announced DCS MiG-29A

[jojyrocks]

4 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Exactly, i like how Razbam want to model complete coherent historical campaign.

Or i.e. Iraq - Iran war 1980-1988. We will have F-5E, F-14A, UH-1 for Iran and MiG-29 9.12A, MiG-21bis, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, Mi-24, Mi-8 for Iraq. Only Iranian F-4E missing.

 

 

We can settle for the updated AI 3D models of F-4E...by the time Mirage F.1 and the Mig 23 becomes a reality, the F-4E could at least get an updated 3D model. Its at least present in the AI roadmap. For most of the middle east theatre we have now, we've almost the remaining modules we have are pretty good fit.

[Seaeagle]

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

Sorry, should've clarified that I meant with the current FC3 implementation, as the 9.12 MiG-29 in DCS FC3 can equip external wing tanks.

Yeah I don't know what the deal is with that - it shouldn't. The "MiG-29G" on the other hand could have it - when Luftwaffe inherited the East German MiG-29s they didn't, but they later bought a wing tank kit for them.

4 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

 

Awesome, thanks for clearing this up! 

NP :)

[Kev2go]

6 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Sure, but look through each decade in particular and see what you find, everything all over the place with very little in terms of contemporaries.

 

• 1950s - only 3 aircraft (F-86F, MiG-15bis, MiG-19P), 1 air defence unit (with another 2 on the way + an FCR) + whatever you can recycle from the WWII asset pack. Nothing else.
• 1960s - nothing apart from a few REDFOR ground units (T-55, BRDM-2, SA-9, ZSU-23-4, Ural 375 and a few others). Nothing else.
• 1970s - 2 peer modules, with 3 variants of another on the way, and possibly a couple of others. Pretty decent set of air defences (even if they're missing battery components), decent set of ground vehicles.
• 1980s - quite a few playable aircraft (the most amount, but not by much and mostly only because of FC3). Some ground vehicles and the majority of REDFOR ships. Enough ground vehicles to be doable.
• 1990s - 2 playable aircraft with another on the way, a few more air defences (all REDFOR). 
• 2000s - most of popular FF BLUFOR modules and not much else, a few (graphically questionable) Chinese ships, the Supercarrier pack, and a few ground vehicles 3 maps.  

 

 

Regardless of whatever pushed it, WW2 is still easily the most flushed out era in DCS, in terms of playable modules, 2 dedicated maps that mostly fit the aircraft and assets, with more to follow and most up to par with each other as far as quality goes.

 

 

Sorry, should've clarified that I meant with the current FC3 implementation, as the 9.12 MiG-29 in DCS FC3 can equip external wing tanks.

 

 

Awesome, thanks for clearing this up! 

 

 

disagree because "modern" paradigm fits a broad period. Alot of sam systems, and other ground armor assets from the 60- 70-80s are still in use today either by states who dont have the most up to date equipment, or simply are in in service in country of origin but in more modernized form.

 

Unlike ww2, where every year a new series of pistons made the older ones obselete and fade quickly into obscurity, and the enemy was a modern peer military. in contrast  jets ( gen 4 in particular) have soldiered on through multiple decades in frontline service, merely going through avionics updates now and then. And reality is, there hasn't been a peer vs peer conflict in a long while.

 

So all the other content is valid for a wide variety of scenarios. SO as it stands cold war -modern period are most fleshed out.  WW2 is much more particular, and only really applicable to ETO 1944-45, and then most around Normady invasion. Wheras You have far more assets and maps for post ww2 period.

 

let's BE honest most people come to DCS to fly jets in a missile era not for ww2 content.  (Ww2 is a niche within a niche) . That is its main selling point.  WW2 flight gane have been dime a dozen ( if discounting fully clickable cockpits). 

 

And being on DCS discord, alot seem to agree that there is another sim ( which has more assets, more plane,s better damage model in particular)  better suited for warbirds if you only care about ww2 only, and  if lack of clickable pits arent a deal breaker.

 

Hint:: if that still not enough. the name of the game series is that of a Russian attack aircraft from ww2

Edited February 7, 2021 by Kev2go

[Teknetinium]

I think the cold war could be simulated better now then modern arena. 

