DCS: MiG-29A Fulcrum pre-purchase

[splash]

2 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

And for many others, how "competitive" a new module is has zero impact on our purchase decision. I for one find Soviet aviation incredibly fascinating: what's going on in the designers' minds is so completely different from Western designs it leads to completely different solutions to sometimes the same sometimes different problems because of completely different doctrines.
I think it's very promising how active people are in this subforum since "pre-purchase" dropped and I hope it will sell so well ED will have $-signs in their eyes and make many more RedFor modules!

+1. For instance, I’d like a F-16A.

[MA_VMF]

18 часов назад, Dragon1-1 сказал:

Russia has more MiG-29s in service (over 200) than all modified variants' production runs added together

In Russia, only the MiG-29SMT is in operation, K/35. 9-13 have been preserved in the Strizhi aerobatic team, and they will be replaced soon.

[Absolut]

On 5/17/2025 at 4:09 PM, huchanronaa said:

There is a price to pay for this! Pushing out the most original, with a retro mechanical clock-style dashboard MIG-29A version will ultimately lead to poor sales due to lack of novelty and poor performance. After all, customers are not fools

Please talk for yourself. 

Best regards

a foolish customer

[Ramius007]

While I understand that modern Fulcrum is not possible, and would be require new external and cockpit model, I still dont get why modernized variant of some NATO country cant be done, and I assure everyone that it's possible, you can get material about those upgrades directly from companies that make those modernizations, plenty of public availble info is possible. I m totally ok, that we get 9.12, but very far from ok, that we get ONLY 9.12, when 3rd party module makers, already offer us multiple variants of same jet, OTOH, ED cant even allow us to remove DL and helmet permanently from Viper and Hornet, to make them compliant for MP or SP content that include some sort of older setups with historical filter. Even little things like GPS on MFD would help a ton in modern scenarios, situational awerness was Fulcrum achilles heal, and was preety much always improved among practically all operators

[kotor633]

Finally! As soon as I get home tomorrow, I'll pre-order it. Then the refund from the F-15E module will be well spent.
And Virpil's FLNKR Grip would fit it after all...
I just hope we don't have to wait as long for the full flight manual as we did with the Hind. Is there a possibility that GCI will also be implemented for the Hind?

[Dragon1-1]

31 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

Even little things like GPS on MFD would help a ton in modern scenarios, situational awerness was Fulcrum achilles heal, and was preety much always improved among practically all operators

You will likely have the option to use the NS430, that's what Poland did (albeit with a different GPS unit) before they started modifying their jets.

The problem with modded variant is really the question: which one? Every operator who tinkered with their MiG-29s came up with something different. So Polish jets? Ukrainian? Slovak? Romanian? They all differ a quite a lot.

I agree that ED could use a page from Heatblur's handbook (though maybe not the one where they embedded a web browser in the game). At the very least, the 9.13 should be doable, there are unclassified export docs for the Gardenia out there and there's already an external model for 9.13S in FC3, I'm not sure if there's any difference externally. It wouldn't do much, but the extra gas would be welcome, what with the MiG-29 being a thirsty beast.

[Ramius007]

1 hour ago, Dragon1-1 said:

You will likely have the option to use the NS430, that's what Poland did (albeit with a different GPS unit) before they started modifying their jets.

The problem with modded variant is really the question: which one? Every operator who tinkered with their MiG-29s came up with something different. So Polish jets? Ukrainian? Slovak? Romanian? They all differ a quite a lot.

I agree that ED could use a page from Heatblur's handbook (though maybe not the one where they embedded a web browser in the game). At the very least, the 9.13 should be doable, there are unclassified export docs for the Gardenia out there and there's already an external model for 9.13S in FC3, I'm not sure if there's any difference externally. It wouldn't do much, but the extra gas would be welcome, what with the MiG-29 being a thirsty beast.

I dont know if NS430 will be supported, but even if, it's not allowed on MP servers for performance reasons. I also have suspicion, that NS430 still existing may deter ED from giving us modernized with GPS Fulcrum. As for upgrades, I would pick one of NATO operators, they were based on Israeli packege, so it would be something like NS430, but integral part of the module, added with editor or just another platform to choose from.

