announced DCS MiG-29A

[=4c=Nikola]

Whats wrong with the FC3 one? A few cockpit buttons? The HOTAS controls would be almost exactly the same.

 

The problem is, it's incorrect.

[Northstar98]

For most if not all A2A action you always have the important controls bound on your HOTAS its not much different in scaning locking using CMs etc in a FF and FC3 plane

 

Makes for the the same enjoyment of the PVP air aspect

 

There's a lot more to the enjoyment of aerial combat, than all the buttons being the same...

 

It takes me like 2 minutes (if that) per module to fully set-up all my controls, then again I have got a pretty decent stick (no throttle though :cry:, wink wink VKB).

 

And again, FC3 is simplified - I don't just mean there's no buttons to click, but things like their RADARs for instance are simplified too.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Northstar98

[bies]

Rumors are - i have no idea it's even true - ED may possibly be able/allowed to model 9.12 MiG-29A as full fidelity module.

 

It would be fantastic, i always prefer uncompromised single role fighters in their first lightest and most powerfull variants over overweight multi role pack mules at the end of their life cycle already outdated in their fighter role.

But we have to wait i guess.

Edited October 17, 2020 by bies

[gavagai]

Rumors are - i have no idea it's even true - ED may possibly be able/allowed to model 9.12 MiG-29A as full fidelity module.

 

It would be fantastic, i always prefer uncompromised single role fighters in their first lightest and most powerfull variants over overweight multi role pack mules at the end of their life cycle already outdated in their fighter role.

But we have to wait i guess.

 

You are right that the newest Mig-29 are ugly af. But just being able to take the R-77 makes the Mig-29S a lot more formidable than the Mig-29A, and I don't think the Mig-29S is ugly yet. :)

[bies]

You are right that the newest Mig-29 are ugly af. But just being able to take the R-77 makes the Mig-29S a lot more formidable than the Mig-29A, and I don't think the Mig-29S is ugly yet. :)

 

It depends how you look at it; 9.12 MiG-29 in 1980s was formidable and worthy opponent for NATO fighters. 9.13 MiG-29S in 1990s AMRAAM era - not so much anymore. R-77 in 1990s was more of a low scale production technology demnostrator with many flaws, Vympel did not have adequate funding during the 1990s and the first part of the following decade to support further developement of the R-77. First R-77 variant which entered service in Russian Air Force was R-77-1 (AA-12B) in year 2015.

 

And anyway, that's without meaning, 9.13 with Phazotron N019M is out of scope, noone in ED mentioned even remote possibility to model this variant.

Edited October 17, 2020 by bies

[twistking]

Rumors are - i have no idea it's even true - ED may possibly be able/allowed to model 9.12 MiG-29A as full fidelity module.

 

It would be fantastic, i always prefer uncompromised single role fighters in their first lightest and most powerfull variants over overweight multi role pack mules at the end of their life cycle already outdated in their fighter role.

But we have to wait i guess.

 

You are right that the newest Mig-29 are ugly af. But just being able to take the R-77 makes the Mig-29S a lot more formidable than the Mig-29A, and I don't think the Mig-29S is ugly yet. :)

 

 

i'd be fine with both, as long as they are not FBW...

[Furiz]

Su27 imo is better idea if they can make that one.

[Seaeagle]

You are right that the newest Mig-29 are ugly af. But just being able to take the R-77 makes the Mig-29S a lot more formidable than the Mig-29A, and I don't think the Mig-29S is ugly yet. :)

 

IMHO the ~ 1990 test versions of the MiG-29M and K are the best looking MiG-29 versions made :) .

 

But except for the MiG-29SMT(with the humpback), I don't see how any of the "newest" MiG-29 versions are ugly - quite the contrary.

[bies]

MiG-29K - naval varian - was heavier and - to land savely on carrier - it had increased wings and drag, it had degraded performence, especially acceleration and sustained turn rate.

 

MiG-29M 'Fulcrum-E' - multirole variant - had massive mass gain of 2300 additional kilograms empty mass, most of that was heavier multirole avionics and strenghtened airframe to haul heavy bomb loads. Engines gave barely 1200kN of additional thrust which didn't compensate additional mass and it had worse acceleration, climb rate and turn rate, worse T/W and bigger wing loading than original MiG-29.

[gavagai]

IMHO the ~ 1990 test versions of the MiG-29M and K are the best looking MiG-29 versions made :) .

 

But except for the MiG-29SMT(with the humpback), I don't see how any of the "newest" MiG-29 versions are ugly - quite the contrary.

