DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum

[draconus]

14 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Is this the HUD contrast how the RL pilots see it? If yes, then our DCS one is way too pale.

This is how the camera saw it so probably close to what pilot could see at the moment. If you want to compare to DCS make the exact same conditions, ie. HUD against the blue sky with some cirrus, sun position and azimuth.

16 hours ago, ESA_maligno said:

That speaks a lot about how information sources are managed.

It only means that different aircraft manufacturers and countries manage their public info differently.

[BIGNEWY]

please keep the discussion here about DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum

thank you 

[DmitriKozlowsky]

Is this an upgrqade to FC3 Mig29A, or a new module that has to be paid for?

[strelok2014]

43 минуты назад, DmitriKozlowsky сказал:

Is this an upgrqade to FC3 Mig29A, or a new module that has to be paid for?

I hope it will be a completely new module. And I will be ready to pay the full price.

[Ironhand]

The latter. It’s a full fidelity module, not an improved FC3 one.

[Moorhuhn]

I know its not a Mig29G but would it be possible to have a Luftwaffe Livery?

The Charlie-Hornet also came with A-Model-Liveries.

Would be awesome.

[Montykoro]

Any Cockpit photo? 

[Smith]

From the newest Newsletter:

Key features of the DCS module: MiG-29A Fulcrum

At Early Access Release: 

• Fully interactive and highly detailed cockpit that is based on 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry.

 

Thank you so much Eagle Dynamics. This is what i wanted to see. When the Aircraft is released i can start making a CAD Model and build my own and very accurate MiG-29 Cockpit
I never liked to build a look a like cockpit. If i build and spend 1000s of hours on building it, it should be spot on accurate.

 

On 1/22/2024 at 4:40 PM, zerO_crash said:

What is it exactly that isn't up to standard with the F-16 according to you?

On 1/22/2024 at 4:44 PM, BIGNEWY said:

It varies from aircraft to aircraft, and how much access we have. Some use CAD, blueprints, some use Photogrammetry and if you have good access scans are possible, I dont recall for the viper.

If you think something is wrong I would suggest posting on the viper forum section with your evidence. Please note our viper is F-16CM Block 50, roughly M4.2+, operated by the United States Air Force and Air National Guard circa 2007. Lets not discuss here as it will derail the thread. 

thank you

 

Almost 10 Years ago i made a CAD Model of the F-16 cockpit based on accurate infos from the viperpits forum. Here is a picture of it:

 

When i have more time beside my work i will make a new topic where i can describe what i don't like about the DCS F-16 Cockpit. But the easiest thing for ED would be to just update every cockpit of DCS based on laserscanned data. Now that they made even the MiG-29 with laserscanned cockpit i m sure that sooner or later they will update every cockpit to this standard

[SparrowLT]

So will the old FC3 MIG-29A remain along this one?

 

wouldnt they be identical in terms of performance only the full fidely being harder to operate (or "realistic"  to put it other way)

[Exorcet]

10 minutes ago, SparrowLT said:

So will the old FC3 MIG-29A remain along this one?

 

wouldnt they be identical in terms of performance only the full fidely being harder to operate (or "realistic"  to put it other way)

FC3 won't be going anywhere. They should perform very closely. I also wouldn't say that the FF one has to be more difficult as FF comes with more capability and having the cockpit controls is an advantage. Though depending on additional limitations, there may be more challenges depending on what is being done.

[zerO_crash]

1 minute ago, Exorcet said:

FC3 won't be going anywhere. They should perform very closely. I also wouldn't say that the FF one has to be more difficult as FF comes with more capability and having the cockpit controls is an advantage. Though depending on additional limitations, there may be more challenges depending on what is being done.