- F-14A/A-7/A-6/MIG-29A/MIG-23/Su-22/F-5/MIG-21/AJS-37

- UH-1/SA-342/Mi-24/Mi-8

 

- Iraq Iran war

Iraq: Mig-29A/Mig-23/Su-22/Mi-8/Mi-24

Iran: F-14A/F-5/UH-1/SA-342

 

- Falklands

Argentina: AJS-37/Mi-8/F-86
United Kingdom: AV-8(limited weapons)/UH-1

Edited February 7, 2021 by Teknetinium

[Northstar98]

On 2/7/2021 at 2:40 AM, Kev2go said:

 

disagree because "modern" paradigm fits a broad period. Alot of sam systems, and other ground armor assets from the 60- 70-80s are still in use today either by states who dont have the most up to date equipment, or simply are in in service in country of origin but in more modernized form.

True, but my whole point is that's the only thing you can do with DCS, what you can't do is set-up peer-to-peer stuff, even if it were hypothetical. And for stuff where you can, it is pretty limited. The only difference being WW2.

Again if you pick any one decade and populate it with assets from that decade (so stuff are fighting their contemporaries) then there's very little if anything at all - the only outlier is WW2. This is considering player modules, assets (for both REDFOR and BLUFOR) and maps, no one decade is fleshed out to the same degree as WW2.

And ultimately some WW2 equipment was still in use for a few decades after as well, and as for those 'modernized forms', well we don't have that either...

And yes there are more assets of the 70s/80s/90s/00s than any other, but if you were to pick the 70s or the 80s or the 90s or whatever individually, they are hardly fleshed out at all - it's a mile wide but an inch deep - which again was my whole point. Often, apart from WW2, having a selection of one thing but none of the others.

It's like setting up a 50s/early 60s scenario where one side only has WW2-era air defences and the other side only has 50s/60s modules. Sure in the 50s/60s you could see both together. However, if you take it individually WW2 is limited if the other side doesn't have WW2 modules and the 50s/60s are limited if one side only has WW2 era air defences.

It's probably not the best example but hopefully you see what I mean. 

Quote

Unlike ww2, where every year a new series of pistons made the older ones obselete and fade quickly into obscurity, and the enemy was a modern peer military. in contrast  jets ( gen 4 in particular) have soldiered on through multiple decades in frontline service, merely going through avionics updates now and then. And reality is, there hasn't been a peer vs peer conflict in a long while.

Yes, but that's because the Cold War didn't go hot, and a similar thing isn't at all likely to happen now, and even if it were, DCS absolutely cannot do it, unless you want to pretend that technological development in Russia and China mostly stopped in the 80s...

If the US went to war with Russia in mid-2000s, I somehow doubt the only things available would be 80s SAM systems, and initial production variants of 80s aircraft. They might still have them in service sure, but I'd argue it's far from being the only thing they'd have.

And those avionics updates? We don't have them.

Quote

So all the other content is valid for a wide variety of scenarios. SO as it stands cold war -modern period are most fleshed out.  WW2 is much more particular, and only really applicable to ETO 1944-45, and then most around Normady invasion. Wheras You have far more assets and maps for post ww2 period.

It's hardly a wide variety IMO, the only type of scenario you can feasibly do is asymmetric and that's it, and even at that, even in asymmetric scenarios (say US vs Iran/Syria), Syria and Iran both operate things like the Pantsir-S1, S-300PMU-2, Buk-M2 - of course probably useless with DCS' AI and various other simplifications.

Again, pick any particular decade post WW2 and it is hardly fleshed out when taken individually, meaning that the only thing available for post 2000s are asymmetric scenarios, when even IRL non-peer countries are operating more modern and contemporary equipment.

Quote

let's BE honest most people come to DCS to fly jets in a missile era not for ww2 content.  (Ww2 is a niche within a niche) . That is its main selling point.  WW2 flight gane have been dime a dozen ( if discounting fully clickable cockpits). 

