DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum FAQ

[Robo76]

I haven't pre-ordered the FF MiG-29 yet because I fly missions from the 1980s on MP servers and even the current MiG-29 A/S from FC3 can't do CAP or Intercept on its own. The MiG-29 A/S has worse radars and therefore needs GCI support. If autopilot guidance is introduced, it will be fine, but when approaching the target it will start maneuvering and without GCI and a fast datalink it will lose it and you will easily turn from a hunter into a prey. The MiG-29 has a great advantage in acceleration, speed and maneuverability, but it loses a lot in terms of low fuel and weak radar, especially against the ground and its low resistance to ECM interference. Guiding two missiles at once is practically impossible, because the interference will reliably interrupt the guidance. In versions 9.12 and 9.12A, the parameters and functions of their radars were revealed to the West shortly after their introduction, so today there is no need to worry about lawsuits regarding the disclosure of military secrets, and therefore it is also modeled as the first (and probably the only possible) one. The red team in the new FF MiG-29 will not get a more effective fighter than it already has in the form of the FC3, but I would like to be wrong. And no one will produce a full-fledged FF mod of the MiG-29SMT, MiG-31, MiG-35S, Su-27SM, Su-30, Su-35, Mi-28, Ka-52 for about a couple of decades.

Edited July 3 by Robo76

[okopanja]

11 minutes ago, Robo76 said:

I haven't pre-ordered the FF MiG-29 yet because I fly on MP servers in 1980s missions and even the current MiG-29 A/S from FC3 can't perform CAP or Intercept there on its own. MiG-29 A/S have worse radars and therefore absolutely need GCI support. If autopilot guidance to the target is introduced, it will be fine, but when approaching the target, it will start maneuvering and without GCI and a fast datalink, it will lose it and you will easily turn from a hunter into a prey. The MiG-29 has a great advantage in acceleration, speed and maneuverability, but it loses a lot in terms of low fuel and weak radar, especially against the ground and its low resistance to ECM interference. Guiding two missiles at once is practically impossible, because jammers will reliably interrupt guidance. In version 9.12 and 9.12A, the parameters and functions of their radars were already revealed to the West at the time of their introduction, so there is no need to worry about lawsuits regarding the disclosure of military secrets today, and that is why it is also modeled as the first (and only possible). The red team in the new FF MiG-29 will not get a more effective fighter than it already has in the form of FC3, but I would like to be wrong. And a full-fledged FF mod MiG-29SMT, MiG-31, MiG-35S, Su-27SM, Su-30, Su-35, Mi-28, Ka-52 will probably not be made by someone for several decades.

Yes, all this is true, but we know what we are getting roughly.

At this moment we can only hope that GCI will be reworked and ideally provide means for sane AI GCI as well as potentially human GCI, however this will not be on release. 

[BIGNEWY]

14 hours ago, Ironhand said:

“A” summer? Not this one?

Sorry. Saw that and had to ask…

typo, removed the A 

[FlankerFan35]

On 7/2/2025 at 4:12 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

How are those systems even in the same league? 
R-27R is the equivalent of AIM-7E/F IMO, and -ER is the equivalent of AIM-7M/P.

Regardless, visit just about any server in DCS and you will find that (if cold war) weapons cutoff will be set so it is R-27R vs 7M/P or (if modern) 27ER/ET will only be present alongside AIM-120B

We are used to this at this point and most export 29s did in fact fly with 27R/T.

[SAM77]

18 hours ago, Robo76 said:

I haven't pre-ordered the FF MiG-29 yet because I fly missions from the 1980s on MP servers and even the current MiG-29 A/S from FC3 can't do CAP or Intercept on its own. The MiG-29 A/S has worse radars and therefore needs GCI support. If autopilot guidance is introduced, it will be fine, but when approaching the target it will start maneuvering and without GCI and a fast datalink it will lose it and you will easily turn from a hunter into a prey. 

I get all this, but I just want to have a full fidelity aircraft instead of an "arcade" FC3 MiG29. Also is it just me or are the radars all messed up in the FC3 MiG 29s. It seems like the A radar works better than the S. The A seems to pick up targets quicker than the S. I haven't done any testing myself only going off feeling using both models on the same MP server. 

[Mike Force Team]

I watched short videos on YouTube showing people flying the Mig-29 at a flight sim convention. The cockpit setup was impressive. The virtual pilot seemed to really enjoy flying the full-fidelty module.

[Ironhand]

9 hours ago, SAM77 said:

…Also is it just me or are the radars all messed up in the FC3 MiG 29s. It seems like the A radar works better than the S. The A seems to pick up targets quicker than the S. I haven't done any testing myself only going off feeling using both models on the same MP server. 

Both radars seem ok. Both pick up a test Su-27 at 76.5 km give or take a fraction. This was SP.

[SAM77]

7 hours ago, Ironhand said:

Both radars seem ok. Both pick up a test Su-27 at 76.5 km give or take a fraction. This was SP.

Thanks for testing it out, Ironhand.