 

You are right. I was thinking of this monstrosity:

 

[Max1mus]

It depends how you look at it; 9.12 MiG-29 in 1980s was formidable and worthy opponent for NATO fighters. 9.13 MiG-29S in 1990s AMRAAM era - not so much anymore. R-77 in 1990s was more of a low scale production technology demnostrator with many flaws, Vympel did not have adequate funding during the 1990s and the first part of the following decade to support further developement of the R-77. First R-77 variant which entered service in Russian Air Force was R-77-1 (AA-12B) in year 2015.

 

AIM-120s from the 90s, thats 120A and B, are a good match for MiG-29S. Range and speed of 120B isnt that good, and ECCM isnt either. R-27ER and R-77 are in combination an excellent match for 90s fighters like DCS F-15C with 120Bs.

 

Problem is that DCS has late 2000s NATO fighters with Link16, 2000s missiles like SD-10, 120C, 9X. Possibly even a 2020s missile with the Eurofighter developer trying to put Meteor onto an early tranche for some reason. This means, anything less than MiG-29K is unacceptable. And no one gives a crap about time frame in DCS, in both Multiplayer and Singleplayer, which means you have nowhere to fly a non-modernized MiG-29.

 

And anyway, that's without meaning, 9.13 with Phazotron N019M is out of scope, noone in ED mentioned even remote possibility to model this variant.

 

For FC3, just mess with some of the range/notch filter numbers and adjust the TWS2 function of the Mig-29S. Some mods, like MiG-31 ones, do this already. Full fidelity radars in DCS dont perform correctly, in most cases even more so than FC3 ones. F-16 - too much range, jamming immunity. JF-17 - detection of slow targets modelled entirely incorrectly, too strong return on RWR, TGP air to air mode tracks way too far. F-18 - jamming immunity, too strong return on RWR.

 

In short, we can get a simplified MiG-29K/Su-27SM3 with R-77-1s, revolutionizing DCS by turning it from a mediocre red flag NATO vs NATO shitfest into an actual "combat simulator", or we can get a niche plane designed to compete in the 80s, with barely more relevance in the sim than the DCS Viggen or MiG-21.

And if i may add, the unacceptable performance of a non-modernized MiG-29 compared to AIM-120C/Meteor and its nonexistant multirole capabilities will also make the majority of the DCS community never want to invest a single penny in any russian module ever again.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Max1mus

[bies]

(...) anything less than MiG-29K is unacceptable.

 

Does it mean MiG-21, Viggen, F-14, F-5 etc. are unacceptable? If they would be able to model 9.12 - it's great.

 

(BTW. MiG-29K - overweight naval variant with enlarged low landing speed wings is not particular performer with all kinematic parameters and maneuverability worse then 9.12)

[Top Jockey]

MiG-29K - naval varian - was heavier and - to land savely on carrier - it had increased wings and drag, it had degraded performence, especially acceleration and sustained turn rate.

 

MiG-29M 'Fulcrum-E' - multirole variant - had massive mass gain of 2300 additional kilograms empty mass, most of that was heavier multirole avionics and strenghtened airframe to haul heavy bomb loads. Engines gave barely 1200kN of additional thrust which didn't compensate additional mass and it had worse acceleration, climb rate and turn rate, worse T/W and bigger wing loading than original MiG-29.

 

Hello bies,

 

You have provided several insight regarding the MiG-29A maneuverability a few months ago, when I was comparing its ACM capabilities against other types.

 

One of these insights was that:

"... MiG-29 is a stable design, it's elevators acts opposite to wings decreasing it's overall lift, this increases AoA in turn (plane needs higher AoA for given G, thus bigger drag) and cause MiG to lose it's speed in turn faster than modern unstable designs like F-16 or Su-27... "

 

So I do have a doubt: shouldn't the MiG-29M and K variants be unstable design and fly by wire, to overcome the first MiG-29's handicaps ?

[Max1mus]

Does it mean MiG-21, Viggen, F-14, F-5 etc. are unacceptable? If they would be able to model 9.12 - it's great.

 

(BTW. MiG-29K - overweight naval variant with enlarged low landing speed wings is not particular performer with all kinematic parameters and maneuverability worse then 9.12)

 

F-14 in DCS is a 90s variant - and also overperforming due to EDs EW modelling and missile API/lift problems. On top of that its not a redfor module. NATO in DCS is no longer in need of any modern aircraft. Redfor is.

 

F-5, MiG-21 being modelled right now would indeed be an unacceptable waste of resources.

