announced DCS MiG-29A

[Max1mus]

16 minutes ago, Pikey said:

Without players in Migs, the sims ecosystem for multiplayer is hugely limited and cannot get off the ground and into the limelight. If you saw a genuine blue vs red contmporary battle in DCS, you would love it and it would mean more units sold and more modules all round.

 

MiG-29A will not be used in Multiplayer, pointless against AIM-120, 9X and Link16. If youre lucky, some masochists will try it like people try the Mirage2000, but while Mirage is built to fly independently, MiG-29A needs to be hand held by GCI.

 

The MP servers do not restrict weapons since that scares away too much of the crybaby playerbase. As such, the only viable servers for a MiG-29A are also mostly dead and not visited by NATO players.

20 minutes ago, bies said:

 

• All it's systems which are crucial - and more important IRL than anything else - like ECM capability, ECCM, radar detection, discrimination algorithms, datalink capabilities - all of that completely "generic" and fictional being even more strictly classified than the rest
• Reliance on only one single weapon system, AMRAAMski, also made up without any reliable data or real life warfare to verify it real capabilities, nothing
• And what is this all for? - boring (+ fictional and unrealistic) gameplay, identical as current AMRAAM trusks namely: (1)fire AMRAAMski right before MAR, (2)run, (3)repeat

 

- All other DCS full fi modules dont have ECM modelled properly - the F-14/F-16 radar is unjammable, yet they are the most popular modules.

 

- R-27ER/ET

 

- See above. The real matchup is R-27ER/ET against the AMRAAM. R-77 is an added bonus for close combat or when you missed the chance to fire R-27.

[Dragon1-1]

Actually, Mirage 2000 would be about equivalent to the MiG-29. It has a better INS, but that's about it. Mirage 2000, F-16A and MiG-29A are all light fighters, designed for point defense, supporting tactical operations and short range escort. They all work best with GCI (I read somewhere that early F-16 would require AWACS talk-on basically up to WVR) and are not all that capable on their own, unlike the likes of F-15 or Su-27. Mirage is faster, carries more fuel and is less maneuverable than the MiG, but that's because it's more of an interceptor.

 

6 minutes ago, Pikey said:

Just need to add my name to this thread.
My hope is to one day see Mig29A, Mig-23, Mig-21, Su-25 players fighting against 80's blue jets in full fidelity modules. The 80's are the only hope for that, with the way Russian law is. 

Not only law, but reality itself. DCS is about realism, and from the fall of the USSR to about 2010s, the US did not have any serious opponents and freely flexed its muscles as "The Superpower". Modern DCS modules essentially focus on the War On Terror era, where up to date US hardware fought Soviet equipment made in the 80s for export to 3rd world countries. You can't have a peer to peer symmetrical conflict involving the US in 2000-2010 timeframe, because during that time, the US was peerless. 

 

The 80s, though, was the time of Andropov and Reagan, and the USSR was still going strong at the time, with technology on par with the US. Both sides were implementing lessons from Vietnam, but the technology has not yet moved to the point where highly technical BVR combat became the norm.

[Volator]

14 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

MiG-29A will not be used in Multiplayer, pointless against AIM-120, 9X and Link16. If youre lucky, some masochists will try it

I've written it once, I'll write it again: This is not correct. You think of MP only in terms of certain servers like BF, GS, GR and what not with non-sense planesets. There is at least one Cold War server out there that is highly popular and will be a great place for the MiG-29A

 

14 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

The MP servers do not restrict weapons since that scares away too much of the crybaby playerbase. As such, the only viable servers for a MiG-29A are also mostly dead and not visited by NATO players.

Not true, see above.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Pilot Ike

[Max1mus]

49 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Eagle Dynamics has been pretty upfront about why they are unable to produce modern(ish) Redfor aircraft. However as always, we have certain forum members who keep ignoring that simple and well documented explanation and resort to name calling and even borderline conspiracy theories for why that is. I guess they've never heard of Occam's razor. 

 

ED could offer a modern low fidelity variant of MiG-29 as an added bonus if you buy the full fidelity flying coffin A variant. But they say "We do not plan to add any more low fidelity modules" because "we have evolved since then".

 

This means they could but dont want to. It hurts their personal feelings to give Redfor in DCS something to fight back with.

[Gierasimov]

I so wish that ED already announced this module officially. It will be late 2022 before we see it I suspect, but reading all these comments and arguments, man.., at this point we only know that ED said they want to do it... it's funny, but it is painful too.

