announced DCS MiG-29A

[Max1mus]

They have already stated they're not making any more FC3 aircraft. If they make anything, it'll be full fidelity.

 

If they stick with that, DCS is 100% ****ed. This logic doesnt make sense for russian modules, since the truly interesting stuff can only be made in FC3.

 

And frankly, with more technology comes more depth, regardless what modelling standard. The simplified Su-25T, with its TGP features, mercury/Anti radiation pod and TV guided bombs is much more complex and versatile than a full fidelity Su-25A could ever be. And thats just air to ground.

 

Imagine an FC3 Su-30MKI/SM. You would have 2 seats which on its own is a fun multiplier in MP, true air to ground/anti ship capabilities, and ability to play in any time frame, without forcing anyone to have their weapons restricted. Some MFD functions even. The variety of weapons you can employ alone gives you much more to discover than a clicky cockpit upgrade of the measly DCS MiG-29A with its niche, mediocre air to air role and no real air-to ground.

If ED adds an FC3 MiG-29K on top of that, you would get aircraft carrier operations on top!

 

If that doesnt sound much more tasty, then i dont know what will.

[Northstar98]

If they stick with that, DCS is 100% ****ed. This logic doesnt make sense for russian modules, since the truly interesting stuff can only be made in FC3.

 

This is opinion, personally I find the Cold War aircraft way more interesting, and more rewarding. They're not as effective and versatile, absolutely, but for me mastering their little quirks (+ actually having to fly the thing) is what I love. I enjoy flying the Tomcat much more than the F/A-18 despite the F/A-18s fancy capabilities.

 

And frankly, with more technology comes more depth, regardless what modelling standard. The simplified Su-25T, with its TGP features, mercury/Anti radiation pod and TV guided bombs is much more complex and versatile than a full fidelity Su-25A could ever be. And thats just air to ground.

 

Complexity also = more of a pain to develop, just saying...

 

Imagine an FC3 Su-30MKI/SM. You would have 2 seats which on its own is a fun multiplier in MP, true air to ground/anti ship capabilities, and ability to play in any time frame, without forcing anyone to have their weapons restricted.

 

If it's FC3, what's that second player going to even do? And good luck getting anything as far as documentation goes on the Su-30SM/MKI... I mean it sounds like such an aircraft would be almost completely guesstimated, unless somebody wants to chime in...

 

Wags has hinted in a past interview, REDFOR aircraft are open to 3rd party studios.

 

And said 3rd parties still need to acquire documentation in order to build a module, that goes for FC3 and full-fidelity... The real saving grace is if a 3rd party can get hold of an export variant...

Edited October 19, 2020 by Northstar98

[Dragon1-1]

If they stick with that, DCS is 100% ****ed. This logic doesnt make sense for russian modules, since the truly interesting stuff can only be made in FC3.

Well, they've been sticking to it so far. TBH, there's no problem making "truly interesting stuff" in DCS, by which I understand the F-4, the Mi-24, AH-1, MiG-23, Su-22, and yes, the MiG-29. These birds make you work for your kills, be it air to ground or air to air. I won't say that I find the flying computers uninteresting, but if you want a real challenge, F-4 vs. MiG-21 is where it's at.

 

Yes, we're not getting all-purpose, multi-crew aircraft for the red side, but Soviet doctrine just didn't lend itself to that. You want to fly a do-anything aircraft, go with NATO. Modern Russian jets are almost just like NATO ones, except Russian. I would rather fly Soviet planes, which are completely different. Su-25T is what you get when you take the Su-25A and try to turn it into a counterfeit A-10. If I want the A-10, well, I own all three, I can just jump into either one. Su-25A, however, offers unique challenges with its more limited avionics and a rocket-heavy loadout.

 

DCS is not about multiplayer. Never has been. SP is the heart of it, and it can be just as, if not more, fun than mutliplayer. They're adding dynamic campaign, and there's a few talented content creators working on non-dynamic campaigns.

