Jump to content

DCS MiG-29A


Krippz

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:

Not much info, but its doing GPS navigation with map, displays radar, and new electronically monitored systems information. 

Datalink?


Edited by Harlikwin

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one from the photo (I am not the author) tactical number "19" is the second one that LDARZ carried out a major overhaul for Ukrainian Air Force. Extending the service life to 35 ÷ 40 years from its manufacture, and installed elements of the modernization, among others: a new SN-3307 satellite navigation system receiver integrated with the navigation and automatic landing system, changes to the N019 radar station significantly improving its reliability and target detection characteristics (including replacement of the N019-09 receiving block with a new one, made with the use of a modern element base), as well as a modification of the KOLS optoelectronic station. The frequency range of the on-board radio has also been extended in accordance with ICAO requirements and a modernized diagnostic and recording system for systems and devices operating parameters has been installed. The monochrome IPW monitor on the instrument panel has been replaced by a multi-functional color display. The RD-33 engines also underwent a general overhaul.

 

MU2 will bring guided air to surface weapons (laser bombs and missiles)


Edited by Gierasimov

Intel i7-13700KF :: ROG STRIX Z790-A GAMING WIFI D4 :: Corsair Vengeance LPX 64GB ::  MSI RTX 4080  Gaming X Trio  :: VKB Gunfighter MK.III MCG Ultimate :: VPC MongoosT-50 CM3 :: non-VR :: single player :: open beta

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would have been really nice to see 9-13 instead of 9-12. 

 

9-12 is not capable of carrying any fox 3 missiles, and most probably will not stand a chance against F/A-18C and F-16CM.

We all know that DCS stands on F-18, F-16, and F-14. At the moment there is no worthy opponent for them.

 


Edited by BioZ
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BioZ said:

Would have been really nice to see 9-13 instead of 9-12. 

 

9-12 is not capable of carrying any fox 3 missiles, and most probably will not stand a chance against F/A-18C and F-16CM.

We all know that DCS stands on F-18, F-16, and F-14. At the moment there is no worthy opponent for them.

 

 

 

You can do fine with Fox1's against most players in MP if you know what you are doing, but yeah Fox3's can make it a bit easier. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, BioZ said:

Would have been really nice to see 9-13 instead of 9-12. 

 

9-12 is not capable of carrying any fox 3 missiles, and most probably will not stand a chance against F/A-18C and F-16CM.

We all know that DCS stands on F-18, F-16, and F-14. At the moment there is no worthy opponent for them.

 

 

Eurofighters on the way to fix that. 😛


Edited by Wizard_03
  • Like 2

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, BioZ said:

Would have been really nice to see 9-13 instead of 9-12. 

 

9-12 is not capable of carrying any fox 3 missiles, and most probably will not stand a chance against F/A-18C and F-16CM.

We all know that DCS stands on F-18, F-16, and F-14. At the moment there is no worthy opponent for them.

 

 

 

Why 1980s MiG-29 should have a chance against 2007 F-16?

Do 1980s Mirage 2000 without AMRAAM or Link16 or JHMCS has a chance against 2007 AMRAAM, Datalink, JHMCS F-16? No. And it shouldn't have. Just like F-86 Sabre.

 

1970s/80s Mirage 2000 or MiG-21bis or F-5E or Mirage F.1 or Viggen or MiG-23MLA or A-6E or L-39 or A-7E or MiG-19 or F-14 or F-8J or Mirage III or EE lighting or C-101 shouldn't have a chance against few decades more recent totally different aviation era F-16C CCIP from 2007 and it's very good. It's perfectly fine.

 

Not every aircraft in DCS should be compared to 2007 F-16C CCIP or F/A-18C Lot 20.

I think our F-16 and F/A-18 should be modeled as 1980s/Deser Storm variants to be compatible with the whole rest of DCS environment and actually have symmetrical full fidelity opponents.

 

 

 

(Disclaimer: If DCS F-16 or F/A-18 from 2007 would have their electronic warfare suite modeled close to how it works in real life no aircraft in DCS except 2010 JF-17 could do anything against them, not even lock them reliably. 1970s avionic of the Tomcat or Mirage 2000 or Su-27S would be absolutely trivial to jam and their missiles to deceive by 2007 EW suite.)