[AeriaGloria]

On 7/3/2025 at 10:23 AM, Robo76 said:

I haven't pre-ordered the FF MiG-29 yet because I fly missions from the 1980s on MP servers and even the current MiG-29 A/S from FC3 can't do CAP or Intercept on its own. The MiG-29 A/S has worse radars and therefore needs GCI support. If autopilot guidance is introduced, it will be fine, but when approaching the target it will start maneuvering and without GCI and a fast datalink it will lose it and you will easily turn from a hunter into a prey. The MiG-29 has a great advantage in acceleration, speed and maneuverability, but it loses a lot in terms of low fuel and weak radar, especially against the ground and its low resistance to ECM interference. Guiding two missiles at once is practically impossible, because the interference will reliably interrupt the guidance. In versions 9.12 and 9.12A, the parameters and functions of their radars were revealed to the West shortly after their introduction, so today there is no need to worry about lawsuits regarding the disclosure of military secrets, and therefore it is also modeled as the first (and probably the only possible) one. The red team in the new FF MiG-29 will not get a more effective fighter than it already has in the form of the FC3, but I would like to be wrong. And no one will produce a full-fledged FF mod of the MiG-29SMT, MiG-31, MiG-35S, Su-27SM, Su-30, Su-35, Mi-28, Ka-52 for about a couple of decades.

The FF might help in this respect. The TWS mode doesn’t park like reality in FC3. In reality, and FF, it should automatically slew the TDC to the target with the highest proportion of speed to distance (most dangerous target). Apparently it was specifically made for flying without GCI. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

11 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Apparently it was specifically made for flying without GCI. 

Sounds like a key feature to have on Day One of EA then, rather than “later during early access” (TM).

[AeriaGloria]

15 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Sounds like a key feature to have on Day One of EA then, rather than “later during early access” (TM).

It should be on release. Only things I see for early access are datalink and manual and “IFF advanced” what ever that is. Since there are no IFF codes to dial, your transponder code is purely for ATC and the other IFF switches only effect what information is seen by other ground radars like P-15 and ATC. 

[Nebula_Creates]

So. Expected release was Q2, that has been missed now. What's the revised launch expectation?

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Nebula_Creates said:

What's the revised launch expectation?

This summer.

[Dača]

I hope it will be before GTA 6.

[Horns]

12 hours ago, Dača said:

I hope it will be before GTA 6.

I think it will be... assuming you mean before GTA 6 hits PC. j/k

[fnslayeroc]

From a game balance perspective, this plane needs R-77s. You are releasing the 1st 4th gen RED plane, with no ability to BVR at the same level as any BLUE plane which is bogus. AND DO NOT give me the plane cant equip them. Russian Mig29As cant equip them. Export variants can. 

 

It irks my nerves almost as much as the fact, the only mid range SAM for BLUE is the HAWK....
 

Can we please try to add things to the game in a way that balances the sides??? I NEVER see this. If one side gets an apple so should the other. Usually in History, thats usually how it works. We got the AIM-120 in 1991 and they made the R-77 in 1994. And here we are getting a mig 29, that people have been waiting longer for, than it took for russia to produce and use r-77s after we released the aim-120 irl

[draconus]

1 hour ago, fnslayeroc said:

From a game balance perspective, this plane needs R-77s.

No, we don't get 9.13.

1 hour ago, fnslayeroc said:

Can we please try to add things to the game in a way that balances the sides?

Wrong game, pal?

I'm sure you'll find mods for R-77 days after release.

[BIGNEWY]

folks stick to the topic here please. 

MiG-29A 

[Dača]

6 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

folks stick to the topic here please. 

MiG-29A 

Sorry. To our mind it was related to MiG-29A and possibilities after this module is released.

[BIGNEWY]

topic here is the MiG-29A FAQ 

Please keep the discussion about that, 

thank you 

[apolloace]

@ BIGNEWY - If you think someone asking regarding R77 in Mig29A in FAQ forum is Off topic,

then you should close this forum, so there will be no questions & we call all live in peace. 

[kotor633]

This person isn't just asking about the R-77. He also wants the Mig-29A to be able to use this missile for game balance reasons. And he claims, without providing any evidence to back this up, that export variants of the Mig-29A can use the R-77.

He also claims that the FF Mig-29A has no ability to BVR at the same level as any BLUE plane. This statement isn't true. Sure, for example, against an FA-18C/F-16C with Aim-120 it looks bad. Or against an F-14 with Aim-54. That makes it (very) difficult. But what about against an M2k, for example, or an FA-18/F-14/F-4 with Aim-7s? With the KA-50, there was an outcry that you could suddenly carry Iglas, and also regarding its MWR. Or with the F-35, there were/are voices complaining about the correct implementation, as the relevant sources are apparently under lock and key. And here with the Mig-29A, some kind of fantasy weaponry is supposed to be allowed due to game balance? That just doesn't add up. Or am I missing something here? Especially since ED claims to be a realistic simulation.

Edited July 9 by kotor633

[Drona]

I don't understand the need for the R-77. Its a terrible medium range missile. The best use for it is in WVR where you can launch the R-77 instead of an R-73/R-60 which has the chance of getting flared away.

I would rather prefer the R-27ER/ET.

[Fran11player]

Nobody wants to talk about the R-27EA Alamo C, which actually was into DCS about 20 years ago and removed just because?

hace 2 minutos, Fran11player dijo:

Nobody wants to talk about the R-27EA Alamo C, which actually was into DCS about 20 years ago and removed just because?

 

Edited July 9 by Fran11player

[FlyHack]

В 08.07.2025 в 16:59, BIGNEWY сказал:

topic here is the MiG-29A FAQ 

Please keep the discussion about that, 

thank you 

Lets look at it from the other side. Is the development of the MiG-29 (9-12S) planned in much the same way as described in the F-35 FAQ? For use with R-77.