[Northstar98]

Dragon1-1 said:

Well, they've been sticking to it so far. TBH, there's no problem making "truly interesting stuff" in DCS, by which I understand the F-4, the Mi-24, AH-1, MiG-23, Su-22, and yes, the MiG-29. These birds make you work for your kills, be it air to ground or air to air. I won't say that I find the flying computers uninteresting, but if you want a real challenge, F-4 vs. MiG-21 is where it's at.

 

Yes, we're not getting all-purpose, multi-crew aircraft for the red side, but Soviet doctrine just didn't lend itself to that. You want to fly a do-anything aircraft, go with NATO. Modern Russian jets are almost just like NATO ones, except Russian. I would rather fly Soviet planes, which are completely different. Su-25T is what you get when you take the Su-25A and try to turn it into a counterfeit A-10. If I want the A-10, well, I own all three, I can just jump into either one. Su-25A, however, offers unique challenges with its more limited avionics and a rocket-heavy loadout.

 

DCS is not about multiplayer. Never has been. SP is the heart of it, and it can be just as, if not more, fun than mutliplayer. They're adding dynamic campaign, and there's a few talented content creators working on non-dynamic campaigns.

This

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Max1mus]

DCS is not about multiplayer. Never has been. SP is the heart of it, and it can be just as, if not more, fun than mutliplayer. They're adding dynamic campaign, and there's a few talented content creators working on non-dynamic campaigns.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=250456&d=1603062188 As long as this is a thing, no dynamic campaigns involving russian 4th gens can be made.

 

Modern russian fighters arent symmetric either. They put IRST on every plane, are datalinked with just about every ground radar (unlike DCS F-15/16/18) and rely on high speed, long range missiles with different seekerheads. Su-35s fly CAP in Syria with R-77-1 and R-27ET to this day, and the R-37 provides the kinematic advantage, although we are unlikely to see that one in DCS.

 

Not to speak of the entirely different multirole focus, every NATO fighter needs a TGP for striking the quite numerous opposing ground targets/SAMs, while the priority for russian ones are high speed anti ship missiles for striking the quite numerous opposing ships.

 

On top of that, for the soviet, pre Su-27/MiG-31 way of flying, you need an entirely reworked GCI in DCS. Just BRAA calls and no Lazur Datalink will not do. And even if we did have a smart, datalinked GCI, which i can not imagine happening in SP with current AI technology, you would be a chesspiece for GCI with no individual freedom, sometimes with GCI remote controlling your radar and even aircraft. I personally dont mind it, but if i remember right, this is the biggest reason for people in DCS to not want a MiG-25 module.

 

Most people that will spend 70$ on a "DCS MiG-29" will want to use its only relevant role, air superiority, to fight the newest NATO jets. I wonder what will make them feel like they got scammed more:

-That the plane is the original variant and barely even a 4th generation fighter in terms of avionics

-That they have to give up all freedom and execute strict GCI commands.

-That that GCI will always either make them retreat or send them straight to death to mid 2000s AIM-120C and they have no way to prevent this failure

-That the GCI and its datalink arent modelled and they are on their own with no SA

 

Its either a modern variant, or a big failure for DCS and especially economically for ED. Most of the few people that will be tricked into buying it, will never again spend money on a future russian module, especially another more modern MiG-29 variant.

[Northstar98]

Max1mus said:

Its either a modern variant, or a big failure for DCS and especially economically for ED. Most of the few people that will be tricked into buying it, will never again spend money on a future russian module, especially another more modern MiG-29 variant.

Yeah, no...

How many times? The overwhelming majority of DCS assets are mid-to-late Cold War - 1970s to 1990s. The modern BLUFOR modules are the odd ones out, brilliant for modern IRL scenarios against non-peer opponents, but otherwise a little out of place.

The most practical solution is to develop historical BLUFOR modules. We've already got the F-14B which is a near perfect match for the MiG-29, they both have approximately equal AG capabilities (slight edge to Tomcat only because of LANTIRN and LGBs), the Tomcat probably has the BVR edge with the Phoenix, but the MiG-29 has the edge WVR with HMD cued R-73.

