MiG-29 -Customer Feedback

[Bremspropeller]

Looks like Damgarten, Köthen and Finow also only recieved Fulcrums in '89.

That would leave Wittstock, Merseburg and Falkenberg as the premier "mid 80s" Fulcrum airfields.

 

Edited 7 hours ago by Bremspropeller

[Hatman335]

12 hours ago, 352ndOscar said:

 

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…..

Fake news, the 492nd and 494th never got F-15Cs and the 493rd only transitioned to the Eagle after the Cold War ended in 1993. 

[352ndOscar]

1 hour ago, Hatman335 said:

Fake news, the 492nd and 494th never got F-15Cs and the 493rd only transitioned to the Eagle after the Cold War ended in 1993. 

I won't quibble...  Yes, the 492nd and 494th got F-15Es versus Cs.  The poster, however, did not specify a time period.  He said, "ever"; and Es are every bit as capable of taking out MiG-29s as the Cs.

[MickV]

Agreed fully that the look, sound & feel of the module are absolutely phenomenal. ED knocked it out of the park there. But also that the avionics are such that the module may become an extremely niche product with limited sales. 

Full fidelity is obviously the gold standard for a flight sim, but given that DCS is still a game, players also need a few breaks here and there to make up for the tools that actual pilots would have, that we don't. (Ie GCI for Redfor planes)

The SPO-15 being effectively worthless at generating any sort of useful threat indications seems likely to limit the DCS MiG-29 to 1v1 WVR dogfights, and self-made SP missions with players making liberal use of F10 to generate SA.

I have a hard time imagining a playable MiG-29 campaign, if the player has little to no warning of any attack by an AI with a BVR weapon. 

[Volator]

10 minutes ago, MickV said:

Full fidelity is obviously the gold standard for a flight sim, but given that DCS is still a game, players also need a few breaks here and there to make up for the tools that actual pilots would have, that we don't. (Ie GCI for Redfor planes)

The SPO-15 being effectively worthless at generating any sort of useful threat indications seems likely to limit the DCS MiG-29 to 1v1 WVR dogfights, and self-made SP missions with players making liberal use of F10 to generate SA.

For SP, maybe. However, a new sort of GCI has been promised by ED.

In MP, good squadrons have GCI. The MiG-29, like all other fighters, was not meant to fly lone-wolf. That is one of the issues with how we use to play MP in a very unrealistic way. Join a virtual squadron, you are not going to regret it.

[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.

[Hatman335]

1 hour ago, 352ndOscar said:

I won't quibble...  Yes, the 492nd and 494th got F-15Es versus Cs.  The poster, however, did not specify a time period.  He said, "ever"; and Es are every bit as capable of taking out MiG-29s as the Cs.

That's not what he said, his comments were about the late 80s, where this is absolutely true. And the E is worse at BFM than the C or the Mig-29. But in any case that doesn't really matter, since before the end of the Cold War, the number of F-15s in Europe was lower than many people think. The Mig-29 very realistically could have gone against F-4Es, F-4Fs, F-16As and yeah a handful of F-15Cs, but that wasn't the primary air superiority fighter of NATO in Europe when it comes to raw numbers.

[MickV]

2 hours ago, Volator said:

For SP, maybe. However, a new sort of GCI has been promised by ED.

In MP, good squadrons have GCI. The MiG-29, like all other fighters, was not meant to fly lone-wolf. That is one of the issues with how we use to play MP in a very unrealistic way. Join a virtual squadron, you are not going to regret it.

That's all well and good, but many/most of us are forced to fly lone-wolf precisely because we don't have the time to commit to a virtual squadron. If a module is only fun for guys in a squadron with a GCI... well, that's a niche market within a niche market. 

[Volator]

Luckily, there are alternatives for people who cannot commit to the very minimums of simulating military aviation.

[BIGNEWY]

1 hour ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

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.

Please lets not call community members names. You are welcome to give your feedback good and bad, but it seems you expected more from early access, even though we made it very clear on our shop, or forums posts, and our change logs when we delivered what was ready and what was not. If your expectations were not met I am sorry to hear that.

I don't think I have to say this to you as you have been a long time poster here but early access doesn't suit everyone, but it is required for a good product, we get to release our work in progress, we listen to feedback from the community and over time the product gets even better. 

The Mig-29A launch has been very well received by most people, messages here on the forum, discord and social media have been great to see and it really gives the team a boost, so to everyone who reached out to us, thank you.  