The MiG-29As will perform the same (FC3/FF), as Chizh said on the Russian side. Everything is correct with the flight performance, and has been, since the inception of PFM for FC3 (not counting bugs). There will however be changes and refinements to the control-system, in particular the SAU-451 and the control articulator. There will be fixed some long-standing glitches/imprecisions. (Without specific implication, I assume this will be carried over to the FC3 29s (both), when it's ready).

 

Otherwise, as you sat, it will be more realistic, for better or worse. Realism is what matters.

[lmp]

I don't think the added switchology will make the aircraft more difficult to fight in. Most of the "fighting" avionics is already there. It's not always modelled correctly, but it's there. The majority of the missing fidelity is in the "non fighting" systems: radios, engine controls, electrics. And all of that will require more from the player. But I don't really feel like I need to do a lot more to lock someone up and shoot a weapon at him in a FF jet than in an FC3 jet.

The flight model, as said, will remain largely the same.

What should make fighting harder though is a more realistic implementation of sensors in particular.

[zerO_crash]

The product line has to be split, which is also why ED is not making any more FC3. In essence, the low fidelity (systems) of FC3 is working against the DCS full fidelity simulation trademark. Vice versa, to customers seeking a less advanced product, searching up on DCS assures a headache. Then there are the neverending requests for aircraft/systems, which simply can not be made to DCS-standard (legal inhibit/lack of information), which MAC will be able to. The split is logical in every sense.

 

This also points to really major differences between exactly FC3 and FF. Limitations (aircraft/component/systems/sensors/+++), operaring procedures, knowledge of what integrates with what and how it functions, complexity in setting up a mission profile and planning on what and how to deploy, and much more. Honestly, there is no comparison - these are worlds apart.

 

The fact that we are finally getting a MiG-29 FF... It was a dream back in LOMAC-times. It took some time, but we got there. Just like with all the others modules. It'll be fantastic, there is absolutely no doubt there.

[Harlikwin]

57 minutes ago, lmp said:

I don't think the added switchology will make the aircraft more difficult to fight in. Most of the "fighting" avionics is already there. It's not always modelled correctly, but it's there. The majority of the missing fidelity is in the "non fighting" systems: radios, engine controls, electrics. And all of that will require more from the player. But I don't really feel like I need to do a lot more to lock someone up and shoot a weapon at him in a FF jet than in an FC3 jet.

The flight model, as said, will remain largely the same.

What should make fighting harder though is a more realistic implementation of sensors in particular.

Well, the FC3 radar/IRST are

a) not the best modeled, to begin with but its FC3. you can do some wild stuff with the elevation limits thats totally wrong. And OFC the the whole radar model is well, "basic". And well, we can hope someday IRST won't see through clouds, though by all accounts from actual pilots it was fairly worthelss aside from the HMS/dogfight mode. 

b) If you are actually gonna do it clicky wise like you'd do it IRL, the controls while decently placed, aren't on the HOTAS and are well, fiddly. (flying the 21 for example you have the same issues with the weapon selector) Now, OFC the pro-gamer pilots will just bind it all to the hotas but if you are flying it realistically the ergos are not great.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

...complexity in setting up a mission profile and planning on what and how to deploy...

These are independent of module fidelity.

The FC3 stays as is for now since it fulfills its role in DCS for years and no split is required unless all of the aircraft get their FF modules. Only about 10% use FC3 for other reasons.

Edited Wednesday at 05:32 PM by draconus

[zerO_crash]

2 hours ago, draconus said:

These are independent of module fidelity.

The FC3 stays as is for now since it fulfills its role in DCS for years and no split is required unless all of the aircraft get their FF modules. Only about 10% use FC3 for other reasons.

 

Obviously, I'm talking about onboard systems. All the mission planning and aircraft preparation that can be done in the FF-modules, is completely absent on FC3. Off-board systems are naturally equal for all aircraft (mission planner).

 

FC3 stays as it is because ED has stated that it won't develop it anymore, other than keep it relevant to the current DCS version and fixing bugs. They also cannot remove it, because they have an obligation to fullfill according to customer rights.

