MiG-29 -Customer Feedback

[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).

 

[av8orDave]

First, the good: ED has done an outstanding job of modeling the Fulcrum. The visuals look great, the performance feels right, and it provides a great suspension of disbelief; it feels like you’re in an early 4th gen fighter.

The bad: I’ve always suspected, read, heard that the 4th gen Russian aircraft were high performance, short legged, and barely more advanced than a household microwave. They could climb and turn as well as anything, but could do so for barely any time, and were so primitive they wouldn’t be effective in a peer to peer environment.

The ugly: The sim confirms the bad. The radar is barely functional, the cockpit ergonomics are horrendous, and the RWR is basically just a noisemaker with flashing lights. 

So, having said the above, I think the MiG is going to take a ton of practice in order to be able to use effectively.

[Cgjunk2]

The other option besides trying to learn how to use it effectively, is to just pretend you’re a billionaire with enough disposable money to buy and feed your own mig-29.  Then just fly the jet with total abandon, roll coal, and make very, very expensive holes in the sky.  This plane has the perfect FM for that!  

[Harlikwin]

So, I think ED got the RWR wrong in the regard that the SPO 15 was not "blind" in the frontal arc, there is a maintenance doc that talks about properly "blanking"/synching the SPO-15 when using the radar.

But I think this maintenance tended not to be done by some allied countries (or they lacked spare parts), and the reversion mode just shuts it off if its out of synch. 

There is also a serbian account of a mig29 pilot that was trying to lock up a western jet when his RWR went off and he was able to evade the missile.

 

Edited yesterday at 10:39 PM by Harlikwin

[av8orDave]

Just saying… it is easy to see how the F-15 has been the end of many MiG-29’s… and why the roles were never reversed.

[Harlikwin]

1 minute ago, av8orDave said:

Just saying… it is easy to see how the F-15 has been the end of many MiG-29’s… and why the roles were never reversed.

Well "a few 29's" but yeah. And at least in the gulf and the balkans the F15's were mostly still "cold war" era (ish). But most people don't realize that all the fancy radar modes etc on the F15 only came in the late 80's. So, early on it would have been a bit more challenging for NATO. Not to mention there were only 2-3 squadrons of F15's in europe total. 

Per soviet doctrine, 29's weren't supposed to fight F15's anyway unless it was a GCI directed ambush. 

Vipers are another story.

 

 

 

[av8orDave]

1 hour ago, Harlikwin said:

Well "a few 29's" but yeah. And at least in the gulf and the balkans the F15's were mostly still "cold war" era (ish). But most people don't realize that all the fancy radar modes etc on the F15 only came in the late 80's. So, early on it would have been a bit more challenging for NATO. Not to mention there were only 2-3 squadrons of F15's in europe total. 

Per soviet doctrine, 29's weren't supposed to fight F15's anyway unless it was a GCI directed ambush. 

Vipers are another story.

 

 

 

Best I can find, the -15 has downed seven MiG-29’s in total (5 in Desert Storm, 2 in Kosovo). 

My big takeaway from the DCS module so far is that the avionics are just stunningly bad… the radar is pretty rough and the RWR is almost useless. The HMD is pretty cool and adds some nice capability within visual range, if you can manage to survive that long. 

[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!

[Kuky]

Hm, I agree about ED probably modelling the RWR badly by adding this  inability to use it while radar is on, I think this effect is not how they came by default but by lack of maintenance, so I think ED should change this to match the intended/default function of it and not the effect of lack of maintenance as it is now. If it stays like it is now RWR is pretty much useless and maybe I'm wrong but I just can't see the logic of why Soviet engineers would make the 29 like this from factory as it makes use of RWR on 29 pretty much irrelevant.

[352ndOscar]

 

Quote

Not to mention there were only 2-3 squadrons of F15's in europe total.

CORRECTION:

• 36th Fighter Wing, at Bitburg Air Base, GE
  • 22d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (BT
  • 53d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (BT)
  • 525th Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (BT)
• 32nd Fighter Squadron, at Soesterberg AB,
  • 32nd Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (CR)
• 48th Fighter Wing – RAF Lakenheath, UK
  • 492d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (LN)
  • 493d Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (LN)
  • 494th Fighter Squadron, with 24x F-15C Eagle (LN)

168 F-15C authorized…..

Edited 21 hours ago by 352ndOscar

[SAM77]

Radar is pretty much useless online MP. Not as bad in the instant action missions. SPO lock tone is brutal to my ears even at low volume. Well aware it's EA so no biggie. Everything else is superb!

[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 

[Dudikoff]

8 hours ago, Kuky said:

If it stays like it is now RWR is pretty much useless and maybe I'm wrong but I just can't see the logic of why Soviet engineers would make the 29 like this from factory as it makes use of RWR on 29 pretty much irrelevant.

Unless it's something they couldn't solve at that moment and left it for later (like e.g. the TWF mode sometimes overwhelming the Ts100 computer, which was fixed with Ts100M, IIRC).

But, yeah, this sounds like something that should be made optional as it was definitely not designed to work like this.

Edited 13 hours ago by Dudikoff

[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.

[TotenDead]

Did I get it right And you compare 9.12 with the F-16C from 2005? Just FYI, there is a 20 year gap between the planes. And, for comparison reasons, the F-4E we have is only 10 years older than the MiG. Maybe it would be wiser to compare the 9.12 to the phantom

[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!

[bies]

Our Soviet 1983 MiG-29 9.12 would be a counterpart for the F-16C Block 25 from 1984 or even F-16A Block 15 from 1981, maybe an F/A-18A from 1983. To some extend F-14A and F-15C from 1970s/early 1980s.

But this are not really a strict counterparts as both countries had vastly different doctrines, due to many reasons. F-4 entered service in 1962, our upgraded variant in 1972 but in its core it was still a late 1950s 2nd generation design. No point looking for a direct counterparts though.

Our MiG-29 9.12 is suited for all the late Cold War scenarios at its prime; 1980s Europe over divided Germany map, Desert Storm over Iraq/Kuwait. And 1990s Ethipia-Erithrea war, Balkan wars and more, it's i limited use even today, often non modernized since 1980s. It's a lot, arguably the hottest and most content packed period in DCS.

[TotenDead]

22 минуты назад, bies сказал:

 

Our MiG-29 9.12 is suited for all the late Cold War scenarios at its prime; 1980s Europe over divided Germany map, Desert Storm over Iraq/Kuwait. And 1990s Ethipia-Erithrea war, Balkan wars and more, it's i limited use even today, often non modernized since 1980s. It's a lot, arguably the hottest and most content packed period in DCS.

And... The most empty one with only a handful jets suitable for DS and mid-to-late 80s

[Bremspropeller]

Most european F-16s would have been A models, apart from some USAFE early C models in the mid to mid-late 80s (say 84 to 88 timeframe). Modernisation ramped up slowly on both sides and WarPac (non GSSD) 29s only came online in 88/89, so just shortly before the Iron Curtain fell.

GSSD 29s also slowly replaced 23s and 25s, right up 'till 89 (Zerbst getting 29s in '88, Altenburg recieving Fulcrums in mid'89).