announced DCS MiG-29A

[SovietAce]

Yep, back to 29: 

 

[Teknetinium]

28 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

You mean "violate".

 

The fact you spout this nonsense shows you aren't interested in truth, discourse or any form of cogent, logical or reasoned application of intelligence to solving an issue. You're here to simply elicit a reaction. Trolling of this nature indicates you've run out of any data to support your argument. So, ultimately, all this posturing, mud-slinging and acerbic jibe making ends up being little more than a considerably undignified effort on your part to win an argument whose aim is based solely on assuaging your over-sensitive ego; "I get shot down a lot and I don't like it."

 

Awww. Poor little Teknetium. We'll make all the other kids play nice with you, we promise.

 

Furthermore it also excellently highlights the fact that you haven't been trying to operate with AMRAAMS in the recent patches - which in and of itself, is not that relevant, except surely if you're going to attempt to resolve an issue of this nature, the scientific method would be to experience the issue from both sides to truly understand the limitations or advantages each has before making an analysis and coming to a considered, rational opinion.

 

So all told, welcome to my ignore list. Your brand of peurile worthless input is no longer a factor in my life. Dont get offended when unrealistic behaviours are pointed out. 

 

 

Since so many fly F- using AIM-120 they don't want to report unrealistic behaviour as magic INS for over three years. I could go on but this is not the topic to prove anything for you  

[dundun92]

2 minutes ago, Teknetinium said:

magic INS for over three years

OK this is way OT but for the record, a) it has been fixed for almost a year now, and b) this wasnt just an AMRAAM bug. ALL ARH was affected (R-77, SD-10, AIM-54 etc).

[Teknetinium]

1 minute ago, dundun92 said:

OK this is way OT but for the record, a) it has been fixed for almost a year now, and b) this wasnt just an AMRAAM bug. ALL ARH was affected (R-77, SD-10, AIM-54 etc).

Dont get offended, it was fixed some patches a go after being exploited for several years   I could show you some thing AIM-120 do in this patch but in another thread. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Teknetinium

[BIGNEWY]

Please keep the topic on the mig-29, and be civil to each other. 

 

thanks

[Northstar98]

46 minutes ago, Bravelink03 said:

Speaking of which, here's an 9.12A (for Warsaw pact nations) in the beautiful GDR Camo

 

 

Wow, I love that camouflage!

[Fangs Out]

Here's a picture of the 9.12 in IQAF. 

[Hodo]

I want the upgraded Ukrainian version of the 29.   It is basically an A with the improved radar found on the later models.  

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

10 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

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 better RADAR (but not by much).

 

 

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.

 

 

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. 

 

 

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. I guess when ED run out of feasible 

 

 

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.

 

I understand people want it, people want lots of things but its more reasonable to better allocate time and resources elsewhere.

 

I didn't say the promised to make FC3 planes FF, I said they promised to fully model them. And I'm not keen on having another EA module draw attention away from core issues in the game. Like primitive AI and EW modeling. Lack of Dynamic Campaign and IADS. Bug fixes for FC3 and other planes and helicopters.

 

I'm sure I mentioned every FC3 radar is grossly under modeled?

 

When I say redundant I'm talking about what it offers as a sim experience, not its ability to dance with 4.5gen Blue air. DCS has a lot of peculiar planes like TF51s and L39s but they fill some niche and I just think that factoring in that the MiG-29A exist as a FC3 module they're only shooting themselves in the foot more or less with the FF one.

 

It won't have that extra oomf compared to its FC3 brother to make people pay the big bucks.

 

This isn't at all like A-10C v A-10A.

 

I'm not against an old plane at all. But they could have probably chosen a more unique project if they really wanted to. Like in my opinion the Su-24MK.

Edited February 10, 2021 by TaxDollarsAtWork

[TaxDollarsAtWork]

10 hours ago, lmp said:

 

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?

Well if they make a plane that is simply too redundant making it a poor value proposition I can see them misinterpret that as "Russian planes don't sell"

 

If we see a Russian plane after this, it's because of the bug numbers the Mi-24 reeled in not the MiG

[bies]

 

Damn, MiG-29A has been used by more than 30 countries.

