MiG29 SMT module /New rules

[bies]

22 hours ago, Kraken_ZA said:

The R-77 was only introduced in 1994.

R-77 wasn't even introduced to the Russian military in 1990s and produced only for export to India and China as RVV-AE. It was considered by the Russians as low reliability and limited capability coupled with high cost.

For Russian Air Force R-77 entered serial production only in 2015. It was R-77-1. Later on in 2022 R-77-2 has been introduced.

Edited January 20 by bies

[Kraken_ZA]

8 hours ago, bies said:

R-77 wasn't even introduced to the Russian military in 1990s and produced only for export to India and China as RVV-AE. It was considered by the Russians as low reliability and limited capability coupled with high cost.

For Russian Air Force R-77 entered serial production only in 2015. It was R-77-1. Later on in 2020 R-77-2 has been introduced.

The R-77 was introduced to the world in 1994, before then it was know by it's bureau name of Izdelie 170 as a prototype, whether it was fielded into the RuAF is debatable as no official documentation states whether it was or wasn't fielded. The R-77-1 and R-77 are two different missiles hence their designations.

[SovietAce]

Why keep so low. With new standards we can have MiG-35 no problem. 

On 1/17/2025 at 4:21 PM, TotenDead said:

We won't get any new capabilities with 29SMT. Yes, it will have access to guided a2g, but a2a will still be limited to 1980s R-77s. Now, MiG-29K/M2 - that's a different story

All R-77 carriers should be capable of carriing R-77-1 as well. This was confirmed by pilots on this forum.

[Dudikoff]

9 hours ago, bies said:

R-77 wasn't even introduced to the Russian military in 1990s and produced only for export to India and China as RVV-AE. It was considered by the Russians as low reliability and limited capability coupled with high cost.

I'd presume the primary reason was that they didn't even have any aircraft capable of firing them in service, except for like two dozen MiG-29's of 9.13S standard.

Edited January 20 by Dudikoff

[SovietAce]

9 hours ago, bies said:

R-77 wasn't even introduced to the Russian military in 1990s and produced only for export to India and China as RVV-AE. It was considered by the Russians as low reliability and limited capability coupled with high cost.

For Russian Air Force R-77 entered serial production only in 2015. It was R-77-1. Later on in 2020 R-77-2 has been introduced.

R-77-2 doesnt exist. Only R-77M for Su-57 reportedly entered production in 2022.

[bies]

1 hour ago, Dudikoff said:

I'd presume the primary reason was that they didn't even have any aircraft capable of firing them in service, except for like two dozen MiG-29's of 9.13S standard.

No aircrafts, no money, not cost-effective missile, relatively big drag and poor energy retention (200mm vs. 178mm for AMRAAM) due to dated bigger, heavier microelectronics etc.

[Kraken_ZA]

2 hours ago, SovietAce said:

R-77-2 doesnt exist. Only R-77M for Su-57 reportedly entered production in 2022.

Agreed, never heard of the R-77-2, the K-77M is probably nearing it's end of development and possible production for the Su-57, AFAIK the R-77M and K-77M are not exactly identical.

[Flаnker]

В 17.01.2025 в 18:21, TotenDead сказал:

We won't get any new capabilities with 29SMT. Yes, it will have access to guided a2g, but a2a will still be limited to 1980s R-77s. Now, MiG-29K/M2 - that's a different story

The MiG-29SMT can use R-77-1

Edited January 20 by Flаnker

[SovietAce]

19 minutes ago, Kraken_ZA said:

Agreed, never heard of the R-77-2, the K-77M is probably nearing it's end of development and possible production for the Su-57, AFAIK the R-77M and K-77M are not exactly identical.

K-77M is just prototype designation. There really isnt much info on R-77M apart from one photo.

[TotenDead]

2 часа назад, SovietAce сказал:

Why keep so low. With new standards we can have MiG-35 no problem. 

All R-77 carriers should be capable of carriing R-77-1 as well. This was confirmed by pilots on this forum.