 

And being on DCS discord, alot seem to agree that there is another sim ( which has more assets, more plane,s better damage model in particular)  better suited for warbirds if you only care about ww2 only, and  if lack of clickable pits arent a deal breaker.

 

Hint:: if that still not enough. the name of the game series is that of a Russian attack aircraft from ww2

Yes, I completely agree, but you're kinda missing my point.

If you wanted to set-up a peer-to-peer mission, WW2 is your best bet right now. Modern era is either asymmetric or very limited at best (and that's counting modern as being post WW2). Seriously, set the mission date to a particular year and use historical mode, see what you have to work with, especially for the mid-cold war.

Yes, peer-to-peer isn't the only mission type I know, but ultimately if you have contemporary aircraft, that span multiple periods, you can still do an asymmetric mission; however, if you have one side with modern stuff and the other side is 20 years out of date at least, the only thing you can do is asymmetric missions - again mile wide, inch deep.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[SharkWizard]

Personally I find it very enjoyable to go up against the deluge of AMRAAMs either online or in single player with slightly inferior equipment such as either R-77s or 27s. Defeating your "enemy" with inferior weapons is very satisfying (and when it goes wrong its not that bad  ).

 

 

That said wouldn't even a modern Su-35 with R-77-1s or R-27s still be considerably disadvantaged against the most modern 4+ gen AMRAAM carriers anyway?  

[bies]

1 hour ago, SharkWizard said:

That said wouldn't even a modern Su-35 with R-77-1s or R-27s still be considerably disadvantaged against the most modern 4+ gen AMRAAM carriers anyway?  

 

It's hard to answer, because what constitutes real advantage of this "4+ gen AMRAAM carriers", one over each other, namely more expensive and advanced ECM suite, more expensive faster microchips allowing more sophisticated ECCM, radar detection algorithms, hiding own radiation, faster more sophisticated missile guidance logic algorithms, more capable datalinks with peer weapon guidance etc. - all the things which will, for obvious reasons, never be allowed to be reasonably realistically modeled or disclosed in public software.

 

So short answer is: no, modern fighters, this or some other, wouldn't be at disadvantage because everything what constitutes this advantage IRL would be absent in DCS. They would have "generic" AESA radars with the same performance, similar datalinks, the same computing power, the same ECM capabilities, the same ECCM algorithms etc. Everything what decide the outcome of today's air combat would have to be fictional, made up or completely omitted.

 

 

If we would look at i.e. (apart from being classified) the complete F-35 avionics software - it may have as many lines of code as whole DCS World combined. Even if declassified it would be impossible to model in realistic way due to sheer volume of work. Computer revolution after some 1990 changed things completely.

Faster microchips = more computing power = more sophisticated ECM, ECCM, radar software, sensor integration, datalink, weapon guidance etc.

 

That's why I'm so excited for MiG-29 9.12 from 1980s when air combat accents human pilot skills and close combat above electronics sophistication and standoff weapon. And is actually possible to model in realistic way with all it's suite.

Edited February 7, 2021 by bies

[Gierasimov]

1 hour ago, bies said:

That's why I'm so excited for MiG-29 9.12 from 1980s when air combat accents human pilot skills and close combat above electronics sophistication and standoff weapon. And is actually possible to model in realistic way with all it's suite.

 

This. I am so looking forward to it. I hope everything is going to play out well for ED and they will be able to deliver Fulcrum!

[jojyrocks]

3 hours ago, SharkWizard said:

Personally I find it very enjoyable to go up against the deluge of AMRAAMs either online or in single player with slightly inferior equipment such as either R-77s or 27s. Defeating your "enemy" with inferior weapons is very satisfying (and when it goes wrong its not that bad  ).

 

 

That said wouldn't even a modern Su-35 with R-77-1s or R-27s still be considerably disadvantaged against the most modern 4+ gen AMRAAM carriers anyway?  

 

 

Yes it is satisfying to win against the strongest and the most technologically advanced. That said...there aren't campaigns on SP (Not MP) from the axis perspective much. I wonder how those Gulf war Iraqi force faced against the mighty coalition with good C4ISTAR assets and still managed some kills? One of the reasons why F-15 has peerless record and Mig 29s not much.