 

9.12 MiG-29 great? Have you ever tried the one that is currently in DCS? Is being shot down over and over again with no chance to fight back great? Given that its a pure air superiority fighter, it being unusable in that role any campaign or server makes the module almost unflyable.

 

On top of excellent avionics and missiles and acceptable time on station as opposed to the 29A/S, the 29K has a fly-by-wire, making it especially capable in guns only BFM.

Edited October 17, 2020 by Max1mus

[TotenDead]

One of these insights was that:

"... MiG-29 is a stable design, it's elevators acts opposite to wings decreasing it's overall lift, this increases AoA in turn (plane needs higher AoA for given G, thus bigger drag) and cause MiG to lose it's speed in turn faster than modern unstable designs like F-16 or Su-27... "

 

Lol. Every single aircraft with classic aerodynamical arrangement has losses to stabilisation on ots elevator. With or without FBW.

 

"

MiG-29K - naval varian - was heavier and - to land savely on carrier - it had increased wings and drag, it had degraded performence, especially acceleration and sustained turn rate."

 

MiG-29K has better aerodynamics, larger wing area, better mechanisation and more powerful engines to compensate any added to the basic design weight.

[Dragon1-1]

I'd buy a MiG-29A and/or G. :) The A model is perfectly capable in a dogfight against the Viper, and in fact, it's got a better chance against the C version, because the contemporary F-16A was lighter and could pull a little more Gs. Yeah, it has no legs, but the Viper has the same problem. Soviets built and flew their aircraft completely differently than the US, and for this reason I couldn't care less about symmetrical multiplayer, it's neither realistic nor necessary.

 

In its day, that is, the 80s and 90s, MiG-29A was an amazing fighter. Fast, nimble, equipped with a radar that could actually be useful outside of strict GCI, an IRST that was pretty amazing when used with GCI, a datalink system to go with that, the first helmet-mounted sight ever, and the R-73, which blew the Sidewinders of the time out of water. Yeah, today we have the AMRAAM, but if your shiny new F-16C finds itself down to Sidewinders and Sparrows, things won't look nearly as good for it.

 

I agree that NATO doesn't need another modern jet. In fact, I'd say DCS doesn't need any more modern birds, period. As nice as a modern Russian bird would be, I'm more interested in times when you were the master of your jet, not a "voting member" as one Superbug jock put it. In the 3rd party pipeline we have the A-7 and F-8, what I want ED to tackle next is the F-4 (long overdue), and then the MiG-29A in all its crufty, unergonomic glory. :)

[bies]

MiG-29K has better aerodynamics, larger wing area, better mechanisation and more powerful engines to compensate any added to the basic design weight.

 

Unfortunately the wing in naval 29K variant needed to be enlarged which increased drag, especially drag in turn, and decreased acceleration and sustained turn rate. It also reduced maximum speed. MiG designers tried to use original high performance wing but it proved to be to small for low speed aircraft carrier approach for heavier plane with reinforced structure, corrosion protected fuselage, additional arrestor hook, enlarged wing and heavier undercarriage.

Enlarged wing of 29K is also folded decreasing it's maximum structural load compared to original high performance wing.

 

29K is also rated 8G instead of 9G for 9.12 and MiG-35.

 

Modern airfield variants like MiG-35 have original smaller high performance wing.

 

MiG-29K with to it's empty weight increased from 10900kg to 14000kg - despite the new RD-33MK engines with power increased from 81,6kN to 86,3kN - has significantly worse T/W ratio than 9.12 and also worse than land based MiG-35.

 

9.12 MiG-29 great? Have you ever tried the one that is currently in DCS? Is being shot down over and over again with no chance to fight back great? Given that its a pure air superiority fighter, it being unusable in that role any campaign or server makes the module almost unflyable.

 

I fly low fidelity 9.12 regularly and successfully on 1980s servers.

 

And MiG-21bis on cold war servers.

Edited October 19, 2020 by bies

[Max1mus]

I'd buy a MiG-29A and/or G. :) The A model is perfectly capable in a dogfight against the Viper

 

The AMRAAMs minimum range is well within a couple hundred feet. Any close combat situation outside that is an instant win for your opponent. Unlesss... MiG-29K/Su27SM3. R-77-1, modern RWR to assist with surviving within NEZ, equal chances.

 

I fly low fidelity 9.12 regularly and successfully on 1980s servers.

 

Server, singular. There is exactly one hosted by buddyspike, and it has less than 5 players most of the time. Realistic, GCI micromanaged campaigns dont exist either.

