announced DCS MiG-29A

[SovietAce]

Even without new missions and campaigns, Its not like there wont be anything to do with 29A. There will be Dynamic Campaign comming soon, there Is Liberation campaign in the meantime. DCS have also user-friendly mission editor, so we can always create our own missions and campaigns. All it needs is to be little bit creative and have a bit of imagination.

So again, no problem If you dont want to boost your ego on MP.

[Marsvinet]

Max1mus, either you are really missing the point that there is more than AMRAAMs in life, or you are a troll. I'm leaning toward the second, so I'm just gonna block you. I see no need to see you complain about supposed problems constantly. Recommend others do the same. Might get some practical MiG-29 discussion in here after that.

 

In the vein of his complaints though, I think it will be a fun plane to use the same way as the MiG-21, sneaking about low, looking for targets with the extra help of the IRST. The 21 works really well in that regard, hopefully the 29 can just make those tactics even better. Makes it surprisingly viable in the AMRAAM filled skies.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Marsvinet

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, MiG-29 does seem to be a bit of a souped-up MiG-21. A really souped up -21, to be exact.  I did like the FC3 MiG-29 campaign, that one was for the S, but it still got to show off its dogfighting abilities. MiG-29 is all about BFM, and as it happens, it's one of the most exciting things to do in DCS right now.

[bies]

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

Yeah, MiG-29A sucks big time. 

That's why I am in love with it.

 

Exactly like me. The less capable the better.

 

And MiG-29A, F-16A, Su-27S, JA-37, F-111, Tornado IDS from 1980s would be my first choice to spend 80$ in a blink of an eye.

 

Being perfectly aware if i chose some mismatch scenario from different timeframe i.e. 2000s server i'll be on a losing side but in a realistically modeled plane.

Edited February 9, 2021 by bies

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 6:39 PM, Max1mus said:

Then show me one group that restricts the heck out of themselves in their PVE missions. I have checked many, and all large communities do not.

Is peer-to-peer 80s really 'restricting the hell out of themselves' and what, now you're against AI? If so what's the problem?

On 2/9/2021 at 7:10 PM, Max1mus said:

I think people have been starved so much by EDs years long neglect of OPFOR in DCS (Making AI units will not send you to jail) that they will praise anything, even if its as mediocre as one of the worst 4th gen fighter variants that is not even a real multirole.

And what would making AI aircraft solve exactly? You've seen the state of DCS' AI right?

Quote

The problem with this is that if it flops, ED will never even consider making something russian again (When asked about the lack of russian modules, they keep bringing up how russian stuff sells worse).

You're the only one on this thread who seems hell bent on making it flop, based on "post 2000s multiplayer airquake against AIM-9X and AIM-120C-5 is the only thing that matters" and "if a plane was made to be a part of a GCI/IADS network it's completely useless by itself" regardless of whether or not other scenarios exist (multiplayer is a minority even as a whole), or whether or not people manage to do well in it with the bare minimum GCI and absolutely no IADS.

And my favourite: "The Mirage 2000C has a dedicated radar screen and a better RWR, therefore the MiG-29 is completely useless".

Quote

Think about the people that are not building massive cockpits and not buying most, if not all DCS modules anyway. People from eastern Europe, Russia and Asia are a huge potential market for non-NATO aircraft, but they dont make enough money (average wages of less than 500$) to just spend so much on such a mediocre product. Why would they buy MiG-29A when they have a MiG-21 or MiG-23MLA already?

Then they're probably not going to shell out on other 4th generation aircraft, which are typically more expensive than aircraft that are more basic.

At its heart the MiG-29 isn't that much more complex than the MiG-21bis, just with a much improved radar, IRST and HUD - that's basically it. The SPO-15 is already there so that shouldn't be much more than a copy and paste job, just integrating it with cockpit switches.

The FDM and external model is basically all there too, so there's not much ED needs to do to make a FF module, at least in comparison to starting from scratch - so you might find that the MiG-29 is cheaper than the other 4th gen aircraft we have.

Obviously the GCI D/L is something completely new, but that would probably be a core improvement, much like ED's native IADS (as well as the possible 3rd party IADS system), though that's if they develop it (the MiG-21bis has been without one since its release). 

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[lmp]

46 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

The problem with this is that if it flops, ED will never even consider making something russian again (When asked about the lack of russian modules, they keep bringing up how russian stuff sells worse).

