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

[Ornithopter]

Quote

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.

My countdown from most difficult(oh, why even bother level, I'll never be good) to easiest(why don't they all work like that level) 4th Gen modules is: 5) Tomcat RIO, 4)A-10C, 3)F/A-18C, 2)M2k, 1)JF-17.

So you're saying its a bit more difficult than the M2K in your opinion, but its not F/A-18 levels of learning complexity, is it?

The reason I'm asking is because I'm not sure I want to take on a new difficult module.  On the other hand, my alternative is sitting there watching mind-slobbering navigation tutorials on the Chinook, and how the navigational-hydraulic operates on the rear linkage valve.  But, then again, I could be flying a shiny new MiG.  Life is full of really tough choices. 

Edited yesterday at 12:42 AM by Ornithopter
grammar

[Thamiel]

Well. I dont make a statement about how much more difficult it is, I just try to explain why someone would regard the transfer from a western cockpit to an eastern one a difficulty to begin with.

I cant really compare to the F/A-18 because I dont own this "one4all" module but yeah, it seems difficult to imagine that the Mig-29 could reach the level of sophistication of multirole aircrafts and all their payload delivery procedures. But then again, its a russian cockpit. You'll find a switch for everything and not necessarily where you are looking for it.

If you are familiar with russian high fidelity modules (there are not that many) you will no doubt recognize many things in the cockpit of the Fulcrum that lets say the Blackshark features as well. You may even feel right at home. You may definitely not suffer from minimal pair problems like the guys who try to master the F-16C and the A-10CII at the same time getting nuts about what a DMS button push left long/short actually executes in those modules - depending on the current SOI.

I simply believe that for what the Fulcrum is capable of on the outside, she brings a lot of switches and conditions and procedures to adhere to. If you are a Warthog pilot content to operate 8 switches or so in a specific manner to drop one dumb bomb CCRP on a tank, thats fine. If memory serves, the M2k takes only 4 to do that of which the first one is Master Arm ON and the last one is Consent to release? There was a reason why the M2k was a popular jet.

[Flаnker]

The MiG-29 is one of the easiest aircraft to learn in the DCS. It has 10 buttons for air combat and ground attack, and 10 for navigation. No dozens of pages of MFDs—everything is clear and understandable.

Edited yesterday at 01:30 PM by Flаnker

[Thamiel]

2 hours ago, Flаnker said:

The MiG-29 is one of the easiest aircraft to learn in the DCS. It has 10 buttons for air combat and ground attack, and 10 for navigation. No dozens of pages of MFDs—everything is clear and understandable.

Well there is no MFD in the first place, so yeah no pages either. But instead, we have multiple speed indicators and displays of any kind and so on, a "Uhrenladen" as we say, which normally is anything but clear and understandable.

[Flаnker]

45 минут назад, Thamiel сказал:

Well there is no MFD in the first place, so yeah no pages either. But instead, we have multiple speed indicators and displays of any kind and so on, a "Uhrenladen" as we say, which normally is anything but clear and understandable.

There are fewer analog pointer instruments there than F15 or A10)

[Thamiel]

I dont talk bare numbers of instruments, I talk ergonomics. Even the F-15A is far better than the Fulcrum in that department.

[AeriaGloria]

33 minutes ago, Thamiel said:

I dont talk bare numbers of instruments, I talk ergonomics. Even the F-15A is far better than the Fulcrum in that department.

How? Ergonomics isn’t only HOTAS. 
 

Soviets had a department of psychology look over the cockpit and make recommendations. They recommended to use round dials and only use tape for fuel. 
 

All your radar stuff is together. All your weapon stuff together. Pylon selection above throttle. Everything you need in combat is easily reachable by the left arm without moving in your seat. Your instruments are grouped together logically. 
 

It is vast improvement over all MiG aircraft before it 

[addman]

It's all about design philosophy. The Russian jets are supposed to be easy to learn and they are designed to do a few specific things which helps streamlining the designs. If it was a tool, it would be a flathead screwdriver.

Western/US designs are like swiss army knives in comparison. Much more multipurpose oriented and therefore requires stuff like an MFC/MFD (which I thouroghly hate) because of the inherent granularity of it's multipurpose design.

Both designs makes sense for their own respective use-purposes. I prefer Russian designs for their simplicity, however we do have to contend with the technological limitations inherent to those designs.

[Hiob]

13 minutes ago, addman said:

It's all about design philosophy. The Russian jets are supposed to be easy to learn and they are designed to do a few specific things which helps streamlining the designs. If it was a tool, it would be a flathead screwdriver.

Western/US designs are like swiss army knives in comparison. Much more multipurpose oriented and therefore requires stuff like an MFC/MFD (which I thouroghly hate) because of the inherent granularity of it's multipurpose design.

Both designs makes sense for their own respective use-purposes. I prefer Russian designs for their simplicity, however we do have to contend with the technological limitations inherent to those designs.

An original Fighting Falcon A would be much closer to a Mig29 in regards to Systems (not the same, but closer) than a C. Probably Closer to the Mig than to the C....

[Thamiel]

4 hours ago, AeriaGloria said:

How? Ergonomics isn’t only HOTAS. 
 

Soviets had a department of psychology look over the cockpit and make recommendations. They recommended to use round dials and only use tape for fuel. 
 

All your radar stuff is together. All your weapon stuff together. Pylon selection above throttle. Everything you need in combat is easily reachable by the left arm without moving in your seat. Your instruments are grouped together logically. 
 

It is vast improvement over all MiG aircraft before it 

Of course it isnt.

Also, its funny to think that the western powers wouldn't consult their own departments of science to improve their hardware and machine-human-interfaces. Of course they did. Everyone did. Its the military for gods sake. The British call it "attention to detail" and it starts with boot camp.

Apparently they did come to different conclusion as one would suspect when pursuing different goals and intentions. I dont pretend to know how the russian pilot is trained to fit into that cockpit to work efficiently. Maybe he is only a small dependant cogwheel who relies on lots of GCI/controller types around him telling him what to do, how to fly and when to shoot in which direction so SA may not be that important to him. [Edit: if so, have fun flying that thing in DCS/SP]

Of course it is an improvement over all MiG aircraft before it. Otherwise it would not have been commissioned. The question was, where to put this module according to the gradient of its learning curve. I dont think, there is a good DCS counterpart to compare it to. As I said, the closest module in weapon capabilities would be the M2k including a strong interceptor profile. But there the comparison ends between those two.

Edited 10 hours ago by Thamiel

[Кош]

2 часа назад, Thamiel сказал:

 I dont pretend to know how the russian pilot is trained to fit into that cockpit to work efficiently. 

Cadet payware campaign for DCS L-39 is the most rewarding single player DCS experience period.