 

[Max1mus]

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Actually, Mirage 2000 would be about equivalent to the MiG-29. It has a better INS, but that's about it.

 

The accurate RWR that can tell between say a tomcat and an F-15 doesnt matter at all, right? Makes no difference whatsoever. Neither does the much better radar that has an actual tactical display.

 

I dont think youve flown either aircraft in DCS that youre talking about here.

 

15 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Not only law, but reality itself. DCS is about realism, and from the fall of the USSR to about 2010s, the US did not have any serious opponents and freely flexed its muscles as "The Superpower". Modern DCS modules essentially focus on the War On Terror era, where up to date US hardware fought Soviet equipment made in the 80s for export to 3rd world countries. You can't have a peer to peer symmetrical conflict involving the US in 2000-2010 timeframe, because during that time, the US was peerless. 

 

Ah yes, that must be why the Su-30MKI was being referred to as being superior to US 4th gens.

 

The russians putting better radars and RWRs on the Su-27SM in 2003 was also related to the war on terror? Probably same as MiG-31 being upgraded to BM with a bunch of new missiles on it in 2007. Or MiG-29K in 2009. Or many new SAM systems. Very important assets for destroying Jihadist positions i see.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Max1mus

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:03 PM, Max1mus said:

MiG-29A will not be used in Multiplayer, pointless against AIM-120, 9X and Link16. If youre lucky, some masochists will try it like people try the Mirage2000, but while Mirage is built to fly independently, MiG-29A needs to be hand held by GCI.

The MiG-29 and Mirage 2000C are actually pretty good counterparts, we're just missing an appropriate map... We're really missing an F-16C Block 15, and no, not having exactly the same independent SA gathering ability is not the be all and end all. IRL both would've been vectored, we're just missing proper GCI capability and assets.

On 2/9/2021 at 1:19 PM, Max1mus said:

ED could offer a modern low fidelity variant of MiG-29 as an added bonus if you buy the full fidelity flying coffin A variant. But they say "We do not plan to add any more low fidelity modules" because "we have evolved since then".

 

This means they could but dont want to. It hurts their personal feelings to give Redfor in DCS something to fight back with.

Total nonsense; DCS' mission goal is to offer something as realistic as feasible, which tends towards full-fidelity, we can go on for ages about how well they do that, but that's the goal. FC3 was basically LOMAC FC2 ported to DCS with an upgrade to the graphics and FDM, that's basically it - that's why they wanted to move away from it, because the goal is better achieved with FF modules...

And yeah it hurts their feelings to give REDFOR something capable, because they definitely weren't planning on developing an upgraded Ka-50, with an expanded and much more modern defensive suite. The project was shot down due to Russian laws, how you think those Russian laws don't apply to making modern MiG-29s is beyond me...

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[ZHeN]

2 минуты назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

The MiG-29 and Mirage 2000C are actually pretty good counterparts, we're just missing an appropriate map...

currently in DCS M2000C will beat Mig-29 any time of day if flown by equally skilled pilots

Edited February 9, 2021 by ZHeN

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:27 PM, Max1mus said:

The accurate RWR that can tell between say a tomcat and an F-15 doesnt matter at all, right? Makes no difference whatsoever.

It makes it easier, hardly the be all and end all. Again look at the F-5E-3 vs MiG-21bis...

Quote

Neither does the much better radar that has an actual tactical display.

 

I dont think youve flown either aircraft in DCS that youre talking about here.

Neither do you it seems, you just seem to think that if there's just a single thing one does worse, it must be utterly and completely useless, the reality in DCS be damned...

Like saying that because the A-10A has a better gun than the Su-25, the Su-25 must be completely useless at A/G...

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Max1mus]

1 minute ago, ZHeN said:

currently in DCS M2000C will beat Mig-29 any time of day if flown by equally skilled pilots

 

 

I second that when there is no excellent GCI managing the fight. Which there never is, even in MP.

[Max1mus]

13 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Neither do you it seems, you just seem to think that if there's just a single thing one does worse, it must be utterly and completely useless, the reality in DCS be damned...

 

Everything that actually matters is worse. You cant scan an airspace properly and DCS doesnt offer proper GCI/GCI DL: SA is awful.

 

You will spend most of the fight defensively and need to get SA from your RWR... whoops, its just a bunch of lamps. Maybe ask GCI for a pictu.... oh.

