announced DCS MiG-29A

[Dragon1-1]

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

If you are refering to the Luftwaffe MiG-29s, then they didn't have one - the Lazur datalink was removed from the aircraft before Luftwaffe got them.

The datalink wasn't actually Lazur, it was a much newer, more capable suite (don't remember what it was called). The last Lazur MiG was the PVO version of -23, not to mention this particular system was PVO-only.

 

It wasn't just Luftwaffe, BTW, Poland had its own MiG-29s, even before getting the German hand-me-downs. That said, I'm not sure if those had the datalink, either. Poland usually got Soviet-grade hardware, but on the other hand, it didn't have some of the support equipment that the USSR proper used, so they might have left that out.

[Harlikwin]

16 hours ago, TotenDead said:

 

Nope, 9.12 has no jammer

 

 

In a multi ship situation mig29 radars would jam each other at times. 

14 hours ago, bies said:

 

IIRC few 3rd parties were interested, but ED reserved F-4 for themselves, they will probably plan to make it after Apache. Or maybe something change and they will make it free for some 3rd party.

 

And I'm excited for 1980s MiG-29 9.12 and all cold war modules incoming far more than some next AMRAAM truck.

 

Yes MiG-29 9.12 had somewhat inferior human-machine interface but that's it's flavor.

MiG-29 cockpit wasn't design with pure ergonomic in mind but rather as a compromise accenting easy conversion from previous types: MiG-21, MiG-23, MiG-25. This was a factor since Soviet aviation was huge, many times more numerous than Russian air force. That's why even Su-27 having FBW still required constant manual trim - it increased workload but pilots wanted it to be similar to previous types.

 

If someone is familiar with MiG-21 cockpit he's going to have easy time with MiG-23 and MiG-29.

(And MiG-25 if someone decide to make it some day)

 

 

Yeah I get the soviet philosophy of how the designed the planes, to make transition easy. What I'm mainly alluding to is the rather crappy human interface for radar controls relative to the west. It makes perfect sense in the context of how the 29 was to be used. GCI tells you set radar at range X and alt Y and you should happily see him. But compared to say what you do with a viper where you can easily scan around it sucks. And without that critical GCI component its gonna make the mig less effective in DCS (Yes I know it works like that now in the regular modules, the difference being you have to map it, and IRL its a big knob and switches on the front panel, which is significantly less handy)

 

But yes, I'm happy for even an old 80's mig. I just want the rest of the ecosystem to be there too. 

[Harlikwin]

7 hours ago, Hodo said:

Yes true... Granted I have played online with a semi-compitent GCI. Or to be more honest a very good GCI.  And they had my Mirage anywhere it was needed.  I can only imagine how well it would have worked with a MiG of Su.  

 

 

 

It works fine if you have a decent human doing it in MP, one of my favorite ways to fight in MP actually. But most of the time any human GCI is rare luxury when I can play. Also why I'm pushing ED to improve GCI/AWACS systems past the crappy system of today. "Comrade! Steer 234 for 200km, angels 15, we really know its a tanker, and so do you, but jokes on you cuz there is a bandit 3 miles off your 6 we didn't tell you about"

 

[Kev2go]

On 2/7/2021 at 4:33 AM, Northstar98 said:

 

-

 

 

 

Clearly that wasnt a deal breaker before considering that for the longest time DCS was really just ED with FC3, A10C and black shark 2 and a single Caucasus map based on the 2008 georgian war. The Influx of more modules  and maps only became a thing in the last few years and with 3rd parties.

 

So there has been quite bit of progress in fleshing out content, and eras.

 

Also need to take into consideration PVE allows for more options. Considering there are some AI aircraft being made and the potential that lays there to flesh out eras. This already allows for more content in general but especially for those complaining that gen 4 opforce contemporaries are lacking purely pilotable modules.

 

I Think there are merits towards they way they have gone have gone for is better because it offers something for everyone. You have a taste of a bit of every era, versus purely being 1 specific era. Granted there will be a time where ED runs out of modern era  Bluforce content, and will probably have no choice but to go back in time and instead focus on earlier jet eras. Realistically ED is a small company though, and i think they already have more to bite on then they can chew, especially considering the support and constant improvements to the overall game engine that are gradually being worked on.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Kev2go

[Max1mus]

1 hour ago, Kev2go said:

Also need to take into consideration PVE allows for more options. Considering there are some AI aircraft being made and the potential that lays there to flesh out eras. This already allows for more content in general but especially for those complaining that gen 4 opforce contemporaries are lacking purely pilotable modules.