If we can't get earlier BLUFOR variants like the F-16A Block 15, F-16C Block 40, F/A-18A, F/A-18C Lot 10 (?) or an earlier F-15C/F-15A (which to me is a bit of a shame), I can at least restrict loadouts even if it's a workaround, to try and better approximate an earlier aircraft, it's still time travelling and I can't do anything about the RADAR or the RWR or whatever, but it's the best I can do.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Dragon1-1]

On top of that, for the soviet, pre Su-27/MiG-31 way of flying, you need an entirely reworked GCI in DCS. Just BRAA calls and no Lazur Datalink will not do. And even if we did have a smart, datalinked GCI, which i can not imagine happening in SP with current AI technology, you would be a chesspiece for GCI with no individual freedom, sometimes with GCI remote controlling your radar and even aircraft. I personally dont mind it, but if i remember right, this is the biggest reason for people in DCS to not want a MiG-25 module.

 

This is only an argument for developing a proper GCI system, and if ED made a MiG-29A, they'd pretty much have to make it, complete with Lazur, which would also benefit both the other MiGs that we have. Seeing as Razbam is currently working on the MiG-23, it would be good if ED looked into that.

 

This style of flying would certainly have a somewhat limited appeal, but that's just how the aircraft in question was. MiG-25 is actually worse, the only thing it can do is fly really fast and launch its four missiles, it doesn't even carry a gun. It can bomb, and is fast enough to turn FABs into standoff weapons, but it's a gimmick. It's more a flying S-200 TEL (and MiG-31 a flying S-300 TELAR) than a fighter. At least the MiG-29 is good at BFM and can also carry rockets in a pinch.

[Max1mus]

I can at least restrict loadouts even if it's a workaround, to try and better approximate an earlier aircraft, it's still time travelling and I can't do anything about the RADAR or the RWR or whatever, but it's the best I can do.

 

No one restricts loadouts. People wanting all toys are coming in, the ones that did support restrictions are leaving.

 

This is only an argument for developing a proper GCI system, and if ED made a MiG-29A, they'd pretty much have to make it, complete with Lazur, which would also benefit both the other MiGs that we have. Seeing as Razbam is currently working on the MiG-23, it would be good if ED looked into that.

 

This style of flying would certainly have a somewhat limited appeal, but that's just how the aircraft in question was. MiG-25 is actually worse, the only thing it can do is fly really fast and launch its four missiles, it doesn't even carry a gun. It can bomb, and is fast enough to turn FABs into standoff weapons, but it's a gimmick. It's more a flying S-200 TEL (and MiG-31 a flying S-300 TELAR) than a fighter. At least the MiG-29 is good at BFM and can also carry rockets in a pinch.

 

The best funded AI in the world can barely win in guns only BFM. There is no way ED can make a dynamic, intelligent AI GCI choosing to make the MiGs do the exact right thing (radar on push off, surround or press?) when necessairy.

[Dragon1-1]

It wouldn't have to be "intelligent" as in, fully capable of replacing a human in this role. To fully simulate the way Soviets flew their MiGs, you'd need a human controller. However, it could make it execute at least the basic tactics in a dynamic way (for dynamic campaign and MP), and have an option for the mission designer to script a more complex scenario. The AI wouldn't need to be a genius, just not a complete idiot.

 

A tall order, certainly, but I think it'd be doable. A DCS MiG pilot working with AI GCI would have to take over part of its job, but if done right, it would work across a range of typical scenarios, even if it could be thrown off by unusual ones. Also bear in mind that AI can "cheat" to make it seem more human-like, though it's a difficult thing to do.

[gavagai]

 

The most practical solution is to develop historical BLUFOR modules. We've already got the F-14B which is a near perfect match for the MiG-29, they both have approximately equal AG capabilities (slight edge to Tomcat only because of LANTIRN and LGBs), the Tomcat probably has the BVR edge with the Phoenix, but the MiG-29 has the edge WVR with HMD cued R-73.

 

F-14 is the strongest BVR fighter in DCS thanks to its 3rd party missiles. WVR it is still very dangerous. Mig-29 vs F14 is not competitive.