[TotenDead]

Unfortunately the wing in naval 29K variant needed to be enlarged which increased drag, especially drag in turn, and decreased acceleration and sustained turn rate. It also reduced maximum speed. MiG designers tried to use original high performance wing but it proved to be to small for low speed aircraft carrier approach for heavier plane with reinforced structure, corrosion protected fuselage, additional arrestor hook, enlarged wing and heavier undercarriage.

Enlarged wing of 29K is also folded decreasing it's maximum structural load compared to original high performance wing.

 

Modern airfield variants like MiG-35 have original smaller high performance wing.

 

Any wing when made larger has more drag then the smaller one if their aerodynamic profiles are equal or similar. What you're saying applies to super hornet as well. However, i suppose you didnt mention that 29K forward wing edge is sharp compared to vanila 29. The shape of the wing is different as well. So i guess you are just using too much imagination as there are no grafics awailable and structure and aerodynamics of these aircraft is absolutely different as Mig-29K has almost nothing similar compared to 29A except of the way it looks.

 

And no, MiG-35s' wing is no different from 29k one. Tf dude, it' the same folding wing which is fixed in "unfold"

[SovietAce]

The AMRAAMs minimum range is well within a couple hundred feet. Any close combat situation outside that is an instant win for your opponent. Unlesss... MiG-29K/Su27SM3. R-77-1, modern RWR to assist with surviving within NEZ, equal chances.

 

What makes you think that we will ever get those variants? Also how modern RWR is going to help you within NEZ?

[TotenDead]

There's a lot more to the enjoyment of aerial combat, than all the buttons being the same...

 

It takes me like 2 minutes (if that) per module to fully set-up all my controls, then again I have got a pretty decent stick (no throttle though :cry:, wink wink VKB).

 

And again, FC3 is simplified - I don't just mean there's no buttons to click, but things like their RADARs for instance are simplified too.

 

All radars in dcs are simplified. Just like ecm.

[TotenDead]

If they don't like the full-fidelity stuff, then isn't DCS kind of a poor choice for them? I mean isn't the full-fidelity stuff the main selling point of DCS?

 

I have Fw-190D9 here and it's almost no different from War thunder one except that dcs one has a different sight. Just sayin that FF doesn't make a plane any better if you aren't interested in pressing extra buttons to start the aircraft

[Northstar98]

All radars in dcs are simplified. Just like ecm.

 

Yeah but the FC3 are even more simplified, as well as every other system they have.

 

The F-14, AJS-37 and I think now the MiG-21bis (though WIP) use raycasting to simulate their RADARs, which personally is probably the best you can get...

 

And ECM of the Cold War period, is most likely going to be much closer to the ECM that we have now (basic noise jamming, even if it's effects aren't really there), going beyond the 90s, and yeah, there's definitely going to be more deviation.

 

I have Fw-190D9 here and it's almost no different from War thunder one except that dcs one has a different sight. Just sayin that FF doesn't make a plane any better if you aren't interested in pressing extra buttons to start the aircraft

 

Yeah, but you're using an example whereby the only thing you need to manage is when you fire the guns... I'm not surprised it doesn't make much difference.

 

And full-fidelity isn't just about the buttons, I've said this twice now... It's about the systems, and FC3 is more simplified, and takes some control out of your hands...

Edited October 19, 2020 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

The AMRAAMs minimum range is well within a couple hundred feet. Any close combat situation outside that is an instant win for your opponent.

 

It still has to be fired at a target in front of you, unlike the R-73. It's hardly "instant win" when you can't even bring the nose on your opponent. Of course, the Viper has a HMCS too, and the AIM-9X had been specifically designed to do everything R-73 could, so it'd be a tossup.

 

TBH, the solution to the lack of R-77-1 is simple - limit the Viper to AIM-120A and B, or even just the Sidewinders, as they were during Gulf War. It makes combat a lot more exciting.

[Max1mus]

It still has to be fired at a target in front of you, unlike the R-73. It's hardly "instant win" when you can't even bring the nose on your opponent. Of course, the Viper has a HMCS too, and the AIM-9X had been specifically designed to do everything R-73 could, so it'd be a tossup.

 

Nowhere near a tossup. At one mile, 50 degrees off boresight, the DCS AMRAAM will make the turn and hit the target. Hell, ive seen it loop around in memory mode and kill someone after a 360 degree turn. So unless he happens to only detect you when youre already passing him, youre dead. And he has Link16 and all that, you dont even have a tactical display in MiG-29A.

 

In short, either at the very minimum MiG-29K/Su-27SM3, or worthless planes with not a single advantage.