 

There are no modern Redfor AI planes either. And none are planned.

 

Which proves to me that ED isn't just neglecting Redfor purely out of lack of documentation.

[Kev2go]

1 minute ago, Max1mus said:

 

There are no modern Redfor AI planes either. And none are planned.

 

Which proves to me that ED isn't just neglecting Redfor purely out of lack of documentation.

 

Su30 or even su34 isn't "modern" ? 

[Max1mus]

2 hours ago, Kev2go said:

 

Su30 or even su34 isn't "modern" ? 

 

DCS Su-30 is just a Su-27P with 2 seats. 1980s.

 

Sure, Su-34. If ED can add such a modern striker, surely an AI Su-27SM3 or Su-35 isnt an issue?

[Gierasimov]

32 minutes ago, Max1mus said:

 

DCS Su-30 is just a Su-27P with 2 seats. 1980s.

 

Sure, Su-34. If ED can add such a modern striker, surely an AI Su-27SM3 or Su-35 isnt an issue?

The only issue with AI units is the resources. Apparently it takes 4 months to complete an AI asset, so that means the team for that asset would be occupied whole year if doing 3 of those right? So, getting 10 such teams with the same skills employed is not only expensive, but also not that easy. Then, those AI units are coming for free, so...

 

But you know what, let's get back to Fulcrum. 

 

I am reading a document about Fulcrum navigation, it claims that there are 3 pre planned waypoints and 3 pre planned air bases in this system. So one home plate and two backup landing points, however waypoints... I wonder if anyone knows this? What? Three only? I will try to find out more about this.

I can't link the document though. 

[Dudikoff]

12 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

I am reading a document about Fulcrum navigation, it claims that there are 3 pre planned waypoints and 3 pre planned air bases in this system. So one home plate and two backup landing points, however waypoints... I wonder if anyone knows this? What? Three only? I will try to find out more about this.

I can't link the document though. 

 

Yes, only three. You can see the three buttons (top row, the bottom one is for the three home base waypoints) on the right panel in DCS.

[TotenDead]

17 часов назад, Max1mus сказал:

 

BLUFOR 4th gen aircraft were always able to build their own SA picture. AWACS could help them out, but their radar has a wide cone AND CAN SEE TARGET ASPECT AND SPEED WITHOUT LOCKING. Without this, you cannot lead a flight on your own, and as such MiG-29A integrated into NATO were "never leading a flight" when used in operations.

 

MiG-29 is capable of showing which target flies faster and which slower. But not in DCS.

17 часов назад, Max1mus сказал:

The soviets have had these GCI slave tactics and specially designed GCI datalinks to decrease pilot training cost (50-60 hours flying time per year) and because for a long time, they did not need an independent air superiority fighter. This only changed with Su-27 and MiG-31, which were built to patrol Siberia, which lacked EWR coverage.

There also was MiG-25, Tu-128, yak-28 and other planes with pretty descent range

17 часов назад, Max1mus сказал:

But every plane before Su-27P/S, especially MiG-23, MiG-25 and MiG-29 were built to purely execute GCI commands. To the point where MiG-23 pilots died because they did not want to eject without GCI permission.

Bullscheiss, sorry. Pilots ejected by themselves, ground commands were recomendations at best as only pilot decided wether to eject or not. Yea, you can say that CGI could order to eject, but final decision was always taken by the pilot. In fact, on many occasions pilots didn't obey "orders" as they wanted to save the plane

 

[TotenDead]

16 часов назад, Max1mus сказал:

 Even its 80s opponents have very good situational awareness and slightly superior BVR weapons (AIM-7>R-27R), and as such the lack of GCI Datalink and a tactical and stragetical GCI will be absolutely detrimental to the flying experience.

 

In the 80s F-16 had no datalink, as well as F-15 and F-18 IIRC. So nope, not really. 

(AIM-7>R-27R) Well, eh, hell no. I mean, Aim-7MH might be better against a slow bomber, but not a fighter.  
Furthermore, MiG-29 was designed to have the same DL as Su-27, but by the time USSR collapsed none were equipped with it. Anyway, you can find a switch TAKT on top of the screen in MiGs cockpit, funnily enough, according to the cockpit the DL should be switched on.

 

[Kev2go]

2 hours ago, Max1mus said:

 

DCS Su-30 is just a Su-27P with 2 seats. 1980s.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 

Quote

 

Sure, Su-34. If ED can add such a modern striker, surely an AI Su-27SM3 or Su-35 isnt an issue?

 

 

 

see this response .