[Dragon1-1]

MiG-29 is by no means comparable to the F-14. The former is a lightweight, land-based, short range defensive fighter focused on IR missiles, while the latter is a heavy, carrier-based interceptor with swing wings, an incredibly powerful BVR radar, long range missiles and significant A/G capabilities. The closest comparison would be the MiG-25, except that's not a good match, either, because it carries four missiles, no gun and is even worse at air to ground than MiG-29.

 

The MiG-29 could do a number on the F-14 in WVR combat, especially in a heaters-only dogfight, but it'd be blown out of the sky in BVR (it'd either get hit or run out of fuel trying to dodge them). They're completely different aircraft.

[Northstar98]

Max1mus said:

 

No one restricts loadouts. People wanting all toys are coming in, the ones that did support restrictions are leaving.

Even if that was the case (which I doubt owing to your track record), it still remains an option when peer aircraft are unavailable.

Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-29 is by no means comparable to the F-14. The former is a lightweight, land-based, short range defensive fighter focused on IR missiles, while the latter is a heavy, carrier-based interceptor with swing wings, an incredibly powerful BVR radar, long range missiles and significant A/G capabilities. The closest comparison would be the MiG-25, except that's not a good match, either, because it carries four missiles, no gun and is even worse at air to ground than MiG-29.

 

The MiG-29 could do a number on the F-14 in WVR combat, especially in a heaters-only dogfight, but it'd be blown out of the sky in BVR (it'd either get hit or run out of fuel trying to dodge them). They're completely different aircraft.

I never said they're completely balanced, no peer aircraft is, but they do fit each other, as in they occupy the same era.

The Tomcat does have a significant edge in BVR, I'd say the 2 aircraft are roughly equivalent in A/G (the F-14B only really has the edge because of LANTIRN, the Tomcat only really wins due to payload capacity and LGBs, otherwise they are roughly the same (i.e mostly dumb bombs and unguided rockets).

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Dragon1-1]

I'd say the 2 aircraft are roughly equivalent in A/G (the F-14B only really has the edge because of LANTIRN, the Tomcat only really wins due to payload capacity and LGBs, otherwise they are roughly the same (i.e mostly dumb bombs and unguided rockets).

If that were the case, the B-52 would be roughly equivalent in A/G to the MiG-29. Or inferior, since MiG-29 has rockets and B-52 doesn't. :) Seriously, though, payload capacity is a big deal in A/G, and LGBs are a huge advantage. F-14B is a proper multirole aircraft, MiG-29 is a fighter.

 

They do come from the same era, but they're not a "near perfect match" in anything else. The MiG-29 could be used to intercept F-14B coming over to bomb something, but that's it.

[Northstar98]

Dragon1-1 said:

If that were the case, the B-52 would be roughly equivalent in A/G to the MiG-29.

Except the B-52H can carry cruise missiles, so no...

And the difference between the MiG-29 and F-14 is absolutely not the same as the MiG-29 and a B-52, obviously...

Dragon1-1 said:

Or inferior, since MiG-29 has rockets and B-52 doesn't. Seriously, though, payload capacity is a big deal in A/G, and LGBs are a huge advantage. F-14B is a proper multirole aircraft, MiG-29 is a fighter.

Then again, the B we have is from the late 80s (late 90s with LANTIRN).

Dragon1-1 said:

They do come from the same era, but they're not a "near perfect match" in anything else. The MiG-29 could be used to intercept F-14B coming over to bomb something, but that's it.

It's basically the same argument when it comes to an F-4E/J/S and the MiG-21, the F-4 is bigger, and it can carry more of a payload, the F-4 (at least later versions) arguably has the advantage in A/A at longer ranges, but is maybe slightly inferior in a dogfight.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Max1mus]

The MiG-29 can be a match for an F-14 with equal numbers, but you need:

- A more modern MiG-29 variant than the A, at least S

- Properly modelled GCI/Lazur Datalink

- Properly modelled F-14 missiles and EW resistance of radar

 

People are not going to buy a fighter module just to get shot down or retreat from every fight. We need a modern red one first, FC3 level if it has to be. After that ED can think about covering niche masochists that want what is essentially an upgraded MiG-23.