There're only 6 MiG-35s built And except of DAS it's equal to 29K so Yeah, if it can be made - why not, but 29k looks like a more interesting choice imo

When it comes to the second statement, it was also said that those won't differ much from the old 77 because the aircraft won't be able to tell the missile to use all the fancy flight trajectories it's capable of

[Kraken_ZA]

45 minutes ago, SovietAce said:

K-77M is just prototype designation. There really isnt much info on R-77M apart from one photo.

Best not to assume that they are the same thing until a formal designation has been allocated, as an improvement effort in the late 1990's on the base R-77 had the same designation as R-77M.

Edited January 20 by Kraken_ZA

[upyr1]

On 1/17/2025 at 2:11 AM, ESA_maligno said:

With the arrival of modules such as the F35, where the requirements of documentation and information sources are less demanding; I think a "dow of opportunity" opens for projects such as the modernized version of the MiG29; especially with the shortcomings that exist in DCSW if we compare the "blue side with the red side". Projects like VinntoreZ's would be a great starting point.

ED has said they have not changed their rules. They have also said that the problem with more modern Russian Aircraft, even when a lot of open-source data is available, is navigating Russia's security laws. Though I believe they have also said that it might be possible for someone else to do them. Anyway if someone outside of Russia can a super fulcrum of Flanker without violating laws, then I say bring it on. I'd like the link to Vinntorez's project even if it isn't official as a mod it sounds awesome 

[ESA_maligno]

hace 3 horas, upyr1 dijo:

ED has said they have not changed their rules. They have also said that the problem with more modern Russian Aircraft, even when a lot of open-source data is available, is navigating Russia's security laws. Though I believe they have also said that it might be possible for someone else to do them. Anyway if someone outside of Russia can a super fulcrum of Flanker without violating laws, then I say bring it on. I'd like the link to Vinntorez's project even if it isn't official as a mod it sounds awesome 

I believe that no DCSW module is supported by any weapons manufacturer, in fact none are involved in the development of DCSW. ED, via Wags, has said that the development of a module is based on it being requested by a large majority (sales and income potential), that it is not out of place in DCSW and that it is supported by open sources (no longer requires relying on "strict documentation"). That said, is it necessary to ask OAK for reliable data to make a module? Well, no, and I refer you to the first point that, by the way, ED makes it quite clear every time you launch the simulator...; I think the times of "the SVR comes and takes you on a flight without registration to Guantánamo..., sorry those are the others..., to Siberia" are behind us.

[upyr1]

3 hours ago, ESA_maligno said:

I believe that no DCSW module is supported by any weapons manufacturer, in fact none are involved in the development of DCSW. ED, via Wags, has said that the development of a module is based on it being requested by a large majority (sales and income potential), that it is not out of place in DCSW and that it is supported by open sources (no longer requires relying on "strict documentation"). That said, is it necessary to ask OAK for reliable data to make a module? Well, no, and I refer you to the first point that, by the way, ED makes it quite clear every time you launch the simulator...; I think the times of "the SVR comes and takes you on a flight without registration to Guantánamo..., sorry those are the others..., to Siberia" are behind us.

I know ED has always said that DCS modules were based on open-source documents and what won't violate security laws. The only thing that may have changed is that we have a better idea of what ED's standards actually are. As I have pointed out the video didn't say the F-35 was coming in 2 weeks and even when it does come out it will be in EA for quite some time. If you have been using DCS enough you'll know that modules can change quite a bit during EA. In short this fits in quite well with the DCS business model. Which is the developers will pick an aircraft they think there is both demand and enough open-source data, and then they will develop it enough to get into EA. Then over time they will alter things.    So as I said before, if you think you have the know how and the documents then get started. Even if it is initially just a mod. As I asked earlier do you think you can link to VinntoreZ's MiG-29?

Edited January 20 by upyr1

[okopanja]

On 1/18/2025 at 3:11 PM, bies said:

First - MiG-29SMT is a fat, overweight pig, disliked by the pilots. It has the worst kinematic performance, acceleration, maneuverability among whole MiG-29 family. The worst T/W and the worst wing loading. It's even the worst looking with disproportionate humpback.   When original 9.12 was one of the best looking jetfighter ever.