 

 


Edited by bies
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, bies said:

 

W(Disclaimer: If DCS F-16 or F/A-18 from 2007 would have their electronic warfare suite modeled close to how it works in real life no aircraft except 2010 JF-17 could do anything against them, not even lock them reliably. 1970s avionic of the Tomcat or Mirage 2000 or Su-27S would be absolutely trivial to jam and their missiles to deceive by 2007 EW suite.)

 

 

 

This right here, 1000 percent. EW is probably THE single biggest deciding factor in modern air combat period.

 

It also works both ways, the jammers those aircraft carry, even 80s/90s tech, can pretty much turn off fancy tracking modes like TWS. The absoulty clear, gods eye, radar picture the modern Jets in DCS enjoy is also a fantasy. Not that it makes a Huge difference in effectiveness but it is a factor for sure.


Edited by Wizard_03
  • Like 3

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bies said:

1970s/80s Mirage 2000 or MiG-21bis or F-5E or Mirage F.1 or Viggen or MiG-23MLA or A-6E or L-39 or A-7E or MiG-19 or F-14 or F-8J or Mirage III or EE lighting or C-101 shouldn't have a chance against few decades more recent totally different aviation era F-16C CCIP from 2007 and it's very good. It's perfectly fine.

 

I prefer realistic 9.12 as well. 9.13 had been used by the Soviet Union only and didn't see any combat when 9.12 had been used by the half of the world and fought in Iraq-Iran war, operation Desert Storm, Ethiopian-Erithrean war, operation Allied Force.

 

'80s MiG-29 9.12 is going to have a lot more historical realistic opponents from it's Cold War era like all mentioned here and overall realistic enviroment, assets, compared to just two semi-modern F-16 and Hornet from mid '2000s


Edited by kseremak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, bies said:

 

Why 1980s MiG-29 should have a chance against 2007 F-16?

Do 1980s Mirage 2000 without AMRAAM or Link16 or JHMCS has a chance against 2007 AMRAAM, Datalink, JHMCS F-16? No. And it shouldn't have. Just like F-86 Sabre.

 

1970s/80s MiG-21bis or F-5E or Mirage F.1 or Viggen or MiG-23MLA or A-6E or L-39 or A-7E or MiG-19 or F-14 or F-8J or Mirage III or EE lighting or C-101 shouldn't have a chance against few decades more recent totally different aviation era F-16C CCIP from 2007 and it's very good. It's perfectly fine.

 

Not every aircraft in DCS should be compared to 2007 F-16C CCIP or F/A-18C Lot 20.

I think our F-16 and F/A-18 should be modeled as 1980s/Deser Storm variants to be compatible with the whole rest of DCS environment and actually have symmetrical full fidelity opponents.

 

(Disclaimer: If DCS F-16 or F/A-18 from 2007 would have their electronic warfare suite modeled close to how it works in real life no aircraft except 2010 JF-17 could do anything against them, not even lock them reliably. 1970s avionic of the Tomcat or Mirage 2000 or Su-27S would be absolutely trivial to jam and their missiles to deceive by 2007 EW suite.)

 

 

 

 

I understand that Aircraft from the 80s should not be compared to aircrafts from 2000+.

We have Mig-19, Mig-21, M2K, and so on.

Now, look at the servers and what 85% of players fly on. Right, that is 16,18, and a bit of 14. ]

Usually there is only 1 cold-war era server that has 10+ players. There simply isnt that many people enjoying the old stuff.

 

I understand that DCS is a simulator, but you have to look at it from the gameplay view as well.

There are some people like me and perhaps you that enjoy DCS for its realism and the environment that it represents, we don't care about our K/D ratio. 

The majority of people in PVP multiplayer DCS like to pick the modern stuff in order to have no disadvantage over the opponent. That's just human nature. 

 

9-13 would have more use in DCS and you can't argue with it.

At the moment there is simply no full-fidelity redfor opponents for blufor aircrafts.

Doubt that we will see 9-13 due to the lack of documentation. 

That's the only thing I am trying to say. 

 

 

 


Edited by BioZ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't fly on '2000s USAF vs USNavy servers, mostly Cold War or WW2 because they are way more authentic and engaging with realistic opponents for the NATO and Warsaw Pact/Soviets. But if we are talking about any realism at all both '80s MiG-29 9.12 and 9.13 (with some prototype 100% classified R-77 not even accepted by the Russian Air Force untill 2016) would be equally helpless against '2000s F-16 and F-18.

