FC MiG-29 discussion (split)

[Alfa]

What model of MiG-29?????

 

I wrote:

 

* the real Su-27 and MiG-29 cannot lock on to two targets simultaneously - their radars do not have that function.

 

MiG-29 - 9-12 and 9-13 with N019 radar.

 

I already do this and i will any time, MiG-29s (MиГ-29С) and the last version of MiG-29a have capability of tracking four and shooting on two targets simultaneously..

 

MiG-29S - 9-13S with N019M radar.

 

..give me one link (even Wikipedia link) who are saying different or one book or any good info or just do not post **** like that.

 

Talk about posting **** :D

[Alfa]

It was my understanding that the Mig-29G was the German designation of the Mig-29A - any photos of the Mig-29G certainly look like Fulcrum-As - it is also not impossible that East Germany received some 9.13s variants too.

 

"MiG-29G" was the designation Luftwaffe assigned to the aircraft they inherited from the former GDR after having made slight modifications(for NATO compliance) to them.

 

East Germany didn't have any 9-13, but there was a Soviet unit stationed in GDR which did and IIRC it was even the actual MiG-29S(9-13S) variant with the modified radar.

 

Yes I understand this - however the source I quoted uses a different variant naming convention - it is all very un clear. What is clear however is the Lock On simulates the "Mig-29C", whatever that might be (See Lock Ons homepage), of which there are many possible variants. One of which does not have the Topaz Radar.

 

Not quite Nate - both the 9-12 and 9-13 are simply called "MiG-29", while the "MiG-29S" designation specifically denotes the 9-13S, which in turn only differs from the "baseline" 9-13 in regards to upgraded the radar.

 

The confusion I think comes from NATO designations - because NATO designated both the 9-13 and 9-13S as "FULCRUM C".

[Presing]

Then call it Fulcrim-A (version 9.12) or MiG-29b do not play word games. And in Lock on FC2 is modeled MiG-29s with Topaz radar or (N019M) check Scripts/planes/MiG-29s.lua line with sensors. Nate sorry you was right about UB model.

 

Presing

Edited March 13, 2012 by Presing

[Pilotasso]

Theres alot of confusion regarding the capability of the various models, particularly on western press, all due to confusing version numeration the russians have, and to no less extent the sketchy info regarding how many if any updated models actualy entered service.

 

To my knowlege only the Mig 29S models 9-13S -- which had a very limited production run before cancelation -- had such modifications, then many older 9-13 and 9-12 models were progressively modified in stages, under ever cut down budgets. I could not get reliable info if this upgrade has gone all the way to meet the 9-13S standard. Then the Mig-29SMT came along of which russia took back and incorporated some ex Algerian examples. if your looking at the multi engagement capability version of the Mig-29 I think this is your best realistic bet.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Pilotasso

[Presing]

Mig-29 variants:

Fulcrum A: MiG-29B (Variant 1, Product 9-12)

Fulcrum B: MiG-29UB (Variant 2, Product 9-03)

Fulcrum A: MiG-29SD (Variant 4, Product 9-12S)

Fulcrum A: MiG-29S (Variant 5, Product 9-12S)

Fulcrum A: MiG-29SE (Variant 6, Product 9-12SE)

Fulcrum C: MiG-29S (Variants 8/9)

Fulcrum A: MiG-29 TVK (Variant 10)

Fulcrum D: MiG-29K (variant 11 with "korabelnyy" = ship-based)

Fulcrum E: MiG-29M / ME (Variants 12/13/13S)

From M version we have MiG-35. SMT model come from FULCRUM C.

[Cali]

The time frame of FC2 and aircraft are too confusing to try and figure out. It's in-between 1985-2005. Although some features are messing from all aircraft.

[Pilotasso]

This is not about the time frame. Even then these migs versions have been around for so long, they could cover that entire time frame easely.

[Presing]

It's not about anything else except that МиГ-29С (the version who is in Lock ON) can engage two targets simultaneously with R-77, but they did not put it on in the LOMAC because ... what ever is the reason. This is the only reason why i am posting this much.