[Dragon1-1]

I think there's a good case for adding a "GPS box" variant post-release, especially if there's a performance argument against the NS430. In any case, the point is to avoid the need for an extensive system tied into the avionics, which would inevitably involve a lot of costly programmer time. That rules out any variant with an F-16 style UFC, for instance.

[pjbunnyru]

for online fans - if era of fox3 missiles onserver - mig29 9-12 will be at loss (not only because of missiles, but also because of tlack of datalink system, rwr, radar, helmet-mounted system with information output, etc.). if this is era of 80s, then it becomes more competive.
bad thing is that 15/16/18 in dcs r far from being modifications of 80s.
no restrictions on use of fox3 misile will make them what they were at that time.
it will not be posible to make full fledget war of late 80s.

[draconus]

17 minutes ago, pjbunnyru said:

bad thing is that 15/16/18 in dcs r far from being modifications of 80s.
no restrictions on use of fox3 misile will make them what they were at that time.
it will not be posible to make full fledget war of late 80s.

Set mission around 89, put MiG-29A w/R-27R and R-73 vs F-15C w/AIM-7M and AIM-9L - fully realistic and "competitive". Realism and balance is in the hands of mission creator.

Edited May 19 by draconus

[pjbunnyru]

14 минут назад, draconus сказал:

Set mission around 89, put MiG-29A w/R-27R and R-73 vs F-15C w/AIM-7M and AIM-9L - fully realistic and "competitive". Realism and balance is in the hands of mission creator.

i wrot - online.
im not server owner to set up weapons. and as it seems to me it is bad when some planes have to remove something. we want to get maximum pleasure from all sistems on all planes.
p.s change engin, radar, other systems to what was in 80s, no one will do suc trick, except ed. and this needs to be don by new planes of thos years.

[draconus]

13 minutes ago, pjbunnyru said:

i wrot - online.
im not server owner to set up weapons. and as it seems to me it is bad when some planes have to remove something. we want to get maximum pleasure from all sistems on all planes.
p.s change engin, radar, other systems to what was in 80s, no one will do suc trick, except ed. and this needs to be don by new planes of thos years.

As a player you choose your aircraft and server you fly on.

You can also start a server, make your own mission and decide who to allow.

These are your options. Otherwise the wishlist is here: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/207-dcs-core-wish-list/

[Punkmonkey22]

14 hours ago, Ramius007 said:

While I understand that modern Fulcrum is not possible, and would be require new external and cockpit model, I still dont get why modernized variant of some NATO country cant be done, and I assure everyone that it's possible, you can get material about those upgrades directly from companies that make those modernizations, plenty of public availble info is possible. I m totally ok, that we get 9.12, but very far from ok, that we get ONLY 9.12, when 3rd party module makers, already offer us multiple variants of same jet, OTOH, ED cant even allow us to remove DL and helmet permanently from Viper and Hornet, to make them compliant for MP or SP content that include some sort of older setups with historical filter. Even little things like GPS on MFD would help a ton in modern scenarios, situational awerness was Fulcrum achilles heal, and was preety much always improved among practically all operators

Or they could release the version that was widely exported, and can be used in a similar timeframe to many other modules - the cold war. We even recently got a map of the region it was built to fight in, in the era it was introduced.

Modern stuff is pointless when all the adversaries are cold war or 90's.

[Ramius007]

1 hour ago, Punkmonkey22 said:

Or they could release the version that was widely exported, and can be used in a similar timeframe to many other modules - the cold war. We even recently got a map of the region it was built to fight in, in the era it was introduced.

Modern stuff is pointless when all the adversaries are cold war or 90's.

Are you implieng that Hornet or Viper modules are CW or 90's std? Did I missed technological revolution and JHMCS and L16 were in 90's, same with GPS navigation on those planes? Would be great if we get ability to strip those modules of ALL 2000's tech, but we cant, and I tell You more, we dont even have F-16A as AI asset

[draconus]

4 minutes ago, Ramius007 said:

we dont even have F-16A as AI asset

Yes, we do.

[BIGNEWY]

folks please try not to derail the topic to much.

As always the mission creators and server owners can create missions tailored to the type of game play they want. 

thank you 

[Ramius007]

14 minutes ago, draconus said:

Yes, we do.

