Jump to content

DCS MiG-29A


Krippz

Recommended Posts

I am no expert, but in this video shot with a FLIR, the flares seem rather flimsy compared to the F-16's IR signature. They do disappear from camera view rather quickly though.  

Timestamp: 00:54


Edited by Cmptohocah

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:


Did some research on this.
Long story short: different materials and surfaces have different "emissivity" of IR energy, ie. they don't all emit same amount of infra-red radiation even though their temperatures might be the same.

 

Yup... Most people just think of the grossly oversimplified case of a perfect blackbody radiator, which doesn't exist outside of a texbook or peoples fevered imaginations. Real world Grey-bodies will have a signal that is a combination of emissivity and reflectivity. 

 

The other issue is that during day time, and even at night you have issues with "sun" interference, I.e. the sun is by far the largest and strongest IR source on earth, And therefore reflections from it mess with thermal imaging or detection systems. The other thing most people don't understand is how much "really hot gasses" don't really matter that much since the specific spectrum they emit at gets absorbed rapidly. Or that clouds basically block IR (really thin ones don't totally, but any water vapor degrades performance). Which tends to be a problem for air search ops looking up. In look down during the day you absolutely get a bunch of clutter because again R2, you may see a "hot" source from a long distance but you will also see "sort of hot" sources that are much closer. At night it obviously gets better for clutter, which is why FLIR was historically used more at night, though there are still reflections from moonlight (reflected sunlight) in the IR.  

  • Like 3

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

9 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

I am no expert, but in this video shot with a FLIR, the flares seem rather flimsy compared to the F-16's IR signature. They do disappear from camera view rather quickly though.  

Timestamp: 00:54

 

 

Yeah, so a few things about that video, that is shot in LWIR, but most things like IRST and missile seekers are in the MWIR region, so that video will look somewhat different.  But the main issue is you are really really close to that, so it looks really really hot, at one point you can see where it flies over water and a ton of "bright" sun reflections and where its blocked a bit by a cloud. Now imagine you aren't close to it and its just another bright dot, thats what IRST systems or missile seekers "see" at long range. These days you have enough signal/image processing available to make some use of that data, but a 1960's or 1970 non imaging system... Good luck. I mean they did sort of work, but they had a bunch of problems. 

As for flares, one classic ECCM/flare rejection technique for them was to use a very narrow FOV seeker so that it wouldn't pick up on the flares. Of course we are talking about old school non-imaging seeker heads. 

 

  • 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

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

I'm gonna dive into my frustrations with ED.

I've confronted them about modern REDFOR tech and I get just the same BS answers like.

1. Putin is bad and mean.
2. Russian Laws (That they refuse to site a source)
3. Prove that they are denied any information with Right To Know laws or request.

It almost comes to the point that ED is the Gaijin of Flight Simulators, except they are so NATO biased it's utterly disgusting, one of their team members literally tells people the amraam is the best missle in the world and the guy balances russian missles LOL. One would assume he just works for the CIA at this point. It's clearly obvious ED doesn't care about REDFOR, they allow a eurofighter to be made with a missle that went into active service for less than 5 years (2017 Meteor) on a first generation block Euro Fighter. It's honestly a joke. 

What purpose is there to give us the SAME MiG-29A that we already have,  I guess I could say I APPRECIATE a full fidelity model but it's the SAME model, correct? Besides clicking buttons and being able to customize some radio settings and counter measures, it's essentially the same thing. Most players on multiplayer are NPCs and just auto start their aircraft anyways, so removing the cold start process, it's essentially the same aircraft then right?

I'm not understanding the purpose of the same aircraft, except you click buttons, get the same missles and get the first and worst variant of the MiG-29. What does this module bring to the simulator? I'm sure boomers will defend this and say, atleast it's clickable and be grateful but maybe I'm in the minority here and just don't understand the point in this module. At this point, atleast give us AI that can compete with these modern bluefor jets. Eurofighter, really? Where is our AI SU-35? 

