Mig 29A - Full Fidelity or just an EA issue - Is the final product more realistically medium fidelity?

[Hawkeye_UK]

ED,

On first impressions, short of a few issues like IFF for MP (this as i say to all dev's on any module has to be a day one release feature these days) and the att hold for autopilot and few other niggles I think ED have done a great job with the fulcrum.  Its alot of fun to "fly", brings a much needed improvement over the Mig21 in terms of Gen 4 for the red side and on superficial play looks and feels great.

Night 1 a solid 6 hours of learning the basics, circuits, handling capabilities, playing around with rudder and splitting the throttles, high alpha moves and navigation systems, zero vis landing etc to get a really good feel for it, its instant nose authority and sustained speeds ingame for rate fights etc i noticed the engines can flame out in certain conditions which "auto relight" with windmilling and throttle to idle.  I thought I will move onto the emergency procedures post learning the radar and attack.

Night 2 of learning its A2A radar, and ground delivery modes all seem good, well worth highlighting the IFF friend and foe lock that i see most people complaining about cannot lock on (when testing say and trying to lock a friend).

Night 3, starting to take a deeper dive and here comes the wall, there isnt any.  Past superficial play and once going into emergency regimes i note alot of the panels and features are not selectable and do not work.  I've worked through the manual and note they say not available.

So none of the Emergency control panel works such as ramp retraction, air relight left and right, ab emergency cut off, fuel shut off left and right, they are all listed as not available.  I note other features such as the feel control unit states not implemented yet, a clear difference.

Considering the heritage of what DCS Full fidelty means and i refer to modules such as the A10C or the KA50, there clearly is a large gap in what full fidelity means and what concerns me is the engine/model behind this.  If this is the final state of the Emergency control panel and other panels not available one could very easily interpret that the back system for this is not there also re damage to systems?

Please could you clarify if this is the new standard of full fidelity because if this is the case its a very clear departure from past modules for example in the A10C i can literally control all aspects which actually during play is super useful when taking damage can manage the failures and in alot of ways the A10C is still the gold standard all those years ago.  If the manual is correct and these are not going to be available i would suggest a rebrand to Mid fidelity.

Look forward to the clarification, hopefully this is just a translation issue and the systems will be modelled.

This is not a "hate post", far from it, as i said really enjoying what it brings to the game and recommend people buy it but just seeking the direction of this module and futures ones like it (as in conversions from FC3 re F15C).

 

[zerO_crash]

"Early Access"

 

When purchasing the module, you signed the EULA, with the understanding that you have immersed yourself into what you are purchasing. 

 

Positive news: Down the line, it'll all work!

[MelonatorPL]

I'm also very interested if all the emergency panels will work in the future. Hoping for a response.

[zerO_crash]

I've been away for a while (business), neither have I heard anything on this topic from ED. That said, having skimmed through the technical manuals (this issue was raised before), I don't find anything that should be in any way sensitive. Since we are getting IFF (which has been the most sensitive subject), I wouldn't worry about the above mentioned. I'll check with with RU-devs when I get the chance

[Hawkeye_UK]

5 hours ago, zerO_crash said:

"Early Access"

 

When purchasing the module, you signed the EULA, with the understanding that you have immersed yourself into what you are purchasing. 

 

Positive news: Down the line, it'll all work!

Well aware of Early access hence why i reference it, but congratulations on not comprehending the point i raised and the aspects of why.

[zerO_crash]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

Well aware of Early access hence why i reference it, but congratulations on not comprehending the point i raised and the aspects of why.

I get you completely, but then again, you aren't new here. As you know, russian aircraft are developed by the RU-side of the team. Everything from manuals to official announcements (including patch notes) clearly shows, that there is no uniformity in the way information is distributed. These people are competent, but English isn't their primary. Hence, the different wording you are reading into, is nothing else than a translational 404. It's just something you have to cope with.

 

On tbe other side, I gave you a clear, albeit not final, feedback which is based on the RU forums (trust me, things get raised there quick if they fall out of line).

 

So yeah, no worries, it'll come, I'm sure.

[Andrei]

Post A-10 and KA-50 the study level stimulation in DSC had been degraded. You can see it in both F-16 and F-18 modules where failures are extremely basic or not done at all. 

I think either Wags or NineLine / BN once mentioned that a very small portion of their customers would benefit from those. So it's not worth their time developing.

