difference in game play value. A little more fuel and active missiles is literally all it needs IMO to be competitive. 

 

Honestly I either one is fine in MP servers, even without fox3's, its harder but doable. The big upgrade would be a TAKT or other DL which there is some back and forth if it could use it or not. 

[Wizard_03]

4 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Honestly I either one is fine in MP servers, even without fox3's, its harder but doable. The big upgrade would be a TAKT or other DL which there is some back and forth if it could use it or not. 

In any case I'm happy we're getting something I just wish I didn't have to play the whole peak a boo, hide and seek game with f-15/16s in the MiG-29A and Su-27/33 

 

When they added the J-11A and R-77s it was a game changer for me. The MiG-29S is pretty equal IMO if you know what your doing too. The biggest problem at the moment for me is trying to figure out what I'm shooting at. Big difference in tactics between F-15/18 but with the MiGs radar/RWR gear you can't tell. So I also want them to add that as an option for AWACS/GCI calls.

 

Edited September 12, 2021 by Wizard_03

[okopanja]

55 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:

When they added the J-11A and R-77s it was a game changer for me. The MiG-29S is pretty equal IMO if you know what your doing too. The biggest problem at the moment for me is trying to figure out what I'm shooting at. Big difference in tactics between F-15/18 but with the MiGs radar/RWR gear you can't tell. So I also want them to add that as an option for AWACS/GCI calls.

IMHO: I like the way Mig-29 flies, but given that has no DL and that R-77 is pretty useless at the moment. I think I will revert back from J-11A to Su-27: it just offers more IR missiles. But can you detail how AWACS/GCI will help you?

How would this feature be different from the one we have today?

[Wizard_03]

54 minutes ago, okopanja said:

IMHO: I like the way Mig-29 flies, but given that has no DL and that R-77 is pretty useless at the moment. I think I will revert back from J-11A to Su-27: it just offers more IR missiles. But can you detail how AWACS/GCI will help you?

How would this feature be different from the one we have today?

It's not that unless, you can fire and defend at the same time and that's a big deal because even though It has lower PK it helps you tick the range down and get up in people's faces where you have the advantages. If I can get someone into the WVR without being totally defensive I have a lot of confidence I can Finnish them off In the MiG.

 

MiG-29S loadout is perfect for me, with 27ET/77/73 and center tank plus ECM I have pretty much every tool I need to win. 

 

More SA is always helpful. Not knowing what's going on is pretty much the only way to die in the MiG, you can out perform everyone else in most cases. The problem is you OFTEN don't know what's going on. The radar dosent tell you anything about contacts except range, bearing, and direction + IFF but only if you go STT, and This all assuming they're in range, not notching, too look down. Ect. Ect. And also your radar is actually on and your not emcon trying to sneak up on people with IRST which is the better tactic IMO if your going up against spamraamers. And RWR is basically useless, just let's you know that your about to die haha

 

Apart from what we have now I just want to be able to ask AWACS what the contact is. In the hornet Link 16 or NCTR tells me, in the Viper and eagle you can figure it out with RWR nails, knowing what the target is allows me to set my game plan up early on. Right now I have to assume everyone is an F-15 and treat them that way until I know otherwise because that's the biggest threat they could be. If I knew they weren't at BVR I could put myself in much much better positions.

Edited September 12, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Harlikwin]

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

It's not that unless, you can fire and defend at the same time and that's a big deal because even though It has lower PK it helps you tick the range down and get up in people's faces where you have the advantages. If I can get someone into the WVR without being totally defensive I have a lot of confidence I can Finnish them off In the MiG.

 

MiG-29S loadout is perfect for me, with 27ET/77/73 and center tank plus ECM I have pretty much every tool I need to win. 

 

More SA is always helpful. Not knowing what's going on is pretty much the only way to die in the MiG, you can out perform everyone else in most cases. The problem is you OFTEN don't know what's going on. The radar dosent tell you anything about contacts except range, bearing, and direction + IFF but only if you go STT, and This all assuming they're in range, not notching, too look down. Ect. Ect. And also your radar is actually on and your not emcon trying to sneak up on people with IRST which is the better tactic IMO if your going up against spamraamers. And RWR is basically useless, just let's you know that your about to die haha

 

Apart from what we have now I just want to be able to ask AWACS what the contact is. In the hornet Link 16 or NCTR tells me, in the Viper and eagle you can figure it out with RWR nails, knowing what the target is allows me to set my game plan up early on. Right now I have to assume everyone is an F-15 and treat them that way until I know otherwise because that's the biggest threat they could be. If I knew they weren't at BVR I could put myself in much much better positions.