 

 

 

1 hour ago, Gierasimov said:

The only issue with AI units is the resources. Apparently it takes 4 months to complete an AI asset, so that means the team for that asset would be occupied whole year if doing 3 of those right? So, getting 10 such teams with the same skills employed is not only expensive, but also not that easy. Then, those AI units are coming for free, so...

 

But you know what, let's get back to Fulcrum. 

 

I am reading a document about Fulcrum navigation, it claims that there are 3 pre planned waypoints and 3 pre planned air bases in this system. So one home plate and two backup landing points, however waypoints... I wonder if anyone knows this? What? Three only? I will try to find out more about this.

I can't link the document though. 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 9, 2021 by Kev2go

[Gierasimov]

2 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

Yes, only three. You can see the three buttons (top row, the bottom one is for the three home base waypoints) on the right panel in DCS.

Good. Then there is also a space to do this GPS Trimble 2101 as 'optional module' as one seen in MiG-29A Polish Air Force cockpit:

[Zweistein000]

11 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

 "Comrade! Steer 234 for 200km, angels 15, we really know its a tanker, and so do you, but jokes on you cuz there is a bandit 3 miles off your 6 we didn't tell you about"

 

Can relate. 

 

My favorite one is: me cruising at 8k agl above flat terain. 

AWACS: *silence* *silence* *silence* MERGED. 

 

 

[Northstar98]

On 2/9/2021 at 1:46 AM, Kev2go said:

Clearly that wasnt a deal breaker before considering that for the longest time DCS was really just ED with FC3, A10C and black shark 2 and a single Caucasus map based on the 2008 georgian war. The Influx of more modules  and maps only became a thing in the last few years and with 3rd parties.

Well, even though the assets are limited, they are at least consistent with each other - it's only a few metres wide and maybe a metre deep.

But you're going to need a lot more water to make it a mile wide while keeping the same depth. If that makes any sense.

FC3 is mostly single era ~80s, apart from a single weapons system on the F-15C... They do all fit together (or at least a lot better).

BS2 isn't far away from FC3 either, and that and the A-10C don't have a whole lot between them.

Having a single map is fine, so long as it fits the assets, which at least on the REDFOR side it does (Su-27s can be seen at Krymsk, MiG-29s at Krasnodar Centre, Su-25s are used by both the Russians and Georgians).

Quote

So there has been quite bit of progress in fleshing out content, and eras.

Not really, we've added completely new eras, but they're hardly fleshed out and often it's mostly 1 side has xxx but not the other. I am currently trying to list all the assets in DCS and sort them via decade based on their introduction date, hopefully that will clear stuff up.

Quote

Also need to take into consideration PVE allows for more options. Considering there are some AI aircraft being made and the potential that lays there to flesh out eras.

Keyword "potential" so far there's the A-6E/KA-6E which is definitely a step in the right direction; HB seem to be the only third party focusing on aircraft that fit each other. The current Tomcats fit the approximate timeframe of the Viggen, the A-6E fits too and both the Tomcat and A-6 fit on the WIP Forrestal-class (late) - this is exactly the kinda thing I'm talking about - developing assets that fit each other. These assets in turn fit the REDFOR FC3 aircraft and when the FF 9.12 MiG-29 hits it looks like the 80s will start to match WW2 in eras that are more comprehensive.

On the other hand look at the Hind and the Apache, it's great for many that we're getting a post 2000s Apache to fit with the rest of BLUFOR - but that's the only thing it fits. We're also getting an early 90s Hind (though it's early 90s based on a single weapons system, otherwise its very much an 80s aircraft).

Quote

This already allows for more content in general but especially for those complaining that gen 4 opforce contemporaries are lacking purely pilotable modules.

 

I Think there are merits towards they way they have gone have gone for is better because it offers something for everyone. You have a taste of a bit of every era, versus purely being 1 specific era.

Yes, it's a mile wide but an inch deep, it's good that it offers a mile but personally, it needs to offer more than inch, on top of all the other things that would make DCS a better combat simulator, things like the AI, DM, IADS, EW as well as other things like how things like ARMs are modelled etc. It's a big ask but I hope we get there someday.

But the issue with 4th gen AI aircraft (such as the F-15E, Mirage 2000-5, Su-30, Su-34 and Tornado) is that while they give 4th gen BLUFOR pilots something to go up against, they're bound by DCS' AI...

Quote

Granted there will be a time where ED runs out of modern era  Bluforce content, and will probably have no choice but to go back in time and instead focus on earlier jet eras. Realistically ED is a small company though, and i think they already have more to bite on then they can chew, especially considering the support and constant improvements to the overall game engine that are gradually being worked on.