It also cracks me up that they took away datalink from the Mig-29S but add the amraam on the CURRENT F-15C that isn't capable of carrying that missle. ED just picks and chooses it's standards and makes exceptions all the time and shuts down the redfor community. It's not a joke anymore, this is literally NATO simulator or AMRAAM simulator at this point. Sad that there is no competitor and this is all we have. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Sol 1 Mihaly You're way too emotional about aircraft that is not even confirmed yet. ED is just looking at possibilities and plans and this is the version that is most probable. No one foces you to believe their reasons or like their decisions. No one forces you to buy the FF MiG-29A. It is what it is while the other aircraft are said as not possible to model atm. It's also fine that you don't appreciate the full fidelity modeling - but most of DCS players do. Keep in mind the MP balance is not the goal of the DCS development at all.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

@Sol 1 Mihaly You're way too emotional about aircraft that is not even confirmed yet. ED is just looking at possibilities and plans and this is the version that is most probable. No one foces you to believe their reasons or like their decisions. No one forces you to buy the FF MiG-29A. It is what it is while the other aircraft are said as not possible to model atm. It's also fine that you don't appreciate the full fidelity modeling - but most of DCS players do. Keep in mind the MP balance is not the goal of the DCS development at all.

 

Yeah, nobody is emotional, stop projecting. 

Also MP balance? Yeah, it actually is a big part of the simulator and a large part of the community has an issue with contradictions and flat out, just lies and deceptive behavior.

Again, I go back to the frankeinstein build of a eurofighter being acceptable, which is literally just A2A with a 2017 missle that somehow we have the data to build. I mean, if that's allowed, give us modern flankers and stop building roadblocks for other developers who want modern, traditional REDFOR planes. Only ED would allow a eurofighter to be released with just A2A. Literally cold start, turn radar on, Meteor launch, wow, such high fidelty lol. It's basically FC3 quality. 

The issue is, ED doesn't have an actual standard they let the public know about, they pick and choose. Correct, it is what it is, it's garbage, but this is all we have until a better company comes along. We are allowed to be vocal and not shills for ED, like asking a question, what does a FF 29A bring that the FC3 29A already does, besides very minor, small things and "muh clicky buttons.", and I said minor, it's literally the same aircraft. 

You act like high fidelity is some sort of elite aviation club. Most people bind their stuff on the HOTAS and press the same 6 buttons over and over again, hilarious.

I also don't understand if we are getting basically 2017 technology, why we can't even have REDFOR AI that's in the same time period, like SU-35 AI and modern variants of the fulcrum line up as well. 

But yeah, gotta keep REDFOR in the 80s basically. How else are blue players gonna feel good shooting down tech that's 30 to 40 years old. That's like F-4E's fighting BF-109s. A bunch of viritual top guns here shooting down 1950's mig-21s. 

 

NATO simulator "AMRAAM simulator."


Edited by Sol 1 Mihaly
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
38 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

I'm gonna dive into my frustrations with ED.

I've confronted them about modern REDFOR tech and I get just the same BS answers like.

1. Putin is bad and mean.
2. Russian Laws (That they refuse to site a source)
3. Prove that they are denied any information with Right To Know laws or request.

It almost comes to the point that ED is the Gaijin of Flight Simulators, except they are so NATO biased it's utterly disgusting, one of their team members literally tells people the amraam is the best missle in the world and the guy balances russian missles LOL. One would assume he just works for the CIA at this point. It's clearly obvious ED doesn't care about REDFOR, they allow a eurofighter to be made with a missle that went into active service for less than 5 years (2017 Meteor) on a first generation block Euro Fighter. It's honestly a joke. 

What purpose is there to give us the SAME MiG-29A that we already have,  I guess I could say I APPRECIATE a full fidelity model but it's the SAME model, correct? Besides clicking buttons and being able to customize some radio settings and counter measures, it's essentially the same thing. Most players on multiplayer are NPCs and just auto start their aircraft anyways, so removing the cold start process, it's essentially the same aircraft then right?

I'm not understanding the purpose of the same aircraft, except you click buttons, get the same missles and get the first and worst variant of the MiG-29. What does this module bring to the simulator? I'm sure boomers will defend this and say, atleast it's clickable and be grateful but maybe I'm in the minority here and just don't understand the point in this module. At this point, atleast give us AI that can compete with these modern bluefor jets. Eurofighter, really? Where is our AI SU-35? 

It also cracks me up that they took away datalink from the Mig-29S but add the amraam on the CURRENT F-15C that isn't capable of carrying that missle. ED just picks and chooses it's standards and makes exceptions all the time and shuts down the redfor community. It's not a joke anymore, this is literally NATO simulator or AMRAAM simulator at this point. Sad that there is no competitor and this is all we have. 

 

Please keep the feedback constructive and to the rules. 

