announced DCS MiG-29A

[Harlikwin]

11 hours ago, Silent Film said:

Thanks! I hope you are right.

Me too. 

But I figure Apache early next year. BS3 probably 6 months after that, mig 6 months after that.

[Cmptohocah]

25 pages on the topic and counting. I would say a lot of people, including me, would love to have a FF Fulcrum module.
 

[PiedDroit]

Did anyone notice these screenshots from the Home > Downloads > Screenshots > In Development section? Not sure if I should get hyped right away
note the file names, e.g. In_Dev_03.12.2021.6.jpg

Edited February 12, 2022 by PiedDroit

[Top Jockey]

10 hours ago, PiedDroit said:

Did anyone notice these screenshots from the Home > Downloads > Screenshots > In Development section? Not sure if I should get hyped right away
note the file names, e.g. In_Dev_03.12.2021.6.jpg

 

 

And besides, shouldn't it be the MiG-29G variant ?

(Instead of " S " variant as stated in the images.)

[okopanja]

I've seen this before...

Someone remarked it looks very, very similar to to what is already in the game...

[Mike_Romeo]

12 hours ago, PiedDroit said:

Did anyone notice these screenshots from the Home > Downloads > Screenshots > In Development section? Not sure if I should get hyped right away
note the file names, e.g. In_Dev_03.12.2021.6.jpg

 

They had nothing to do with the FF MiG-29. The picture where used in the GFM development report where they used the MiG-29 as the AI testbed

Here is the newletter:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/a134f231fe8269e1c78dd6d0dd8c3c9d/
 

 

Edited February 12, 2022 by Mike_Romeo

[AeriaGloria]

Yeah I’m sure there won’t be a single amount of MiG-29 development until BS3 release. 
 

I only hope that without needing to do PFM or only minor updates to that work may be faster the usual. I believe 3D model interior and exterior will only need minor updates despite being on essentially same level as Hornet currently. A lot of switches already have arguements in model viewer. I assume coding the sensors will be hardest part 

[Top Jockey]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

Yeah I’m sure there won’t be a single amount of MiG-29 development until BS3 release. 
 

I only hope that without needing to do PFM or only minor updates to that work may be faster the usual. I believe 3D model interior and exterior will only need minor updates despite being on essentially same level as Hornet currently. A lot of switches already have arguements in model viewer. I assume coding the sensors will be hardest part 

 

... by the looks of it, when can we expect the full fidelity MiG-29A, 2023 / 24 ?

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, Top Jockey said:

... by the looks of it, when can we expect the full fidelity MiG-29A, 2023 / 24 ?

I am skeptical both about BS3 and Mig-29A.

There are no development updates, other than teasing for BS3 in last yearly video.

Focus is clearly on Apache, and then F-15E. We've seen more of Mig-23 than 29A

 

[AeriaGloria]

6 hours ago, okopanja said:

I am skeptical both about BS3 and Mig-29A.

There are no development updates, other than teasing for BS3 in last yearly video.

Focus is clearly on Apache, and then F-15E. We've seen more of Mig-23 than 29A

 

F-15E is Razbam won’t effect MiG-29 at all, I assume ED are all hands on deck for Apache 

Edited February 13, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[okopanja]

1 hour ago, AeriaGloria said:

F-15E is Razbam won’t effect MiG-29 at all, I assume ED are all hands on deck for Apache 

When two vendors provide  software there is always integration and testing effort on the other side. Not to mention API changes that may be needed.

[AeriaGloria]

8 hours ago, okopanja said:

When two vendors provide  software there is always integration and testing effort on the other side. Not to mention API changes that may be needed.

Whatever floats your boat 

[Cmptohocah]

On 2/12/2022 at 10:02 PM, AeriaGloria said:

Yeah I’m sure there won’t be a single amount of MiG-29 development until BS3 release. 
 

I only hope that without needing to do PFM or only minor updates to that work may be faster the usual. I believe 3D model interior and exterior will only need minor updates despite being on essentially same level as Hornet currently. A lot of switches already have arguements in model viewer. I assume coding the sensors will be hardest part 

Real MiG is quite different from the one in FC3. Sure the model is there but systems like radar, EOS, RWR, navigation, data-link, laser range finder, IFF and some others are quite complex and are not neccessarily modeled correctly at the moment.

[AeriaGloria]

12 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Real MiG is quite different from the one in FC3. Sure the model is there but systems like radar, EOS, RWR, navigation, data-link, laser range finder, IFF and some others are quite complex and are not neccessarily modeled correctly at the moment.

Yes that’s what I meant by sensors. They will need to take the radar technology they’ve developed with F-18/F-16, and apply it to EOS using the new FLIR tech. Then design it’s interaction with radar, like KBO mode and the lead/slave system. Addition of small/large scan zones. They said they would update SPO-15 for full fidelity, it would be cool to have target types and range indicator align more with reality.

Im sure a lot of us are waiting for that navigation panel to work right, surprised how long it takes the gyros to align in the real thing. 
 

I also hope to god that they implement Lazur datalink, especially now that Mirage 2000C has TAF mode. Lazur would put it on par with the addition of its control of your radar and commands when to use AB and such. Would be cool, I know MiG-23MLA will have it and it would be a shame for an earlier MiG to have it but not 29. While I believe a full fidelity 29 will in a lot of ways make it LESS effective, GCI datalink will give it a capability not only it doesn’t have but only one or two other modules have. It could be powerful 

Honestly some of my biggest questions are about weapons restrictions.