 

Month after month i can see more and more people on Cold War servers with Mirages, Tomcats, Viggens, MiG-21s, F-5Es, FC3 '80s F-15s, Su-27s, MiG-29s, Su-25As, A-10As doing things manually, dogfighting, going close to the enemy in the air or on the ground, now it's Mi-24, soon Mirage F.1, then all the rest other folks are mentioning. MiG-29 9.12 will fit ideally here, both capability wise and historical realism wise. In this enviroment skillfully used MiG-29 9.12 is going to be one of the most capable fighters around.

 

I can bet before MiG-29 9.12 will be even released (2 years from now?) Cold War servers will be at least as popular as 2000s USAF vs USNavy soup.


Edited by kseremak
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kseremak said:

I don't fly on '2000s USAF vs USNavy servers, mostly Cold War or WW2 because they are way more authentic and engaging with realistic opponents for the NATO and Warsaw Pact/Soviets. But if we are talking about any realism at all both '80s MiG-29 9.12 and 9.13 (with some prototype 100% classified R-77 not even accepted by the Russian Air Force untill 2016) would be equally helpless against '2000s F-16 and F-18.

Month after month i can see more and more people on Cold War servers with Mirages, Tomcats, Viggens, MiG-21s, F-5Es, FC3 '80s F-15s, Su-27s, MiG-29s, Su-25As, A-10As doing things manually, dogfighting, going close to the enemy in the air or on the ground, now it's Mi-24, soon Mirage F.1, then all the rest other folks are mentioning. MiG-29 9.12 will fit ideally here, both capability wise and historical realism wise.

 

I can bet before MiG-29 9.12 will be even released (2 years from now?) Cold War servers will be at least as popular as 2000s USAF vs USNavy soup.

 

 

Yup I agree 100%, and in the MP context a 9.12 with a decent pilot is generally good enough against either the Viper/F18 or the F14 at times as well, assuming one has R-27E versions. And its simply the case online because 80% of those guys are garbage pilots. 

 

That being said I'm glad to see the more and more development of actual CW modules, and my fond hope is that more and more people will migrate to those servers and scenarios as they discover the the "modern" stuff ED puts is modeled extremely poorly and missing big chunks of what it should have in terms of capabilities. To be fair, ED bit off waaay more than they can actually chew by jumping from planes like the F5 to a 2005 era F18 for example. I mean they didn't even model the radar right on the 70's era F5...

 

  • Like 4

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Cold War/1980s servers flying along/against flayable historically accurate 1980s DCS aircrafts like Mirage 2000, Mirage F.1, F-14 Tomcat, Su-27S, MiG-23MLA, MiG-21bis, F-15C, L-39, Mi-24P, A-10A, Viggen, F-5E, A-6 Intruder, A-7 Corsair, Su-25A, Bolkov 105, Sea Harrier, Mi-8, C-101, F-4, Gazelle, Huey - MiG-29 9.12 will fit perfectly and it's going to be dangerous to every opponent being one of apex predators of it's era.

 

Another thing is MiG-29 9.12 - contrary to some low serie/post Soviet variants/prototypes/niche export versions - had been used by some ~35 countries all around the world and it took part in many real life wars like Desert Storm, Iraq-Iran war, operation in Balkans, Ethiopian war in Africa, India-Pakistan Kargil war in Kashmir etc.

 

For me 9.12 sits in a sweet spot fitting some 20 flayable opponents\allies in DCS in historical context when i.e. SMT would have to be totally unrealistic made up aircraft with fictional avionics made only to artificially create something to fit Viper and Hornet.

 

(Plus SMT looks ugly with it's huge humpback, it has low thrust to weigh, high wing loading, weaker kinematic performance compared to Soviet hotrod 9.12, the only interesting part of SMT would be avionics which would need to be fictional and made up anyway being classified.)

 

Realistic 9.12 will be a dream come true.


Edited by bies
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2021 at 3:50 AM, Wizard_03 said:

Mune too. Indian 29K from the mid 2000s would be a perfect choice considering what we have now.

How would it be a "perfect choice" for what we have now?. I guess you mean as a counterpiece to the DCS F-18 and F-16 from that period - the irony being that those were less than a "perfect choice" for the DCS world that "we have now".