 

You seem to be very passionate, why not put a third party team together with a proposal for us with your chosen REDFOR jet.

 


 

  • Like 4

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

It also cracks me up that they took away datalink from the Mig-29S but add the amraam on the CURRENT F-15C that isn't capable of carrying that missle. ED just picks and chooses it's standards and makes exceptions all the time and shuts down the redfor community. It's not a joke anymore, this is literally NATO simulator or AMRAAM simulator at this point. Sad that there is no competitor and this is all we have. 

 

F-15C/D Eagle Fighter
Ordnance Loadouts: Payload: 7258 kg
Off Guns: M61A1 Vulcan 20mm
• 3 DT, 4 AIM-7F, 4 AIM-9L (1979)
• 3 DT, 4 AIM-7M, 4 AIM-9M (1983)
• 3 DT, 2 AIM-7M, 2 AIM-9M, 4 AIM-120A (Sep 91)
• 3 DT, 2 AIM-9M or AIM-9X-1 (Aug 03), 6 AIM-120C (2002?) or AIM-120C-5 (2005?) or AIM-120C-7 (2008?)
• 3 DT, 2 AIM-9X-2, 6 AIM-120D (Jul 15)
• 2 DT, 2 AIM-9X-2, 6 AIM-120D, AAQ-33 (ANG 2011) or Talon HATE (Sep 17) or Legion pod (2020).
• AAQ-33 Sniper or Legion pod, 10 AIM-120D, 2 AIM-9X-1 (PADE)

 

Remarks: In Svc: 1979
Conformal fuel tanks (CFT) can be fitted/removed in 15 minutes and both hold 4525 kg total with Maneuver Rating of 4.0/2.0. Only sufficient conformal tanks available for 1st TFW, units in Alaska and Iceland. APG-63PSP or APG-70 can engage four targets at once with AMRAAM; APG-63(V)1, APG-63(V)2 and APG-63(V)3 can engage eight targets at once with AMRAAM. Fitted with telescopic sights (Eagle Eye) - treat as 1/2 range TCS against target directly ahead. Use first ranges and fuel for F-15C, second for F-15D trainer.


• Systems: 3rd Gen J&D countermeasures, improved radar ECCM mid 90s; NVG (1999); HMD Nov 03.
• Jun 85-97: MSIP II updates - deliveries from 1987 have NCTR; deliveries from 1989 have APG-70 radar (LPI, NCTR, not fitted with SAR mode).
• 1987: 25 aircraft fitted with Link 16 data link.
• 1986: -220 engines fitted - no chance of stagnation stalls.
• Apr-Dec 00: 18 a/c fitted with APG-63(V)2 radar.
• Apr 00-06: Fitted with APG-63(V)1 radar. In service Mar 01.
• 2002: Fitted with Link 16 data link.
• 2009-11: Fitted with ALE-58 decoys (4th Gen D vs. IRH, 3rd Gen D vs. IIRH).
• Apr 10: Fitted with APG-63(V)3 radar.
• 2011: ANG fitted with Sniper on c/l hp. Used as IRST only.
• Sep 17: Four Talon HATE pods available - LPI data links to F-22A and F-35, 4th Gen IRST.
• ANG planned to be fitted with CFT as standard and quadruple AAM launchers under UW1 - Persistent Air Dominance Enabler (PADE) above.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

Yeah, nobody is emotional, stop projecting.


Also MP balance? Yeah, it actually is a big part of the simulator and a large part of the community has an issue with contradictions and flat out, just lies and deceptive behavior.

 

It isn't lies or deceptive behaviour, you stop projecting.

 

As for the Russian law? Here is where it was, but it's now gone. Fortunately, someone already posted it and it was discussed about here.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

Again, I go back to the frankeinstein build of a eurofighter being acceptable, which is literally just A2A with a 2017 missle that somehow we have the data to build.

 

Truegrit are in communications with the management agency for it, they are officially licensed by the manufacturer for it, they have Eurofighter Typhoon pilots on their team, and they're building a trainer for the Luftwaffe for it.

 

It's a unique set of circumstances that means that such an aircraft can be developed. Though yes it looks like it is going to be somewhat of a Frankenstein, with no clear variant/timeframe specified as of yet.

 

As for Meteor, it may be a 2017 missile, but given that we've got a Luftwaffe Typhoon, it's actually 2021 as that's when it entered service with the Luftwaffe.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

I mean, if that's allowed, give us modern flankers and stop building roadblocks for other developers who want modern, traditional REDFOR planes.

