FC MiG-29 discussion (split)

[ФрогФут]

Both should behave differently in flight because the 9-13S has different type of AOA limiter and flight control system in general

There is no AoA or Ny limiter on any MiG-29 with electro-mechanical control system.

[Pilotasso]

If i'm faced with Russian hardware in FC I know when they're firing on me, if I face them in Falcon it's a totally different and more enjoyable and challenging scenario.

 

errr, no.

 

Falcon was all about the F-16.

 

It was never accurate for russian planes. They are there just to present an increasing level of difficulty for the player, not to simulate a relaistic battleground.

Sufice to browse tactical reference and then in mission where the Su-35/37 (the 1990´s prototype versions) start shooting salvoes of R-77´s like no ones business.

 

bad example.

[Pilotasso]

Imaginaion, assumption...no thanks!

 

MiG-29 is yesterdays snow, it works and is modeled pretty decent with FC2. Only thing that can be done with it are cosmetic tweaks of HUD and MFD to display given symbology more accurately. HUD fonts are OK but with certain combat modes HUD displays more info than IRL. (with Vertical Scan target speed and alt should not be displayed on HUD).

 

MFD - option of HUD repeater (comes handy when backlight of the sun makes HUD useless.) No airbasea displayed on MFD, no flightroute etc.)

 

Can't really say what is realistic with MiG-29S-13 (9-13S) cause i've never seen it or talked to someone who did, however Phazotron indeed states two target track capability.

 

Yugoslav MiG-29 delivered in 1987 are MiG-29B-12 (Product 9.12A), versions made for non-Warsaw pact countries and were downgraded in terms of nulclear weapon delivery system and equipped with N019EB radar that proved no better than Sapfir-23ML radar used since 1980 with MiG-23. Iraqi MiG-23MS overhauled in ZMAJ-Zagreb in 1989 were flown by JRV pilots in mock up BVR combat and their radars outperformed N019EB installed in Yugoslav Fulcrums especially in look-down range. At taht time (late '89) VZ Moma Stanojlovic was designing a radar to be used with "Novi Avion" a study that was supposed to replace Yugoslav obsolete MiG-21MF and J-21 and during 1990 one of these radars was allegedly installed on MiG-29 #106 for airborne testing.

 

Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots say that two target tracking wasn't an option with Fulcrums they had but two target engagement was. Usual combat mix of BVR payload was R-27R+R-27T on inner stations supplemented with 4 x R-60 or R-73 for close combat. Idea behind having both SARH and IR missile is engagement of two targets independently, first one engaged with usage of S-31E2 KOLS to launch IR missile the other would be engaged with radar guided R-27R.

 

Today most of the MiG-29 fleet in Russian VVS and PVO is grounded followed by repetitive crashes in 2008. These aircraft received no upgrade since collapse of USSR as focus was moved onto MiG-31 and Su-27 as Russian primary combat aircraft. In 2009 most of airworthy Fulcrums failed inspection due to corrosion and decision was made to upgrade early MiG-29s to SMT standard.

 

If you ask me, i'd stop kicking the dead horse in FC3, I'd rather focus onto DCS:

.

 

well put +1

[RIPTIDE]

There is no AoA or Ny limiter on any MiG-29 with electro-mechanical control system.

I suppose the next question is how many of the 50 or so MiG-29S 9.13S were installed the SAU-451-06 Flight Control?

[Frostie]

Imaginaion, assumption...no thanks!

 

MiG-29 is yesterdays snow, it works and is modeled pretty decent with FC2. Only thing that can be done with it are cosmetic tweaks of HUD and MFD to display given symbology more accurately. HUD fonts are OK but with certain combat modes HUD displays more info than IRL. (with Vertical Scan target speed and alt should not be displayed on HUD).

 

Imagination, assumption are not necessarily the right words. The right words are survey simulation.

 

FC is not DCS, it is a survey sim and this is what has made FC an enjoyable modern aircombat simulator. If we didn't have this level of simulation we wouldn't have EOS, TWS, AIM-120, R-77, ECM etc. we'd still be waiting for it in DCS.

 

The point here is that the 29S was capable of simultaneous engagement, so incorporating this into the 29S radar is logical. It may not be the actual representation of how it looks in the real bird but do you really believe that the HUD and modes of all aircraft in FC are carbon copies of the real things, they ain't, TWS, PRF, SCHLEM, ECM, EOS, TEWS, Beroyza are all assumptions based on limited knowledge.

Yugoslav MiG-29 pilots say that two target tracking wasn't an option with Fulcrums they had but two target engagement was. Usual combat mix of BVR payload was R-27R+R-27T on inner stations supplemented with 4 x R-60 or R-73 for close combat. Idea behind having both SARH and IR missile is engagement of two targets independently, first one engaged with usage of S-31E2 KOLS to launch IR missile the other would be engaged with radar guided R-27R.

Two target engagement with IR and Radar guided makes sense but two target engagement with both SARH missiles I think would be impossible. Constantin Marbashev stated about the Flankers capability using R-27 that while it had no simultaneous target engagement capability, this was a shortcoming of the missiles rather than the radar.