 

Would I like to see TWS shoots with MiG in LOMAC FC3 yes i would. Would also like to see F-15 with working data-link and updated version of Su-27 (what ever is the version who can carry active missiles) will the ED make that happen, probably not.

Edited March 13, 2012 by Presing

[EtherealN]

The reason (AFAIK) that the MiG-29 does not do multiple engagements with the R-77 is quite simple: the R-77 itself is almost a "cheat". It was never operationally integrated with the platform that is simulated. (RVV-AE and other derivatives are different matters, but again are not for platforms that are simulated in FC.)

 

Basically, you are looking at the difference betweem what was reached operational capability (where R-77's is pretty much fiction completely), and what was tested at the experimental stage in a few modified airframes. Might as well ask for F-15C's firing PAC-3's - it was tested and works, but never reached the stage of operational capability.

Edited March 14, 2012 by EtherealN

[RIPTIDE]

The reason (AFAIK) that the MiG-29 does not do multiple engagements with the R-77 is quite simple: the R-77 itself is almost a "cheat". It was never operationally integrated with the platform that is simulated. (RVV-AE and other derivatives are different matters, but again are not for platforms that are simulated in FC.)

 

Basically, you are looking at the difference betweem what was reached operational capability (where R-77's is pretty much fiction completely), and what was tested at the experimental stage in a few modified airframes. Might as well ask for F-15C's firing PAC-3's - it was tested and works, but never reached the stage of operational capability.

Nice ninja edit about the AIM-54C. Go on. Add the AIM-54C and the PAC-3. They're pretty useless for fighter targets. :megalol: I wouldn't carry them after FC3.0 Day 1 that's for sure.

 

As for the R-77; false logic equating the reason for no TWS to R-77 = cheat. There most be another reason.

Edited March 14, 2012 by RIPTIDE

[Frostie]

The reason (AFAIK) that the MiG-29 does not do multiple engagements with the R-77 is quite simple: the R-77 itself is almost a "cheat". It was never operationally integrated with the platform that is simulated. (RVV-AE and other derivatives are different matters, but again are not for platforms that are simulated in FC.)

 

Basically, you are looking at the difference betweem what was reached operational capability (where R-77's is pretty much fiction completely), and what was tested at the experimental stage in a few modified airframes. Might as well ask for F-15C's firing PAC-3's - it was tested and works, but never reached the stage of operational capability.

I think the real answer is that it simply hasn't been modeled by ED, plain and simple. If the N019M is capable of dual target engagement (and all resources point to it being so) then surely this should be modeled in FC regardless of whether the R-77 is an operational missile or not, which was cleared for operational use just not put into production.

And for all intended purposes why doesn't ED just rename and tweak the R-77 to RVV-AE which is an operational missile.

[EtherealN]

Actually, quoting it as a "borderline cheat" is a direct quote from the russian section, ED statemet. Unfortunately I don't have the link, it was a while ago.

 

Riptide - useless for fighter targets like the R-27ER and R-27ET? ;)

Be careful what you wish for as far as missile flight modeling. :P

 

Frostie - why would ED "simply" not model something like that? All FC2 fighters use the same code for everything. This isn't a question of "not having time" to implement a model, because the model is already there. I disagree with your classification of the RVV-AE as well. Might as well ask where the AIM-120D is, or the AIM-9X, etcetera. Indeed, those would be better candidates for inclusion in my opinion since they are actually well deployed by the relevant forces.

 

Russian missiles are in a sort of limbo period, from what I gather. The technology is there, and it has caught up with the disruption of the SSSR's collapse in the technological sense, but not in the sense of operational capabilities. Russian missiles as deployed right now are not close to the capabilities of deployed "western" missiles - but they have some nice kit coming.

 

I feel that this is in part a "problem" caused by the lack of a defined time period for these simulators. I just like pointing out that when people complain about this, they tend to forget that the weapons available to the F-15's in FC are equally obsolete.

 

Also: none of this is in any way a "bug". This thread is for bugs, not features.

