Misleading product description [NS430 & NS430 for Mig 29]

[Pougatchev]

Hello everyone,     

I'm a bit disapointed,

The description said :

"The NS 430 for the MiG-29A module integrates the NS 430 panel directly into the MiG-29A cockpit (not as a pop-up display). The NS 430 is fully wired into the electrical and radio systems of the MiG-29A.

For work of this module, you must also own the DCS: NS 430 and DCS: MiG-29A modules.

The NS 430 GPS navigation system, is an optional add-on module for DCS World aircraft. It provides powerful, yet intuitive, navigation and radio communications options to supplement the navigation and radio systems already integrated into our aircraft. The NS 430 is particularly useful for older aircraft with less sophisticated navigation and communication systems."

So maybe I'm idiot and don't understand yet how radios are working, or maybe I blindly bought a product trusting what I read.

Now after searching I mostly read that those radios aren't working for any module.

Can anyone prove me that I'm wrong? I would be really happy to use them correctly rather than believe that I was trapped.

Pouga

Edited September 30 by Pougatchev

[twistking]

The optimistic answer would be that radios are still WIP.
The realistic answer would be that radios are still WIP but will be so for the coming years...

Edited September 30 by twistking

[AdrianL]

Hopefully you read the part about the limited map support

[Pougatchev]

Sadly I mainly read this : "Serves as both a communications radio, navigation radio, and GPS receiver"

I think the least ED can do is revise the descriptions so as not to (unintentionally) mislead buyers, the real NS430 is that yes.

[Vakarian]

1 hour ago, AdrianL said:

Hopefully you read the part about the limited map support

Hopefully you read the changelog and not just spreading misinformation...

Edited September 30 by Vakarian

[Ornithopter]

In the real world, when a GNS 430 is fitted to such an aircraft such as the MiG, isn't it more of a kluge?  If you stick one in a Cessna with Bendix King radios, obviously it will allow tuning of both nav and comm radios as an alternative to the dials on the radios themselves. But these are Soviet era radios.  In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work?  I always assumed that they just mounted it somewhere (or duct taped it) only to provide basic gps and show the pilot a convenient position reference.  I have this device fitted to both the Mi-8 and the C-101.  I never expected it to actually tune the radios, even though I know the device is capable of it when properly wired in. If ED makes a Cessna 172, then yes, I would absolutely expect it to do all of this stuff.  Product description for the MiG-29 aside, is my assesment correct?

[Pougatchev]

51 minutes ago, Ornithopter said:

In the real world, when a GNS 430 is fitted to such an aircraft such as the MiG, isn't it more of a kluge?  If you stick one in a Cessna with Bendix King radios, obviously it will allow tuning of both nav and comm radios as an alternative to the dials on the radios themselves. But these are Soviet era radios.  In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work?  I always assumed that they just mounted it somewhere (or duct taped it) only to provide basic gps and show the pilot a convenient position reference.  I have this device fitted to both the Mi-8 and the C-101.  I never expected it to actually tune the radios, even though I know the device is capable of it when properly wired in. If ED makes a Cessna 172, then yes, I would absolutely expect it to do all of this stuff.  Product description for the MiG-29 aside, is my assesment correct?

Yes it is, I’m all ok with what you are saying, my problem is only about the description staying like it is, I was too fast with the « take my money button », next time I’m going to be more carreful about expectations and take more care about words VS what is really inside, for me it’s not a big deal to make it clear.

Edited September 30 by Pougatchev

[Ornithopter]

I don't happen to be in DCS buying mode, despite the current sales.  I have enough aircraft for now on backlog.  I've been flying the Chinook and the Aviojet lately.  I'm flying the Aviojet because I'm keeping myself current without killing too many braincells.  I haven't bought the Mig-29, and maybe someday, but not today.

But, I have to ask, is a single sentence in a product description really that big a deal? A lot of people are loving this aircraft clearly, and they couldn't care less about a minor mistake in a one page description for a new airplane. Most likely the new college grad they hired to write the description just made a simple mistake after looking at the website of the real-world analog.

[twistking]

2 hours ago, Ornithopter said:

In the real world, when a GNS 430 is fitted to such an aircraft such as the MiG, isn't it more of a kluge?  If you stick one in a Cessna with Bendix King radios, obviously it will allow tuning of both nav and comm radios as an alternative to the dials on the radios themselves. But these are Soviet era radios.  In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work?  I always assumed that they just mounted it somewhere (or duct taped it) only to provide basic gps and show the pilot a convenient position reference.  I have this device fitted to both the Mi-8 and the C-101.  I never expected it to actually tune the radios, even though I know the device is capable of it when properly wired in. If ED makes a Cessna 172, then yes, I would absolutely expect it to do all of this stuff.  Product description for the MiG-29 aside, is my assesment correct?

I was under the impressions that the 430 comes with its own radio(s). So it allows to monitor more frequencies, which would be a neat feature even if it's not encrypted.

Edited October 1 by twistking

[Ornithopter]

Well, you might be right.  It would be pretty cool though if there is a MiG-29 that could do one of those L/VNAV approaches coupled to the autopilot, with just a 430W, wouldn't it?

Edited October 1 by Ornithopter

[Ornithopter]

They should make the description a bit more accurate about what it does and doesn't do.

Other than that, how was the rest of the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

[draconus]

On 10/1/2025 at 2:02 AM, Ornithopter said:

But, I have to ask, is a single sentence in a product description really that big a deal? A lot of people are loving this aircraft clearly, and they couldn't care less about a minor mistake in a one page description for a new airplane. Most likely the new college grad they hired to write the description just made a simple mistake after looking at the website of the real-world analog.

The aircraft and its description is fine. The thread is about the "NS430 and NS430 for MiG-29" product and its false description, false and misleading marketing. Yes, half* of functionality (comms) is not implemented, and that is a big deal.

If it was a simple mistake they'd have simply corrected it years ago. But they didn't and keep adding the same info for more aircraft.

On 9/30/2025 at 11:17 PM, Ornithopter said:

In the real world, when such a device is put into some old Soviet aircraft, does that kind of integration with the nav/comm system actually even work?

It depends on the implementation. The RL device has connectors to the external antennas for both GPS, NAV and radios plus 3 kinds of data buses to connect to the aircraft. You can either just connect power and GPS antenna and have it just like in DCS or you can integrate it fully with mic button, helmet headphones, aircraft nav, comm and other systems.

*Maybe even 2/3 if you count NAV like VOR and ILS but I don't have details on that.

Edited October 3 by draconus

[Hawkeye_UK]

 It's only been 7 years.....but your 100% correct the product is hugely misleading at the point of sale, the problem is @BIGNEWY @NineLine didn't respond to any of these posts....I'd actually foreseen the missing comm's integration would flag issues when launching for the Mig29a and all we got was tumbleweed.

I was actually hoping that with the NS430 being added to the Mig29 it would have spurred some work on the module, given its largely been forgot about, but no, minimal bits on few map updates but that was it.

The comm's should be implemented, purely for the reason of in MP it allows to change to freq's that might not be preprogrammed in, or towers etc.