 

Russia has only officially made the R-77 series standard for their service from 2015 and onwards. They are phasing out the R-27 SARH types...Till 2015, they did not see the urgent need to equip themselves as it was cost prohibitive for them seeing as they aren't expecting air to air war much. So...Russia entered late, while only providing the R-77 for export from its induction dates. Most Russian aircrafts now started to carry a mix of R-77 and R-27 (mostly IR versions).

 

The ability of the most latest version of AMRAAM is speculative as we do not know its effects much other than shooting mostly poorly equipped nations planes. Its also been on the record that the AIM-9X latest somehow missed trying to shoot down a Syrian Su-22 and had to be finished off by an AMRAAM. R-77 has yet to see combat...I doubt it would ever. But Both R-77 and AMRAAM are fire and forget and that is the key advantage. So comparing R-77 and AMRAAM is speculative on the grounds of combat experience as the former has yet to even see combat.

 

What we really wanted was one of those Mig 29 9.13. But what ED could get hold of was the Mig 29A 9.12 citing security issues and so on. So ultimately we'll have to settle with that. I am OK with that as well. Finally a full fidelity redforce! At least it fit good in late 80s and early 90s timeline. Hope it comes with a campaigns as well coz we're sorely lacking redforce campaigns.

Edited February 7, 2021 by jojyrocks

[TotenDead]

7 часов назад, SharkWizard сказал:

 

That said wouldn't even a modern Su-35 with R-77-1s or R-27s still be considerably disadvantaged against the most modern 4+ gen AMRAAM carriers anyway?  

Su-35 has a powerful radar and comparable missiles. It can notch the target while still tracking it with its own radar. In addition to a powerful OLS-35, it has 360° IR missile detector which is of course capable of detecting planes. So i doubt there's any 4th gen fighter matcing Su-35s' overall capabilities

Edited February 7, 2021 by TotenDead

[BBCRF]

On 20.12.2020 at 11:03, killkenny1 said:

Ах да, МиГ-29К ... Может, когда-нибудь ...

Спустя 100 лет ...

 

Можете его не ждать, лет через 20 только

[Gierasimov]

8 minutes ago, BBCRF said:

Можете его не ждать, лет через 20 только

It's 'easy'. Make Russian government ask Eagle Dynamics to produce MiG desktop trainer. With professional product requested, ED will make sure to secure entertainment product as well then. That way we can get even MiG-35. 

[Harlikwin]

On 2/2/2021 at 11:09 AM, bies said:

 

Exactly that, Datalink, HMCS with all additional SA it gives etc. all are unfair advantage, but with one exception:

Cold War F-16 were better when it comes to kinematic performance, especially maneuverability, than our block 50. The most produced C was block 30 fighter variant, it already had GE engine being half ton lighter than our SEAD block 50CJ and according to real pilots block 30 was simply better for BFM. It had even greater P/W ratio and significantly lower wing loading than heavier block 50.

 

And lightweight F-16A were even more nimble. 

"Back in the day the Blk 30 (both big and small mouth) and Blk 40 were known as "Lead Nose Vipers" when flying against Blk 15s in similar configuration dogfighting. And yes I know they could haul more iron and had better avionics but once they hit the merge the Blk 15 had a distinct advantage."

 

-----------

 

Anyway MiG-29 9.12 is going to be the best module possible as it'll direct attention to the last period of military aviation where air combat was something more than tossing AMRAAMs/AMRAAMskis to some blip on the radar, run and RTB not seeing any enemy.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah agreed on all that. Sadly it seems that Fox3 tennis is the name of the game for a great many people, and its doubly ironic given ED's stance that dogfighting is more fun (yes it is), and then their ham handed nerfs of fox3 missiles, of which now you have a few western ones "un-nerfed", while the rest of the missiles in the game largely remain with "basic, nerfed" modeling.

 

[Harlikwin]

On 2/2/2021 at 11:40 AM, WinterH said:

Basically my exact thoughts for many years, and yet here we are with lots of 2000s+ bluefor with more coming, and the 2010s JF-17 which is... uuuhh, greenfor? greyfor?

