"Realism vs. Balance" - which MiG-29 for future project?

[S77th-RYKE]

I don't know what MIG model does what but as long as it can land on a carrier , aerial refuel , carry 6 medium range missiles and 2 R-73s and has a CD player I'd be happy .

[Harven]

XM radio too.. sometimes cd's skip during combat.. sucks..

[Cobra360]

I don't know what MIG model does what but as long as it can land on a carrier , aerial refuel , carry 6 medium range missiles and 2 R-73s and has a CD player I'd be happy .

 

MiG-29K, 9-41 or 9-47, except for the CD player. I bet the CDs would skip alot maybe an mp3 player would be better. :))

 

I don't mind which ever MiG ED model because I know it will be good and worth it either way.:D

[S77th-RYKE]

MiG-29K, 9-41 or 9-47, except for the CD player. I bet the CDs would skip alot maybe an mp3 player would be better. :))

 

I don't mind which ever MiG ED model because I know it will be good and worth it either way.:D

 

:) K it is then , with MP3 player ... :):) when can I expect delivery ?

[Kusch]

Should shoot to knee too offtopic

[britgliderpilot]

Alright if you guys get your SMT, I want my F-22 Raptor muhahaha

 

 

But for real, lets stick with the timeline here folks. I wouldn't mind seeing a US carrier aircraft (I.E. the Hornet) heck it's pretty much already modeled they just gotta make a cockpit for it. ;)

 

 

Can we try and stop the myth that all you need to make an aircraft flyable is a cockpit texture?

 

 

Other things you'd need to study and implement for the Hornet (and in general for any other aircraft):

 

- Details of avionics operation, appearance, and performance - which we can't get for the Hornet because they're classified. And yes, Janes did guess. And yes, ED are still Russian.

 

- Flight model - including handling, weights, effects of fly-by-wire technology, turn radii, and a hundred and one other things

 

- Air to ground radar - not modelled in Lomac.

 

Not only would all this have to be added, but it would have to be added from scratch. There isn't a menu that you go into and say "I want my aircraft to be able to go this fast and fly this high" and that's it . . . . you have to write the code for the flight model. These days, an Advanced Flight Model . . . . that took six months for an old, subsonic, non fly-by-wire aircraft.

 

 

ED are hoping to do ALL this in the future - but for the F-16. You can't do the same for the Hornet because you just can't get the information.

 

 

I'm quite interested to know where the information on the -SMT will come from, but it could be as simple as running down the street to MiG and saying "We're making a game and want to use your fighter, can we borrow some details please?"

 

Russia isn't Americaland ;)

[GGTharos]

Nono ... the AFM CODE took six months to develop. Once that's done, adding AFM takes little time by comparison. Probably a month, maybe a month and a half per aircraft ... that's if you work on that alone, though.

[SwingKid]

adding AFM takes little time by comparison. Probably a month, maybe a month and a half per aircraft ... that's if you work on that alone, though.

 

Yeah, if you work as part of ED team it takes longer?

 

:)

-SK

[GGTharos]

Hehe :D

 

I imagine that the FM programmer probably does more than just FM's :)

 

Kinda like my job ... I was supposed to do one thing, but I do everything in a way - though I was told I'd have to wear a lot of hats from the outset :)

[MBot]

I voted for the 9.12, as I would like to have a more clearly defined timeframe that is set somewhere in the 80s. So if it got to be a MiG-29, I would rather like to see it in a early scenario ( Syria got their MiG-29 in 1987 ). The saved development time compared to the much more complex SMT could be put into the simulation of a realistic GCI model, complete with complex ground contoller AI, real life procedures and extensive radio comms. GCI is such a elementar to the operation of the MiG-29, you could consider it as part of it's avionics suite. And since we all strive for the maximum realism of avionics, I think maximum realism in the GCI simulation is equaly impoartant.

 

And even if it isn't part of the poll, I would rather see the F-16A modeled as the Falcon represantiv, wich stands for a IMO much more interesting era of air combat than the latest high-tech versions. The F-16A did fly air superiority missions armed with Sidewinders and the gun only, engaging the enemy in thrilling close air combat. And in the ground attack mission you have to work hard in the F-16A and face the enemys defenses to put your bombs on target.

 

I think the balance thing is way overrated. Who does care most about balance between flyable airplanes ? The very small "airquake" community. For the huge ( and silent ) majority, the single players, balance between flyables is of no consequence, as it isn't for those that fly multiplayer in cooperative missions. But a MiG-29 9.12 vs. F-16A setup would even statifie those few dozens.

