announced DCS MiG-29A

[Gierasimov]

Go play the other game @Max1mus, we are here to discuss MiG-29A, not to argue about DCS. Open your own thread and see moderators remove it as discussing other games is against rules here. 

Can you do that please? 

Can you please stop spamming this thread? 

If you think you can add a value to MiG-29A discussion please do so, otherwise I see no point in posting all these.

Really, pretty please, stop it. Please? For me? 

[ZHeN]

I wouldn't be surprised if me and maximus would have 10x times more DCS: Mig-29A flight hours when it comes out, than all of you DCS: Mig-29A defenders in this thread combined.

Maximus might seem frustrated and pissed about fulcrum's capabilities, but he surely knows how to eat Link'16-Amraam-buses for breakfast in outdated russian junk.

[bies]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

War Thunder is already planning F-14s and MiG-23.

So go and play this instead of DCS.

 

Now i see why making some totally unrealistic, made up and fictional plane for DCS wasn't a problem for you.

 

Psst: WT will soon make F-22, F-35, Su-57 and J-20.

Then US NGAD, British Tempest and B21 bomber. New 3d model + copy/paste the rest.

As a "premium vehicle" for 80$.

Edited February 10, 2021 by bies

[DD_Fenrir]

12 minutes ago, ZHeN said:

I wouldn't be surprised if me and maximus would have 10x times more DCS: Mig-29A flight hours when it comes out, than all of you DCS: Mig-29A defenders in this thread combined.

Maximus might seem frustrated and pissed about fulcrum's capabilities, but he surely knows how to eat Link'16-Amraam-buses for breakfast in outdated russian junk.

 

If his powers of tactical acumen and evaluation were that good I'd expect a profoundly more mature position from him in the reasoned argument stakes here. Currently, given the evidence suggestions his position is beyond rationality.

 

And it's not like, at base, I disagree with him. Would DCS benefit from Full Fidelity Eastern Superpower aircraft to peer the Western types it has? Of course! That is no argument. I'd love to fight more capable Chinese/Russian types such as MiG-29M or SU27SM and Su-30.

 

But it's not gonna happen. The very thing that delineates DCS FF modules from War Thunder, that defines DCS even, is that the FM and systems are not generic, balance driven, flights of imagination but simulated models based on accurate hard data processed via a physics engine designed to satisfy military grade customers. 

 

If that data is unavailable, it doesn't happen. The Russian Government has vetoed the dissemination of that data. Case closed. Finito. Done. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT.

[Kev2go]

18 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

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

 

 

sure but if you look at  a few earlier lots,  they have been retrofitted with new feaures. So its quite disingenuous to suggest that " LOLOL lot 20 not much"

 

If you only wanted to discriminate Su27SM purely by the batches they original Su27's were produced in versus what standard they upgraded to  in the same way you single out Lot 20 Hornets specifically to im sure we could reduce Su27SM numbers to a much lower number than 77 by the mid 2000's.

 

 

So whilst sure there may be only 10 production F/A18C lot 20s if you count those  earlier F/A18C lots retrofitted to the same standards, you are looking at a larger number of legacies, that would be virtually indistinguishable ( reading Buno numbers aside)  

 

Lot 18 and upwards had AN/ALE47 CM suite ( but not reffited to earlier lots, but otherwise a  large degree varying  degree of other features from earlier ones reffited if looking at T.O's within the manual) but FIne  il  be conservative and still stick to the ones thatr have all the same major features so even so including Lot 18 and Lot 19, un addition to lot 20  all combined together  via, that's actually 70 F/A18C's that are up to the same capabilities. 

 

Also consider that Super Hornets in operation if looking only at Lot18-20 hornets in the mid 2000s. Aproximating the Lot types in operation by end of 2005  Counting the Superhornet bunos lot 21-27 leaves 220 something Super Hornets available. So yea i guess even with widened net for legacies up to same lot 20 standard  Su27SM is less likely to see F/A18C lot 18-20 and instead see Superbugs.

 

 

 

anyways I surmise reason we have a very particular BUNO # in the cockpit ( which belongs to a lot20 production) is because that's probably the given aircraft  ED happened to have access to for 3d modelling. They could have just as easily done a Lot 19 or 18 in roughly the same timeframe as the 05 lot 20 , and you wouldn't have been the wiser to discern if from a lot 20 if you didnt have BUNO #  in the cockpit to tell you

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Kev2go

[Gierasimov]

2 hours ago, Zweistein000 said:

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. 

