announced DCS MiG-29A

[F-2]

Yea I was just making a point about the availability of information not what version should be made (I would love both). If a third party took it up or was formed to take it up that would be great. Razbam has a Mig-23mld in development which is similar to the original Mig-29 in terms of technology. No doors seemed to have been knocked down, but Raz isn’t based in Russia.

[Silver_Dragon]

20 minutes ago, F-2 said:

Yea I was just making a point about the availability of information not what version should be made (I would love both). If a third party took it up or was formed to take it up that would be great. Razbam has a Mig-23mld in development which is similar to the original Mig-29 in terms of technology. No doors seemed to have been knocked down, but Raz isn’t based in Russia.

RAZBAM has built a MiG-23MLA (23-12B), a version for export to Cuba, Iraq and South Yemen, no a MiG-23MLD [Flogger K], and we believe that the "Cuban" RAZBAM team has obtained a license approved by the Cuban authorities, as the Mig-19P. That is a legitimate case. In the same way, the "ecuatorian main RAZBAM team"  is making a Super Tucano, with the collaboration of the Ecuadorian air force... no Brazil autorities.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Fromthedeep]

12 hours ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

Those wanting the Fulcrum, Flanker, or any other "redfor" need to understand that the operators of these modern aircraft

How is a 9.12 or a Su-27S modern? These are 30-40 year old variants with Cold War era avionics.

[Kalasnkova74]

3 hours ago, Fromthedeep said:

How is a 9.12 or a Su-27S modern? These are 30-40 year old variants with Cold War era avionics.

Doesn’t matter. Classification rules don’t care about common sense. Believe it or not, despite the incident being literally taught in schools all over the world specifics about the “Gary” Powers shoot down is still classified. During an interview, a fellow squadron mate of Powers back in the day couldn’t disclose any specifics or talk about the incident. Didn’t matter that the pilot was long retired from the USAF or that the incident involved is a long way from secret. 
 

Not only does making a module take time and require extensive research, it should be noted that information WE can query on the internet is not necessarily approved for release. Files and documents leaked or uploaded online illegally cannot be used by ED or a 3rd party, and neither can declassified documents/manuals written by a third party country that never legally operated the aircraft. 

[Repvez]

yes it totally understand that  some system stil classified  and not put in the game, but what about the unclassified systems or common used one ? 

The MIG 15/17/19/21 modul also use some similar or identical system like the mig 29 and the RAZBAM mig 23 also has some and already exist in game. 

So why can't put those in the MIG29 3d model?  they don't need to work realistically only act like that.  the hydraulic, electric and radio  etc.  have a similar job  on the aircraft.

[F-2]

What’s still classified about an old Mig-29? I get that ED couldn’t do it, but what are we even missing that a third part couldn’t?

[Fromthedeep]

2 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Doesn’t matter. Classification rules don’t care about common sense. Believe it or not, despite the incident being literally taught in schools all over the world specifics about the “Gary” Powers shoot down is still classified. During an interview, a fellow squadron mate of Powers back in the day couldn’t disclose any specifics or talk about the incident. Didn’t matter that the pilot was long retired from the USAF or that the incident involved is a long way from secret. 
 

Not only does making a module take time and require extensive research, it should be noted that information WE can query on the internet is not necessarily approved for release. Files and documents leaked or uploaded online illegally cannot be used by ED or a 3rd party, and neither can declassified documents/manuals written by a third party country that never legally operated the aircraft. 

That has nothing to do with the message I replied to. The other guy said that it makes sense why militaries don't want their new technology replicated in DCS. While that definitely makes sense, 9.12 and Su-27S are not new technology, they are ancient at least with the old school, Cold War avionics setup. That doesn't mean we can have them in the game but keeping them out makes very little sense if we can also have things like 2007 F-16C or 2003~ F-15E and so on.

59 minutes ago, F-2 said:

What’s still classified about an old Mig-29?

The best way to phrase this question is that what things makes a Mig-29 from 1987 more sensitive and secretive than a modern Western fighter with an avionics setup from 2007. I could ask the same thing about all the other prominent Cold War era Soviet modules, why can we get an F-15E if we can't get a Su-24? Sure, I know the answer, it's politics, but that's not a reasonable or legitimate answer. In no way would it endanger national security to model these aircraft in DCS, partly because they are ancient and partly because the West already has pretty much all the information that they need, especially about a Mig-29 that was flown by exchange pilots from the USAF after the German reunification.