Yes, and the good thing there is that they can probably pump them out much faster than modern aircraft, the FDM and simpler RADARs being the main hurdle.

As for the the rest, I absolutely agree. Though I think these discussions are better suited to this thread, and not here; in any case the 9-12 MiG-29 is a step in the right direction for DCS, at least for 80s/early 90s.

Edited January 12, 2022 by Northstar98
formatting, spelling

[Zweistein000]

I will make a double post since I ran out of time during my break. 

 

To the people who are saying that full fidelity MiG-29A would not bring anything to the table: From my point of view I think you are completely missing the point of playing aircraft sims. To me, flying aircraft in sims is more than just a combat experience. It's as much about flying the aircraft with all its quirks and oddities as it is about manouvering in BVR or VFR combat. And this is where FC3 is sorely lacking. It's good enough for combat (spefically A2A combat), but when it comes to everything else, including ground attack to some degree, but also navigation, control of secondary systems, setup and planning, it falls short by milesand it really makes for a much less interesting experience. 

[WinterH]

I probably wouldn't still be with DCS if it was a single era fleshed out. For all the criticism I had for it over the years, one thing that made me stick from day one, still doing so today, is that we get to taste aircraft from all over the world and all over the history.

 

While I also am firmly in the "more 80s please" camp, I most certainly wouldn't like it become only 80s for example. I much, much prefer miles wide, inch deep over miles deep but inch wide.

 

As for the DCS: MiG-29A, it is a false savior in my eyes. It adds hardly much over what is already possible with FC3 version. It is the same aircraft, with same capabilities, and same flight characteristics. It IS already in the sim. It helps neither with fleshing out 80s, nor with giving the red side new blood, both things I want to see in DCS the most. If we were talking about a new, unique flyable 80s aircraft in the sim like a MiG-27, Su-17, MiG-25, even Su-15, I'd be jumping for joy. I'd be highly happy, for a more modern Russian plane as well, even if less so than I'd be for an 80s one. Because an actually modern Russian bird would be something different, but we know that ain't happening. DCS: MiG-29A, I honestly see no point in, I will still get it probably, but only to "support full fidelity ED modules of red birds".

Edited February 9, 2021 by WinterH
clarified a sentence

[Cmptohocah]

40 minutes ago, Zweistein000 said:

I will make a double post since I ran out of time during my break. 

 

To the people who are saying that full fidelity MiG-29A would not bring anything to the table: From my point of view I think you are completely missing the point of playing aircraft sims. To me, flying aircraft in sims is more than just a combat experience. It's as much about flying the aircraft with all its quirks and oddities as it is about manouvering in BVR or VFR combat. And this is where FC3 is sorely lacking. It's good enough for combat (spefically A2A combat), but when it comes to everything else, including ground attack to some degree, but also navigation, control of secondary systems, setup and planning, it falls short by milesand it really makes for a much less interesting experience. 

Also, people forget that all those details add up and influence the combat quite a bit. It's just enough to remove the F10 map view and you already have a different experience. Not to mention things like IFF, setting up correct switches, engine management etc.

[Dragon1-1]

Well, the MiG-29 we have now has shortcomings, starting with it being impossible to know which waypoint you're currently flying towards. FC3, all in all, isn't all that great. The difference between full fidelity and FC3 will be that FF will be that much more fun to actually fly. Also, unlike FC3, the MiG and its weapons will be actively supported.

[Dudikoff]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

As for the DCS: MiG-29A, it is a false savior in my eyes. It adds hardly much over what is already possible with FC3 version. It is the same aircraft, with same capabilities, and same flight characteristics. It IS already in the sim. It helps neither with fleshing out 80s, nor with giving the red side new blood, both things I want to see in DCS the most. If we were talking about a new, unique flyable 80s aircraft in the sim like a MiG-27, Su-17, MiG-25, even Su-15, I'd be jumping for joy. I'd be highly happy, even if less than an 80s one for a more modern Russian plane as well, because an actually modern Russian bird would be something different, but we know that ain't happening. DCS: MiG-29A, I honestly see no point in, I will still get it probably, but only to "support full fidelity ED modules of red birds".

 

A puzzling perspective, IMHO. For me it's quite the opposite and any FC3 module is a logical candidate for a DCS level module made by ED since a good chunk of work is already done, mainly the FM.

 

The main benefit is that after flying full DCS modules, a lot of people don't enjoy flying FC3 modules at all because of their very shallowly modeled systems, so e.g. with DCS MiG-29 we'd finally get its radar, IRST, WCS, RWR, GCI and navigation systems properly modeled with all their submodes and various limitations.