 

On 6/25/2021 at 3:50 AM, Wizard_03 said:

I for one would absolutely hate the idea of a prototype or technology demonstrator in the sim.

So I take it that you hate the Su-25T and Ka-50 then?

 

On 6/25/2021 at 3:50 AM, Wizard_03 said:

I can't even Imagine the foghorn level cries about balance and realism from both red and blue sides, and there will be exactly zero we in the community can do to validate anything about it.

Since when did the community's ability to "validate anything" have any bearing on what is being developed and how its being implemented in the sim?.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, kseremak said:

 

I prefer realistic 9.12 as well. 9.13 had been used by the Soviet Union only and didn't see any combat when 9.12 had been used by the half of the world and fought in Iraq-Iran war, operation Desert Storm, Ethiopian-Erithrean war, operation Allied Force.

IIRC the 9.13 was used in the Ethiopian-Erithrean war - its true that it wasn't exported during the Soviet period, but it was afterwards(by former Soviet states such as Ukraine and Moldova).

18 hours ago, kseremak said:

'But if we are talking about any realism at all both '80s MiG-29 9.12 and 9.13 (with some prototype 100% classified R-77 not even accepted by the Russian Air Force untill 2016) would be equally helpless against '2000s F-16 and F-18.

Yes but the 9.13 didn't have R-77 capability though - you are thinking of the 9.13S(MiG-29S). The 9.13 had the ECM, extra internal fuel and wing droptanks, but the WCS remained the same as that of the 9.12.....and was produced in quite large numbers as well(unlike the 9.13S).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Seaeagle said:

How would it be a "perfect choice" for what we have now?. I guess you mean as a counterpiece to the DCS F-18 and F-16 from that period - the irony being that those were less than a "perfect choice" for the DCS world that "we have now".

 

So I take it that you hate the Su-25T and Ka-50 then?

 

Since when did the community's ability to "validate anything" have any bearing on what is being developed and how its being implemented in the sim?.

Sorry let me be more clear, Considering what we have now AND whats on the horizon, mid 2000s hornet, viper, A-10, AV-8B, JF-17, strike eagle, eurofighter, and Apache. Marianas map, and supercarrier, a naval red asset from roughly the same time period seems pretty appropriate. But that's just my opinion.

 

No I'm not a big fan of either of those aircraft or Russian MiG-29S with R77s for that matter, and half a million other little gameplay considerations they've made. But TBH I'm even less of fan of BS3 and the rabbit hole it's heading down. Which brings me to validation, how can we say if anything that aircraft can do is realistic if it's not real? 

 

If they were to take some prototype and slap hypothetical combat systems and weapons on it and say "this is how it would/should have been" how can we possibly claim this game is even trying to be realistic. Where does it end, paper aircraft? Fictional Aircraft from pop culture? Future aircraft? If that's the case then we Don't need to look at performance charts because they aren't any, can't get mad if it's OP cause it's not real, can't say if any behavior is intended or not because it's all made up anyway. Yadda yadda. 

 

IMHO they should stick to realism and fidelity as much as possible because that's what sets DCS apart and that's what they have to offer over other games/Sims. If that means 90 percent of the game is asymmetric warfare so be it. That's reality. 


Edited by Wizard_03
  • Like 1

DCS F/A-18C :sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Wizard_03 said:

If they were to take some prototype and slap hypothetical combat systems and weapons on it and say "this is how it would/should have been" how can we possibly claim this game is even trying to be realistic. Where does it end, paper aircraft? Fictional Aircraft from pop culture? Future aircraft? If that's the case then we Don't need to look at performance charts because they aren't any, can't get mad if it's OP cause it's not real, can't say if any behavior is intended or not because it's all made up anyway. Yadda yadda. 

 

IMHO they should stick to realism and fidelity as much as possible because that's what sets DCS apart and that's what they have to offer over other games/Sims. If that means 90 percent of the game is asymmetric warfare so be it. That's reality. 

 

You don't actually need a physical aircraft to determine performance data. You can get the data via CFD and other simulations and if done correctly, it will be pretty accurate. And of course the mission designer has the ultimate say and exclude what is undesirable from a given mission.