Thank you

[Mainstay]

12 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please lets not call community members names. You are welcome to give your feedback good and bad, but it seems you expected more from early access, even though we made it very clear on our shop, or forums posts, and our change logs when we delivered what was ready and what was not. If your expectations were not met I am sorry to hear that.

I don't think I have to say this to you as you have been a long time poster here but early access doesn't suit everyone, but it is required for a good product, we get to release our work in progress, we listen to feedback from the community and over time the product gets even better. 

The Mig-29A launch has been very well received by most people, messages here on the forum, discord and social media have been great to see and it really gives the team a boost, so to everyone who reached out to us, thank you.  

Thank you

Right on! The aircraft is beautiful absolute joy to fly and the rest will come with time. 

Once again thnx to the devs for bringing this beauty into our lives as aviation enthusiasts  

[Hawkeye_UK]

32 minutes ago, BIGNEWY said:

Please lets not call community members names. You are welcome to give your feedback good and bad, but it seems you expected more from early access, even though we made it very clear on our shop, or forums posts, and our change logs when we delivered what was ready and what was not. If your expectations were not met I am sorry to hear that.

I don't think I have to say this to you as you have been a long time poster here but early access doesn't suit everyone, but it is required for a good product, we get to release our work in progress, we listen to feedback from the community and over time the product gets even better. 

The Mig-29A launch has been very well received by most people, messages here on the forum, discord and social media have been great to see and it really gives the team a boost, so to everyone who reached out to us, thank you.  

Thank you

I'm not calling out community members when you posted my response to dudikoff, i was thanking him for his contribution? Ehhh that's not calling them names, thats thanking them for their contirubution, common big newy i'll let you off with it being no doubt its been a long few weeks of screen time getting upto launch week!

This is not about EA Bignewy, im well aware of that process, I'm seeking clarification of what full fidility is because the branding of the product from day one has been full fidility to most long term customers will think A10C/KA50 etc level.

I also note from the sales blurb -

• Fully interactive and highly detailed cockpit based on 3D laser scanning and photogrammetry.

"Fully interactive" to me, means full fidelity, it does not imply that important panels such as fuel shut off and air relight would be not available or not able to interactive with.  These are vital and basic controls for any simulation, surely?

What im seeking is a clarification of just what the "full fidility" level is for this module and at this stage you haven't answered that, rather pointed me to the module being well received.  I have also stated in my post many positive aspects and recommend buying it, but that is not my point.

Please can you provide clarification to the original question please - also i would like to have this conversation in detail here, rather than the thread be closed down and locked and then it has to be discussed elsewhere outside of ED control.

Many thanks Bignewy, as i said this is not a hate post, i've very much been defending ED online with the product and privately saying its worth getting, but its not just me seeking clarification on what the level of full fidility means, and is this the standard now going forward.  This is not about EA, or my lack of understanding or patience for that process, to say otherwise is not accurate or factual.

PS can i also ask why the change of title has gone from what i posted - "Mig 29 Full fidelity or just an EA issue - is this product more realistically medium fidelity" it was changed from my orignal title to "the good, the bad and the ugly" for a few mins then to "customer feedback" all whilst i was writing this reply?!

Changing this to customer feedback is just going to get the post swamped with various other issues - this is a very specific point.  Please can you title the post back to the actual point i was raising - "Full Fidility" 

 

Edited 54 minutes ago by Hawkeye_UK

[NineLine]

On 9/19/2025 at 11:23 AM, Hawkeye_UK said:

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.

Regarding the first comment on missing items, these are planned and will be added to the roadmap once the timing is better understood. 

The A-1C and Ka-50 were born from projects outside DCS; they afforded and required much deeper system modelling, and we in the DCS Worldscape benefited from this. Other products did not, therefore, the focus and priority are put on things that will make the jet fun and enjoyable in a game environment. This doesnt mean those other systems wont come or wont be done, or we have some how decided not to model as deeply. But a project based purely on DCS at the start will focus on all those things people want to do, like fire missiles and drop bombs. Running bit tests you might be surprised to know, are not high up on the things people buy modules for, that said, we know that there are many who want to dig deep into systems. I purchased the A-10C back in the day because someone I game with said he didn't like it because it was too hard to learn. 

The KA-50 and A-10C have also lived in DCS for many, many years, as seen by the fact that we are on Ka-50 III and A-10C II. Even then, if you ask people in the know about things like the A-10C, they (looking at you Snoopy) will remind you that many things are missing, based on available documentation, classification and even ROI in some cases. 

"Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible."

As "possible" is key, the factors range from many different factors, most of which I mentioned above.