 

And the old school Su-27 was compromised by Tolkachev who sold out all the classified info to the Americans.

Edited January 9, 2023 by Fromthedeep

[Kalasnkova74]

1 minute ago, Fromthedeep said:

That has nothing to do with the message I replied to. The other guy said that it makes sense why militaries don't want their new technology replicated in DCS. While that definitely makes sense, 9.12 and Su-27S are not new technology, they are ancient at least with the old school, Cold War avionics setup. That doesn't mean we can have them in the game but keeping them out makes very little sense if we can also have things like 2007 F-16C or 2003~ F-15E and so on.

Again, classification rules are not necessarily bound by common sense. Just because an aircraft’s technology is obsolete doesn’t mean it’s fair game. Look at the F-117. It’s literally a museum piece now and multiple generations behind modern LO weapons systems. Still classified, and still (probably) not coming to DCS or any other simulation level game. 

[Fromthedeep]

1 minute ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Again, classification rules are not necessarily bound by common sense. Just because an aircraft’s technology is obsolete doesn’t mean it’s fair game. Look at the F-117. It’s literally a museum piece now and multiple generations behind modern LO weapons systems. Still classified, and still (probably) not coming to DCS or any other simulation level game. 

You're still avoiding the problem. The F-117 was a highly advanced and secretive aircraft and the sensitive technology around stealth and RAM coating is still a very relevant military secret. On the other hand, we can have an F-14, and F-16C, and F-15E, a Tornado, an F-18 and so on, some of these are significantly more advanced subvariants than 80s or 90s era technology with advanced datalink, PGMs, situational awareness tools and other systems. Why would a 1987 era Mig-29 be reasonably more of a danger to national security than a 2007 era F-16? It's already compromised. There's no one to keep this information away from. There's no legitimate reason. it's easy to see that it's an objectively unreasonable political side that's uniquely affecting the potential Russian aircraft modules.

[shagrat]

vor 5 Minuten schrieb Fromthedeep:

Why would a 1987 era Mig-29 be reasonably more of a danger to national security than a 2007 era F-16?

It likely wouldn't. But that's not the point. The reason is, the russian Government has made some strict policies that apply to "military equipment"... A professional company will abide by the legal implications and that's unlikely to change in the near future.

[Kalasnkova74]

48 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

You're still avoiding the problem. The F-117 was a highly advanced and secretive aircraft and the sensitive technology around stealth and RAM coating is still a very relevant military secret. On the other hand, we can have an F-14, and F-16C, and F-15E, a Tornado, an F-18 and so on, some of these are significantly more advanced subvariants than 80s or 90s era technology with advanced datalink, PGMs, situational awareness tools and other systems. Why would a 1987 era Mig-29 be reasonably more of a danger to national security than a 2007 era F-16? It's already compromised. There's no one to keep this information away from. There's no legitimate reason. it's easy to see that it's an objectively unreasonable political side that's uniquely affecting the potential Russian aircraft modules.

 

The F-117s been compromised since Operation Allied Force nearly 20+ years ago. Still classified, and will likely stay that way.

You make a good point about the asymmetry between East and West in-game. Unfortunately for fans of Soviet era aircraft (of which I am too), Russia still operates many of those older jets today. Yes there’s upgrades and new versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27, but the VVS also still has (based on publicly available data) dozens of older Su-27s and MiG-29s not much different in specs to the FC3 version. The Russian Navy still flies the Su-33 , which is even less distinct from the FC3 variant. 

The grim fact is until Russia replaces these legacy aircraft with Su-57s & advanced Flankers/Fulcrums , they will not be inclined to publicly license & distribute information. That sets up DCS for an asymmetrical gaming experience, but I doubt Moscow cares enough to correct the situation (unless someone here convinces Putin Russian planes dying in DCS merits a policy change). 

[tomcat_driver]

8 minutes ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

 

The F-117s been compromised since Operation Allied Force nearly 20+ years ago. Still classified, and will likely stay that way.