 

 

Meh, its not that hard. As long as you have decent GCI, thats the main thing DCS gets abysmally wrong, especially the terrible 1990's Lomac era Awacs calls, totally useless garbage. Some PVP servers have some decent EWR/Awacs scripts to overcome the hot garbage that is the standard DCS awacs, so that thats usually helpful. I mean thats the real reason DL is such a powerfuil thing in DCS versus IRL. Cuz IRL most planes will have far better SA from GCI/awacs, doubly so Pre-DL.

 

9.12 mig29 should have a Lazur datalink//GCI, lets see what ED does with that. I'm not expecting much TBH.

Takt would be cool, and it might have had the ability to use it (su-27 DL).

 

As long as you have ET/ER you should be able dunk on most PVP servers.

 

 

[draconus]

10 hours ago, okopanja said:

But can you detail how AWACS/GCI will help you?

How would this feature be different from the one we have today?

Usually, the group is low alt, radar off and the GCI operator instructs you how, where and when to fly for the ideal sneaky interception behind the enemy - then it's just pilot job to execute the bandits.

 

9 hours ago, Wizard_03 said:

Apart from what we have now I just want to be able to ask AWACS what the contact is. In the hornet Link 16 or NCTR tells me, in the Viper and eagle you can figure it out with RWR nails, knowing what the target is allows me to set my game plan up early on.

Afaik the Eagle does have NCTR but it's shorter range than radar detection and tracking [in DCS].

 

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

As long as you have decent GCI, thats the main thing DCS gets abysmally wrong, especially the terrible 1990's Lomac era Awacs calls, totally useless garbage.

How is it useless when it gives you BRAA on the nearest target (which can be way over you radar capabilities) or gets you the whole picture (yeah, wait for it when it's big) with IFF and ID?

Btw, LOMAC is 2003.

[Cmptohocah]

Yes, but when you fly with a human GCI on multi-player server that's when you can see MiG's full potential. You basically switch on the Radar/EOS only when you need to acquire the target, fire, score a kill and get the hell out of there and then repeat.
Sure if you fly the 29 like an F-15, it's gonna suck, but once other elements come into play... the game changes drastically.

[Harlikwin]

4 hours ago, draconus said:

How is it useless when it gives you BRAA on the nearest target (which can be way over you radar capabilities) or gets you the whole picture (yeah, wait for it when it's big) with IFF and ID?

Btw, LOMAC is 2003.

 

Flanker 2.0 or whatnot then

 

The primary issue with the Awacs is that it intermittently gives you that info, against targets that half smart, they will notch the awacs periodically, or just fly low. A human GCI will still see them pop on and off the scope and know they are there, the AI awacs is not smart, I'd say 80% of calls on alot of PVP servers its guiding you to the enemy tanker or awacs, of course once you know to ignore any call at like 15k feet or whatever their typical alt is you can "filter" thouse out. But realistically it shouldn't be giving you those calls at all, unless you ask for em. 

On blueflag they developed their own GCI/AWACS script that gives you better and more timely enemy info. Its far from perfect but yet another example of frustrated players and server admins solving ED's problems with core game functionality. I mean its getting absurd at this point, first Devs are working around the lack of planning tools with F10 marks, IADS scripts to actually run sams like they work irl, Voice comms has been external forever, and now people are developing external AWACS/GCI solutions. ALL things that should be in the core game and should work well. 

[Airhunter]

16 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Meh, its not that hard. As long as you have decent GCI, thats the main thing DCS gets abysmally wrong, especially the terrible 1990's Lomac era Awacs calls, totally useless garbage. Some PVP servers have some decent EWR/Awacs scripts to overcome the hot garbage that is the standard DCS awacs, so that thats usually helpful. I mean thats the real reason DL is such a powerfuil thing in DCS versus IRL. Cuz IRL most planes will have far better SA from GCI/awacs, doubly so Pre-DL.

 

9.12 mig29 should have a Lazur datalink//GCI, lets see what ED does with that. I'm not expecting much TBH.