 

If you ask me, i'd stop kicking the dead horse in FC3, I'd rather focus onto DCS:

.

FC3 is not even out yet, one man does not decide what's right for everyone. DCS is not everybodies cup of tea, if you'd rather focus on DCS then focus on DCS, this is FC for us lesser mortals.

[ФрогФут]

Usual combat mix of BVR payload was R-27R+R-27T on inner stations supplemented with 4 x R-60 or R-73 for close combat

Not likely to be possible.

[Dudikoff]

That isn't really true. Documentation may or may not be more forthcoming, and the SME's are largely gone.

 

Just the fact that the older systems/missiles were much more primitive and less capable makes approximating their abilities much easier and not that far off compared to modern systems.

 

That is true even today. Just because your aircraft can be swing-role doesn't mean you get assigned to strike and CAP. You get assigned to strike OR CAP and armed and tasked accordingly. Self escort != CAP/Intercept.

 

You missed my point completely. Of course you won't be hauling 5 tons of A/G storage and then probably jettison it to be able to defend yourself.

 

The point was that you had highly specialized planes which provided rather different flight experience (different systems, flight handling, etc.) so the flight simulation would provide you with e.g. at least two rather different planes which is a plus in my book. You had more primitive weapons so you needed more skill to employ the weapons successfully, etc.

 

In that light, flying the modern versions of F-15E, F-16D, F-18D, etc. doesn't really provide THAT different flight experience, IMHO. They have similar cockpits (i.e. at least three MFDs up front) and carry pretty much the same advanced weaponry (e.g. modern GPS standoff fire-and-forget weapons). Example in point, you'd be flying an F-16s armed with A2A missiles or flying the F-16s of the strike package, but since it's the same plane, it's not that different flight experience (e.g. flying a medium altitude F-16 strike package, dropping fire and forget GPS guided bombs which basically amounts to flying on AP with a lot of button pushing compared to e.g. flying low in an A-7D armed with dumb bombs while dodging unexpected flak and SAMs while depending completely on the escort to keep the A2A threats away)..

Edited March 16, 2012 by Dudikoff

[onehitxzibit]

I don't know what ED's plans for FC3 are but I think it would be nice to see a modern Russian fighter in LockOn, maybe a MiG-29SMT or a Su-27SM. Putting up the basic MiG-29A/Su-27S against the F-15C, even though the latter is undermodeled , is still not a fair match-up (this coming from an eagle pilot). Including a new Russian fighter will make the multiplayer much more interesting and would force players to develop new strategies.

 

As far as the concerns that avionics are not going to be accurate - there are already plenty of holes in the sim filled in with imagination and some of them were discussed in the posts above mine.

 

Just my two cents on what I personally think would make this sim even better. Sorry if I veered too off topic.

Edited March 16, 2012 by onehitxzibit

[RvETito]

There is no AoA or Ny limiter on any MiG-29 with electro-mechanical control system.

 

There is but it's "soft" - at 26 deg AOA the SOS system limits the stick pull. However, the pilot can overcome it by pulling harder, much harder.

[Dudikoff]

Putting up the basic MiG-29A/Su-27S against the F-15C, even though the latter is undermodeled , is still not a fair match-up (this coming from an eagle pilot). Including a new Russian fighter will make the multiplayer much more interesting and would force players to develop new strategies.

 

Or use the F-15C in the 80s configuration (without the AMRAAMs) ;)

[ФрогФут]

There is but it's "soft" - at 26 deg AOA the SOS system limits the stick pull. However, the pilot can overcome it by pulling harder, much harder.

That's not a limiter.:) It does not limit the stick pull. It kicks the stick forward, when AoA is over allowed limit. The limiter you are talking about is used on Su-27.

I suppose the next question is how many of the 50 or so MiG-29S 9.13S were installed the SAU-451-06 Flight Control?

FCS used on 9.13s is very similar to 9.13. No radical changes.

[GGTharos]

That wouldn't be a fair matchup either. The F-15 would just jam the daylights out of the mig radar. Realistic defense scenarios simulations (by the USAF, and I mean simulated scenarios flown by pilots, not some abstract computer simulation) included up to a 2v8 (4 fighters, 4 strikers) with AIM-7's and AIM-9's in '80's configuration'.

 

Or use the F-15C in the 80s configuration (without the AMRAAMs) ;)

[GGTharos]

Just the fact that the older systems/missiles were much more primitive and less capable makes approximating their abilities much easier and not that far off compared to modern systems.

 

No, it doesn't. In fact these older systems were even more complex to handle. Unless you aren't looking for realism, that's another thing altogether.

 

 

The point was that you had highly specialized planes which provided rather different flight experience (different systems, flight handling, etc.) so the flight simulation would provide you with e.g. at least two rather different planes which is a plus in my book. You had more primitive weapons so you needed more skill to employ the weapons successfully, etc.

 

You mean like F-4's escorting F-4's or F-8's and F-7's? ;)

How do you think the systems differed between those fighters?