 

Speaking on realism, it's always going to be short of reality by some amount. Given that I don't mind that one aircraft is slightly less well modeled than another. The AI we fly against is already simplified. ED should absolutely aim for the highest realism possible, but I don't think that means that they shouldn't consider filling in some details if it's absolutely necessary (as is the case for EW - we need it in the sim to really simulate air combat, but it's unlikely that we'll get specific data on individual ECM packages).

  • Like 1

Awaiting: DCS F-15C

Win 10 i5-9600KF 4.6 GHz 64 GB RAM RTX2080Ti 11GB -- Win 7 64 i5-6600K 3.6 GHz 32 GB RAM GTX970 4GB -- A-10C, F-5E, Su-27, F-15C, F-14B, F-16C missions in User Files

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Considering Mig-29 9.12 were widely exported at 80’s and at 90’s the production was stopped for more than 10 years (real serie production) the real scenery should be against earlier 4 Gen fighters. 
 

in that case the way to limit the datalink to existing new modules is very complicated. 
 

by the way F-14A got Datalink in DCS?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, F-14A used simple datalink since early '70s, it was designated Link 4A and Link4C and it is present in our F-14.

 

I don't want to see any unrealistic MiG-29 prototype (or any other aircraft) in DCS, without proper documentation and without SMEs. I can download MiG-xxx MOD and it would be similarly (un)realistic. There are 15-20 or more eagerly awaited declassified aircrafts with documentation waiting to be modeled in DCS, digging to model some historically unrelevant and unrealisticly modeled prototype would be a waste of time and resources. I would love classic Soviet and Warsaw Pact MiG-29 9.12 because it's historically relevant, declassified and it is more attractive to operate.


Edited by kseremak
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FC3 level Mig-29SMT will be pretty fair for a 2000 representation, also Mig-29K was the real last soviet development with some prototypes units, such program was restarted into Mig-29KM for Indians and Russian navy early 2000.

 

so leaving Mig-29A without a proper GCI and without having a real representation of F fighters for 80’s. That’s will be unfair. In hardware level, in weapons level (Soviet Migs were ready with R-27 for that date) is not fair.

 

when I use Mig-29 in multiplayers against new modules is terrible the AWACS call experience. It is the most disgusting thing see you have a fighter facing you at 40km and AWACS keep telling the position for the enemy 140km away. They must improve systems around the simulation for Mig-29 because those Mig were not intended to go independent.

 

the only Russian fighter to go really independent in groups was Su-27. From the first batch they were equipped with the first proper datalink in the world working in network groups. For that moment USAF was not even close to that. But Migs need more from ED to get a proper simulation.


Edited by pepin1234

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I think the 9.12 is probably the best one to do due to numbers produced and used. I just hope they add stuff like Lazur or maybe Takt for the DL. Then again, its gonna be marginally better than a the 23MLA so, IDK how big of a deal its gonna be. 

 

That being said, I like the idea of a more modern one, specifically a multirole ground attack version as well like the 29k. It just ticks alot of boxes for stuff that "red" is missing plus hypothetical red-naval ops could be interesting. 

 

 


Edited by Harlikwin
  • Like 2

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

when I use Mig-29 in multiplayers against new modules is terrible the AWACS call experience. It is the most disgusting thing see you have a fighter facing you at 40km and AWACS keep telling the position for the enemy 140km away. They must improve systems around the simulation for Mig-29 because those Mig were not intended to go independent.

 

the only Russian fighter to go really independent in groups was Su-27. From the first batch they were equipped with the first proper datalink in the world working in network groups. For that moment USAF was not even close to that. But Migs need more from ED to get a proper simulation.

 

I hope that new ED audio rework and AI and all, includes the proper separated AI for GCI.

One that is actually many AI. Where you would have one AI to overwatch big picture, strategy. And then individual AI's for each flight/group. Something that is not to be requested what is picture, but one that actively guides you, even in dog fight it would be constantly talking to you for enemy position around you, it energy status and maneuvers. So that you would know without asking what to do.

 

The AI should be "smart enough" to make tactics that helps to trap enemy by positioning own flight members to advantageous positions.

 

So the GCI would be talking a chess to redair, while blue AWACS would be telling threat vector, range etc usual as now.

 

This AI should then be used in AI flight/element leader tasking when player is a wingman. It would command player to fly wanted manner, take the control of tactics and engagements etc.

In dogfight/BVR you would be hearing AI talking to you as what to do etc.