Takt would be cool, and it might have had the ability to use it (su-27 DL).

 

As long as you have ET/ER you should be able dunk on most PVP servers.

 

 

 

29 does NOT have Lazur but a different system. Don't know who came up with this and spread it. Another thing, the 29A (9.12) can NOT carry ER/ET/T. 

If we're talking 29S (9.13S) then that is probably the most capable "hot rod" of the 29's. Once the R-77 CFD rework hits and the 29S gets a slight radar range/power adjustment like is needed it should theoretically be a closer match for 120B carriers. Even if said use of R-77's is mostly fiction. 

[XPACT]

18 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Another thing, the 29A (9.12) can NOT carry ER/ET/T.

 

Sadly true.

 

18 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Even if said use of R-77's is mostly fiction. 

 

A lot of military equipment ends up in the fiction category because it was never used in combat but that doesn't mean it isn't capable, not everyone has a chance to invade third world country every 2-5 years showing military might keeping all debts in check, exploiting resources and in the mean time testing every bit of modern equipment in their arsenal before moving on.

 

A or S, it's an iconic aircraft to me and will be great addition to DCS. If not possible in the beginning maybe 9.13S upgrade will follow in the months/years to come, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible.

[Airhunter]

5 minutes ago, XPACT said:

 

Sadly true.

 

 

A lot of military equipment ends up in the fiction category because it was never used in combat but that doesn't mean it isn't capable, not everyone has a chance to invade third world country every 2-5 years showing military might keeping all debts in check, exploiting resources and in the mean time testing every bit of modern equipment in their arsenal before moving on.

 

A or S, it's an iconic aircraft to me and will be great addition to DCS. If not possible in the beginning maybe 9.13S upgrade will follow in the months/years to come, I can't see why that wouldn't be possible.

 

Indeed. The sketchy part about the S is that it's still in RuAF operations and the ECM part might get tricky. And by fiction I meant the fact that original 77's weren't used in the RuAF or any S really. While the 120B/C surely are the most widespread missile on the western counterparts. Of course this is DCS and you can do what you want. 

[XPACT]

1 hour ago, Airhunter said:

ECM part might get tricky.

 

While this is true I am not really confident that they have any info on inner workings of F-16C or F/A-18C ECM yet those planes are being developed and by contrast their ECM should be much more modern and capable. EW - ECM as whole in DCS is really hard topic since currently it is so oversimplified that it's better if it wasn't even implemented in the first place, my opinion of course, actually everything based on EMR is very oversimplified and a lot of things can be done better and improved like radar and internal communications but EW-ECM will probably never get there at least not anytime soon.

Edited September 13, 2021 by XPACT

[Harlikwin]

2 hours ago, Airhunter said:

 

29 does NOT have Lazur but a different system. Don't know who came up with this and spread it. Another thing, the 29A (9.12) can NOT carry ER/ET/T. 

If we're talking 29S (9.13S) then that is probably the most capable "hot rod" of the 29's. Once the R-77 CFD rework hits and the 29S gets a slight radar range/power adjustment like is needed it should theoretically be a closer match for 120B carriers. Even if said use of R-77's is mostly fiction. 

 

Pretty sure it was a version of lazur or at least lazur compatible, Model number that I have is E502-20/04 Lazur  and it was stripped on the export models. 

 

The MiG-29 Lazur Data Link System:

The Lazur Data link System is a two-way system, GCI-to-Fighter and Fighter-to-GCI. It is composed of the SAU-451-04 automatic control system, the E502-20/04 airborne guidance system, the R-862 radio, A-611 marker radio receiver, SO-69 ATC responder with the UNN block/K-42E kit, the ARK-19 radio compass, the TESTER-UZ/LK flight data recorder, and the ALMAZ-UP information reporting system. The MiG-29 appears to have no Fighter-to-Fighter capability yet. Transmitted target information is displayed on the HUD display which is the primarily display, then on the radar scope and appropriate cockpit instruments. The "GUIDANCE" switch on the Air-to-Ground Panel must be "ON". A Data Link Frequency nees to be selected and a Data Link Mode selected from the "GCI SITE", "AIR TRAFFIC", or "TERMINAL" options. The system operates in the VHF frequency band and is effectively line-of-sight limited.