[Northstar98]

Max1mus said:

The MiG-29 can be a match for an F-14 with equal numbers, but you need:

- A more modern MiG-29 variant than the A, at least S

Fine, AFAIK, it's the first major upgrade, still very much a Soviet era aircraft, the FC3 one essentially is identical to the baseline MiG-29, just the addition of R-77 on 4 pylons (AFAIK). But then, is a MiG-29S feasible from a documentation/licensing perspective?

Max1mus said:

People are not going to buy a fighter module just to get shot down or retreat from every fight. We need a modern red one first, FC3 level if it has to be. After that ED can think about covering niche masochists that want what is essentially an upgraded MiG-23.

And yet people buy the MiG-21...

The more feasible solution is to have earlier variants of BLUFOR aircraft, examples of which I've already included...

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting

[Max1mus]

 

But then, is a MiG-29S feasible from a documentation/licensing perspective?

[...]

And yet people buy the MiG-21...

 

In the specific matchup against a 90s tomcat, if it was modelled properly in terms of EW etc. (which it isnt), a 29S MIGHT be ok if ED goes through the effort of reworking GCI entirely.

 

Against everything else, 29S is unacceptable. Unless the opposition has no Link16 (so just Multiplayer F-15, AI one has it too) and just 90s weapons 120A/B and 9M, its going to get owned. Especially due to all the adjustments to the core game ED needs to make to even allow a 29 to fight realistically.

 

On the topic of MiG-21, how many people bought it compared to the modern modules and FC3? Which content apart from instant action missions and the occasional cold war server population spikes is available for it? How many people will buy another MiG-21 like plane after also getting the upcoming MiG-23MLA?

 

A late 2000s variant is the only way, especially if you want to take advantage of the interest in russian aircraft by making further modules. The A/S variants do not satisfy the desire, especially since they are in the game already.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Max1mus

[Dragon1-1]

It's basically the same argument when it comes to an F-4E/J/S and the MiG-21, the F-4 is bigger, and it can carry more of a payload, the F-4 (at least later versions) arguably has the advantage in A/A at longer ranges, but is maybe slightly inferior in a dogfight.

Those two are closer, though, since both are interceptors. F-4E has a better radar and is bigger, MiG-21 is nimbler in a turning fight. This is a running theme with Western vs. Soviet designs since the Soviet Union was a thing. The latter tend to end up smaller, cheaper and often actually better in a turning fight, while the latter tend to be more expensive and powerful, but also larger and heavier. It's not a hard and fast rule, but the trend is there.

 

MiG-29A would be a match for a Sparrow-armed F-14, but if Phoenix was in play, it'd be much harder unless the MiG was able to force a WVR engagement.

Fine, AFAIK, it's the first major upgrade, still very much a Soviet era aircraft, the FC3 one essentially is identical to the baseline MiG-29, just the addition of R-77 on 4 pylons (AFAIK). But then, is a MiG-29S feasible from a documentation/licensing perspective?

The big deal with MiG-29S was the Gardenia ECM system in the hump behind the canopy. It was widely exported and some public documentation is available, it's old tech anyway, but it is an EW suite that Russians might not appreciate being simulated to any degree. Also, the radar, while not exactly first rate, is still rather decent and has a basic TWS implementation.

 

I'd prefer MiG-29A, but that might be because my country still uses them. :) S would be fine, too, but the only variant ED mentioned is the A.

 

The MiG-29 can be a match for an F-14 with equal numbers, but you need:

- A more modern MiG-29 variant than the A, at least S

- Properly modelled GCI/Lazur Datalink

- Properly modelled F-14 missiles and EW resistance of radar

I hope you realize the latter two are far more likely than ED making a modern Su-30 or another modern Russian plane. In particular, for F-14 missiles and radar you need to bother Heatblur.

 

Besides, S isn't going to help you against the Phoenix, anyway. If the F-14 only carries Sparrows, then the MiG-29A can put on a good show there, too.

[Max1mus]

Besides, S isn't going to help you against the Phoenix, anyway. If the F-14 only carries Sparrows, then the MiG-29A can put on a good show there, too.