You make a good point about the asymmetry between East and West in-game. Unfortunately for fans of Soviet era aircraft (of which I am too), Russia still operates many of those older jets today. Yes there’s upgrades and new versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27, but the VVS also still has (based on publicly available data) dozens of older Su-27s and MiG-29s not much different in specs to the FC3 version. The Russian Navy still flies the Su-33 , which is even less distinct from the FC3 variant. 

The grim fact is until Russia replaces these legacy aircraft with Su-57s & advanced Flankers/Fulcrums , they will not be inclined to publicly license & distribute information. That sets up DCS for an asymmetrical gaming experience, but I doubt Moscow cares enough to correct the situation (unless someone here convinces Putin Russian planes dying in DCS merits a policy change). 

For our use in DCS, there is nothing of classified in a F-117A. It has no radar, no EW. The RCS is well known and can be reproduced is a digital model, specifically one as simple as DCS's. There is absolutely no need to know anything about the materials used, the composition, the chemistry; it has no simulation value.

A flight model, like any other, can also be derived from computational models, fluid dynamics. The flight manual is readily available on the internet.

[draconus]

It's apparently unreasonable and political to not model modern(ish) red birds, plenty of docs are there, easy to get, SMEs everywhere, many NATO countries have them in flightworthy condition, Ka-50 and Mi-24 already got into DCS, yet neither ED nor any 3rd party dev even started modeling one. Does it tell you something? If it was that easy we'd already have one, right? I guess we need another 28 pages to discuss it.

:tinfoil_hat:

Edited January 9, 2023 by draconus

[Fromthedeep]

2 hours ago, Kalasnkova74 said:

Yes there’s upgrades and new versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27, but the VVS also still has (based on publicly available data) dozens of older Su-27s and MiG-29s not much different in specs to the FC3 version.

Su-27 I can believe but do they have actual Mig-29 9.12 aircraft without any avionics upgrades in the VVS? As for the F-117 the fundamental difference is that detailed technical data on the various aspects of the aircraft can lay the ground of the develpment of game changing technology even today and reverse engineering it should be made as difficult as possible. While I don't doubt that it's compromised to some degree, the fact that it's just a wreck and not a fully functional aircraft alongside all of its technical documentation makes it significantly less of a breach than either the case with the Mig-29 or even the Su-27S. But I would argue that the level of documents needed for a DCS level product (which doesn't need actual design documents on the manufacturing process of the RAM coating or the metallurgy of the panels or the engine components) wouldn't really endanger anything. RCS for the most part is guesstimated for many DCS modules so that's not a problem, flight model and avionics shouldn't cause any problems reasonably speaking.

 

The West didn't get a wreck without any kind of additional data, Western exchange pilots actually flew Mig-29s, they got all the required technical documentation, tactical training and access to the aircraft itself. That's a different situation.

 

2 hours ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Still in active service with a lot of countries. Some of the manuals needed also arent public.

The entire point here is that modelling these aircraft in DCS wouldn't endanger the national security of these countries, because all the details of these unmodernized and ancient aircraft are known by both the East and the West. There's no secret.

 

1 hour ago, draconus said:

Does it tell you something? If it was that easy we'd already have one, right? I guess we need another 28 pages to discuss it.

It's a security theatre. If you know that it's a highly compromised aircraft to the degree where your enemies actually operated it themselves, what new can be learned from a DCS level product? While I understand that the laws in Russia hold ED's hands, don't try and pretend these laws are reasonable or make sense.

[Fromthedeep]

3 minutes ago, Бойовий Сокіл said:

Sure but that's entirely not the point when there are laws in place prohibiting the depiction of any specific military technology currently in active service. And we all know what country these jets originally come from.

I don't doubt that. The entire thing I was trying to refute is an earlier comment that said something along the lines that "it makes sense for countries to be protective of their modern technology". The Mig-29 9.12 isn't exactly modern by any metric when compared to currently prevalent NATO aircraft.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

10 hours ago, Fromthedeep said:

How is a 9.12 or a Su-27S modern? These are 30-40 year old variants with Cold War era avionics.

This has been clarified a thousand times over.

It's modern enough for the Russian MoD to be very, very cagey about it. Whether or not they stack up in sophistication when compared to Western aircraft we deem modern is irrelevant.

The issue isn't ED, it's the government that a number of the employees are subject to. This restriction may not apply to third parties, but that's as good as it gets.