Edited March 14, 2012 by EtherealN

[Nate--IRL--]

AFAIK there is no such aircraft designated the "Mig-29C" It Does not Exist.

 

I Will Say again - it does not exist.

 

Yet, that is the version modelled in Lock On (Yep, that's right - it doesn't exist)

 

Nate

Edited March 14, 2012 by Nate--IRL--

[Frostie]

Frostie - why would ED "simply" not model something like that? All FC2 fighters use the same code for everything. This isn't a question of "not having time" to implement a model, because the model is already there.

 

The same reason why a gazillion things radar wise are not modeled in FC.

In previous versions Russian fighters had IFF, F-15's not, why they didn't model that originally when it was already there to be put in place is not as straight forward an answer as you seem to think.

[RIPTIDE]

Actually, quoting it as a "borderline cheat" is a direct quote from the russian section, ED statemet. Unfortunately I don't have the link, it was a while ago.

It was probably Chizh, he loves making everyone mad over there. ;)

 

Riptide - useless for fighter targets like the R-27ER and R-27ET? ;)

Be careful what you wish for as far as missile flight modeling. :P

I don't know much about them, which probably isn't much less than anyone else for that matter. BTW, I think there is already a standing request for more accurate missile modelling. So, no. We haven't been careful: give us more flight modelling.

Might as well ask where the AIM-120D is, or the AIM-9X, etcetera. Indeed, those would be better candidates for inclusion in my opinion since they are actually well deployed by the relevant forces.

Bring them then. But not PAC-3 cos that was a stupid idea. :megalol:

[Frostie]

AFAIK there is no such aircraft designated the "Mig-29C" It Does not Exist.

 

I Will Say again - it does not exist.

 

Yet, that is the version modelled in Lock On (Yep, that's right - it doesn't exist)

 

Nate

Then surely that is a catastrophic bug and they need to address this and do some renaming.

[RIPTIDE]

Then surely that is a catastrophic bug and they need to address this and do some renaming.

It's ok. I already reported the bug and asked for it to be removed. Completely.

[Nate--IRL--]

Then surely that is a catastrophic bug and they need to address this and do some renaming.

 

Bug? No.

 

Convenient obfuscation for a mid-fidelity sim, yes.

 

Nate

[EtherealN]

Frostie, please learn the definition of a "bug".

[GGTharos]

Sure. MiG-29C should be removed and base 9-13 should be modeled. Easy fix, change the name, take the 77's away ;)

 

Then surely that is a catastrophic bug and they need to address this and do some renaming.

[Frostie]

Sure. MiG-29C should be removed and base 9-13 should be modeled. Easy fix, change the name, take the 77's away ;)

29C and 77's have always been a joke so why not. Then we'd just need to get rid of the other joke; Aim-120's, until some more realistic ones can be modeled, oh and cut the balls on the ER's and ET's because they're Russian and nobody knows much about them so they must be useless, and then we'd all be happy.;)

[GGTharos]

Yep, add a more realistic non-joke 120 that'll kill a whole lot more reliably :)

 

29C and 77's have always been a joke so why not. Then we'd just need to get rid of the other joke; Aim-120's, until some more realistic ones can be modeled, oh and cut the balls on the ER's and ET's because they're Russian and nobody knows much about them so they must be useless, and then we'd all be happy.;)

[mikoyan]

yeeeeah why not remove all the missiles from the migs and sus; but improve the 120s then it will be balanced :doh: that would make eagle drivers happy.

[Cali]

yeeeeah why not remove all the missiles from the migs and sus; but improve the 120s then it will be balanced :doh: that would make eagle drivers happy.

 

No it wouldn't, we/they still complain about things not being modeled correctly and radar modes missing. :D People get so mad about the missile, we don't know how they really work. All we have to go off of is charts and other misc data.

[Frostie]

Yep, add a more realistic non-joke 120 that'll kill a whole lot more reliably :)

Yes, i'd love a more realistic 120 just as much as a more realistic N019M. Get rid of the space age 120x120deg scan in 1 second the current AMRAAM has and add dual target track to the Topaz.