[AeriaGloria]

I think it’s just unfinished so far. A lot more will come, like COOP mode 

[zerO_crash]

I cannot comment on that Andrei, as I practically fly no western aircraft. I would, however, guess, that aside from failiures, the systems are more in-depth modelled (given the total complexity and scope of the aircraft), as opposed to what we had before. We are finally getting e.g. datalinks and IFFs with all their bells and whistles. Notice the main reason why why AH-64D isn't as popular as one would think - it's too complex for the average mind. That's a known fact. 
 

My point is, I've been the one on these forums who has advocated for raising module prices, just to cover for more in-depth detail. As I've stated on many occasions, I don't mind paying $200 for a module. I'd gladly pay a $1000 for a fully functional Ka-50, with all systems simulated to the maximum detail. The problem is, that's not the mainstream in the community. Because of that, ED will naturally have to make sacrifices in order to make ends meet, yet pump out ever more complex aircraft. It's that, which causes us to see a certain shift in certain modules. D amage modelling is another example of a aspect which has indeed landed on its back legs. F-16 still doesn't have a proper damage model, and it ain't the only one...

 

@Raven Don't get your hopes up, sadly. Notice how with Apache, you can select individual amount of hellfires on each station to outfit. For a comparison, the Ka-50 BS3 was shown with similar functionality in WIP images, yet came out with the APU-6 fixed to six tubes, no questions asked. I made a note and request about that (among other things), on the RU-side, but as always, it's a question of budget vs. popularity of a module. It apparently costs $ and time (and much so) to model new loadouts, as well as asymmetric ones, and as such, it's not deemed worth it by ED, even though I would argue that it makes sense to grab two Vikhrs instead of six every time, all the time. I argued equally, that one of the main design principles of Russian combat helicopters (chief amongs Kamovs (50/52)), are their duplicated hydraulics systems which grant them increased survivability. This is a must have! Yet, as of now, we don't have it. If your main hydraulics gets damaged in the Ka-50, you better land immidiately, or else - dead stick. Chizh did hint that due to some of us pressuring ED on this, the team "might" model it at some point, however nothing is certain. I don't blame him, budget, priorities and company survival come first, but it puts aircraft other than western in the worst possible spot. 

[Dudikoff]

Some of these are probably features that 95% of the people won't ever use and they don't want to go down those rabbit holes given plenty of modules and limited manpower.

Heatblur takes a different approach, but then again, it takes them ages to release stuff (probably due to a lot of these seemingly simple features turn out much more complex to do properly than initially assumed).

I do agree that it brings full-fidelity description into question, but they need to stay afloat as well, so, you take the bad with the good, I guess.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

My point is, I've been the one on these forums who has advocated for raising module prices, just to cover for more in-depth detail. As I've stated on many occasions, I don't mind paying $200 for a module.

Yes I am one of them as well: I don't mind paying more if it means every single module is at least on par with A-10C when it comes to depth.

 

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

If your main hydraulics gets damaged in the Ka-50, you better land immidiately, or else - dead stick.

Yes, that happened to me many many times: I have flown dead stick Ka-50s with missing pylons and tail shot off many times: sweaty hands guaranteed because of the hard work!

 

1 hour ago, zerO_crash said:

I don't blame him, budget, priorities and company survival come first, but it puts aircraft other than western in the worst possible spot. 

I hope MiG-29 will sell very well!

[Hawkeye_UK]

7 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

Some of these are probably features that 95% of the people won't ever use and they don't want to go down those rabbit holes given plenty of modules and limited manpower.

Heatblur takes a different approach, but then again, it takes them ages to release stuff (probably due to a lot of these seemingly simple features turn out much more complex to do properly than initially assumed).

I do agree that it brings full-fidelity description into question, but they need to stay afloat as well, so, you take the bad with the good, I guess.

Dudikoff agree with your point in principle, its probably not that high though, alot of community are rivet counters ( I will add i'm not, its a game etc etc but i do like to be able to do the basic's when it comes to damage and being able to control the systems, i mean it is a "combat" sim after all).  I think my primary concern is the fact we have this clear distiniction in the manual of not available, and not available yet.  Being able to turn off the fuel to each engine i would say is pretty elementary stuff, and makes me wonder about the overall damage model etc and the model behind it.

As i say its about branding this as full fidelity if the manual is correct and these systems won't be available.  Thank you for your feedback on the thread.