They used them even in South America...

Only China didn't use them but probably Chinese relations with Soviet Union were already cold in 1980s.

Edited February 10, 2021 by bies

[Harlikwin]

39 minutes ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Well if they make a plane that is simply too redundant making it a poor value proposition I can see them misinterpret that as "Russian planes don't sell"

 

If we see a Russian plane after this, it's because of the bug numbers the Mi-24 reeled in not the MiG

 

IDK, I think the 29 will sell and has its place in DCS. What I would like to see from ED and 3rd parties in general is some more planning around a coherent plane set for a give time period or era for FF modules rather than the shotgun approach that currently exists. While I'm sure folks have different interests and priorities I think most folks have some interest in various historical conflicts from one perspective or another. Some of the most popular PVP online servers are some form hybrid '80's where the mig29 will fit very well, but the issue for the 80's or even 70's era is that while its covered sort-of well for Redfor, period appropriate bluefor is quite lacking. I'd personally love to see an F16A to go along with the early 29 as an example, or an early A model or 80's era C eagle as examples. This would work very well with the syria map we have once we have mig23 and 29.

 

Also, another point is that because it IS redundant the mig29 shouldn't be a huge investment in terms of resources, you already have the FM, 3d model, you basically need to model the cockpit/switchology, and a better radar/IRST model which you more or less already have from other projects or need to develop anyway. About the only really "novel" thing will be Lazur GCI or Takt if we can get that, and I bet those are "later in EA" kind of developments. With a Su-24 you are putting a TON more dev time, for a module that you have no idea if it will sell well. 

 

 

 

12 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Damn, MiG-29A has been used by more than 30 countries.

They used them even in South America...

Only China didn't use them but probably Chinese relations with Soviet Union were already cold in 1980s.

 

 

One of the reasons I hope it will sell better than expected. Folks like flying "home team" planes. 

Edited February 10, 2021 by Harlikwin

[Harlikwin]

5 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

 

Or just go Cold War and enjoy some very exciting, well-balanced match-ups and scenarios, where it's a little bit more the pilot that matters than the computers, without (most of) the constraints ED feels limited by. 

 

 

 

Actually I find it the absolute height of irony that ED's actions and statements have been basically to the effect of: Aamram slinging is boring (and IMO it is), and dogfights are fun. So in the past we nerfed missile ranges so things would end up at the merge more often.

 

While, if they had started with 70's or 80's era aircraft they more or less would have organically gotten the result that they wanted i.e. less "boring" missile spamming and more "fun" dogfighting with fox2's and 1s. And the other upsides of the era a greater diversity of aircraft, and they are overall more simple to model, and you have fewer issues "classification". 

 

I've oft thought what DCS world would look like today if ED had decided to do an F18A first (or an early less capable C). I mean in the overall context of the DCS planeset at that time it still would have been very highly capable when compared to something like the F5 or mig21 or M2k. It would have easily been done by now, and ED could be selling an upgraded variant now. And the community would have both planes. Same exact scenario would have been even easier with an early model F16A (basically a somewhat more capable F5).

 

And then bring it full circle to a FF mig29A that fits that earlier era perfectly.

 

[lmp]

2 hours ago, TaxDollarsAtWork said:

Well if they make a plane that is simply too redundant making it a poor value proposition I can see them misinterpret that as "Russian planes don't sell"

 

I think you're not giving ED's business intelligence people enough credit. The module's sales will be a result of many factors and I'm sure ED can understand them better than we can. I don't think they are making it because they expect it to sell amazingly well but because it's a low hanging fruit. If they want to avoid another long development and EA period, the MiG-29 and the other FC3 aircraft seem like the way to go due to their relative simplicity and the work they've already done.

 

Also perhaps making and maintaining two fidelity levels of one aircraft is something they want to get down for their MAC project?

Edited February 10, 2021 by lmp

[Cmptohocah]

10 hours ago, Hodo said:

Yep my typical flight in the 29 is take off with afterburner then throttle back to full mil power till I hit 500km/h then start a climb at 40m/s roughly and take my time to 9km alt and then throttle back to 80-85% and cruise forever.