Edited January 9, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Fromthedeep]

10 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It's modern enough for the Russian MoD to be very, very cagey about it. Whether or not they stack up in sophistication when compared to Western aircraft we deem modern is irrelevant.

Time frames are an objective measurement of how modern something, not necessarily sophistication. These are approximately 35 year old variants which means they are not modern by any definition.

[F-2]

I asked point blank and they said their does not seem to be an issue with 3rd parties doing a Mig-29 it seems to just be ED proper.

[Silver_Dragon]

17 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

I don't doubt that. The entire thing I was trying to refute is an earlier comment that said something along the lines that "it makes sense for countries to be protective of their modern technology". The Mig-29 9.12 isn't exactly modern by any metric when compared to currently prevalent NATO aircraft.

It seems people still don't get it. Russia is not the West, and they can put you lose contracts, go to hail or worse for "irrelevant" things, in the same way that ED is not going to do Krimea and other Caucasus zones, no matter how much they ask a million times because it is a very sensitive matter, political and dangerous.

Currently ED is not going to compromise its reputation, its integrity and that of its employees because "you don't give me module X". If he does come to do something similar, it will be in due time. Some of us have been here for more than 10 years, and we have seen how this has gone into free fall since some years ago. Let's learn that the current situation is very difficult for a company as ED.

1 minute ago, F-2 said:

I asked point blank and they said their does not seem to be an issue with 3rd parties doing a Mig-29 it seems to just be ED proper.

If a 3rd party make them need a aproval as any module.

[Repvez]

on one point  I agree with the government. because even if the MIG29 is old , but through the DCS   sombody (mainly terrorists) maybe learn, how can they start and operate them . Without DCS they never get  this information and practice for them underground.  The other hand  I also agree someone who say there isn't any hide detail about the MIG29 because  lot of  plane  were used by NATO country for so many years so the opposite side  well known every details about them.
So every aspect have a sttong argument

[Ironhand]

1 hour ago, Fromthedeep said:

…While I understand that the laws in Russia hold ED's hands, don't try and pretend these laws are reasonable or make sense.

No one is pretending they make sense. They don’t have to make sense. They just have to exist with the country/countries willing to enforce them.

 

…

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

58 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

Time frames are an objective measurement of how modern something, not necessarily sophistication. These are approximately 35 year old variants which means they are not modern by any definition.

It's still irrelevant. You can argue all day long about how the MiG-29 9.12 is a coal-burner and, frankly, I'd agree. But, there's no sense in arguing the semantics.

The reality is that I'm not the one whose mind needs be changed. ED's minds are not the ones who need be changed. Until the Russian MoD is willing to not threaten and make good on those threats of prosecution, then we will not see a "modern" Russian aircraft from ED. The only hope will be third parties and I still wouldn't put much faith in that since the Russian MoD is famously paranoid and bureaucracy is famously slow.

The only way to change this is if the Russian MoD softens its stance OR ED relocates its entire workforce somewhere else that'd insulate them from potential prosecution. I'd even still be worried about extradition treaties.

Edited January 9, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[draconus]

23 minutes ago, gortex said:

Sorry, but I'm much more interested to hear from ED than forum gatekeepers.

You got linked answers from Chizh - he's from ED stuff.

We're not happy with status quo - we just understand it and accept it as is. What else can we do?

Edited January 10, 2023 by draconus

[BIGNEWY]

Please treat each other with respect. 

As you are already aware the Mig-29 is something we would like to do, however at this moment we have no news to share. 

thank you

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

6 hours ago, gortex said:

Reading all these replies, it's almost as if some of you are happy with the status quo.  Wouldn't you rather have an update from ED about the Mig-29A module Nick Grey mentioned a few years ago?  Even if it's to say "sorry, we still can't do it, here is why."

Sorry, but I'm much more interested to hear from ED than forum gatekeepers.

There's no gatekeeping nor pleasure. We all want the MiG-29. We honestly do. We're not happy with the status quo, I am truly sorry you don't want to believe us. But, this isn't something you can argue. These is the cold hard facts of the matter.

Remember, this is about a computer game for us.

For ED developers in Russia? It's potential prosecution.

For now, it's on hold until further notice. This is not coming from me, that's ED's own statement.

Edited January 10, 2023 by MiG21bisFishbedL