Fuel management is important true. I can tell you though that DCS: MiG-29 is a good glider too. I ran out of fuel and had enough speed to land safely, fortunately, there is so many places you can land at in DCS...

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, ZHeN said:

I wouldn't be surprised if me and maximus would have 10x times more DCS: Mig-29A flight hours when it comes out, than all of you DCS: Mig-29A defenders in this thread combined.

Maximus might seem frustrated and pissed about fulcrum's capabilities, but he surely knows how to eat Link'16-Amraam-buses for breakfast in outdated russian junk.

 

I would, seeing as you 2 hate it so much, and are fighting so hard against its inclusion or otherwise trying to convince people that it'll be useless, it'll flop blah blah, yada yada yawn...

 

And if Max1mus truly doesn't have an issue fighting modern BLUFOR, then all he's been doing in this thread is lying to us...

Edited February 10, 2021 by Northstar98

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

36 minutes ago, Kev2go said:

 

 

sure but if you look at  a few earlier lots,  they have been retrofitted with new feaures. So its quite disingenuous to suggest that " LOLOL lot 20 not much"

 

If you only wanted to discriminate Su27SM purely by the batches they original Su27's were produced in versus what standard they upgraded to  in the same way you single out Lot 20 Hornets specifically to im sure we could reduce Su27SM numbers to a much lower number than 77 by the mid 2000's.

 

 

So whilst sure there may be only 10 production F/A18C lot 20s if you count those  earlier F/A18C lots retrofitted to the same standards, you are looking at a larger number of legacies, that would be virtually indistinguishable ( reading Buno numbers aside)  

 

Lot 18 and upwards had AN/ALE47 CM suite ( but not reffited to earlier lots, but otherwise a  large degree varying  degree of other features from earlier ones reffited if looking at T.O's within the manual) but FIne  il  be conservative and still stick to the ones thatr have all the same major features so even so including Lot 18 and Lot 19, un addition to lot 20  all combined together  via, that's actually 70 F/A18C's that are up to the same capabilities. 

 

Also consider that Super Hornets in operation if looking only at Lot18-20 hornets in the mid 2000s. Aproximating the Lot types in operation by end of 2005  Counting the Superhornet bunos lot 21-26 leaves nearly 180 Super Hornets available. So yea i guess even with widened net for legacies up to same lot 20 standard  Su27SM is less likely to see F/A18C lot 18-20 and instead see Superbugs.

 

 

 

anyways I surmise reason we have a very particular BUNO # in the cockpit ( which belongs to a lot20 production) is because that's probably the given aircraft  ED happened to have access to for 3d modelling. They could have just as easily done a Lot 19 or 18 in roughly the same timeframe as the 05 lot 20 , and you wouldn't have been the wiser to discern if from a lot 20 if you didnt have BUNO #  in the cockpit to tell you

 

 

Quantity is nice and all that but remember the Serbs had about a dozen Fulcrums during allied force, compared to the rest of their airforce? A drop in the bucket, what are the odds am I right? But what ended up happening was NATO planes still managed to come into contact with and blow up half the fleet of Fulcrum.

 

What do you reasonably expect the enemy to do, bury their heads in the sand and not use their modern kit when the war finally comes around, depending the severity they're more likely than not to going to try to use them. Its an option that should be on the table for people making scenarios. It's a worthwhile addition as AI.

 

Plus OPFOR isn't exclusively Russia, China is a big one with near peer capabilities that it would be fun to see more units from(Deka could use a hand finish that ED). Other Asian countries have lots of Russian built types that could potentially be adversaries in a what if proxy war (Marianas anyone?) Like to stay on topic somewhat. Indonesia has export Su-27SM1s and has long been a thorn in the side of MNNAs like Australia and Malaysia-Singapore

 

Heck a Su-30MK might even be an ALLIED asset depending what you're simming

Edited February 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[Teknetinium]

On 2/7/2021 at 3:15 PM, 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?  

Only in EDs world, Su-35 use new R-77-1, updated ER-27/ET and R-37 A2A. 

