I am a bit confused about the MiG 29

[Migparts]

Apparently there is a version to buy at around $14 does that mean it is simple and not in depth? 
 

is there a high fidelity version being developed?

 

is it worth getting the low fidelity version??

[Kang]

Yes, there is a high fidelity version in development, the one you can buy right now is identical to the one in the Flaming Cliffs bundles and includes two (or three, if you count that) variants in a simplified version.

[Pavlin_33]

4 hours ago, Migparts said:

Apparently there is a version to buy at around $14 does that mean it is simple and not in depth? 
 

is there a high fidelity version being developed?

 

is it worth getting the low fidelity version??

If you like the 29, I would say: yes.

If you are looking for clicky-clicky in the cockpit then: no

[AeriaGloria]

The clicky mod is wonderful. No it’s not like full fidelity, but makes it so much easier and fun to do stuff around the cockpit without a bunch of bindings and keyboard combos. Just need to loo right to switch lights, click HUD to change it, click the AP button I want 

[Gierasimov]

On 8/3/2024 at 6:19 PM, Migparts said:

Apparently there is a version to buy at around $14 does that mean it is simple and not in depth? 
 

is there a high fidelity version being developed?

 

is it worth getting the low fidelity version??

Yes, yes and yes.

[draconus]

On 8/3/2024 at 6:19 PM, Migparts said:

does that mean it is simple and not in depth? 

Flight model is professional but avionics are simplified. So great for flying and combat but if you prefer to have full control of every possible system and max realistic aircraft functions recreation then wait for full fidelity.

[Pavlin_33]

On 8/5/2024 at 12:29 PM, draconus said:

Flight model is professional but avionics are simplified. So great for flying and combat but if you prefer to have full control of every possible system and max realistic aircraft functions recreation then wait for full fidelity.

I would rather say "most of" realistic functionality. Not all full fidelity functionality is realisic - some of it is still limited the same way FC modules are: radar, ECM and things if that sort.

[draconus]

40 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

I would rather say "most of" realistic functionality. Not all full fidelity functionality is realisic - some of it is still limited the same way FC modules are: radar, ECM and things if that sort.

Yes, ECM is simplified, depends on the module but FF radar simulation is far beyond what FC offers.

[Pavlin_33]

28 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, ECM is simplified, depends on the module but FF radar simulation is far beyond what FC offers.

So FF radars take into account cell resolution, taget's aspect, cloud atenuation, mutual interference, they have range and speed errors depending on the modes used, they show fake targets? If yes, I've must have missed it.

Then there's IFF, RWR...

My spelling is horrible.

[draconus]

3 hours ago, Pavlin_33 said:

So FF radars take into account cell resolution, taget's aspect, cloud atenuation, mutual interference, they have range and speed errors depending on the modes used, they show fake targets? If yes, I've must have missed it.

Then there's IFF, RWR...

Basing on F-15E radar simulation - cell res: yes, aspect and payload: yes, clouds: yes, interference: yes, false detections, IFF as best as could be in done currently DCS. RWR afaik is best simulated in HB F-14, radar is also top shelf. And I mean "yes" as taken into consideration and included in computations. I don't know the level you expect.

Edited August 6, 2024 by draconus

[F-2]

I have high hopes for the N019 on the FF Fulcrum. Not only is it well documented it seems much of EDs understanding of radar was based on it for a long time.

[SAM77]

On 8/7/2024 at 3:42 AM, F-2 said:

I have high hopes for the N019 on the FF Fulcrum. Not only is it well documented it seems much of EDs understanding of radar was based on it for a long time.

Is the modelling of the MiG 29 we have now accurate? I've been away from DCS for 7 years and only been back into it since the start of this year. MiG 29 radar seems crappier than what I remember. Same goes for EOS. OT Plus I miss the 104th server. I used to love flying the MiG 29 on it. I wish the 104th server would come back or there was a server that hosted PvP and PvE with some attempt at realistic scenarios.

[draconus]

1 hour ago, SAM77 said:

Is the modelling of the MiG 29 we have now accurate?

Flaming Cliffs MiG-29 FM is professional, as good as can be, but avionics are simplified. Any specifics you wanted to ask?

[Pavlin_33]

5 hours ago, SAM77 said:

Is the modelling of the MiG 29 we have now accurate? I've been away from DCS for 7 years and only been back into it since the start of this year. MiG 29 radar seems crappier than what I remember. Same goes for EOS. OT Plus I miss the 104th server. I used to love flying the MiG 29 on it. I wish the 104th server would come back or there was a server that hosted PvP and PvE with some attempt at realistic scenarios.

Just to update you with what has changed throught the years:

- cockpit looks much better

- plane no longer wobbles

- be careful if you lock someone up in PPS; lock will break easily if the taget goes crank or cold

- various little fixes have been implemented

- you won't gett a LA for the 27T against an F-16 until 8km or so

- 27R can be lofted if you pitch up

But at the end of the day, no new features, just adjustments to the existing ones.

Online community has changed a lot. Open servers are no longer realistic/hard as they used to be. Kids these days are more interested in getting kills.

For me BlueFlag 80's  server is kind of good enough, but even that is a far cry compared to the oldies.

Edited August 14, 2024 by Pavlin_33

[SAM77]

3 hours ago, draconus said:

Flaming Cliffs MiG-29 FM is professional, as good as can be, but avionics are simplified. Any specifics you wanted to ask?