In real life MiG-29A 9.12 is limited to R-60M, R-73, and R-27R in air to air department. The default pre set loadouts reflect this but you can still load all other R-27 variants such as T, ER and ET. 
 

I would expect them to change it to only use R-27R,  but I’ve also heard discussion That many people might accept R-27Er the way the F-16 has 4 HARMs and 6 Mavericks. That since it’s a modular missile, the pylon connection is the same the launch/guidance unit is the same, that the MiG-29 could physically launch it it would just have the DLZ of R-27R. Obviously I don’t think this was done and there are no photos of it unless upgraded to 9.13S standard I believe, but I wonder what would peoples reactions be if they either only allowed R-27R or also R-27ER? 
 

I would be very surprised by any T/ET, as that would need the rail to have cooling. 

This will be a very interesting release 

Edited February 14, 2022 by AeriaGloria

[WarbossPetross]

33 минуты назад, AeriaGloria сказал:

In real life MiG-29A 9.12 is limited to R-60M, R-73, and R-27R in air to air department. The default pre set loadouts reflect this but you can still load all other R-27 variants such as T, ER and ET. 

 

I would expect them to change it to only use R-27R,  but I’ve also heard discussion That many people might accept R-27Er the way the F-16 has 4 HARMs and 6 Mavericks. That since it’s a modular missile, the pylon connection is the same the launch/guidance unit is the same, that the MiG-29 could physically launch it it would just have the DLZ of R-27R. Obviously I don’t think this was done and there are no photos of it unless upgraded to 9.13S standard I believe, but I wonder what would peoples reactions be if they either only allowed R-27R or also R-27ER? 
 

I would be very surprised by any T/ET, as that would need the rail to have cooling. 

This will be a very interesting release

And then there's R-27P for jamming targets and a prototype R-27AE Fox 3 with active radar guidance, so that would be a big ol' can of worms to open seeing how technically it should be possible to use them (which is, like, the whole point of said missiles). A bigger concern for me is if it will be able to use the video screen as a TID like it's done in Su-27 that we have now. I don't know whether that's the case IRL, but visually the screens are identical in both planes. Our current FC3 model uses it only as a HUD repeater, and it's the single biggest turn-off of the plane for me.

[Tarres]

In the 29 (9-12/9-13;9-13S) it’s only a HUD repeater, nothing more. 

Edited February 14, 2022 by Tarres

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, WarbossPetross said:

And then there's R-27P for jamming targets and a prototype R-27AE Fox 3 with active radar guidance, so that would be a big ol' can of worms to open seeing how technically it should be possible to use them (which is, like, the whole point of said missiles). A bigger concern for me is if it will be able to use the video screen as a TID like it's done in Su-27 that we have now. I don't know whether that's the case IRL, but visually the screens are identical in both planes. Our current FC3 model uses it only as a HUD repeater, and it's the single biggest turn-off of the plane for me.

I can confirm what Tarres said. It may be same mechanical unit, it may have switch for tactical display, but IRL it was just to use common components and there is no SA datalink information to show. Only designed for Lazur GCI datalink, using EWR not AWACS and to only guide you to one target via HUD instructions, even using Lazur specific radar modes

[Gierasimov]

This whole thing started with Simon Pearson, ED spilling the beans about Fulcrum A coming to DCS. While ED newsletter did not provide any 'official' announcement, they still said it would be a project after BS3. 

Few days ago, Simon said Tornado is planned. Again ED denied. 

I see a pattern here. 

I wonder what does the next 5 years future hold for DCS...

 

[WinterH]

57 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Few days ago, Simon said Tornado is planned. Again ED denied. 

I see a pattern here. 

(The X-Files theme goes here)

[Gierasimov]

I believe. 

 

[WinterH]

That one I believe as well, at least for now

[killkenny1]

9 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

This whole thing started with Simon Pearson, ED spilling the beans about Fulcrum A coming to DCS. While ED newsletter did not provide any 'official' announcement, they still said it would be a project after BS3. 

Few days ago, Simon said Tornado is planned. Again ED denied. 

I see a pattern here. 

I wonder what does the next 5 years future hold for DCS...

 

Kate Perdenko (I hope I spelt her name correctly) did say that 9.12 is coming to DCS in comment left on Discord, and IIRC during an interview at Moscow ED office they said that they are planning 9.12.

[Gierasimov]

3 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

Kate Perdenko (I hope I spelt her name correctly) did say that 9.12 is coming to DCS in comment left on Discord, and IIRC during an interview at Moscow ED office they said that they are planning 9.12.

This is correct information, however it was not confirmed through the 'newsletter'. Yet.

[Dragon1-1]

I guess someone's a blabbermouth.  Although, it's been well known ED wanted a MiG-29. It's possible that they meant "after BS3 is out, we'll start making active efforts towards making it happen". Doesn't mean they get through, but honestly, it's so well known there's no reason they wouldn't. If not with Russians, then with the Germans or Poles. Plenty of those in NATO service, or in museums.

Tornado might be harder. Word goes around that it's not that they aren't trying. Rumor is that Panavia is being difficult, another rumor (some time ago) was that two 3rd party devs were fighting over the license. Going from "trying" to "doing" might not be trivial in this case.

[Gierasimov]

Either way with BS3 still in progress, there won't be any news. Let's see what gives after BS3 releases some time in the future, not so distant one would imagine.