MiG-29"A" isn't a MiG-29A

[Northstar98]

Hi everyone,

I appreciate this is minor (though on the flip-side, fixing it is trivial), but what we have in DCS is not a MiG-29A.

IRL the actual MiG-29A (product 9-11A) was a speculative concept from the 1970s that was never built beyond small, scale models.

Here's what it may have looked like if it was ever actually built (note 29A written on the nose):

This was essentially a stop-gap aircraft, using avionics (including the radar) of late MiG-23ML aircraft (and you can see an R-23R missile depicted under each wing). This model can also be seen in the documentary Wings of the Red Star - the Last Generation about the MiG-29 and Su-27.

Here's another image showing prospective loadouts (including the K-25 - more-or-less a copy of the AIM-7 Sparrow), here depicted with semi-recessed stations on the corners of the engine nacelles - much like the Hornet (though you can find numerous other MiG-29A designs - such as this one and even this SAAB 35 Draken-looking one

Note how "радиолоцанная станция" (radar station) is listed as "САПФИР-23М" i.e SAPFIR-23M. SAPFIR-23 being the radar fitted to the MiG-23.

What we have in DCS is actually just "MiG-29". I'd propose renaming it to "MiG-29 (9-12A)" or "MiG-29 (9-12A) Fulcrum-A", as that's where the As actually belong and this is what the aircraft actually is. Including Fulcrum-A is out of convention for DCS (though DCS' naming convention is inconsistent to begin with), though were it to be done, I'd include NATO reporting names for all Soviet/Russian/Chinese aircraft, as has been done with some ground units.

The Ural-375s got corrected to what they actually are (Ural-4320s), let's hope this can get corrected too.

I've attached a modified MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua (ironically, the name of the .lua file gets it right), changing line 410 to have a more accurate display name that fixes the issue - this resides inside CoreMods\aircraft\MiG-29-Fulcrum (ironically the name of the .lua file and the name of the folder gets it right).

This will break the Integrity Checker so ensure to retain a back-up of the original.

Spoiler

And, in a similar breath:

• The HY-2 is neither a Silkworm or an SS-N-2 Styx. Its actual NATO designation is CSSC-3 Seersucker.
• The Chieftain Mk.3 is not a Mk.3
• The U-Boat U-Flak absolutely isn't a U-Flak. 

MiG-29-Fulcrum.lua

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Yes, it's been discussed before - and a pet peeve as well that I see people keep using wrong classifications. Including ED, who are quick to say "we are simulating an F-16CM from circa 2005 as been used by the USAF" but keep calling an actual in-service aircraft by the name of a concept that never materialised.
It's the equivalent of calling our F/A-18C lot 20 a YF-17.
 

Also, the naming conventions used inside DCS are not consistent. In the ME it's called "MiG-29A-Fulcrum" while in the Special Options it's - correctly - called "MiG-29 (model 9.12A)".

Edited 11 hours ago by Raven (Elysian Angel)

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Yes, it's been discussed before - and a pet peeve as well that I see people keep using wrong classifications. Including ED, who are quick to say "we are simulating an F-16CM from circa 2005 as been used by the USAF" but keep calling an actual in-service aircraft by the name of a concept that never materialised.
It's the equivalent of calling our F/A-18C lot 20 a YF-17

Yep, ditto for the Su-25 (correct in the mission editor, incorrect everywhere else), HY-2, U-Boat U-Flak, Chieftain Mk.3 etc.

I never thought to make the comparison to the YF-17, it is a pretty apt one, though at least that actually flew.

EDIT: I see this has been moved out of bugs and problems, despite it being an in-game inaccuracy - I guess ED are content with calling things something they're not.

Edited 6 hours ago by Northstar98
grammar

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

When ED decides to make a full-fidelity Su-27, let's hope they actually call it "Su-27" and not T-10-1"  

[Volator]

I always took MiG-29A as a colloquial form of NATO lingo Fulcrum-A following how NATO pilots talk about it and would have absolutely no sleepless nights if it stayed that way, but that is just me.

[okopanja]

I support the rename.

I wish ED was a bit more careful with internal naming scheme. For some aircrafts they use official designation but for some inofficial. And in some cases they actually duplicate designation for 2 variants (example Ka-50).

BTW it is interesting to note that X-25, X-29 was envisioned in this version already.

I wonder why they dropped that.

Off course X-29 came to 29 later, but it is worth noting that it was part of upgrade options for 9.12 operators.

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

9 minutes ago, Volator said:

I always took MiG-29A as a colloquial form of NATO lingo

Yes that's fine for Flaming Cliffs, but many people expect more from a full-fidelity module. If Heatblur can call their modules "F-14A-135-GR" and "F-4E-45-MC", then ED can call it "MiG-29 9.12A".
It will also make the distinction  between FC3 and FF easier for the more casual people  

[MicroShket]

55 минут назад, Raven (Elysian Angel) сказал:

ED can call it "MiG-29 9.12A".

And then the United Aircraft Corporation will enter the chat.

Edited 9 hours ago by MicroShket

[okopanja]

2 minutes ago, MicroShket said:

And then the United Aircraft Corporation will enter the chat.

Can not say, ED would know this better.

But, its nice to see you ex-Soviets being more involved into the 29 topics.

[MicroShket]

6 минут назад, okopanja сказал:

Can not say, ED would know this better.

Who knows. At least we already have an issues with the Russian Helicopters Company, so on Russian ED store page it's impossible now to buy any Russian helicopter module.

[Northstar98]

5 hours ago, okopanja said:

I support the rename.

I wish ED was a bit more careful with internal naming scheme. For some aircrafts they use official designation but for some inofficial. And in some cases they actually duplicate designation for 2 variants (example Ka-50).

Yep and DCS' naming scheme is all over the place, not just with aircraft either. I'd more than happily go and sort it all out and make it more consistent, but with the 2.7 lua lock, a lot of it is impossible.

5 hours ago, Volator said:

I always took MiG-29A as a colloquial form of NATO lingo Fulcrum-A following how NATO pilots talk about it and would have absolutely no sleepless nights if it stayed that way, but that is just me.

Yes, I imagine its a case of As getting lost and I did describe it as a minor issue - because that's exactly what it is.

But to me, when something as basic and trivial as merely calling something what it actually is isn't achieved, my confidence kinda drops - short of licensing issues, it really isn't hard to call a spade a spade. 

And if something so utterly trivial to get right and fix (and I've even provided said fix) is going to be wrong, what else, maybe not so trivial, is going to be wrong?

It's not the only example either.

Edited 5 hours ago by Northstar98

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

30 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

short of licensing issues, it really isn't hard to call a spade a spade

Exactly: if there were legal reasons to call the module "MiG-29A", ED could have said so.
In case of the Mirage 2000, it was made clear from the start why the module is called "M-2000C" instead.