The MIG-29A is brilliant! Congratulations Eagle Dynamics to a great release!

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

6 hours ago, RyanR said:

It's amazing how "primitive" the avionics are..... which makes the module that much more interesting.

The "4th generation" nomenclature is more of a Western PR move anyway, but if you follow that logic you could make an argument about 9-12A being more of a 3.5gen fighter. Think of it as a stepping stone, an F-4 on steroids basically more in line with an F-14 (or early F-15A) than F-15C/16/18.
This and a FFD Su-27 are probably my most anticipated modules (fixed wing anyway) of all time, and I am elated we have one in DCS atm. 

[westr]

I’ve wanted a proper Mig-29 module in DCS for a long time. It feels great, cockpit looks great, it sounds great. It’s probably so far for me the most impressive DCS module release. I’m very pleased with it. 

[gwizairshows]

This mod has great potential.  Unfortunately it has some constant crash issues with Pimax Play resulting in game crashing to desk top. I have researched and tried numerous ways to comply with the online system crash advice, but nothing seems to work. Trying the old open XR and Pimax play start options initially start off fine, but then almost at the exact same spot taxiing from a cold start the sim crashes. It is very frustrating, especially considering the amount of time I have dedicated to learning this module. As far as my rig, I am operating a Cyber Power   Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-14900K, 3200 Mhz, 24 Core(s), 32 Logical Processor(s), with Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090.  So handling this module and DCS should be no problem.  These crashes only happen with this MiG-29A module.  Something is wrong with this module and Pimax Play.

Anyone else having these issues?

 

 

[NineLine]

6 minutes ago, gwizairshows said:

This mod has great potential.  Unfortunately it has some constant crash issues with Pimax Play resulting in game crashing to desk top. I have researched and tried numerous ways to comply with the online system crash advice, but nothing seems to work. Trying the old open XR and Pimax play start options initially start off fine, but then almost at the exact same spot taxiing from a cold start the sim crashes. It is very frustrating, especially considering the amount of time I have dedicated to learning this module. As far as my rig, I am operating a Cyber Power   Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-14900K, 3200 Mhz, 24 Core(s), 32 Logical Processor(s), with Nvidia GeForce RTX 4090.  So handling this module and DCS should be no problem.  These crashes only happen with this MiG-29A module.  Something is wrong with this module and Pimax Play.

Anyone else having these issues?

 

 

It would be better to start your own thread in the Bugs and Problems section with crash logs and such. Thanks

[Sydy]

Hi Guys (and ED),

I would like to second OP and praise the MiG-29A Fulcrum module. The module is fun as hell and quite nice to operate and employ. I already made and published my usual “Quick Checklist” and even made a mini-campaign.

To make it short, the module is awesome. Congratulations.

All the best,

Sydy

[BIGNEWY]

1 minute ago, Sydy said:

Hi Guys (and ED),

I would like to second OP and praise the MiG-29A Fulcrum module. The module is fun as hell and quite nice to operate and employ. I already made and published my usual “Quick Checklist” and even made a mini-campaign.

To make it short, the module is awesome. Congratulations.

All the best,

Sydy

Thank you for your kind words Sydy, we appreciate it. 

 

[Dragon1-1]

On 9/19/2025 at 11:22 PM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

The "4th generation" nomenclature is more of a Western PR move anyway, but if you follow that logic you could make an argument about 9-12A being more of a 3.5gen fighter. Think of it as a stepping stone, an F-4 on steroids basically more in line with an F-14 (or early F-15A) than F-15C/16/18.

MiG-29 is a proper, albeit no-frills, 4th generation fighter. Far superior to the Phantom is every aspect except air to ground. It's comparable to the F-16A in many regards, not necessarily to contemporary heavy fighters like the F-15A. The US modules that we have are called generation 4+.

[Pavlin_33]

7 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

MiG-29 is a proper, albeit no-frills, 4th generation fighter. Far superior to the Phantom is every aspect except air to ground. It's comparable to the F-16A in many regards, not necessarily to contemporary heavy fighters like the F-15A. The US modules that we have are called generation 4+.

Didn't 16A have only fox 2?

29 has DL, fox 1, HMS, 2 engines... IMHO it beats the 16A version in almost everything except RWR maybe

[Dača]

5 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Didn't 16A have only fox 2?

29 has DL, fox 1, HMS, 2 engines... IMHO it beats the 16A version in almost everything except RWR maybe

No.

Maybe the first one, but with block 15 it could carry sparrows and amrams after ADF modifications and MLU upgrades later. 

But yes, MiG-29A was superior platform when compared to very first F-16A variants (without amrams).