 

I know that Russians/Ukrainians call their ER/ET-27-1 now but I dont know what 1 stay for. Regarding R-77 it is a new version. Could as well stay for export. 

https://www.artem.ua/index.php/en/products/special-products/air-to-air-missiles-r-27

Edited February 10, 2021 by Teknetinium

[Kev2go]

37 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Quantity is nice and all that but remember the Serbs had about a dozen Fulcrums during allied force, compared to the rest of their airforce? A drop in the bucket, what are the odds am I right? But what ended up happening was NATO planes still managed to come into contact with and blow up half the fleet of Fulcrum.

 

What do you reasonably expect the enemy to do, bury their heads in the sand and not use their modern kit when the war finally comes around, depending the severity they're more likely than not to use them. Its an option that should be on the table for people making scenarios. It's a worthwhile addition as AI.

 

Plus OPFOR isn't exclusively Russia, China is a big one with near peer capabilities that it would be fun to see more units from. Other Asian countries have lots of Russian built types that could potentially be adversaries in a what if proxy war (Marianas anyone?) Like to stay on topic somewhat. Indonesia has export Su-27SM1s and has long been a thorn in the side of MNNAs like Australia and Malaysia-Singapore

 

Heck a Su-30MK might even be an ALLIED asset depending what you're simming

 

 

I think you missed my point of my response.

 

Just to clarify what I meant was  that whilst it is true that if you only look at lot 20 hornet specifically, which was only a production series of 10 aircraft ok sur3that doesn't stack up to much against the total fleet of su27sm upgrades by the mid 2000. I pointed out that true  meeting a lot 20 specifically was slim,it was unfair comparison in such a manner when there are more legacy hornet on the fleet that are up to the same standards as lot 20 via retrofit that one wouldn't be able to tell the difference externally or capability wise unless looking at buno number and then compare the t.o in the manual to see what features are apiece to which series or buno numbers, and in general that lot 18 and 19 have basically all the same features that lot 20 have. The hornet "  lots"  aren't quite as broad as air force f16 "blocks"

 

It's not like the f16 blocks where a "block 50" can be anything produced from 1991  to like 2001, and have virtually the same general features ( or whenever production ended) 

 

Where's lot 20  production was started and concluded within the same year of 1998 ( notwithstanding post production features the lot 20 itself got that were passed down to a whole slew of earlier lots) , lot 19  produced from prior year of 1997 . Etc etc 

 

Yea it bit more confusing to identify since the navy didn't give legacy hornets any new designations for modernization/ post refit features like the vipers did

( ie f16cm post ccip program) 

 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Kev2go

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

I'm seeing a lot of people attacking Maximus' position as being unreasonable.

 

Seems like sound thinking to me, why encourage ED to make a FF version of a module it already has available to consumers.

 

Especially when other aspects of the game go neglected? FC3 and the MiG itself has a myriad of bugs that go one unfixed because they claim its already a finished product. 

 

So you want to pay them more to do what they couldn't do but promised to the first time around?

Not to mention delivered even slower if it does come since its a small company with many projects?

 

Have I mentioned its grossly redundant too in what its offering?

 

Telling ED it should not bite off more than it can chew seems pretty reasonable if you ask me.

Edited February 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[TotenDead]

20 минут назад, Teknetinium сказал:

I know that Russians/Ukrainians call their ER/ET-27-1 now but I dont know what 1 stay for.

Well, that was painful. Interestingly enough, you're not the only one who calls these missiles in such a wierd way. IT'S like calling Aim-120C smt like Cam-120i

 

R-27ER or R-27ET. R-27ER1 is a worsened export version of R-27ER, same with ET1. 

20 минут назад, Teknetinium сказал:

Regarding R-77 it is a new version. Could as well stay for export 

R-77-1 is a missile for RuAF, export version is called RVV-SD. 

[Teknetinium]

In the picture I show ER-27/ET look different on several parts compering to older pics. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Teknetinium

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

On 2/9/2021 at 3:44 AM, Kev2go said:

 

even the  original Su30 isn't 1980s aircraft, anymore than the first F/A18A's were a 1970s aircraft.