The information displayed with 54 symbols or directives, some are listed below:

* closure speed command go-to
* continuous distance to prime selected target
* fixed distance to targets indicated
* end of intercept (flight recovery) command
* end of intercept (change target) command
* engine power setting commands
* afterburner activation (what stages if any?)
* interceptor aspect commands (go-to)
* interceptor altitude commands (go-to)
* interceptor course commands (go-to)
* interceptor speed commands (go-to)
* interceptor turn commands (go-to)
* missile warm-up (AA-10) commands (approx 3 minutes)
* target assignment commands for priority
* target elevation delta (±) commands
* target true bearing commands for pointing
* target vertical speed (snap-up) command
* target range, look angle, speed, G, etc.

 

 

As for the T/ET/ER thing the pylons do have the gas bottles for the T, and about the only reason anyone can come up with why it didn't carry the E-series is that they generally came out as the SU was falling and they went SU-27 squadrons that could make better use of them, not that it couldn't. Unless you have some documentation to share about that.

 

Edited September 13, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Airhunter]

37 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

As for the T/ET/ER thing the pylons do have the gas bottles for the T, and about the only reason anyone can come up with why it didn't carry the E-series is that they generally came out as the SU was falling and they went SU-27 squadrons that could make better use of them, not that it couldn't. Unless you have some documentation to share about that.

 

 

 

Documentation being the 29A manuals and its armament schemes (no mention of ER etc) as well as never seeing pictures of a 29A (9.12) with said missiles.

[Harlikwin]

12 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

Documentation being the 29A manuals and its armament schemes (no mention of ER etc) as well as never seeing pictures of a 29A (9.12) with said missiles.

 

The early manuals obviously didn't have the ER/ET as they weren't in service. 

[FoxAlfa]

15 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

Documentation being the 29A manuals and its armament schemes (no mention of ER etc) as well as never seeing pictures of a 29A (9.12) with said missiles.

Here you go... also, the myth persist since most ppl have older manuals before those missiles.... if you have newer ones, you will see those missiles listed in payload....

[XPACT]

It's probably easy to just add "expected ranges", calculation data, to missile computer since they are basically the same.

Edited September 13, 2021 by XPACT

[Wizard_03]

Can't imagine the new missile comes out and they DON'T port it too whatever they have in active service at the time. Maybe they don't have many at first but the modifications can't be that hard to give the jet the ability to carry it. Probably something that could be done at the squadron level.

 

Same story with the R-77 they may not have had the weapon available but it was definitely intended for the 29S and they had provisioned for it from the get go.

Edited September 13, 2021 by Wizard_03

[Airhunter]

7 minutes ago, FoxAlfa said:

Here you go... also, the myth persist since most ppl have older manuals before those missiles.... if you have newer ones, you will see those missiles listed in payload....

 

How do we know this is a 9.12 and not an upgrade? 

9 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

The early manuals obviously didn't have the ER/ET as they weren't in service. 

 

Yes but until this day no 9.12 operator is seen using said missiles. Poland even bought more 27R's for theirs recently. 

[Harlikwin]

24 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

How do we know this is a 9.12 and not an upgrade? 

 

 

 

No hump...

[XPACT]

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

No hump...

 

Yup, for 9.13 airframe changes are required.

[Airhunter]

21 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

No hump...

 

Yeah that's not how it works. There are tons of 9.13's with no hump, UPG's and SMT's that were A updrages. You can not, factually say that this is a 9.12 in the picture.

[Wizard_03]

31 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

 

Yeah that's not how it works. There are tons of 9.13's with no hump, UPG's and SMT's that were A updrages. You can not, factually say that this is a 9.12 in the picture.

Never heard of 9.13 without the hump. 

[okopanja]

2 hours ago, Airhunter said:

Documentation being the 29A manuals and its armament schemes (no mention of ER etc) as well as never seeing pictures of a 29A (9.12) with said missiles.

Seriously?

Do you really believe that these missiles would not be backward compatible? That is the very first requirement they would get from the military.

I suggest watching several workaround videos soviet aircraft on youtube just to get the idea on how much thought they paid to the tiny details.

 

52 minutes ago, Airhunter said:

Yeah that's not how it works. There are tons of 9.13's with no hump, UPG's and SMT's that were A updrages. You can not, factually say that this is a 9.12 in the picture.

 

Here is the video of Mig-29 UPG:

 

SMT otherwise known as 9.17