 

 

ED, or rather BST at the time, released first the Huey and Hip and later the Sabre and MiG-15bis back to back. Two pairs of aircraft similar in terms of capability and notoriety (in their respective countries/cultures). If ED claims redfor stuff sells worse, they are probably basing it on the sales of those modules. Their audience is predominantly rich Westerners who care more for aircraft their airforces fly or flew. I'm pretty sure ED are smart enough not to compare the MiG-19 to the Hornet and well aware that things such as aircraft capabilities, era or developer play an even bigger role than country of origin of the original aircraft. So no, I don't believe you have any reason to worry about ED making such simplistic conclusions.

[Dragon1-1]

21 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

(the MiG-21bis has been without one since its release). 

That's because the MiG-21bis that we have never had a datalink in first place. It's a VVS version that trades the Lazur for an RSBN/PRMG set. VVS pilots, being more independent and expected to operate on front lines, including over enemy territory, relied on a verbal talk-on from GCI and the very mobile RSBN stations for navigation.

[Northstar98]

Just now, Dragon1-1 said:

That's because the MiG-21bis that we have never had a datalink in first place. It's a VVS version that trades the Lazur for an RSBN/PRMG set. VVS pilots, being more independent and expected to operate on front lines, including over enemy territory, relied on a verbal talk-on from GCI and the very mobile RSBN stations for navigation.

 

I stand corrected.

[sylkhan]

29 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

The SPO-15 is already there so that shouldn't be much more than a copy and paste job, just integrating it with cockpit switches

 

Lol

[Max1mus]

5 minutes ago, lmp said:

 

ED, or rather BST at the time, released first the Huey and Hip and later the Sabre and MiG-15bis back to back. Two pairs of aircraft similar in terms of capability and notoriety (in their respective countries/cultures). If ED claims redfor stuff sells worse, they are probably basing it on the sales of those modules. Their audience is predominantly rich Westerners who care more for aircraft their airforces fly or flew. I'm pretty sure ED are smart enough not to compare the MiG-19 to the Hornet and well aware that things such as aircraft capabilities, era or developer play an even bigger role than country of origin of the original aircraft. So no, I don't believe you have any reason to worry about ED making such simplistic conclusions.

Yet Chizh from ED has come to these conclusions and claimed that even an SU-35 would sell worse than the F-18.

Edited February 9, 2021 by Max1mus

[lmp]

7 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Yet Chizh from ED has come to these conclusions and claimed that even an SU-35 would sell worse than the F-18.

 

It's a very logical conclusion. If the Sabre sold better than the MiG-15bis despite similar capabilities, why wouldn't the Hornet outsell the Su-35? Eastern aircraft will sell worse than Western aircraft to a mostly Western audience. Also the Hornet was the first modern multirole aircraft. A Su-35 would now be at best the third of a kind.

[bies]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

MiG-29A have featured it as a practice target for AIM-120C5 and 9X.

 

If I had a choice to make a strike mission do destroy some target:

• In 1980s Cold War timeframe i need low level penetration to even make it to the target with A-6 Intruder, AJ-37 Viggen, F-111 Aardvark, Tornado IDS, Su-24, maybe 2 seat because of task saturation with one of my mates.
• Then i need to perform manual or augmented difficult and engaging terrain fallowing flight using my skills. Possibly at night or bad weather.
• Avoid radars and possible interceptors over hostile terrain.
• Interpreting rudimentary terrain fallowing radar data.
• Cooperating with my navigator or flying as navigator.
• In final phase maneuver aggressively to manage to fit my plane in some small envelope in which I can deliver my weapon.
• Aiming my bombs, rockets or short range missiles manually or by ambiguous radar data - all in restricted time, possibly under fire.
• Dodge AAA over the target seeing my enemy getting torn to shreds by my bombs all over me.
• Run like some bat from hell trying to lose possible pursuers in narrow canyons.
• Feeling adrenaline pumping and immense satisfaction completing my task.

In 2000s: 

• Type some longass GPS coordinates to computer.
• Cruise on autopilot like airliner at 40,000ft far beyond enemy SAM.
• ~50nm from the target my JSOWs release automatically
• Return to base not seeing any enemy or not even knowing if i hit anything before seeing scoreboard.
• Without much satisfaction or feeling of achievement i probably turn off PC and go to do something else.

 

And yes - small autopilot stealth JSOWs will have A LOT bigger chance to penetrate the defense and destroy the target than Cold War strike aircraft.

 

 

Now tell me I'm loser preferring the first 1980s timeframe. 