 

Sure, I guess you -could- model an F-104 or A-4, but we already have an A-10 and we could in theory model an F-111 or F-15E ... just because all modern fighters have MFCDs doesn't mean they can do the same things or that they represent things in the same way, and this is pretty analogous to older aircraft as well. This notion that aircraft today aren't radically different is an illusion. F-18's, F-16's and F-15's (and various variants of each) do not fly the same. They may fly somewhat like the original, but not necessarily. A loaded down F-15E will be moo'ing in the sky, and is useless as an air defense fighter while on A2G mission unless the opposition is very low quality or gets caught by surprise.

 

Employing 'more primitive weapons' didn't require more skill, it required more manual input, meaning it just made you more vulnerable. That's why you had the other guy in the back to handle the systems for you instead. Today, the same weapons can be used, but the prefference is usually not to since it isn't as safe.

You don't need to manually keep the laser spot on target for your LGB either, but you had to in a bunch of older aircraft - and again, that was the other guy doing it.

[GGTharos]

Sorry but no, it was a long time ago and I have not been able to find it again :(

 

Can you give me the link of that video or at least just tell me the name of it?

 

Thank you

[Exorcet]

My take on it, is realism before balance. It's a sim. If MiG's are inferior to F-15's, and that's realistic, so be it. If the best US fighter in the game was the F-4, I would not want unreasonable modification to the plane to make it a "fair fight" with Flankers.

 

That said though, realism doesn't have to mean exactly what happened in real life. That can end up being kind of silly if you think about it. F-15's and Flankers have never even faced each other in combat in reality, yet they do all the time in FC. Everything is a what if situation because if we stuck strictly to history, we wouldn't have many options.

 

TWS and R-77 on MiG-29's is fine with me. It's something that could have happened with a fair bit of probability. I'd probably cycle between missions that used hypothetical 77+TWS MiG's and those with "normal" MiG's. Neither is really any more realistic than the other given that the latter isn't all that realistic to begin with.

[ФрогФут]

hypothetical 77+TWS MiG's

Those things are not hypothetical.;)

[Vekkinho]

Well, I've never seen photos of 9.13S loaded with live R-77...Yet every Fulcrum C in MP has 2 of them hanging and it might sound sad but it's the only reason players choose MiG-29S instead of Su-27 or 33. Noone arms it with S-8 rockets for some ground pounding.

 

I'm a strong believer that Flaming Cliffs (both 1 n' 2) are balanced but not very realistic "Survey" simulations. There's a few reasons. Let's see...every flyable fighter or attack aircraft is armed to teeth which isn't very life-like scenario. I've seen about everything, 12 Mavs on a Hog, 8 AMRAAMs on an Eagle, R-77 on Fulcrum C, 4*R-27ER + 2*R-27ET + 4*R-73 on Su-27 etc and every player has a perfect mix of available / allowed payload.

 

On the other hand 9.12A never had PTB-1150 option with LOMAC, FC and FC2. Here's one proof from 1989:

 

So let's forget about realism with FC...It's a balance sim. Playing FC online feels like playing Steetfighter...Every available character has it's own special abilities...

Edited March 16, 2012 by Vekkinho

[ФрогФут]

Well, I've never seen photos of 9.13S loaded with live R-77...

Have you seen Su-27SM with live "R-77"? That does not mean, that plane is not capable of carrying those.

[Pilotasso]

The Su-27's will have actives, just not the R-77. ;)

[GGTharos]

I'm a strong believer that Flaming Cliffs (both 1 n' 2) are balanced but not very realistic "Survey" simulations.

 

They're sort of balanced because their systems are based on the same code. Take that for whatever that means to you, I could probably go in-depth. On the other hand, FC2 is reasonably realistic given the limitations it is subject to. Yes, there is always room for improvement and IMHO there will always -be- improvement.

 

What's the problem with aircraft being armed to the teeth, other than impossible configurations?

 

So let's forget about realism with FC...It's a balance sim.

 

No, it really isn't.

 

Playing FC online feels like playing Steetfighter...Every available character has it's own special abilities...

 

That happens to be true in the DCS series as well.

[GGTharos]

He's right and you're right - the deal is that while those 13S' were capable of carrying R-77's, had a shooting war started, a whole bunch of them would have probably gotten shot down before they were ever supplied with any R-77's.

 

Have you seen Su-27SM with live "R-77"? That does not mean, that plane is not capable of carrying those.

[ФрогФут]

The Su-27's will have actives, just not the R-77.

It is still capable of using RVV-AE.

[Vekkinho]

He's right and you're right - the deal is that while those 13S' were capable of carrying R-77's, had a shooting war started, a whole bunch of them would have probably gotten shot down before they were ever supplied with any R-77's.

 

I guess there's more 9.13S airframes produced than R-77 missiles :music_whistling:

[Exorcet]

Those things are not hypothetical.;)

 

I guess hypothetical in the sense of being in mass production.

 

Either way, I don't find it an affront to combat simulation flying to fudge things slightly. It just us more options to enjoy when flying.

[Alfa]

The Su-27's will have actives, just not the R-77. ;)

 

No but "R-77" and "RVV-AE" is really the same thing Pilotasso - just two different names for the same design.

 

There is much more difference between early and late versions of the AMRAAM than between R-77 and RVV-AE :) .