F-16MLU is another 90's upgrade, but it's going of topic. There is some naive belief that Viper and Hornet we have are like from 80's, if we just strip them of their modern weapons. This fits ED narrative, but is very far from truth, and very easy to check on your own, how? Just make a mission with rather realistic setting, like removal of own plane position on map and external views and setting mission in adverse weather  or night and target in urbanized area. Now make strike on this target in a Viper or Hornet without any tpod, just using iron bombs or rockets or older TV weapon like Velleye on Hornet, and then doing exactly same mission in REAL CW jet in CW std, like M2k, F-4E, f-14, Viggen, or Mirage f1, all modules that have INS drift moddeled, that dont have modern tpods or advanced post 86 IR guided Mavericks. This is just one example, another would be group fight with and without link16...

Edited May 19 by Ramius007

[pepin1234]

6 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:

folks please try not to derail the topic to much.

As always the mission creators and server owners can create missions tailored to the type of game play they want. 

thank you 

I think what they are trying to tell is we don’t have an AI with proper 3D model to set as 80 timeline enemy for earlier MiG-29 in Cold War conflict. Nobody want to set in Mission Editor those ugly models of F-16A and F-18A

Edited May 19 by pepin1234

[Dragon1-1]

It doesn't mean they're not in DCS, though. It just means they need a model refresh. Supposedly, both Viper and Hornet are nearing a full release, maybe ED could then be convinced to expand on the available variants. An F-16A would be a new module, but the Hornet didn't change that dramatically. No HMD, mechanical HSI and engine instruments, old radar, old engines, Nite Hawk TGP (which would be applicable to our Hornet, too) and only Link 4A datalink. It did have MFDs, they were monochrome, though in practice, outside of tracks on radar and SA pages, they're pretty much monochrome on our Hornet, too.

Edited May 19 by Dragon1-1

[Ramius007]

6 hours ago, pepin1234 said:

I think what they are trying to tell is we don’t have an AI with proper 3D model to set as 80 timeline enemy for earlier MiG-29 in Cold War conflict. Nobody want to set in Mission Editor those ugly models of F-16A and F-18A

Yes, a lot of CW AI assets are in bad shape, hopefully ED extand their cooperation with modders and we get something better, also older AI assets, like early Viper cant use older weapons, even if they were added to DB, like HB made older TV Mavericks or Shrikes

[Cyborg71]

It's not an immediate buy for me, though I will probably make a supportive purchase a little closer to EA release. 

I do share the sense of intrigue others feel when eyeing Russian aircraft. They have a function over form aesthetic that's very appealing. I think the 2 seat ub version is better looking.

My fondness lies with their helos. I'd love to (one day) see a Mil-28 or Ka-52, but given current day problems, that's very unlikely.

Oh how lovely it would be if Wags recent hint at another developing helicopter was one of those.

[Ronin_Gaijin]

On 5/19/2025 at 2:24 PM, BIGNEWY said:

folks please try not to derail the topic to much.

As always the mission creators and server owners can create missions tailored to the type of game play they want. 

thank you 

Hi there,

1. When are the MiG-29 9.12A missiles going to imported to the AIM-120 codebase so they have correct flying characteristics?
2. How long will the module stay in early access and when will you deem it feature complete?
 

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Ronin_Gaijin said:

Hi there,

1. When are the MiG-29 9.12A missiles going to imported to the AIM-120 codebase so they have correct flying characteristics?
2. How long will the module stay in early access and when will you deem it feature complete?
 

1. work on Ru A2A missile set is in progress I hope we can share news soon. 

2. This is unknown, Early access can be a long process, it will depend on how development and testing goes but we will inform you all as development progresses. 

[Ronin_Gaijin]

1 minute ago, BIGNEWY said:

1. work on Ru A2A missile set is in progress I hope we can share news soon. 

2. This is unknown, Early access can be a long process, it will depend on how development and testing goes but we will inform you all as development progresses. 

Do you have a roadmap on the development of the module?
For example December 2026 beta testing of Lazur.

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Ronin_Gaijin said:

Do you have a roadmap on the development of the module?
For example December 2026 beta testing of Lazur.

We will have a FAQ soon. 

But we can not give time frames for development once early access starts.