 

But at least when you merge, you can beat AIM-9X carriers right? A MiG-29K will do decently well since it has fly by wire. MiG-29A FCS will not help you at all. Neither does the fact that modern fighters have their speed showing up on their JHMCS so they never loose sight of you checking their speed. On top of the inferior original R-73 variant, where as -29K carries an improved one.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Max1mus

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:45 PM, Max1mus said:

Everything that actually matters is worse. You cant scan an airspace properly snd DCS doesnt offer proper GCI/GCI DL: SA is awful.

 

You will spend most of the fight defensively and need your RWR... whoops, its just a bunch of lamps. Maybe ask GCI for a pictu.... oh.

I wonder how I manage in even worse aircraft, with even worse visibility and even worse SA capability, and the most important things: lamps on the RWR.

I must be a god right? Which is interesting, because I thought I was pretty crap, I don't even have a throttle, rudder or head-tracking, and I play on a laptop with a 15.6" screen...

And if I'm defensive, I'll be looking out of the plane instead of staring at a RWR... If I haven't got visual I've already lost...

Quote

But at least when you merge, you can beat AIM-9X carriers right? A MiG-29K will do decently well since it has fly by wire. MiG-29A FCS will not help you at all. On top of the inferior original R-73 variant.

Funny 80s scenario with AIM-9Xs isn't it?

Do you tell people who buy WW2 warbirds the amazing piece of wisdom that aircraft decades newer are better than them?

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[GGTharos]

He's thinking exclusively of public multiplayer because it's not like other things exist in DCS.

[Marsvinet]

A MiG-29A would be a wonderful addition to the DCS ecosystem. Sure, it would  have a bit of a hard time against the AMRAAM-slinging 2000+ US fighters, but, to the shock of certain people,  there is more to DCS than just those fighters and the hyper competitive dogfighting arena. As others have noted, it fits very well against the F14 or even a hornet not using datalink and AMRAAMS (Like a 1980s F/A-18A, like those ever existed, right?) or the late 1980 M2000C. I would buy it in a heartbeat, as long as it avoids the early access hellscape. I can see it fitting in really well in 80's BlueFlag.

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:53 PM, GGTharos said:

He's thinking exclusively of public multiplayer because it's not like other things exist in DCS.

Not just that, apparently the only thing that matters is as modern as we can get, multiplayer airquake. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Dragon1-1]

17 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Ah yes, that must be why the Su-30MKI was being referred to as being superior to US 4th gens.

MiG-31BM upgrade arrived only in 2010s, and in case you didn't know, the "I" in MKI stands for "India". The Russians very definitely produced many great designs during 2000s. Pity they didn't actually use them. MiG-29K was also for India. Su-27SM was the only relevant, and even then, they only upgraded 54 out of nearly 700 Su-27s made. Mid-2000s, chances of encountering one of them were nil. 

 

Same deal with SAMs, tanks and most other equipment. The good stuff got exported, and the actual Russian armed forces were very much stuck in the 80s, except for their doctrines, which were a bizarre mix of aping the West and remnants of Soviet thinking, which proven rather inadequate in both Chechenya and Georgia. Lessons were learned, and post 2010 Russian armed forces really are a force to be reckoned with, but it took some time for that to happen.

[Northstar98]

2 minutes ago, Marsvinet said:

A MiG-29A would be a wonderful addition to the DCS ecosystem. Sure, it would  have a bit of a hard time against the AMRAAM-slinging 2000+ US fighters, but, to the shock of certain people,  there is more to DCS than just those fighters and the hyper competitive dogfighting arena. As others have noted, it fits very well against the F14 or even a hornet not using datalink and AMRAAMS (Like a 1980s F/A-18A, like those ever existed, right?) or the late 1980 M2000C. I would buy it in a heartbeat, as long as it avoids the early access hellscape. I can see it fitting in really well in 80's BlueFlag.

 

Exactly.

 

One of the things that the MiG-29 9.12 should avoid is the EA hellscape, because it's a simpler aircraft, we already have all the weapons, the external model, and much of the FDM.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

13 минут назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

. Su-27SM was the only relevant, and even then, they only upgraded 54 out of nearly 700 Su-27s made. Mid-2000s, chances of encountering one of them were nil. 

 

And chances of encountering F/A-18C lot 20 were even smaller xd

 

13 минут назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

remnants of Soviet thinking, which proven rather inadequate in both Chechenya and Georgia. 

Really? Because everyone who did at least a little research knows that the problem was in equipment, which was in poor state or was abscent and poor commanders, thanks to 90s. All that had nothing to do with "Soviet thinking" 

[bies]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

MiG-29A will not be used in Multiplayer, pointless against AIM-120, 9X and Link16.