 

If i would be a real pilot i would want to toss some cruise missile from 50nm and RTB being glad not to risk my life.

 

But as PC simulator pilot i want to risk my virtual life, do something manually and skilfully, see my enemy and feel adrenaline rush.

That's why i wait for 1980s MiG-29 9.12.

Edited February 9, 2021 by bies

[Dragon1-1]

Real pilots actually agree with you. JDAM not JSOW, but same basic idea. All you need is a monkey...  

 

 

[Mars Exulte]

34 minutes ago, lmp said:

 

It's a very logical conclusion. If the Sabre sold better than the MiG-15bis despite similar capabilities, why wouldn't the Hornet outsell the Su-35? Eastern aircraft will sell worse than Western aircraft to a mostly Western audience. Also the Hornet was the first modern multirole aircraft. A Su-35 would now be at best the third of a kind.

 

  All bs aside, although I think things like Su-35s and late model MiG-29s WOULD sell, I seriously doubt they'd sell AS WELL as things like the Viper, Typhoon, etc, nor are your average Russian enthusiasts likely to have as much cash to burn. Case and point ''WHO'D SPEND $80 FOR A AEROBATICS PLANE WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE SIMPLE VERSION !!1!11!!'' ED's primary customer base, that's who lol, and they're the ones that pay the bills around here so dingbats can come on here and rant about the game in the first place 

[GGTharos]

44 minutes ago, bies said:

In 2000s: 

• Type some longass GPS coordinates to computer.
• Cruise on autopilot like airliner at 40,000ft far beyond enemy SAM.
• ~50nm from the target my JSOWs release automatically
• Return to base not seeing any enemy or not even knowing if i hit anything before seeing scoreboard.
• Without much satisfaction or feeling of achievement i probably turn off PC and go to do something else.

 

.. and 'just like that', the opposition would extend its patrols so a poitn where they'd be taking shots at you before you could take yours.  I mean you're not stealth so...   I'd still chalk that up to mission design.  

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

People are not happy with it, given that all the servers are F-18 vs F-16.

Your baseless generalisations would be a whole lot more convincing if they weren't so blatantly divorced from all reality.

 

How can anyone take your complaint serious when it is so obvious that you haven't actually cared to look at the current state of affairs and are arguing from a position of ignorance. What are these “all servers” you're looking at to come to such a nonsensical conclusion? Because it sure as hell isn't the DCS server list…

 

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

And in singleplayer, most campaigns are also these time travel scenarios, where if a Su-27 user wants to complete it, he is forced to essentially abuse AI weaknesses like them not shooting back when they are launched on.

Again. What are these “most campaigns” you're talking about? Because this sounds and awful lot like yet another baseless generalisation with no connection in reality.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

You mentioned advantages and throwing around one of the most nippy and agile fighters.

 

Which advantages? More agility than what?

Whatever you choose to match it against. See, this is where your entire line of reasoning goes off the rails. You (baselessly) assume that there is only ever a fixed scenario in which you (baselessly) assume that the MiG-29 must by necessity be at a complete disadvantage, because you (baselessly) assume that you have no say in the matter. And from this you (baselessly) conclude that the MiG-29 must be horrible because in this very restricted setup, it is not top of the line.

 

The problem with these assumptions is that they're only a result of your decisions, not something that is a problem with the MiG-29. You're begging the question.

 

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

- The MiG-29A in DCS looses most if not all guns only matchups against 4th gens because the earlier versions lacked fly by wire and because mid 2000s NATO fighters have upgraded engines and stuff like speed showing up on JHMCS.

And there's an utterly, stupendously, massively, mind-blowingly trivial solution to that problem.

 

All you have to do is…

 

…[drumroll]…

 

…DON'T USE THAT MATCH-UP!

 

Set up something appropriate or something fun or something [whatever it is you're after] instead. All you're doing here is arguing in favour of getting A-model teen fighters. Everything else is just you creating problems for yourself and making broad generalisations from those bad decisions. In both SP and MP, it is ridiculously easy to imagine setups and scenarios where your complaints simply don't exist. But you choose to only imagine instances where they do, and then (baselessly) generalise from that small biased imaginary sample.

 

  

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

Then show me one group that restricts the heck out of themselves in their PVE missions. I have checked many, and all large communities do not.

We do. And where we commonly fly when not “at home”, others do to. Finding youtube videos of people doing is trivial.

You simply haven't looked very hard.