 

It would be nice to be a wingman and hear one GCI telling air is clear and then another AI to command you to cover him as he is going to attack the ground target. 

 

The MiG-/Su- fighters lose so much because we don't have the proper TTS engine, no way to have dynamic AI for leading the flight etc.

 

But when currently Su-27S doesn't even have proper datalink capability for multiplayer, what can be expected?

 

We need proper flight group building in multiplayer, where they are connected, they get to input IFF codes to their systems, have flight plan drawn on map, radio frequencies set, and then datalinks based to proper groups.

 

 

  • Like 1

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

Yeah, I think the 9.12 is probably the best one to do due to numbers produced and used. I just hope they add stuff like Lazur or maybe Takt for the DL. Then again, its gonna be marginally better than a the 23MLA so, IDK how big of a deal its gonna be. 

 

That being said, I like the idea of a more modern one, specifically a multirole ground attack version as well like the 29k. It just ticks alot of boxes for stuff that "red" is missing plus hypothetical red-naval ops could be interesting. 

 

 

 

 

The 29 didn't actually have Lazur but a different system - slightly more advanced. But I don't know how you would properly implement it in DCS without a more complex AI controlling it or some sort of commander slot. I could technically see it being AI controlled guiding you to the closest/highest threat target. 

And the 29K is far from the ideal striker/ground pounder without a2a tanking. Also only some 89 planes were ever built and 45 operated by India right now. The 20 russian ones are barely noteworthy. Let alone the classification issues with a K model to begin with when it comes to DCS. Personally the 9.12 (A) is probably the most widely used and best looking version with good T/W and at least a good punchers chance in BFM with the Archer. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Skysurfer said:

 

The 29 didn't actually have Lazur but a different system - slightly more advanced. But I don't know how you would properly implement it in DCS without a more complex AI controlling it or some sort of commander slot. I could technically see it being AI controlled guiding you to the closest/highest threat target. 

And the 29K is far from the ideal striker/ground pounder without a2a tanking. Also only some 89 planes were ever built and 45 operated by India right now. The 20 russian ones are barely noteworthy. Let alone the classification issues with a K model to begin with when it comes to DCS. Personally the 9.12 (A) is probably the most widely used and best looking version with good T/W and at least a good punchers chance in BFM with the Archer. 

 

Yeah the GCI thing is something ED needs to figure out for sure. Its a major problem for the core game IMO.

 

As for the 29K I mainly bring it up since it is operated by india, so possible docs could be obtained there to circumvent the russian laws. Plus I think one possible "modern" conflict could be India V China. 

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah Mig-29K should be integrated as well as FC3 level. A good flight model as the current be integrated (PFM) and that A-G capability will be really needed for such a unbalanced integration now with Aim-9X also no full integrated in single unit IRL but we have it in every new module on the Air in DCS. So looking this picture created by the management of this simulator the Mig-29K with PFM flight physics and the proper weapons will be really good to face the unbalanced situation we got now.

  • Like 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Harlikwin said:

 

Yeah the GCI thing is something ED needs to figure out for sure. Its a major problem for the core game IMO.

 

As for the 29K I mainly bring it up since it is operated by india, so possible docs could be obtained there to circumvent the russian laws. Plus I think one possible "modern" conflict could be India V China. 

 

Wouldn't really call it a major problem to be honest. I'm sure a 3rd party could easily implement such a system into their module if they wanted to. It's no different from Jester AI for that matter. We'll see if Razbam does anything in the MLA.

And well, the Indians still have contractual obligations and parts support from Russia. You don't see any of their docs online for a reason and if you did you might lose said support. Part of the reason the MKI's are usually pretty guarded at Red Flag.

2 minutes ago, pepin1234 said:

Yeah Mig-29K should be integrated as well as FC3 level. A good flight model as the current be integrated (PFM) and that A-G capability will be really needed for such a unbalanced integration now with Aim-9X also no full integrated in single unit IRL but we have it in every new module on the Air in DCS. So looking this picture created by the management of this simulator the Mig-29K with PFM flight physics and the proper weapons will be really good to face the unbalanced situation we got now.

 

There is and should be no balance in DCS, period. The moment you even bring that up you pretty much admit you don't want a sim but some competitive shooter or a call of duty.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

×
×
  • Create New...