It is obvious ED is going for the things that wil sell the most, as potential newcomers to sim, as well majority of long time customers buy "the most advanced popular poster-child possible". 70s-80, with some up to mid 90s at most, are the periods that make the most sense for DCS: a form of balanced and historical orders of battle would be possible, reasonable multiplayer servers could be made for people who want that, historical campaigns would be a thing for those who want that etc. And frankly, the aircraft are just interesting! They are still highly capable for their time, but they do a lot less handholding.

 

Anyway, it is not entirely doom and gloom for the idea of DCS: Cold War. We have 4 variants of Mirage F.1 coming, as well as MiG-23MLA, Mi-24P, F-8J, A-7E. Razbam has Mirage III, Sea Harrier, and EE Lightning planned/under works as well. We already have the Viggen, Mirage 2000C, most Russian FC3 aircraft, F-14A, UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2 etc. Now if ED would come back to their senses and continue developing that F-4E Block 58 as soon as plausible, that would be most excellent!  But seeing how much they have to work on, it feels like it won't be plausible in near term.

 

As for the MiG-29A, the actual subject of this thread... as I have made obvious, I like 80s aircraft a lot. I also like Russian aircraft A LOT. Getting more than a little tired of deluge of post 2000s blufor. Having said all these, MiG-29A does not excite me, not one bit... I don't see it adding all that much over the FC3 MiG-29A we already have. It already has a high quality flight model, and the stores it can use. Don't really see full fidelity adding all that much to it TBH. I'd be a lot more excited for a 70s-80s unique, new Soviet aircraft like a DCS: Su-17M3, MiG-27K, even a Su-15. Or, if possible post 2000s Fulcrum or Flanker versions, just to have some modern red birds too, but we all know that ain't happening anytime soon.

 

 

Actually what it will/should add for the mi29A is frustrating radar control, magically self jamming radar, and a shitty man-machine interface (I guess you can still bind stuff if you're "that" guy). What I do hope they add is some sort of semi competent GCI component for Lazur so you can actually fight the mig how it was supposed to be used (double true for the 23). Or better yet an actual TAKT implementation (doubt that). Most of the cold war russian jets suffer vs the western jets because they were never meant to be flown/used like western jets. And DCS does 0 modeling of how they were actually meant to be used (I.e. instead of a fancy radar on the jet, your fancy radar was on the ground, 10 of them in fact, networked and a guy putting you in the best position possible to kill the enemy). 

As for cold war doom-n-gloom. TBH its not great at the moment balance wise at least. For FF you only got F5's and F86 vs Mig 15/19/21, which TBH not too bad, but many "veterans" are bored with the older airframes. If you throw in the F14A (the one thats not out yet with the crap rwr) it will hilariously unbalance things further pretty much at any point unless someone limits phoenix use. (IMO, viggy with ternav is just a bit too modern but most people don't care, I even asked if it could be "disabled") To be fair we have some stuff on the horizon, but as anyone who has flown DCS for any length of time knows, deadlines are almost never met, and if they are, then usually the product is pretty broken from the get go. But I am excited about the Mirage F1 and Mig23, though if anything I expect them at the end of the year if at all this year, the other modules mentioned, not till 2022-3 at the earliest. 

 

As for the F4. Its mind boggling to me that no one is rabidly pursuing this (especially HB). It literally is the most iconic jet fighter of the cold war, EVERYONE flew them. And really HB is well positioned to do it, since they can re-cycle jester since its the same paradigm. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 2/3/2021 at 11:23 AM, Hodo said:

You are right we lack real redfor 70-80s model fighters.   I mean we have the Mig-23 "soon"... And the 21 Bison..  but we keep getting more 1990s or later bluefor fighters.

 

F-16 blk50.

F/A-18C lot 20.

F-15E (coming soon)

A-10C II.

AV8B (NA).

F-14B.

 

High fidelity redfor post 1990 modules.

 

JF-17/FC-1.  

 

Pre-1990 bluefor high fidelity modules.