 

The R-77 and R-27ER are superior to AIM-54 within 10-15km. Surviving until then is not much of an issue, IF you have a GCI handholding you and informing you of the exact position of F-14. You 100% rely on that GCI to tell you which aircraft is of what type, since all your garbage soviet RWR will say is "Fighter".

 

The beautiful thing about more modern MiG-29 (like K or OVT) is that they can be used without all these small things that DCS does not have modelled. You could put them into any DCS environment and expect them to do well and the pilot to have fun. On top of that, ED wouldnt have to go through the effort of creating realistic GCI and Lazur DL, which, chances are, they wouldnt do anyway for a long, long time.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Max1mus

[Harlikwin]

 

This is only an argument for developing a proper GCI system, and if ED made a MiG-29A, they'd pretty much have to make it, complete with Lazur, which would also benefit both the other MiGs that we have. Seeing as Razbam is currently working on the MiG-23, it would be good if ED looked into that.

 

This style of flying would certainly have a somewhat limited appeal, but that's just how the aircraft in question was. MiG-25 is actually worse, the only thing it can do is fly really fast and launch its four missiles, it doesn't even carry a gun. It can bomb, and is fast enough to turn FABs into standoff weapons, but it's a gimmick. It's more a flying S-200 TEL (and MiG-31 a flying S-300 TELAR) than a fighter. At least the MiG-29 is good at BFM and can also carry rockets in a pinch.

 

TBH ED needs to rework the whole GCI/AWACS code. Its currently pretty much crap.

 

I kinda see 2 ways they can "do it"

 

1. The hard way: I.e. actually code some sort of reasonable AI that would basically take whatever AWACS/GCI picture that was available and then determine how to employ the human piloted AC and then vector them in using some sort of "tactics". Frankly while uber cool if they could do it, I have serious doubts that they could. In the context of lazur it would create intercept points, and tell you when to turn on your radar etc. But a more generalized system would probably include some of voice command script that you could use too for all aircraft.

 

2. The "easy" way. Basically have some sort of pop-up screen like the kneeboard except it shows link16 except it would be the GCI radar picture and let the player sort it out. Of course the "realism" guys will have a fit. But at the end of the day for online use it levels the playing field as to the usefulness of having an actual GCI. This would of course be for both sides as its something everyone does. In a way I guess this is more or less what the F10 map with units visible does for folks.

 

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

#2 is pretty much what the F-10 map is about. You can have it now, with the right setting. And I agree, GCI is crap, and AWACS isn't much better. This needs a serious overhaul, AWACS should operate much like an air-to-air JTAC, and require a check-in for fighters. We could also use a JSTARS implementation. The current JTAC implementation is actually pretty nice, from what I reckon, but it needs more training missions that'd explain how to work with him in various conditions.

 

I think that GCI AI doesn't have to be very sophisticated, but it would have to be adjustable by the mission creator. For dynamic campaign, it could be part of the strategic AI. Basically, assume the player is an AI fighter, and give vectors that mirror what an AI fighter would do in such situation. As long as this part is done well, it should work well enough.

On top of that, ED wouldnt have to go through the effort of creating realistic GCI and Lazur DL, which, chances are, they wouldnt do anyway for a long, long time.

 

I'd rather have them do it, and do it right. We've got all the old MiGs, and we're getting the -23, all of which could make use of GCI. This goes beyond a single fighter, and would be an improvement for far more than just the MiG-29.

 

Yeah, if it can get in close and not take a Phoenix to the face, then the MiG-29 can very much make the fur fly on the Tomcat. :) It's not quite the match like the F-4 and MiG-21, but it'd certainly work. For an actual similar opponent, we'd need an F-16A, which isn't terribly likely.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Dragon1-1

[Harlikwin]

Those two are closer, though, since both are interceptors. F-4E has a better radar and is bigger, MiG-21 is nimbler in a turning fight. This is a running theme with Western vs. Soviet designs since the Soviet Union was a thing. The latter tend to end up smaller, cheaper and often actually better in a turning fight, while the latter tend to be more expensive and powerful, but also larger and heavier. It's not a hard and fast rule, but the trend is there.