Edited Friday at 09:15 AM by Dača

[Pavlin_33]

1 minute ago, Dača said:

No.

Maybe the first one, but with block 15 it could carry sparrows and amrams after ADF modifications and MLU upgrades later. 

But yes, MiG-29A was superior platform when compared to very first F-16A variants (without amrams).

Ah I see. I didn't know they carried fox3 also.

[Dača]

19 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Ah I see. I didn't know they carried fox3 also.

A bit later varians of F-16A. Block 15 and later did.

[Dragon1-1]

No, Block 15 MLU did, and only in foreign service. The MLU package gave them avionics and cockpit similar to F-16C. Stock Block 15 was heaters only, it was the last F-16A. Sparrows were only on a single ANG variant (either Block 15 or 30, I'm not sure), no other Viper carried them.

1 hour ago, Pavlin_33 said:

Didn't 16A have only fox 2?

29 has DL, fox 1, HMS, 2 engines... IMHO it beats the 16A version in almost everything except RWR maybe

It's still the same generation, and very similar role, that of a lightweight, short range, low cost dogfighter. And you're forgetting one extremely important feature of the Viper: the FBW system. It had a better RWR, sure, but the big deal was its novel control system. It would have been a particularly good match for our MiG-29, at least if it survived to the merge.

[BIGNEWY]

folks please stay on topic for the thread. 

thank you 

[Sabadin]

Back on topic then, is anybody else enjoying how much fun the MiG is to simply just fly? No mission, no targets, just just taking the jet into the sky and cutting loose. I think I spent almost a week just simply flying around in VR before I even looked at any of the combat systems in it.

 

Flying this in VR during a sunrise rain storm in the Caucasus Mountains has probably been my single best VR experience to date on any platform.

[YoYo]

18 minutes ago, Sabadin said:

Back on topic then, is anybody else enjoying how much fun the MiG is to simply just fly? No mission, no targets, just just taking the jet into the sky and cutting loose. I think I spent almost a week just simply flying around in VR before I even looked at any of the combat systems in it.

 

Flying this in VR during a sunrise rain storm in the Caucasus Mountains has probably been my single best VR experience to date on any platform.

The graphics are so beautiful, especially in VR (with the 3D HMD sign and helmet-mounted elements, visor). Although I've been playing mostly with the navigation for the past two weeks (it's simple, but you have to understand it) and I'm still having a lot of fun. I hope this model will open the door to Soviet aircraft for the ED and finally we will see more development on this site (the Su-24 is my favorite). What I'm missing is full radar support (and more explanation in the manual), as that's the model's Achilles' heel, in my opinion now. Other than that, really great work!

[MAXsenna]

9 minutes ago, YoYo said:

I hope this model will open the door to Soviet aircraft for the ED

Same, and I believe we're not alone!

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, YoYo said:

The graphics are so beautiful, especially in VR (with the 3D HMD sign and helmet-mounted elements, visor). Although I've been playing mostly with the navigation for the past two weeks (it's simple, but you have to understand it) and I'm still having a lot of fun. I hope this model will open the door to Soviet aircraft for the ED and finally we will see more development on this site (the Su-24 is my favorite). What I'm missing is full radar support (and more explanation in the manual), as that's the model's Achilles' heel, in my opinion now. Other than that, really great work!

The navigation system is basically just copy and paste for anything Soviet of the era, Su-25, MiG-23, Su-17/24, Su-27 (except that one has a lot of extra function built on top of the same system). 

[Cgjunk2]

3 hours ago, Sabadin said:

Back on topic then, is anybody else enjoying how much fun the MiG is to simply just fly? No mission, no targets, just just taking the jet into the sky and cutting loose. I think I spent almost a week just simply flying around in VR before I even looked at any of the combat systems in it.

 

Flying this in VR during a sunrise rain storm in the Caucasus Mountains has probably been my single best VR experience to date on any platform.

Yup it’s the only thing I do on DCS lol.  I just enjoy exploring all the modules at the edge.  
 

My favorite spot to fly is in the mountains north east of senaki.  Nap of the earth flight, 100ft agl at 15,000 feet msl over the top of the crests.   Seeing your own shadow on the peaks as you lob yourself over them ballistically at 60kts. What an insane sight!  Literally gets my blood pumping.   In VR it’s better than having an IMAX movie theater strapped to your head.  
 

My previous fav in the mountain “skatepark” has been the Tomcat.   But since release, the fulcrum has been the only plane I’ve flown.  I just can’t bring myself to spend my DCS time on anything else, at least not yet.   It has a fantastic feel in the air. 