 

The split is obviously required, and that is why MAC is coming in the first place. This is pure speculation, but I imagine that FC3 will be continued in MAC as a mainstream for that product line. Regardless, I explained in my previous comment precisely why FC3 is somewhat detrimental to the vision of DCS and why MAC is therefore the split that is coming (I repeat, the split is in the consumer base, as paid FC3 will stay in DCS anyways).

Edited Wednesday at 08:19 PM by zerO_crash

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

2 hours ago, Harlikwin said:

OFC the pro-gamer pilots will just bind it all to the hotas but if you are flying it realistically the ergos are not great

Depends on what you call 'fly realistically' I suppose: one can argue if you use "time it takes to find and manipulate said switch" as metric, binding stuff to your HOTAS is more 'realistic' than clicking stuff with your mouse - especially in VR where you first have to figure out where your mouse pointer is.
Reaching for a knob/switch with your left hand IRL would be a lot faster and more convenient than us sim-pilots first letting go of the stick, then with your *right* hand find the mouse, figure out where the mouse pointer is at, and then click the knob/switch with the mouse, then reaching for the stick again...

[AeriaGloria]

3 hours ago, lmp said:

I don't think the added switchology will make the aircraft more difficult to fight in. Most of the "fighting" avionics is already there. It's not always modelled correctly, but it's there. The majority of the missing fidelity is in the "non fighting" systems: radios, engine controls, electrics. And all of that will require more from the player. But I don't really feel like I need to do a lot more to lock someone up and shoot a weapon at him in a FF jet than in an FC3 jet.

The flight model, as said, will remain largely the same.

What should make fighting harder though is a more realistic implementation of sensors in particular.

The radar switchology itself is very complex and not well represented in FC3. 

Want to switch between Radar and IRST BVR/CC modes? Not bad, knob by left of lower HUD. Want to change radar PRF or radar BVR/CC mode? Knob in front of left knee. Want to do TWS and select its PRF? Separate switch to the right of that knob. 
 

Want Radar to block up dropped IRST lock and vice versa like FC3 does automatically? This needs a switch flipped under the radar mode/delta H knobs (you’ll need to look down quite a bit to change radar elevation without binds, and won’t have the fine increments you have in FC3, just +1/2/4/6/8/10, and -1/2/4/6).
 

But it gets better, flip the switch for radar/IRST cooperation and now radar it is locked in MPRF mode which has nominal range of 20-30 km! 

Are they jamming? You’ll need to turn jamming compensation on or off. There is a lot of complicity in controls and intricacies of the sensors operation trendy is just bypassed in FC3. 

 

[lmp]

2 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

The radar switchology itself is very complex and not well represented in FC3. 

There are significant differences in the interface, but FC3 does a decent job at representing the radar/irst features, albeit in a somewhat abstract way. The major modes (RADAR, IR, CC, helmet, optic...) are all there, the three PRF options (hi, med, int) are there, TWS mode is there. It all works slightly differently in FC3 than it will in FF, but I don't think the interface alone will make it harder to fight in the FF MiG. It will be different, but not really much harder. And having a panel I can look at and click rather than trying to remember if changing the PRF was alt+I or ctrl+I or win+I is actually a big advantage to me.

I have all the 4th gen FF modules and I don't think the complexity of their radar interfaces is holding me back compared to the simplicity of the FC3 interface. If anything, I feel the added options more than make up for it.

What I do feel will make a difference is the more modern, high fidelity simulation of the radar and irst themselves. Ground clutter, false contacts, radar dropping lock more easily or locking onto ground returns, unreliable IFF. All those things that we're beginning to see in newer modules that can cost valuable seconds in complex air to air scenarios.

Of course, I've narrowed the problem down to just air to air combat. Outside of that, the fidelity of the FC3 MiG's system is so low that the new interface will make it more difficult to learn. But this is no longer a question of balance.