 

Second - making F-35 without full documentation already sparks controversy - and there's a whole lot of information about the F-35 publicly available, and openness of the producer to share all non-classified components, logic, workflows, HOTAS, avionics etc., as this is world wide exported whole NATO fighter produced in 1100 pieces already.

At the same time there is close to zero MiG-29SMT information available, everything would be totally made up, its avionics, MFD pages, weapon systems, HOTAS functions - it would be a sad joke. Completely fictional abomination not better than amateur-made MODs already free to download.

How about this?

[Flogger23m]

On 1/19/2025 at 10:17 AM, TotenDead said:

Yep. But the point was that SMT won't really give us anything new in terms of a2a combat and 29M/K would. The latter one would equalize the disparity of BVR engagements while still being something of the FF F-15/16C level. A better option gameplay wise in my opinion, equally matched to what we have right now in the game

Certainly a MIG-29K or MIG-29M would be more popular. MIG-29K would also have naval capability. I understand there might not be enough information to do a full fidelity module on these specific variants, but they would make perfect candidates for a lower level of fidelity. I assume some systems can be used from the MIG-29A/S as well as the full fidelity MIG-29A.

I see a place for both types of variants and modules. For things with excellent documentation, a full fidelity module is doable. Where the info is a bit less available, those variants can be done as a lower fidelity module.

[F-2]

Zhuk is much better suited for guiding R-27ER with better notch resistance, look down, and range.

[Blackhawk NC]

I fully believe that DCS has a problem they aren't capable of solving. As BLUFOR aircraft technology advances, it is incorporated into the simulation. REDFOR remains locked in time with no technological advancement. Graphics and video performance improves but the aircraft capabilities remain the same. DCS is self limiting its future earning potential. I, for one, do not intend to ever buy another modern BLUFOR aircraft. But as a dedicated REDFOR pilot, the servers are limited where REDFOR can actually put up a fight. An SU-27 with R-27ER missiles is still a significant underdog against an F-18 or F-15E missile truck loaded with AIM-120's (and the missile performance is improved regularly). The JF-17 could possibly be improved to include a helmet sight and better engines that don't smoke like a chimney, but i doubt it will be updated. The SD-10 missile is regularly updated to reduce performance because " we want realistic performance".  Translated that means it is too good. The only place where the sim really has a chance to move forward is cold war and WWII. But for some reason no one has developed a Japanese ZERO. Explain that. Sorry, got off topic. Let me conclude by saying the new MIG-29 will be the same old MIG-29 with better graphics. It will sale for $75 and people will buy it for some odd reason.  It will have the same old lame R-77 missile and no datalink. Without GCI, it will be sitting duck against BLUFOR. Some players will make a case about realism and how it contributes to the sim but in reality it will be another expensive towed target for BLUFOR to shoot its space age, new and improved, notch proof AIM-120s at! Sorry for the rant.......

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

45 minutes ago, Blackhawk NC said:

Let me conclude by saying the new MIG-29 will be the same old MIG-29 with better graphics. It will sale for $75 and people will buy it for some odd reason.  It will have the same old lame R-77 missile and no datalink. Without GCI, it will be sitting duck against BLUFOR. Some players will make a case about realism and how it contributes to the sim but in reality it will be another expensive towed target for BLUFOR to shoot its space age, new and improved, notch proof AIM-120s at! Sorry for the rant.......

Well, I certainly HOPE the new MiG-29 will be a MiG-29. Those of us who want it might be a little cross if we downloaded only to be presented with DCS: MiG-8 "Utka".

But, this is an issue for mission makers to handle. The last thing ED should consider are those who throw everything into a mission and call it good for their air quake servers. If you take issue with it, then make your own missions where you limit the edge blufor enjoys one way or another. We aren't being dropped into matchmaking, after all.

Not everyone desires to have the latest and greatest. The Phantom's success is proof of that. Enigma's server is proof of that, too.