Don't know if it's relevant or not: official 29 manual recommends 900km/h TAS for the  climb.

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

IDK, I think the 29 will sell and has its place in DCS. What I would like to see from ED and 3rd parties in general is some more planning around a coherent plane set for a give time period or era for FF modules rather than the shotgun approach that currently exists. While I'm sure folks have different interests and priorities I think most folks have some interest in various historical conflicts from one perspective or another. Some of the most popular PVP online servers are some form hybrid '80's where the mig29 will fit very well, but the issue for the 80's or even 70's era is that while its covered sort-of well for Redfor, period appropriate bluefor is quite lacking. I'd personally love to see an F16A to go along with the early 29 as an example, or an early A model or 80's era C eagle as examples. This would work very well with the syria map we have once we have mig23 and 29.

 

Also, another point is that because it IS redundant the mig29 shouldn't be a huge investment in terms of resources, you already have the FM, 3d model, you basically need to model the cockpit/switchology, and a better radar/IRST model which you more or less already have from other projects or need to develop anyway. About the only really "novel" thing will be Lazur GCI or Takt if we can get that, and I bet those are "later in EA" kind of developments. With a Su-24 you are putting a TON more dev time, for a module that you have no idea if it will sell well. 

 

One of the reasons I hope it will sell better than expected. Folks like flying "home team" planes. 

 

Absolutely all of this.

 

9 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Actually I find it the absolute height of irony that ED's actions and statements have been basically to the effect of: Aamram slinging is boring (and IMO it is), and dogfights are fun. So in the past we nerfed missile ranges so things would end up at the merge more often.

 

While, if they had started with 70's or 80's era aircraft they more or less would have organically gotten the result that they wanted i.e. less "boring" missile spamming and more "fun" dogfighting with fox2's and 1s. And the other upsides of the era a greater diversity of aircraft, and they are overall more simple to model, and you have fewer issues "classification". 

 

I've oft thought what DCS world would look like today if ED had decided to do an F18A first (or an early less capable C). I mean in the overall context of the DCS planeset at that time it still would have been very highly capable when compared to something like the F5 or mig21 or M2k. It would have easily been done by now, and ED could be selling an upgraded variant now. And the community would have both planes. Same exact scenario would have been even easier with an early model F16A (basically a somewhat more capable F5).

 

And then bring it full circle to a FF mig29A that fits that earlier era perfectly.

 

And absolutely all of this too!

Edited February 11, 2021 by Northstar98

[Gierasimov]

On 2/9/2021 at 5:22 PM, Gierasimov said:

So, here is the question. Does anybody know why its wheels are always green?

Like it goes to maintenance depot, gets a new paint job - often changing the camo scheme and still the wheels are green. Is there any particular reason?

 

OK, so looking further for the answer, I reached out to the Military Aviation Works maintenance depot and they offered me an official response as such:

 

Wheel drums are made out of magnesium alloy and as such are susceptible to self-ignition under high temperatures. As per the maintenance manual, such parts are painted green to distinguish them and mark as parts of extra care during the maintenance and operations.

 

[Jonne]

On 2/3/2021 at 7:23 PM, 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.

AJS-37.

 

High fidelity redfor post 1990 modules.

 

JF-17/FC-1.  

 

Pre-1990 bluefor high fidelity modules.

F-14A.

F-15E.

F-86F.

Mirage 2000C.

 

 

Pre-1990 redfor.

Mig-21.

Mig-15.

Mig-23(soon)

 

Noticing an issue.

 

 

 

 

Corrected it for you.

[Harker]

10 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

Actually I find it the absolute height of irony that ED's actions and statements have been basically to the effect of: Aamram slinging is boring (and IMO it is), and dogfights are fun. So in the past we nerfed missile ranges so things would end up at the merge more often.