F-14A. (The early one we don't have yet)

F-15E.  (I mean barely, and we will get a 2005 version so no)

F-86F.

Mirage 2000C. (early 2000's version with NV and other mods)

AJS-37. (mid 90's version with ternav and bk90s)

 

Pre-1990 redfor.

Mig-21.

Mig-15.

Mig-23(soon)

 

Noticing an issue.

 

 

 

 

 

Who in gods name is doing a mig21 bison? (this is the modern indian one) or do you just mean bis?

As you can see by my bolded comments its even worse for "cold war blue", though we will get a cold war Mirage F1 hopefully soon. As well as several other models in a few years.

 

[Max1mus]

14 hours ago, bies said:

 

That's why I'm so excited for MiG-29 9.12 from 1980s when air combat accents human pilot skills and close combat above electronics sophistication and standoff weapon. And is actually possible to model in realistic way with all it's suite.

 

 

Except that all of NATO in DCS will still fly around exclusively in 20-30 year newer planes with 20-40 years newer missiles... 

 

13 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

This. I am so looking forward to it. I hope everything is going to play out well for ED and they will be able to deliver Fulcrum!

 

You guys are confusing the 9.12 Fulcrum with the later ones. If you think that youre buying a 4th gen fighter, youre setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

9.12-9.13 = Absolute garbage, with mass producability as the primary priority. Radar is completely unable to build an own SA picture, you do not have target aspects until you lock it. That is if you can lock it given its dogshit performance against the ground and ECM.

You will be a GCI slave with no own thinking. That is if ED includes an entirely reworked GCI and Lazur datalink for Soviet doctrine. If they dont (They wont), youll not only be blind, but also dead. It does not mean that it was a bad fighter at its time. But it used very boring (for the pilot) doctrine (watch the Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilot interview for more info on it), which depended on many things DCS does not have - GCI DL, a capable GCI that makes tactical and strategical decisions (good luck in singleplayer) and 80s-90s opponents with no flawless Link16, AIM-9X, AIM-120C.

 

The actual, in a DCS sense "flyable" fulcrums that have enough fuel and situational awareness to work independently and patrol an area, much like modern F-16s, are the upgraded ones after the mid 2000s. Listen to the Indian MiG-29 pilot on the fighter pilot podcast for a longer explanation.

 

 

EDs options:

1: Add multiple NATO 80s modules to fill the gap, rework 20 year old core aspects of the sim and add a GCI datalink which they have no information on...

2: Add a more modern Fulcrum that just fits in, with western-like datalink and RWR.

 

Do you think Option 1 is easier?

Edited February 8, 2021 by Max1mus

[TotenDead]

23 минуты назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

9.12-9.13 = Absolute garbage, with mass producability as the primary priority.

Nope, it was designed to be produced in proportion 2 to 1 compared to Su-27. Just like F-16 and F-15

23 минуты назад, Max1mus сказал:

Radar is completely unable to build an own SA picture, you do not have target aspects until you lock it. That is if you can lock it given its dogshit performance against the ground and ECM.

Welp, just like F-16A - it's an 80s plane. IRL performance against the ground is better than what we have in DCS.

23 минуты назад, Max1mus сказал:

You will be a GCI slave with no own thinking. That is if ED includes an entirely reworked GCI and Lazur datalink for Soviet doctrine.

Do you really think that western pilots fly whatever routes they want?

 

[TotenDead]

3 часа назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

Actually what it will/should add for the mi29A is frustrating radar control,

Questionable

3 часа назад, Harlikwin сказал:

magically self jamming radar

Nope, 9.12 has no jammer

3 часа назад, Harlikwin сказал:

, and a shitty man-machine interface (I guess you can still bind stuff if you're "that" guy).

Well, it depends. As for me, F-15 ergonomics is way worse

 

[BBCRF]

8 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

It's 'easy'. Make Russian government ask Eagle Dynamics to produce MiG desktop trainer. With professional product requested, ED will make sure to secure entertainment product as well then. That way we can get even MiG-35. 