No, it actually will be used in MP on proper timeframe servers from Cold War and 1980s. Just like A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, F-14A Tomcat, Mirage 2000, Mirage F.1M, Bo-105, Mi-24P, Huey, MiG-23MLA etc.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

The MP servers do not restrict weapons since that scares away too much of the crybaby playerbase.

It's staright up lie, even most popular and populated servers like Blue Flags restricts weapons severly, even more than needed in many cases and even on most modern scenario restricting the number of AIM-102C, JSOWs, AIM-54C etc. - let alone 1980s scenarios.

 

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

 

I second that when there is no excellent GCI managing the fight. Which there never is, even in MP.

It's another lie - there is many guys doing great job as GCI allowing me and other guys to even shoot down Hornets in MiG-21bis, without them it would be absolutely impossible.

 

 

First: ED stated many times they will not make modern-ish Russian fighter so deal with it. This is MiG-29A topic, 1980s plane, just like A-6E Intruder, A-7E Corsair, F-14A Tomcat, Mirage 2000, Mirage F.1M, Bo-105, Mi-24P, Huey, MiG-23MLA etc. - so what? Scrap all of that because F-16 from 2007 is better in combat?

 

You became emotional and you don't hesitate to simply lie, trying to enforce some your agenda - when all other people in this topic are talking in cultural matter-of-fact manner with respect.

Edited February 9, 2021 by bies

[Mars Exulte]

1 hour ago, Max1mus said:

This means they could but dont want to. It hurts their personal feelings to give Redfor in DCS something to fight back with.

 

  Stop playing on AirQuake servers, ffs. When they depopulate people will stop being so damn lazy and put some effort into their setup. Otherwise suck it up. If you want arcade planes, that's a really silly thing to ask for in a game ENTIRELY BUILT AROUND full simulation (to the extent feasible).

 

 And stop with bs conspiracies. This isn't a presidential election, there's need to cry foul everytime things don't go your way.

 

[Dragon1-1]

1 minute ago, TotenDead said:

Really? Because everyone who did at least a little research knows that the problem was in equipment, which was in poor state or was abscent and poor commanders, thanks to 90s. All that had nothing to do with "Soviet thinking" 

No, it didn't. In fact, Soviet thinking was perfectly fine, and actually a better strategy for the region. What was the problem was imported western thinking, which was adopted almost but not quite completely during that time. Soviet doctrine was the most useful given Russia's geography, and Western-style doctrine also works, but they managed to end up with a mix that didn't work well at all. During 2010s it had all been sorted out, for most part. 

 

2 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

And chances of encountering F/A-18C lot 20 were even smaller xd

Yeah, but F/A-18C in general was quite common. The "lot 20" bit is for rivet counters.  I do think that going this specific is counterproductive, especially since DCS allows setting up variants in ME, which could, for a bit of extra dev time, enable a single module to cover the most notable variations within the type. The difference between lot 16 and lot 20 Hornet are much less than between Su-27S and SM (that one is more like going from F/A-18A to F/A-18C).

[WinterH]

You know, at first I was thinking that Max1mus had a few points, but then his posts went down the deep end. Sir, I think it would serve you the best to wait for arrival of MiG-29K in War Thunder, or may be wait for MAC, because that is more or less what you ended up asking for.

 

While, I personally remain fairly indifferent to DCS: MiG-29A, but I'm very happy seeing a lot of people are excited for it. Maybe this will give ED the message that such aircraft can do well in sales.

 

And yeah, if people care for believable and interesting PvP period for public air-quake, 70s-80s is the best bet. But those servers are essentially free for all, and they will naturally include everything available in sim including the most modern ones. So if one's interest in DCS is primarily playing on those, they should really just accept the status quo will not chage there. Adding fudged up, low fidelity modern red aircraft just to try to change that is not a solution for anything really...

[Tippis]

37 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

Stop playing on AirQuake servers, ffs. When they depopulate people will stop being so damn lazy and put some effort into their setup. Otherwise suck it up. If you want arcade planes, that's a really silly thing to ask for in a game ENTIRELY BUILT AROUND full simulation (to the extent feasible).

^

 

When zhukov says something about airquake and arcade gameplay, and I agree with him, you know the other side of the conversation has gone down a very weird path.

[Gierasimov]

We should really focus more on MiG-29A.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Gierasimov

[BIGNEWY]

I would suggest getting back on topic discussing the Mig-29A