 

The first batch of Su30's didn't go into operation until the 1990s, and besides they originals were limited production aircraft

 

Su30 isnt just a su27p with 2 seats, as that was still a2a only. Specifically what we have in dcs would be more akin to the su30kn, which was a multirole model . This SU30 in DCS  has  R77's  and various A/G guided weapons but still limited to 10 pylons unlike the mk model. ( you can take a look at its armament list in DCS). Not quite Su34 modern, but certainly post cold war service. IN  purely in A2A capabilities the avionics nuances aren't really that apparent when looking at  AI aircraft to really make a difference. maybe su34 has better detection range because a better radar, and has more varied A/G weapons.

 

IF any real issue with the su30  is the fact its 3d model is much more dated relative to the SU34.

 

 

 

 

 

see this response .

 

 

 

 

 

Also for the Su27SM AI there would really not be much of a difference as an AI aircraft over a AI piloted su27 beside having R77's( and we already have Chinese flanker for that which is also flyable)  ,better radar , and some more uprated engines if talking sm3.  

 

on paper sure hands down better radar an but not sure how ED models radar for AI's and how the AI detect targets or gets SA from sensors to the point where it would make a noticeable enough of a difference.

 

 

 

 

 

 

My original post towards you was actually in response to this post,

[Northstar98]

On 2/10/2021 at 9:38 AM, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

I'm seeing a lot of people attacking Maximus' position as being unreasonable.

 

Seems like sound thinking to me, why encourage ED to make a FF version of a module it already has available to consumers.

Because people want it? Same as for the F-15C and the Su-25?

And if you read through his points they mainly stem that because an aircraft 20 years newer is better (the horror), the aircraft must necessarily be completely useless. Also he seems to think the only valid scenario is post 2000s multiplayer airquake, to the point where WT is a better alternative.

I mean, even when we take near peer/peer contemporaries like the Mirage 2000C, Maximus said that because the Mirage 2000C has a better RWR and a dedicated radar display, the MiG-29 must be necessarily useless, even when the exact same thing applies to the F-5E-3 and MiG-21bis; the latter having an inferior RWR, and a worse radar, but is a little bit more sophisticated when it comes to A/G.

Quote

Especially when other aspects of the game go neglected? FC3 and the MiG itself has a myriad of bugs that go one unfixed because they claim its already a finished product.

FC3 was only ever supposed to be a simplified version, being an evolved LOMAC:FC2 ported to DCS, with the only really upgrades being graphics and FDM, that's it.

The Hornet mostly stole development away from FC3 and that's probably the reason why bugs like the MP D/L bug you mentioned is still broken, among other things. After the Hornet it'll be the F-16CM/Apache.

Quote

So you want to pay them more to do what they couldn't do but promised to the first time around?

Not to mention delivered even slower if it does come since its a small company with many projects?

If anything I wouldn't be surprised if it came a lot faster than any other new 4th gen, seeing as a lot of the work is already done...

And when did they promise that the FC3 MiG-29 would be a FF module? I'm going to buy the 29 9-12 because I want a FF MiG-29 - I prefer to have modules that are closer to reality - which is why I'm with DCS in the first place.

As for ED being a small team - simpler aircraft are simpler to make, and shouldn't be as much of a headache as the Hornet. Going super modern is a guaranteed EA nightmare, only Deka with their single module is a shining light in the dark.

Quote

Have I mentioned its grossly redundant too in what its offering?

I take it you don't own anything other than the A-10C II, JF-17, F-16CM or F/A-18C? And that capability is the only thing that matters?

Because every other aircraft besides them is redundant in comparison. The Tomcat basically does 1 thing better and that's it.

Quote

Telling ED it should not bite off more than it can chew seems pretty reasonable if you ask me.

Nobody is pretending that the MiG-29 is as capable as super modern BLUFOR, most of us have some interest in Cold War scenarios which the 9.12 MiG-29 is absolutely perfect for.

If you're not interested in that, and you just want the latest and greatest, that's fine, but if that's the case the answer is very simple - don't buy it.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[lmp]

59 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

I'm seeing a lot of people attacking Maximus' position as being unreasonable.

 

Seems like sound thinking to me, why encourage ED to make a FF version of a module it already has available to consumers.

 

But that's not what Maximus' position is (to the best of my understanding). From what I can tell, he doesn't want the MiG-29 to be developed because it will not be competitive against the Hornet and Viper and as a result will flop and that'll convince ED not to make any more Soviet/Russian planes. I don't believe he argued at any point that FC3 aircraft shouldn't be remade into FF ones?