[lmp]

13 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

All bs aside, although I think things like Su-35s and late model MiG-29s WOULD sell

 

They would sell for sure but they would need as much work as the Hornet or Viper for a fraction of the return. In addition to Eastern airplanes plainly selling worse, there's the saturation of the modern multirole fighter niche and the overall disappointment in the long early access periods - and a modern Flanker or Fulcrum would certainly need an extensive one. The 9.12 on the other hand is closer in complexity to the F-5E and a lot of research and work has already been done with the recent upgrade of the FC3 Fulcrum. While saying things like the SPO-15 can be copy pasted is a stretch (that system isn't modeled particularly well in FC3) I believe ED can get a mostly complete MiG-29 9.12 done fairly quickly and it will sell well enough.

[Harlikwin]

10 hours ago, Zweistein000 said:

I will make a double post since I ran out of time during my break. 

 

To the people who are saying that full fidelity MiG-29A would not bring anything to the table: From my point of view I think you are completely missing the point of playing aircraft sims. To me, flying aircraft in sims is more than just a combat experience. It's as much about flying the aircraft with all its quirks and oddities as it is about manouvering in BVR or VFR combat. And this is where FC3 is sorely lacking. It's good enough for combat (spefically A2A combat), but when it comes to everything else, including ground attack to some degree, but also navigation, control of secondary systems, setup and planning, it falls short by milesand it really makes for a much less interesting experience. 

 

Yeah I totally agree, I'm the guy who wants the crappy nav system, and the primitive (By todays standards) radar etc. I'm mainly just pointing out that without a cohesive bluefor planeset for it fight its gonna suck a fair bit online, even on "nerfed" 80's servers where folks think just because you take away the ammram the 2005 era viper is anything like the '83 version. But then again, I've been using the 29A as "trainer" for the upcoming mig23. 

9 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Also, people forget that all those details add up and influence the combat quite a bit. It's just enough to remove the F10 map view and you already have a different experience. Not to mention things like IFF, setting up correct switches, engine management etc.

 

Yeah, my fav is people not understanding a climb-out profile, or just using burner 100% of the time. And then always asking how is it possible that I have fuel and hour into a sortie.

[bies]

10 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Real pilots actually agree with you. JDAM not JSOW, but same basic idea. All you need is a monkey...  

 

 

 

You made my day, this song is hilarious, i didn't hear that before.

I have to admit it sums up my post-Cold War experience in this 3 short minutes.

 

Up to 1980s and computer revolution "pilots were gods" turning and burning in first F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, MiG-29s, Su-27s.

Now "all you need is a monkey" to "press the pickle"

And that's the guy from community saying that, not me.

 

 

 

And after few years even the "monkey" will be eliminated, computer and drone will do everything, from save 50nm away. I'm curious which period of aviation people will like in sims then.

Edited February 10, 2021 by bies

[Max1mus]

With modern air defenses just pressing pickle isnt enough. You need a large enough group launching at the same time, timed properly and from multiple angles even.

DCS doesnt have modern air defenses, but has modern stealthy JSOWs and JDAMs.

Same thing with modern BVR combat. When you move away from AMRAAM vs AMRAAM boredom you get a very diverse and asymmetric fight. That is, you would, if ED was smart enough to add the necessairy modern OPFOR platforms to AI or as low fidelity planes.

But they didnt, and as such its AMRAAM vs AMRAAM which while certainly more advanced than "shoot missile and turn around", is definitely the least diverse fight that requires the least group tactics.

Both of those issues are easily fixable through the addition of actual modern AI OPFOR units.

And you can please the PvP crowd too, by giving them low fidelity stuff to fill the gap. Dont forget that dynamic campaigns will be released for modern scenarios and with PvP support.
Why not include a low fidelity MiG-29K as a bonus when people buy the DCS: MiG-29A?

[Fangs Out]

A Mig-29K would be really cool to have

a beautiful Mig-29K

[Mars Exulte]

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

With modern air defenses just pressing pickle isnt enough. You need a large enough group launching at the same time, timed properly and from multiple angles even.

  Yeah, because you can't synchronise computers @@

 

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

DCS doesnt have modern air defenses, but has modern stealthy JSOWs and JDAMs.

  Technically true.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Same thing with modern BVR combat. When you move away from AMRAAM vs AMRAAM boredom you get a very diverse and asymmetric fight. That is, you would, if ED was smart enough to add the necessairy modern OPFOR platforms to AI or as low fidelity planes.