 

These things most certainly are not in the sim at the moment and without them, it's just some simplified black box hulk which flies the same and fires the same weapons.

 

And once they have these subsystems modeled, they can be reused for other Soviet aircraft from the period (like, e.g. navigation and RWR systems could be reused for DCS: Su-25, etc.).

Edited February 9, 2021 by Dudikoff

[Lurker]

Eagle Dynamics has been pretty upfront about why they are unable to produce modern(ish) Redfor aircraft. However as always, we have certain forum members who keep ignoring that simple and well documented explanation and resort to name calling and even borderline conspiracy theories for why that is. I guess they've never heard of Occam's razor. 

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, WinterH said:

I probably wouldn't still be with DCS if it was a single era fleshed out. For all the criticism I had for it over the years, one thing that made me stick from day one, still doing so today, is that we get to taste aircraft from all over the world and all over the history.

 

While I also am firmly in the "more 80s please" camp, I most certainly wouldn't like it become only 80s for example. I much, much prefer miles wide, inch deep over miles deep but inch wide.

 

I don't think restricting it down to a only single decade is necessary, just pick a decade or even an era/sub era, and get it up to the level of what WW2 is like now (where you've got ~2-3 modules on both sides, with reasonably comprehensive assets (namely air defences and armoured vehicles), before moving onto the next.

 

Have multiple by all means. But instead of miles wide, and inch deep; maybe a few hundred metres wide and a few 10s of metres deep, if that make sense.

 

[Pikey]

Just need to add my name to this thread.
My hope is to one day see Mig29A, Mig-23, Mig-21, Su-25 players fighting against 80's blue jets in full fidelity modules. The 80's are the only hope for that, with the way Russian law is. The constant push for modern jets is pidgeonholing the sim into random desert scenarios against 1980's tech and AI. Many of the AI models in the game are as old as the real world objects.
Without players in Migs, the sims ecosystem for multiplayer is hugely limited and cannot get off the ground and into the limelight. If you saw a genuine blue vs red contmporary battle in DCS, you would love it and it would mean more units sold and more modules all round.

[bies]

29 minutes ago, Lurker said:

Eagle Dynamics has been pretty upfront about why they are unable to produce modern(ish) Redfor aircraft. However as always, we have certain forum members who keep ignoring that simple and well documented explanation and resort to name calling and even borderline conspiracy theories for why that is. I guess they've never heard of Occam's razor. 

 

Exactly. All this consiracy theories "ED doesn't make modern Russia because ED is bad"

 

What is more, let's pretend for a second ED made let's say MiG-35 or MiG-29K:

• It is illegal with consequences for ED
• All documentation is strictly classified so it has guestimated flight characteristics, made up avionics and fictional systems
• Absolutely ZERO subject matter experts imput so some huge discrepancies impossible to detect, eliminate and tune
• All it's systems which are crucial - and more important IRL than anything else - like ECM capability, ECCM, radar detection, discrimination algorithms, datalink capabilities - all of that completely "generic" and fictional being even more strictly classified than the rest
• Reliance on only one single weapon system, AMRAAMski, also made up without any reliable data or real life warfare to verify it real capabilities, nothing
• And what is this all for? - boring (+ fictional and unrealistic) gameplay, identical as current AMRAAM trusks namely: (1)fire AMRAAMski right before MAR, (2)run, (3)repeat

 

ED is doing right thing selecting classic declassified MiG-29 9.12 which can be made in reasonably ralistic way and offers far more engaging, varied and interesting human pilot skill based gameplay with close maneuver air combat and manual pilotage.

  

12 minutes ago, Pikey said:

Just need to add my name to this thread.
My hope is to one day see Mig29A, Mig-23, Mig-21, Su-25 players fighting against 80's blue jets in full fidelity modules.

 

I absolutely agree.

Edited February 9, 2021 by bies

[Gierasimov]

54 minutes ago, Dragon1-1 said:

Well, the MiG-29 we have now has shortcomings, starting with it being impossible to know which waypoint you're currently flying towards. FC3, all in all, isn't all that great. The difference between full fidelity and FC3 will be that FF will be that much more fun to actually fly. Also, unlike FC3, the MiG and its weapons will be actively supported.

That. On top of it, as MiG-29 startup relies on ground support, modeling that aspect would be adding to the experience. Just like animated ground crew for the SC, MiG-29 module would only benefit from modeled ground support for startup procedure.