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 October 7 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 October 7 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 October 8 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.

[Schmidtfire]

I think it's a brilliant module so far. A very solid release. No glaring bugs (that I have noticed) and a ton of fun to fly.
The DTC implementation is also a big plus. We've done quite a few COOP flights and it's quick and easy to set up
the navigation together.

It would be even more awesome if we could send/receive cartridges between players within the DTC interface during multiplayer,
but it's probably something that will be implemented at a later stage. 

Edited October 8 by Schmidtfire

[Ornithopter]

Thank you @Thamiel, @AeriaGloria, @Flanker for responding to my questions regarding the difficulty.  I bought it and have tried it out.  I think Flanker probably was right that it's one of the easier ones.

I have almost no experience in FC3, so the ease of flying really really surprised me.  The plane I've been flying lately is the C-101 trainer, and this aircraft, flying-wise, is about as easy as that.  On my first flight after mapping essential controls, I just took it around the pattern for 6 touch and goes, and all of them were decent, by the third and fourth I was greasing the landings, and by the actual full-stop landing I was airbraking, nose wheel off.  By contrast, no matter how much time I spend in the Phantom, or even the F-5E, my landings are almost always like dropping a sack of bricks on the pavement.  It's especially easy, because unlike some of the others, you have so much power and acceleration that even when you get behind the power curve, you can get yourself right back in front of it again.

Was a little bit weirded out that in the English cockpit labels version, the units were in Imperial not Metric.  Not used to that, but it's intuitive because those are my units.  I still don't know whether the Variometer is in ft/min or m/s.

I just completed the startup tutorial, and it reminded me a lot like the MiG-21, which I think is on the gentler end of the learning curves of DCS modules.  This seems like a 3rd gen cockpit, but with some impressive 4th gen capabilities.

So, this is just about the right thing for me to learn right now.  

Fourth landing approach, no sweat at all, and what a beautiful airplane.  I couldn't have done it better if I'd had a Fly-By-Wire aircraft and a Velocity Vector on the HUD.

 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Yes you can tell why they turned it into a carrier capable aircraft: it would be extremely easy to land on a boat, even without HUD

[Ornithopter]

I'm pleased.  I went through the Nav tutorial and it's a little bit of a strange way of doing things, but pretty straight forward.  So now I'm a virtual MiG-29 pilot.  I like it enough that I think I should learn to paint skins for this.  I already have a name in mind for my personal aircraft.  Her name is Rio.  

[Pavlin_33]

A bit off topic, but cockpit layouts are something you just get used to. I've been flying red exclusively for 10+ years, and when you put me in a NATO style cockpit, I am completely lost. If you ask me, Soviet style artificial horizont with separate pitch and roll axis is way better, but that's just me. I got used to this style and now I can't unlearn it

[TotenDead]

В 08.10.2025 в 08:28, Thamiel сказал:

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

1 час назад, Pavlin_33 сказал:

A bit off topic, but cockpit layouts are something you just get used to. I've been flying red exclusively for 10+ years, and when you put me in a NATO style cockpit, I am completely lost. If you ask me, Soviet style artificial horizont with separate pitch and roll axis is way better, but that's just me. I got used to this style and now I can't unlearn it

Same here. When I first tried the 15C i was like "what a nightmare of a cockpit compared to the MiG

 

". Still have that feeling to this day tbh

 

 

В 09.10.2025 в 03:10, Ornithopter сказал:

This seems like a 3rd gen cockpit, but with some impressive 4th gen capabilities.

 

It's not 3rd gen, it's just that you're used to the mid 2000s planes in the game. Have a look at the F-15A or the F-14

 

В 07.10.2025 в 16:23, Thamiel сказал:

it seems difficult to imagine that the Mig-29 could reach the level of sophistication of multirole aircrafts and all their payload delivery procedures.

 

Well...

Спойлер

 

[Krippz]

Really wanted to take a moment and thank ED for this module. One of my first flight simulators was the Novalogic MiG-29 Fulcrum. The Fulcrum has been my favorite aircraft since. Being able to fly this aircraft has been a dream come true. Thank you for your passion, dedication, and hard work to make this project a reality. 

[CrazyGman]

On 10/8/2025 at 4:12 AM, Thamiel said:

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.

M-2000C easily is the closest comparison. Though the M-2000C is harder for Navigation, but has a more versatile autopilot. Air to air and air to ground options are similar.

The MiG-29 has also a fairly comparable layout in a terms of radar options and weapon selection, though jettisoning just the tank is easier then in M-2000C if you want to keep your medium range missiles.

Start up is easier in the MIG-29, and requires less steps especially when using the switch cages

Overall the layout is fairly intuitive on the 29, and similar to the M-2000C  certainly better then say the mirage F1 where you have to operate controls on both the right and left side of your body to operate the radar and select and deselect weapon stations to use BVR missiles or bombs.

Radar is more capable and versatile in the M-2000C, but requires slightly higher workload and going fully heads down unless using ACM modes.

[Ornithopter]

I'm getting the hang of it, which is a lot sooner than I do some modules.  I've even gone through 3 of the 4 basic bombing methods, the last one I haven't gotten to being equivalent to an "over the shoulder delivery".  The plane is pretty straight forward, compared to some imo.  I've seen some threads that say the ground attack accuracy is off, but is it any worse or better than the F-4E module in Dive Toss?  My first tries with CCIP and CCRP were actually within about 50 feet long or short, so it didn't seem all that bad to me.  Really fun aircraft, and glad that I got it.

Edited October 18 by Ornithopter

[AeriaGloria]

1 hour ago, Ornithopter said:

I'm getting the hang of it, which is a lot sooner than I do some modules.  I've even gone through 3 of the 4 basic bombing methods, the last one I haven't gotten to being equivalent to an "over the shoulder delivery".  The plane is pretty straight forward, compared to some imo.  I've seen some threads that say the ground attack accuracy is off, but is it any worse or better than the F-4E module in Dive Toss?  My first tries with CCIP and CCRP were actually within about 50 feet long or short, so it didn't seem all that bad to me.  Really fun aircraft, and glad that I got it.

It should be much more accurate than 50 feet. It is basically using the barometer when it should be using the laser, which has 10m slant range accuracy. 
 

If you are bombing at the exact barometric altitude of your current waypoint, it is fine. Until it properly uses the laser 

Edited October 18 by AeriaGloria

[Ornithopter]

So, for now,  until a bug is resolved, I need to set the QFE of the target on the altimeter?

[AeriaGloria]

54 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

So, for now,  until a bug is resolved, I need to set the QFE of the target on the altimeter?

Go into DTC and set altitude of target for every waypoint 

[Ornithopter]

2 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

Go into DTC and set altitude of target for every waypoint 

You are are clearly a really smart person, but that didn't help.

[AeriaGloria]

59 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

You are are clearly a really smart person, but that didn't help.

You were in the weapon tab of the DTC? Next to CMDS? It’s atleast whatWags says that weapon section is for, sorry I wasn’t super clear it was in the weapon section

EDIT: Watching it again, I guess you are supposed to enter the waypoint whose altitude you plan to use….. as we’ve said, it seems to be temporary until it properly uses laser  

Edited October 19 by AeriaGloria