While I don't share the sentiment that modern BVR is boring, I do remember this statement from ED. TBH, it read more as "FOX3s and radars are hard to code, so go do dogfights, where all you need is a good FM". It's either that or them admitting that they sacrificed fidelity in the name of (what they think is good) gameplay, which is the equivalent of a cardinal sin in a sim. The backlash was immediate and they quickly rescinded that statement; I hope they have changed their approach since. No matter the system, old or new, they should model it as faithfully as possible.

As for the FF MiG-29, I personally think it's going to sell well, despite its low perceived capabilities, especially if they create a decent GCI system to go with it. People will want to sit in the cockpit, flick the switches and experience all the quirks. The assumption that people only buy for capabilities is a flawed one. I have very little interest in older aircraft for MP, but even I am considering getting it, if nothing else, simply to fly in it. It'll also be a nice 80's choice for those who don't like dealing with two-seater aircraft, such as the F-14 (I was excited, but Jester really drove me away from SP in the F-14).

[Lurker]

15 hours ago, Teknetinium said:

Why would a MIG-29 be possible to make but not Su-27S model witch would be able to fight with modern fighters thx to its DL, stronger EOS, Stronger radar and Jammers.  

 

 

Because Eagle Dynamics has to operate within the laws and regulations of the Russian Federation and the Belarus republic. This was already stated dozens of times, and please note that even an early Mig29 at this point is still very much only a remote possibility. 

 

 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Lurker

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, Harker said:

 especially if they create a decent GCI system to go with it. 

 

I think therein lies the crux of the matter. We are still waiting for things like a new and improved ATC system. We have been waiting for it for years. For the most part we still have the same one from Flanker 2.0 times. Eagle Dynamics has improved the core systems of DCS World only very, very slightly from the time the first version of DCS World came out. If Eagle Dynamics can't even get their ATC somewhat up-to date, how would you expect them to build a proper GCI system? 

 

I for one will only buy the modules which I want to fly and fight in, without any expectations of any improvement down the line. I have been disappointed too many times in the past to do it any other way. I have no doubt that the Mig29 will be a fine module, however a fully fleshed out AI GCI System? I think that at the moment this is in the realms of science fiction or fantasy. 

 

The only way I could see Eagle Dynamics ever implementing a proper "smart" AI GCI or system is if they released it as a standalone module. I don't know about you guys, but I would pay good money for that. Then, and only then would I buy the Mig29 and get proper enjoyment out of my Mig21. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by Lurker

[TotenDead]

20 минут назад, Lurker сказал:

 

Because Eagle Dynamics has to operate within the laws and regulations of the Russian Federation and the Belarus republic. This was already stated dozens of times, and please note that even an early Mig29 at this point is still very much only a remote possibility. 

 

 

 

That's an official plan, not remote posibility

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, TotenDead said:

That's an official plan, not remote posibility

 

You have a link to that official announcement? 

[TotenDead]

4 минуты назад, Lurker сказал:

 

You have a link to that official announcement? 

i'm sorry, did I say official announcement? Check Kate Perederko messages in Discord

10 минут назад, Lurker сказал:

 

You have a link to that official announcement? 

 

[Harker]

 
I think therein lies the crux of the matter. We are still waiting for things like a new and improved ATC system. We have been waiting for it for years. For the most part we still have the same one from Flanker 2.0 times. Eagle Dynamics has improved the core systems of DCS World only very, very slightly from the time the first version of DCS World came out. If Eagle Dynamics can't even get their ATC somewhat up-to date, how would you expect them to build a proper GCI system? 

[...]
 
The only way I could see Eagle Dynamics ever implementing a proper "smart" AI GCI or system is if they released it as a standalone module. I don't know about you guys, but I would pay good money for that. [...]

I don't expect a GCI system for at least 3-4 years, if not more. I'm just saying that if such a thing comes along, it'd be a good selling point for the 29.

Plus, the only example we have of the "improved ATC" is the Supercarrier and that system is extremely basic, breaks constantly in MP, offers very little actual interaction and is not dynamic at all. I personally don't see a half-decent GCI being possible any time soon.

As for subsidizing development, I'm all for it. DCS is my main hobby and I don't mind paying for it. I'd gladly do so, if it meant a more polished product in the form of a freshly written DCS 3.0 or something. But that's another conversation altogether.