 

None of the circumstances that has allowed for a Typhoon apply for modern, peer REDFOR aircraft at all.

 

And if you think the roadblocks are made up by ED, ask yourself this: Is there a reason why modern REDFOR aircraft only exist in the likes of Ace Combat and SF?

 

Personally I don't see it as a REDFOR is too old problem, I see it as a BLUFOR being too modern problem.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

Only ED would allow a eurofighter to be released with just A2A. Literally cold start, turn radar on, Meteor launch, wow, such high fidelty lol. It's basically FC3 quality.

 

What? 😄

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

The issue is, ED doesn't have an actual standard they let the public know about, they pick and choose.

 

ED isn't making the Eurofighter, Truegrit was, they ran into difficulty and partnered with HB to deliver it.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

Correct, it is what it is, it's garbage, but this is all we have until a better company comes along. We are allowed to be vocal and not shills for ED, like asking a question, what does a FF 29A bring that the FC3 29A already does, besides very minor, small things and "muh clicky buttons.", and I said minor, it's literally the same aircraft.

You act like high fidelity is some sort of elite aviation club. Most people bind their stuff on the HOTAS and press the same 6 buttons over and over again, hilarious.

 

DCS is all about full fidelity! What are you talking about? If you think full fidelity is a waste of time or is "elitism" (which, yeah 😂) then what are you doing here?

 

Are you yet another person who picks up DCS, whose goal is to "offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft [...] possible". But then take issue with it actually being so? I guess you're only here for MP airquake, which would explain a few things if I'm honest...

 

The FC3 aircraft were a LOMAC FC2 port to DCS that were subsequently upgraded in terms of graphics and flight models only, that's it.

 

Many players would love full fidelity versions, and no, there's more to it than just clicky buttons.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

I also don't understand if we are getting basically 2017 technology, why we can't even have REDFOR AI that's in the same time period, like SU-35 AI and modern variants of the fulcrum line up as well. 

 

Because the AI aircraft would make so much of a difference, what with their uber simplified flight models and sensors, flown by something that has all of the 'intelligence' of a chunky fart, y'know get behind them and it's all "welp, nothing better than doing an infinite amount of vertical loops until I run out of fuel to throw them off".

 

One of the reasons why people prefer full fidelity stuff.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

But yeah, gotta keep REDFOR in the 80s basically. How else are blue players gonna feel good shooting down tech that's 30 to 40 years old. That's like F-4E's fighting BF-109s.

 

I agree that the era consistency thing is a big problem, but again, it's more BLUFOR are too modern rather than the REDFOR being too old. The solution to the problem, that is much more feasible, is to provide historical BLUFOR aircraft that fit with REDFOR aircraft that are actually doable.

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

A bunch of viritual top guns here shooting down 1950's mig-21s. 

 

*1970s

 

31 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

NATO simulator "AMRAAM simulator."

 

I don't know, personally it sounds like you play MP airquake way too much.

  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

• 3 DT, 2 AIM-9M or AIM-9X-1 (Aug 03), 6 AIM-120C (2002?) or AIM-120C-5 (2005?) or AIM-120C-7 (2008?).

 

AIM-120C AMRAAM P3I.1 was 1999, AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM P3I.2 was 2003 and AIM-120C-7 AMRAAM P3I.3 is 2007 according to the C:MANO database.

 

And a 2003 F-15C would be a kinda best fit for our F-15C, though being simplified you can reasonably approximate a 1980s C with AIM-9L and AIM-7F (with AIM-7M in the mid 80s).

 

Which would either have the AN/APG-63(V1), AN/APG-63(V)2 or AN/APG-70, AN/ALR-56C RWR, AN/ALQ-128 EEWS, AN/ALQ-135 TEWS Upgrade DECM, AIM-7M, AIM-9M, AIM-120C AMRAAM P3I.1, AIM-120C-5 AMRAAM P3I.2, as well as the 600 US gallon drop tanks.

 

We have the AN/APG-63(V)1 version, which AFAIK came in 2001 and the current payload) and sensors are accurate for a circa 2003 USAF F-15C (I'm guessing that the AIM-7F is compatible with a 2003 AN/APG-63(V)1 equipped F-15C, just IRL replaced by the AIM-7M, not sure about the AIM-9P).