 

MiG-29A would be a match for a Sparrow-armed F-14, but if Phoenix was in play, it'd be much harder unless the MiG was able to force a WVR engagement.

 

The big deal with MiG-29S was the Gardenia ECM system in the hump behind the canopy. It was widely exported and some public documentation is available, it's old tech anyway, but it is an EW suite that Russians might not appreciate being simulated to any degree. Also, the radar, while not exactly first rate, is still rather decent and has a basic TWS implementation.

 

I'd prefer MiG-29A, but that might be because my country still uses them. :) S would be fine, too, but the only variant ED mentioned is the A.

 

 

I hope you realize the latter two are far more likely than ED making a modern Su-30 or another modern Russian plane. In particular, for F-14 missiles and radar you need to bother Heatblur.

 

Besides, S isn't going to help you against the Phoenix, anyway. If the F-14 only carries Sparrows, then the MiG-29A can put on a good show there, too.

 

I think there are a variety of issues with the F14 in your example though. I do think you touch on it correctly that the F14 radar needs some EW simulation/jamming etc. But also, the phoenix missile does too. Plus as well all know the A model phoenix is vastly "over moddled" currently with magic INS, auto turn on the radar etc. IRL the F14 needed to support those missiles for most of the flight which isn't the case now. Moreover, while I think HB got the overall kinematics right, I don't think they got the A model seeker right necessarily. It should be good to go in certain situations, i.e. engaging mostly non-maneuvering targets like bombers, cruise missiles, and fighters that have no clue they are being engaged. The first 2 target types are what it was designed to do, and the 3rd case was what it did do in the iran-iraq war. But also once the iraqis got better EW/RWR equipment and developed better tactics, the F14's effectiveness against fighter targets with the phoenix dropped significantly. The C model phoenix is probably a different story in various regards as its more AAMRAM like, but they really need to a better job in modeling the limitations of the A model, as well as EW issues and over-land performance for the AWG-9.

 

With regards to the Mig-29, and really this applies to all the current redfor and some bluefor modules. The problem is that 50% of the "plane" isn't in the game, unlike later western 4th gen fighters that were designed to be employed more free-roaming, and therefore had fancy radars and other SA aides like link16. Cold war soviet jets were to be used in the context of an IADS net and system. So, where currently the DCS mig29 is blind as fuck with basically no SA aside from those really useless AWACS calls, (I.e. There is a tanker 300 mi away, but never mind the F14 30 mi away hot on you). IRL it would be flying with full SA provided by GCI, and likely would have better SA than the F14, and the mig would then "sneak-up" on mr F14, light him up at 20km or whatever and yeet his R-73's at him. And really this applies to pretty much all the fighters in the game. A big reason that the blue jets currently rule the roost isn't that they have a better missile or whatever, its that they have godlike Link-16 SA, while older jets don't but probably "should".

 

 

 

[Dragon1-1]

That's why I talk so much about GCI and AWACS overhaul being a necessity regardless of the MiG-29. Indeed, it would be useful even in WWII, Chain Home was an early example, and the entire Battle of Britain was a triumph of GCI against German bombers of the era. The Channel is perfectly suited for that. On the US side, the F-106 used a datalink similar in concept to Soviet GCI, complete with an autopilot interface to guide the aircraft remotely. It wasn't as central to the US air operations as the Soviet system was to the VVS, but it was a thing.

[Max1mus]

If ED ever puts that on the "planned" list, sure. But they never mentioned it at all. And until they do, the priority must be a modern fighter that can compete with the existing and upcoming modern NATO planes, that means F-16, F-18, F-15E, Eurofighter.

 

A mix between low and full fidelity could be the answer, with simplified features getting replaced by fully clickable ones (for example MFD pages) more and more over time. Its not too different from how some existing full fidelity aircraft are being released and updated.

[Dragon1-1]

Well, they explicitly said they're not doing anything of that sort. They also explicitly said no modern Russian fighters from out of them. So, I would say that something that was never mentioned at all is a better shot. The priority must, therefore, be to finish the ATC system (first carrier and then land-based), and then implementing AWACS and GCI overhaul.

 

If you want balanced multiplayer, MAC will likely have that.