  The AI sucks. No amount of platforms is gonna change that. That said, I would support AI provision of more modern planes. It's defimitely doable, although higher priority is updating some of the antiquated models we have like the fugly... ya know I was gonna list em then the list started getting long. Let's just say a lot of em need attention.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

But they didnt, and as such its AMRAAM vs AMRAAM which while certainly more advanced than "shoot missile and turn around", is definitely the least diverse fight that requires the least group tactics.

  We get it, you think AirQuake is the only thing that exists and have thus far failed to find a decent clan. That's your problem, not ours.

 

 

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Both of those issues are easily fixable through the addition of actual modern AI OPFOR units.

  Not easily fixable, as the AI sucks. That is being theoretically addressed eventually, though.

 

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

And you can please the PvP crowd too, by giving them low fidelity stuff to fill the gap. Dont forget that dynamic campaigns will be released for modern scenarios and with PvP support.

  No you can't, because they're not interested in doing low fi stuff anymore. If it does happen it will be for MAC, which last I heard was intended to be a separate game. Then people like you can go full assburgers and spam missiles at each other to your heart's content or whatever it is you do.

 

18 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

Why not include a low fidelity MiG-29K as a bonus when people buy the DCS: MiG-29A?

    Because that would be stupid, and still require a fair amount of work to do, including adjusting the FM and creating numerous systems from scratch for it, even if simplified. Just cause the buttons aren't clicky doesn't mean it's not still a lot of work.

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 10:06 PM, Max1mus said:

With modern air defenses just pressing pickle isnt enough. You need a large enough group launching at the same time, timed properly and from multiple angles even.

DCS doesnt have modern air defenses, but has modern stealthy JSOWs and JDAMs.

Not like they'd make much of a difference with AI being what it is, something that isn't likely to change until we get IADS, and even then much of the EW side is absent.

Hell even current SAMs don't have all their battery components, including things like radar simulators to deceive SEAD/DEAD/ELINT aircraft.

And as far as JDAMs go, in DCS the AI won't ever attempt to shoot them down, because they're classified as bombs, regardless of the capabilities of the system (I've seen reports that the SA-15 will try and shoot down (successfully) individual APKWS rockets, because DCS classifies them as a missile; however the same system will never engage a regular unguided rocket or bomb...

I don't want to get the crystal ball out, but I have a feeling that the Pantsir-S1 will be practically indistinguishable in performance compared to the Tunguska, I wouldn't be surprised if it copied and pasted the sensors.

Quote

Same thing with modern BVR combat. When you move away from AMRAAM vs AMRAAM boredom you get a very diverse and asymmetric fight. That is, you would, if ED was smart enough to add the necessairy modern OPFOR platforms to AI or as low fidelity planes.

Assuming they could... Again, BS3 was canned due to Russian laws, and that aircraft IRL isn't even operational, how do you think they'll manage to do even a low-fidelity aircraft?

Unless you want an aircraft that'll end up approximated to the point where its advantage is diminished? As if AI platforms would solve an issue, it's getting worked on but I imagine it's still a long way out.

Quote

And you can please the PvP crowd too, by giving them low fidelity stuff to fill the gap. Dont forget that dynamic campaigns will be released for modern scenarios and with PvP support.
Why not include a low fidelity MiG-29K as a bonus when people buy the DCS: MiG-29A?

You've been told the answer so many times now, even the FC3 aircraft required data, even if they are approximated - I would've thought integrating buttons and seeing what displays looked like wouldn't be the issue - it's the sensors, the weapons etc - y'know, everything that matters in terms of capability, that would be the main hurdles, both to get documentation on and to implement.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[TotenDead]

Despite the fact that some think that MiG-29 would be incompetetive and thus not popular, the popularity of this thread already prooves that there is a decent interest in the plane

[Zweistein000]

8 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah I totally agree, I'm the guy who wants the crappy nav system, and the primitive (By todays standards) radar etc. I'm mainly just pointing out that without a cohesive bluefor planeset for it fight its gonna suck a fair bit online, even on "nerfed" 80's servers where folks think just because you take away the ammram the 2005 era viper is anything like the '83 version. But then again, I've been using the 29A as "trainer" for the upcoming mig23. 

 

Yeah, my fav is people not understanding a climb-out profile, or just using burner 100% of the time. And then always asking how is it possible that I have fuel and hour into a sortie.

Fuel managwment in MiG is possibly the most importan skill to have. Especally for MiG-29. Knowing how to manage fuel even in a dogfigt can mean the difference between 1h endurance or falling ourlt of the sky in 15 min.