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 1

Modules I own: F-14A/B, Mi-24P, AV-8B N/A, AJS 37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, F-16CM, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, Mi-8MTV2, UH-1H, Mirage 2000C, FC3, MiG-15bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), P-47D, P-51D, C-101, Yak-52, WWII Assets, CA, NS430, Hawk.

Terrains I own: South Atlantic, Syria, The Channel, SoH/PG, Marianas.

System:

GIGABYTE B650 AORUS ELITE AX, AMD Ryzen 5 7600, Corsair Vengeance DDR5-5200 32 GB, Western Digital Black SN850X 1 TB (DCS dedicated) & 2 TB NVMe SSDs, Corsair RM850X 850 W, NZXT H7 Flow, MSI G274CV.

Peripherals: VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro, MFG Crosswind V3 Graphite, Logitech Extreme 3D Pro.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

Again, I go back to the frankeinstein build of a eurofighter being acceptable, which is literally just A2A with a 2017 missle that somehow we have the data to build. I mean, if that's allowed, give us modern flankers and stop building roadblocks for other developers who want modern, traditional REDFOR planes. Only ED would allow a eurofighter to be released with just A2A. Literally cold start, turn radar on, Meteor launch, wow, such high fidelty lol. It's basically FC3 quality. 

The issue is, ED doesn't have an actual standard they let the public know about, they pick and choose. Correct, it is what it is, it's garbage, but this is all we have until a better company comes along. We are allowed to be vocal and not shills for ED, like asking a question, what does a FF 29A bring that the FC3 29A already does, besides very minor, small things and "muh clicky buttons.", and I said minor, it's literally the same aircraft. 

You act like high fidelity is some sort of elite aviation club. Most people bind their stuff on the HOTAS and press the same 6 buttons over and over again, hilarious.

I also don't understand if we are getting basically 2017 technology, why we can't even have REDFOR AI that's in the same time period, like SU-35 AI and modern variants of the fulcrum line up as well.

EF is also a future DCS module that just barely started development and Meteor is only a plan for a later stages - we don't know yet how and when it's going to be added. You're making fun of the fact that new technology is making the pilot life easy? Nice observation, nothing new here, unfortunately it does not say anything about quality of the module.

 

You're right that there are some users that mostly play MP for a score and are focused only on those functions that make them win. It's OK. Everyone plays how they want. Nobody says they are elite because they perform system tests before each flight. You can't use that to depreciate DCS. It is a study sim going more and more deep into the details of simulation of aircraft and world it flies within and most users love it for that. Look how niche genre it still is. We have the option to use every RL system and every button. We don't have to, yes, but why go for DCS in the first place, when 6 buttons is all you want?

 

So what exactly did you expect from your rant? That devs will answer: "Oh, you're right, we're gonna start making only modern REDFOR from now on!" Seriously? Or you just want an argument because you're frustrated at the DCS state and future? I can understand the latter.

  • Like 4

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF MiG-29A is nothing like FC3 one, system modeling wise it isn't just you can click stuff now, many of it's systems are currently oversimplified to oblivion. Also it was very redundant and powerful jet when it was introduced and complete opposite of MiG-21 in terms of systems, instrument positioning and pilot safety measures.

Some of us appreciate cold start, emergency procedures and having everything simulated the way it "should" work which in FC3 MiG-29A definitely isn't the case... from navigation to weapons systems... MiG-29A is a lot more than we currently have.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

FF MiG-29A is nothing like FC3 one, system modeling wise it isn't just you can click stuff now, many of it's systems are currently oversimplified to oblivion. Also it was very redundant and powerful jet when it was introduced and complete opposite of MiG-21 in terms of systems, instrument positioning and pilot safety measures.

Some of us appreciate cold start, emergency procedures and having everything simulated the way it "should" work which in FC3 MiG-29A definitely isn't the case... from navigation to weapons systems... MiG-29A is a lot more than we currently have.

 

Yup more or less this. An early 29A is still pretty good and even sort-of relevant against more modern fighters. But as others have pointed out the simpler solution is for ED or whoever to older cold war stuff since thats where the migs are. And TBH, the "i win" button of the aamram gets to be a bit old after a while, actual Fox1/fox2 dogfights are way more fun.


Edited by Harlikwin
  • 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

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

FF MiG-29A is nothing like FC3 one, system modeling wise it isn't just you can click stuff now, many of it's systems are currently oversimplified to oblivion. Also it was very redundant and powerful jet when it was introduced and complete opposite of MiG-21 in terms of systems, instrument positioning and pilot safety measures.