У МиГа уже есть подобные тренажеры,я летал на них

[Gierasimov]

1 hour ago, BBCRF said:

У МиГа уже есть подобные тренажеры,я летал на них

Well, there you have it. 'Easy' just got difficult, or impossible even.

[Gierasimov]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

 

Except that all of NATO in DCS will still fly around exclusively in 20-30 year newer planes with 20-40 years newer missiles... 

 

 

You guys are confusing the 9.12 Fulcrum with the later ones. If you think that youre buying a 4th gen fighter, youre setting yourself up for disappointment.

 

9.12-9.13 = Absolute garbage, with mass producability as the primary priority. Radar is completely unable to build an own SA picture, you do not have target aspects until you lock it. That is if you can lock it given its dogshit performance against the ground and ECM.

You will be a GCI slave with no own thinking. That is if ED includes an entirely reworked GCI and Lazur datalink for Soviet doctrine. If they dont (They wont), youll not only be blind, but also dead. It does not mean that it was a bad fighter at its time. But it used very boring (for the pilot) doctrine (watch the Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilot interview for more info on it), which depended on many things DCS does not have - GCI DL, a capable GCI that makes tactical and strategical decisions (good luck in singleplayer) and 80s-90s opponents with no flawless Link16, AIM-9X, AIM-120C.

 

The actual, in a DCS sense "flyable" fulcrums that have enough fuel and situational awareness to work independently and patrol an area, much like modern F-16s, are the upgraded ones after the mid 2000s. Listen to the Indian MiG-29 pilot on the fighter pilot podcast for a longer explanation.

 

 

EDs options:

1: Add multiple NATO 80s modules to fill the gap, rework 20 year old core aspects of the sim and add a GCI datalink which they have no information on...

2: Add a more modern Fulcrum that just fits in, with western-like datalink and RWR.

 

Do you think Option 1 is easier?

 

Yes, fine. I am ok with that. Fulcrum is Fulcrum, I don't need modern gizmos. 

I think option 1 is complex but doable whereas option 2 is simply impossible for ED to do, even though, I am sure they would if they could. 

I was born in '81, if I get MiG-29 from the 80s it will be my best friend, I will never leave him, despite his shortcomings. That's what friends do

[bies]

On 2/8/2021 at 3:17 AM, Harlikwin said:

As for the F4. Its mind boggling to me that no one is rabidly pursuing this (especially HB).

 

IIRC few 3rd parties were interested, but ED reserved F-4 for themselves, they will probably plan to make it after Apache. Or maybe something change and they will make it free for some 3rd party.

 

And I'm excited for 1980s MiG-29 9.12 and all cold war modules incoming far more than some next AMRAAM truck.

 

Yes MiG-29 9.12 had somewhat inferior human-machine interface but that's it's flavor.

MiG-29 cockpit wasn't design with pure ergonomic in mind but rather as a compromise accenting easy conversion from previous types: MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25. This was a factor since Soviet aviation was huge, about 10 times more numerous than Russian air force. That's why even Su-27 having FBW still required constant manual trim - it increased workload but pilots wanted it to be similar to previous types.

 

If someone is familiar with MiG-21 cockpit he's going to have easy time with MiG-23 and MiG-29.

(And MiG-25 if someone decide to make it some day)

Edited February 10, 2021 by bies

[bies]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Except that all of NATO in DCS will still fly around exclusively in 20-30 year newer planes with 20-40 years newer missiles... 

 

No, two NATO fighter represent 2000s: Viper and Hornet,

and two represent late Cold War: Tomcat and Mirage 2000, just like MiG-29 9.12.

FC3 planes all represent late Cold War/early 1990s.

Nearly whole DCS environment with ground assets, AI planes, ships, air defense, ground radars etc. represent late Cold War.

Further modules also represent late Cold War, Mirage F.1, MiG-23MLA, A-6 Intruder, A-7E Corsair, Mi-24P, Bo-105 etc.

Edited February 8, 2021 by bies

[killkenny1]

10 hours ago, BBCRF said:

Можете его не ждать, лет через 20 только

 

Так это отлично! Я изначально думал что как минимум лет так 100 надо будет ждать...