I messed up. It should have read is the radar accurately modelled. It's a lot worse than I remember from 7+ years ago. I stopped playing DCS before the PFM was available for the Mig29. The PFM for the SU27 was out for a couple of months before I stopped. I remember the radar being not as bad compared to the SU27s from way back then. Now the Su27 radar is awesome compared to the Mig29S version radar.

[SAM77]

17 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

 

- be careful if you lock someone up in PPS; lock will break easily if the taget goes crank or cold

Online community has changed a lot. Open servers are no longer realistic/hard as they used to be. Kids these days are more interested in getting kills.

 

What is PPS?

Unfortunately, you confirmed what I feared concerning servers.  The war thunder crowd have ruined it.

Thanks for the list.

Edited August 14, 2024 by SAM77

[Pavlin_33]

4 minutes ago, SAM77 said:

What is PPS?

Unfortunately, you confirmed what I feared concerning servers.  The war thunder crowd have ruined it.

Thanks for the list.

 

PPS was a lattin version of the Russian "ППС", meaning "HI" (high) pulse repetition frequency of the radar.

Edited August 14, 2024 by Pavlin_33

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, SAM77 said:

It should have read is the radar accurately modelled.

It was "accurate" enough for LOMAC and early DCS standards. It was always low fidelity and cannot be compared to radar model in some full fidelity modules (or to the one we will get). Some report S should have a bit better range but this is not conclusive. What is currently simulated: detection/lock ranges dependent on target RCS numer, detection penalty when look down, LOS check, doppler filters, different PRF and its impact on detection/lock, gimbal angle limits, antenna patterns/positioning during different modes, no lock possibility until burn through range for jamming targets... (I might have missed something)

[AeriaGloria]

7 hours ago, SAM77 said:

I messed up. It should have read is the radar accurately modelled. It's a lot worse than I remember from 7+ years ago. I stopped playing DCS before the PFM was available for the Mig29. The PFM for the SU27 was out for a couple of months before I stopped. I remember the radar being not as bad compared to the SU27s from way back then. Now the Su27 radar is awesome compared to the Mig29S version radar.

Su-27 is always going to have about 40-50% better radar and better IRST. I think some things like look down limits have changed, but that’s it and been changed for all ED modules. 
 

It’s radar and IRST just do have very good range, it was only a modest upgrade over MiG-23MLA/MLD in this respect, gaining mostly in low altitude performance I’m sure. 
 

You get a lot of benefit from using right PRF, and you can disable the notch by diving until target is more then 3 degrees above horizon. MiG-29S should have 14% more range, but it is not modeled. 
 

The radar is very simplified, but the FM is a high standard and weapons are as good as you can get on the old API

[SAM77]

Thank you for the information and the graphs. Much appreciated.

[Darkline]

On 8/6/2024 at 8:36 AM, Pavlin_33 said:

So FF radars take into account cell resolution, taget's aspect, cloud atenuation, mutual interference, they have range and speed errors depending on the modes used, they show fake targets? If yes, I've must have missed it.

Then there's IFF, RWR...

My spelling is horrible.

The HB Phantom checks all these boxes... Its the only true radar we have modeled in DCS currently because its the only thing that actually looks out to see what it sees.  All radars up to this point can see everything in the server but is coded to only show you certain things based on the parameters you have set and your location in the map etc.  The phantoms radar knows only what that simulated radar wave returns show it and thats how its supposed to work. It simulates main and side lobe clutter accurately and it also has the most accurately simulated RHAW (RWR) gear as well. Fluid systems and electrical circuits are all simulated accurately. They pushed the bar up so much higher with that module its not even funny

[F-2]

1 hour ago, Darkline said:

The HB Phantom checks all these boxes... Its the only true radar we have modeled in DCS currently because its the only thing that actually looks out to see what it sees.  All radars up to this point can see everything in the server but is coded to only show you certain things based on the parameters you have set and your location in the map etc.  The phantoms radar knows only what that simulated radar wave returns show it and thats how its supposed to work. It simulates main and side lobe clutter accurately and it also has the most accurately simulated RHAW (RWR) gear as well. Fluid systems and electrical circuits are all simulated accurately. They pushed the bar up so much higher with that module its not even funny

This is what I want most from the Fulcrum, we have the documentation.

[pjbunnyru]

16 часов назад, F-2 сказал:

Это то, чего я больше всего хочу от Fulcrum: у нас есть документация.

then there will be 2 "blind" planes in game. but, fully made correcet. 

[Hobel]

Am 6.8.2024 um 15:36 schrieb Pavlin_33:

 

 

 

 FF radars take into account cell resolution, taget's aspect, cloud atenuation, mutual interference, they have range and speed errors depending on the modes used, they show fake targets? If yes, I've must have missed it.

Then there's IFF, RWR...

My spelling is horrible.

ED modules take some of this into account, RB even more.

Here are a few points I have observed from your list.   
I haven't tested everything, so I won't include it.

1. Cell Resolution. I haven't tested it yet.

2. Target’s Aspect. ED,RB,HB

3. Cloud Attenuation. Nope 

4. Mutual Interference. RB

5. Range and Speed Errors. RB,HB,ED

6.Fake Targets. RB,ED.  

 

Additionally 

Aircraft flying in formation increase the RCS value and thus drastically increase the probability of detection at long range.

Tested with ED and RB, this applies to both.

Payload has an influence. RB,HB this applies. ED does not.

 

Edited November 20, 2024 by Hobel