Some of us appreciate cold start, emergency procedures and having everything simulated the way it "should" work which in FC3 MiG-29A definitely isn't the case... from navigation to weapons systems... MiG-29A is a lot more than we currently have.

 

Judging by the manual, it seems that FF will be more difficult to fly and a bit more limited compared to its FC3 counterpart.
Helmet mounted sight, IFF, time-limited laser range finder just to name a few.

  • Like 3

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Cmptohocah said:

Judging by the manual, it seems that FF will be more difficult to fly and a bit more limited compared to its FC3 counterpart.
Helmet mounted sight, IFF, time-limited laser range finder just to name a few.

 

Oh definitely many systems should receive real world limitations and be less capable than FC3 representation but isn't that the fun part 😄, navigation will probably be the most challenging at first, some things will improve tho for example SPO-15, even tho its real world performance can't really be confirmed.. but since DCS is currently modeling stuff how it's supposed to work it will give much better situational awareness overall.

 

Question for you since I know you have some information on the matter, do these early MiG-29As have time to impact and closure rate scale like Su-27s?


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

 

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

...some things will improve tho for example SPO-15, even tho its real world performance can't really be confirmed.. but since DCS is currently modeling stuff how it's supposed to work it will give much better situational awareness overall.


Actually the SPO-15 device is not that informative as we have it in FC3. Currently we have radiation types classified as:

  • airborne
  • long/medium/short range SAM
  • early warning radar
  • AWACS

This is, unfortunately not how the real SPO classification works :/, but in stead shows:

  • "П" - F-4, F-104
  • "З" - Vulcan, Charapel, Sea Wolf
  • "Х" - Hawk
  • "Н" - Nike Hercules, Tapos, Patriot
  • "Ф" - F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18
  • "С" - F-4, F-104, F-5, F-III, Mirage, Lightning, Jaguar

I am not sure if it shows even friendly radars, but now I am entering the land of guessing. Interestingly the manual only mentions launch warning for the type "Nike Hercules" and nothing else.

 

1 hour ago, XPACT said:

Question for you since I know you have some information on the matter, do these early MiG-29As have time to impact and closure rate scale like Su-27s?

 


This diagram from MiG-29B shows all available HUD indications. I am afraid that there is no time-to-impact scale.

image.png

One thing that real MiG does have is the ability to show target information fed by the GCI:
#53 - range provided
 


Edited by Cmptohocah
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Cmptohocah=CMPTOHOCAH 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 час назад, Sol 1 Mihaly сказал:

How about giving us a 2nd generation MiG-29 instead of the same aircraft that FC3 already has given us. 

I'm sure people who want to see the F-15C in FF would want the modernized variants with datalink, not the same exact FC3 version.

Hey, I'm not objecting against Su-57 and F-22 either, but we only get what we are given. Maybe the DoD of Russia isn't quite ripe for that yet or there is some rolling time cut-off that 9-12 meets but more advanced versions do not. The Bluefor that we get ain't spring chicken either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sol 1 Mihaly said:

How about giving us a 2nd generation MiG-29 instead of the same aircraft that FC3 already has given us. 

I'm sure people who want to see the F-15C in FF would want the modernized variants with datalink, not the same exact FC3 version.

 

Cuz ED can barely do the gen1 due to various russian espionage laws. 

 

And yes the f15E will be a modern variant.

 

Which leaves DCS in the absolute crappy mismatched state that it's in. I mean in the near future we can simulate the American Empire invading Europe at least while the "red" countries stay out of it. 

 

We need more blue CW modules. 

  • Like 1

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

7 часов назад, Harlikwin сказал:

 

Cuz ED can barely do the gen1 due to various russian espionage laws. 

 

And yes the f15E will be a modern variant.

 

Which leaves DCS in the absolute crappy mismatched state that it's in. I mean in the near future we can simulate the American Empire invading Europe at least while the "red" countries stay out of it. 

 

We need more blue CW modules. 

And correct me if I'm wrong, but there are only so many left to choose from. Skyhawk, Corsair (both of them, actually), Crusader and Intruder are already in the works. So, aside from European designs which I'm no big expert on, that leaves us with the Aardvark, the Starfighter and one particular thicc bird that, apparently, is not to be named by any DCS module developer...

  • Like 1
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   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...