[Northstar98]

On 2/8/2021 at 5:11 AM, Max1mus said:

Except that all of NATO in DCS will still fly around exclusively in 20-30 year newer planes with 20-40 years newer missiles... 

What about the Tomcat and Mirage 2000C?

Quote

You guys are confusing the 9.12 Fulcrum with the later ones. If you think that youre buying a 4th gen fighter, youre setting yourself up for disappointment.

It is 4th gen, just early 4th gen...

Quote

9.12-9.13 = Absolute garbage, with mass producability as the primary priority. Radar is completely unable to build an own SA picture, you do not have target aspects until you lock it. That is if you can lock it given its dog<profanity> performance against the ground and ECM.

ECM and in fact pretty much the whole of EW outside the cockpit (and even then it's a stretch) is borderline non-existent in DCS, with only simple noise jamming simulated - I have no idea what the Hornet does, but AI radars are far to simplified to have real DECM techniques employed (seriously look through the Scripts -> Database -> db_sensors.lua).

Ground clutter? How do you think people manage in pure pulse radars like the F-5E-3 and MiG-21bis, it's simply a matter of tactics...

And get this "the only thing that matters is capability" thing out of your head, I couldn't care less whether it is more or less capable than xyz - I don't care. Look at the modules I own in the description, included in there is the MiG-21bis, F-5E-3, AJS 37 etc none of them are super duper capable in A/A and yet I fly them anyway (and am quite successful in simple fights PvE in SP).

Quote

You will be a GCI slave with no own thinking. That is if ED includes an entirely reworked GCI and Lazur datalink for Soviet doctrine. If they dont (They wont), youll not only be blind, but also dead.

You realise we can test this with the FC3 9-12 MiG-29? You're talking nonsense.

As for GCI slave? What do you think BLUFOR are AEW slaves? Link 16 slaves? Just more nonsense.

Quote

It does not mean that it was a bad fighter at its time.

EXACTLY!

Quote

But it used very boring (for the pilot) doctrine (watch the Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilot interview for more info on it), which depended on many things DCS does not have - GCI DL, a capable GCI that makes tactical and strategical decisions (good luck in singleplayer) and 80s-90s opponents with no flawless Link16, AIM-9X, AIM-120C.

Because slinging AIM-120Cs across the map definitely doesn't get boring?

And since when did the 80s and 90s have AIM-9X and AIM-120C-5? The 9-12 is mid 80s remember.

AIM-9X is 2000s, so is AIM-10C5. The first AIM-120C was 1996/1997.

As for single player? I'm doing fine thanks, thank-you for your concern - I mean have you fought against AI? Especially WVR?

Quote

The actual, in a DCS sense "flyable" fulcrums that have enough fuel and situational awareness to work independently and patrol an area, much like modern F-16s, are the upgraded ones after the mid 2000s. Listen to the Indian MiG-29 pilot on the fighter pilot podcast for a longer explanation.

 

 

EDs options:

1: Add multiple NATO 80s modules to fill the gap, rework 20 year old core aspects of the sim and add a GCI datalink which they have no information on...

2: Add a more modern Fulcrum that just fits in, with western-like datalink and RWR.

 

Do you think Option 1 is easier?

No, I don't, it's not even funny.

BS3 got canned and it was a 90s prototype that was never really operational, due to Russian laws, how the hell do you think they're going to be able to do a still in service MiG-29 variant? Like the M2/35 or K?

80s/90s BLUFOR would be much easier, they'd probably get finished faster, they'd be far easier to source material on, their weapons would be more simplified (i.e namely Fox 2s and Fox 1s).

As for reworking the core? It needs it anyway, the MiG-29 isn't the only aircraft ever to feature a GCI D/L, and let's not go into DCS' AI, DCS' DM, the state of EW (no, not just talking about jamming)/AI radars in DCS etc.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
corrected

[BBCRF]

51 minutes ago, killkenny1 said:

 

Так это отлично! Я изначально думал что как минимум лет так 100 надо будет ждать...

Модельку то можно сделать,а вот модуляция систем и ФМ тут печаль