[TotenDead]

11 минут назад, lmp сказал:

 

But that's not what Maximus' position is (to the best of my understanding). From what I can tell, he doesn't want the MiG-29 to be developed because it will not be competitive against the Hornet and Viper and as a result will flop and that'll convince ED not to make any more Soviet/Russian planes.

But Fw-190 isn't competetive against the Hornet either...

[bies]

If someone want to whine: go to Mi-24P topic, that's 1980s technology helicopter, absolutely no match for 2000s technology Apache.

In Mi-24P gunner will be guiding AT missiles manually/semi manually using pericsope sight - in Apache you will fire-and-forget up to 16 Hellfires to 16 blips on the radar, they will find the way to the target without any further imput.

In Mi-24P you will have to fly it manually - Apache has autopilots coupled with autotrim.

In Mi-24P you will have moving map, like paper map - in Apache GPS, so you don't have to even care about navigation, GPS will tell you where you are all the time with perfect precision.

In Apache you will have datalink, EWR, God knows what else etc.

 

Yet if i could buy only one - i'm choosing Hind.

 

 

If someone want to whine in this topic - go to forum section with A-6E Intruder, Mirage F.1, Mi-24P, Bo-105, MiG-23MLA, A-7E Corsair, F-8J Crusader and tell them any 2000s AMRAAM+datalink truck will be stronger in combat shooting AMRAAM from 20 miles or JSOW from 50miles and go to base, so they should stop making them all.

 

If not - stop spamming offtopic in MiG-29A section.

Edited February 10, 2021 by bies

[SharkWizard]

I wonder if ED could have the Belarussian Talisman ECM (available as an bolt-on upgrade to the 9.12) included as a possible loadout with the F-F 29. 

As always with ECM, the capabilities of the Talisman would need to be guessed by ED, but it might slightly even out the playing field for those interested in taking the 9.12 into those online AMRAAM festivals.  Or maybe it would violate some laws to include it? 

 

 

 

[lmp]

9 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

But Fw-190 isn't competetive against the Hornet either...

 

I know and I don't agree with the position I outlined above. I just summarised what I believe Maximus' argument is.

 

13 minutes ago, bies said:

If someone want to whine: go to Mi-24P topic, that's 1980s technology helicopter, absolutely no match for 2000s technology Apache.

 

That whine fest already happened actually... Some people don't believe anything that isn't top of the line American tech deserves to be made.

[Fangs Out]

DCS isn't about equals, its about realistic planes in realistic scenarios. The 9-12 is a veteran of combat and I would be someone who would like to fly this beautiful plane .

 

+1

[GGTharos]

2 hours ago, SharkWizard said:

I wonder if ED could have the Belarussian Talisman ECM (available as an bolt-on upgrade to the 9.12) included as a possible loadout with the F-F 29. 

As always with ECM, the capabilities of the Talisman would need to be guessed by ED, but it might slightly even out the playing field for those interested in taking the 9.12 into those online AMRAAM festivals.  Or maybe it would violate some laws to include it? 

 

The playing field's pretty level ... after all, you can still lock-on to and launch onto these more modern fighters.   If you believe that Talisman could offer some help, why would you believe that the 9.12 radar has any chance of successfully operating at all in this sort of environment?

[SharkWizard]

6 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

 

The playing field's pretty level ... after all, you can still lock-on to and launch onto these more modern fighters.   If you believe that Talisman could offer some help, why would you believe that the 9.12 radar has any chance of successfully operating at all in this sort of environment?

 

Well, it has an IRST for those cases it can't burn through the jamming.

[GGTharos]

You are right, but your IRST doesn't see flares, or other 'distractions' and it should, do that as well.  The point being that any 'leveling of the battlefield' wishes here are a bit of a fallacy, and also DCS is missing a lot in terms of the physical simulation.   Not just DCS, but you get the idea.

[bies]

I would suggest not to touch ECM topic now - since ED is working on far better ECM implementation for the DCS.

From what i heard it's going to be much deeper than what we have now and in case of somewhat older declassified aircrafts or SAM ground radars it may be actually close to how the real thing worked.

Untill this new ECM API will be revealed and released there is no point discussing ECM, because all we would tell now can prove to be irrelevant.

Edited February 10, 2021 by bies