Edited Saturday at 12:22 AM by Cgjunk2

[YoYo]

7 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

The navigation system is basically just copy and paste for anything Soviet of the era, Su-25, MiG-23, Su-17/24, Su-27 (except that one has a lot of extra function built on top of the same system). 

Even more so, they have already done some work, for example for the Su-25 FF ;). However, the navigation system also had another purpose - not to give the pilot much freedom in this respect, it could always be an obstacle, for example in the case of a desire to escape .

[lj0076]

I would like to join the author of the post and congratulate ED on this module. I fly in VR and one-handed - wow!
The cockpit geometry is amazing and with VR you are really there. For me, a great and necessary module "red force".  

[addman]

On 10/3/2025 at 1:43 PM, Dragon1-1 said:

No, Block 15 MLU did, and only in foreign service. The MLU package gave them avionics and cockpit similar to F-16C. Stock Block 15 was heaters only, it was the last F-16A. Sparrows were only on a single ANG variant (either Block 15 or 30, I'm not sure), no other Viper carried them.

It's still the same generation, and very similar role, that of a lightweight, short range, low cost dogfighter. And you're forgetting one extremely important feature of the Viper: the FBW system. It had a better RWR, sure, but the big deal was its novel control system. It would have been a particularly good match for our MiG-29, at least if it survived to the merge.

Also, don't forget that the F-16A was a lighter and even nimbler fighter than the subsequent F-16C which was heavier. I listened to an Aircrew interview with a former Viper pilot who flew both A and later C-variants and he pointed out several times that the A was a better WVR dogfighter than the C. But yes, heaters only.

Edited 15 hours ago by addman

[Dragon1-1]

On 10/4/2025 at 7:30 AM, YoYo said:

Even more so, they have already done some work, for example for the Su-25 FF ;). However, the navigation system also had another purpose - not to give the pilot much freedom in this respect, it could always be an obstacle, for example in the case of a desire to escape .

The navigation system wouldn't have been much of an obstacle in that case, one MiG-29 did manage to do exactly that. Navigating by compass, map and landmarks remains a basic skill for any pilot, long before he gets to mess with an INS. It was designed not to give the pilot too many options to avoid confusing him with too many buttons (and also because it was simpler and cheaper to make).

Also, it being a copypaste of systems in other Soviet aircraft was deliberate, because it made them easier to produce and train pilots for. All Soviet aircraft had common instruments and equipment, to a much greater extent than Western ones. The Soviets learned during WWII that being able to produce a lot of aircraft fast is paramount in wartime, and being able to redirect instruments from one type to the other helps a lot with that.

[YoYo]

2 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said:

The navigation system wouldn't have been much of an obstacle in that case, one MiG-29 did manage to do exactly that. Navigating by compass, map and landmarks remains a basic skill for any pilot, long before he gets to mess with an INS. It was designed not to give the pilot too many options to avoid confusing him with too many buttons (and also because it was simpler and cheaper to make).

Also, it being a copypaste of systems in other Soviet aircraft was deliberate, because it made them easier to produce and train pilots for. All Soviet aircraft had common instruments and equipment, to a much greater extent than Western ones. The Soviets learned during WWII that being able to produce a lot of aircraft fast is paramount in wartime, and being able to redirect instruments from one type to the other helps a lot with that.

Since Lindbergh's time, the watch, VFR rules and compass have always been a friend of the pilot (and sometimes of the stars), but that's a completely different story...

Edited 10 hours ago by YoYo

[Ornithopter]

I don't think it would be appropriate to start an entirely new topic for just one subjective question, so I'll just ask.  On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being most difficult, how would people rate this aircraft's learning curve relative to other 4th Gen aircraft in this game? 

 

[Thamiel]

29 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

I don't think it would be appropriate to start an entirely new topic for just one subjective question, so I'll just ask.  On a scale of 1 to 5, 5 being most difficult, how would people rate this aircraft's learning curve relative to other 4th Gen aircraft in this game? 

 

Being of the russian/soviet variety, one has some inherent difficulties to overcome when compared to western models most of us are used to. Basic things such as units, the availability and layout of cockpit controls and in more general terms, the installed equipment supporting solely the soviet doctrine of aerial warfare are quite different. So a fair comparison is not an easy thing to do.

My suspicion being that it is meant to replace the M2k eventually and compared to the Mirage I find the Mig way more challenging to learn. But then again, the Mirage was build around the idea of an easy and flat UI with only a few knobs and controls to operate in order to make things happen the right way. Thats not my impression of the Mig. Russian/soviet design choices do not seem particularly user friendly across the DCS board. Speaking of leverages to work 20+ switches on startup or such things. So yeah, you may be in for a treat.