[Boneski]

Unpopular Point of View

 

Either one would be good.... The team can put whatever they like in the sim..mix and match time lines... it does not matter...

 

It would be nice If they build some heavies like the IL-76 and or orther transports types like the C-17 or even c-130... or heavy lift Helos.

 

Any craft ED wants to build will work...

[tflash]

I just vote for a sim with a well defined timeframe. If the main new aircraft would be an F-16C Block 50, than I would expect that timeframe. Pitting it against Mig-29SMT would mean, in my view, choosing for an F-16C Block 50/52+ CCIP AND at least some newer engines on the F-15C given the fact that you anyway now not enough about its radar modes AND JDAM + AGM65G or even a real AGM-65K and not the "maverick" (in another sense of the word) that is included now or an AGM-65H.

[D-Scythe]

I just vote for a sim with a well defined timeframe. If the main new aircraft would be an F-16C Block 50, than I would expect that timeframe. Pitting it against Mig-29SMT would mean, in my view, choosing for an F-16C Block 50/52+ CCIP AND at least some newer engines on the F-15C given the fact that you anyway now not enough about its radar modes AND JDAM + AGM65G or even a real AGM-65K and not the "maverick" (in another sense of the word) that is included now or an AGM-65H.

 

Why would you need newer engines on the F-15C? It always had the Dash 220 engines throughout its service life, and I imagine that's not gonna change any time soon.

 

The current F-15C is a like a mid-80s cross between the vanilla F-15C with the MSIP upgrade. To model a 90s era F-15, ED would have to model at least the APG-70 or APG-63V1 fully instead of what it is right now, and JTIDS/FDL.

[tflash]

Why would you need newer engines on the F-15C? It always had the Dash 220 engines throughout its service life, and I imagine that's not gonna change any time soon.

 

You're right: I took my wish for 229's for reality :=) I thought the Alaskan F-15C's had them but it isn't the case.

[Olgerd]

9.12, definitely.

 

I think ED has already modelled a good number of protoype aircraft.

If they choose the SMT, they don't have to complain if people call the game "Lock On Modern Air Testing". Instead of the desert or Black Sea they'd better set up the game at Kubinka or Ramenskoye AB :)

 

SMT is in service in a few number of countries. In Yemen for example.

[Trident]

Indian Mig-29K :p

 

Words of wisdom ;) I wouldn't complain about the original -K either, if a definitive production standard for that version ever existed.

[britgliderpilot]

SMT is in service in a few number of countries. In Yemen for example.

 

Yemen?

 

 

Sources I can find say that Yemen ended up with a modernised variant of the MiG, but without certain features that are considered essential parts of the -SMT fit.

 

It's kind of academic if they've got the upgraded avionics/fire control stuff, and I don't care as long as the information to model it is accurate . . . . but I'm still not sure that anyone has a true -SMT in service.

[SwingKid]

SMT is in service in a few number of countries. In Yemen for example.

 

Is this the "SMT" with N-019 radar, and 9.12B avionics?

 

Or, it really has Zhuk?

 

-SK

[Olgerd]

Yemen?

 

 

Sources I can find say that Yemen ended up with a modernised variant of the MiG, but without certain features that are considered essential parts of the -SMT fit.

 

It's kind of academic if they've got the upgraded avionics/fire control stuff, and I don't care as long as the information to model it is accurate . . . . but I'm still not sure that anyone has a true -SMT in service.

 

At least it is designated as MiG-29SMT.

[Olgerd]

Is this the "SMT" with N-019 radar, and 9.12B avionics?

 

Or, it really has Zhuk?

 

-SK

 

It has:

1) the radar with A-G modes;

2) the capability of RVV-AE (export R-77 version), KAB-500 and Kh-31 (antiradar) employment;

3) two CMFD (big enough).

 

It has not:

1) Sattelite-guided weapons employment;

2) OBOGS-like system;

3) Datalink.

 

These features are in development for future upgrades/variants now.

[britgliderpilot]

At least it has the designation MiG-29SMT there.

 

Can't argue with that!

 

 

Does raise an interesting question about what spec MiG we'd eventually get in any case . . . . what the hell, I look forward to it whatever it is ;)

[britgliderpilot]

It has the radar with A-G modes. It has the capability of RVV-AE (export R-77 version), KAB-500 and Kh-31 (antiradar) employment. It has two CMFD (big enough) also.

 

Is there any info on whether it can engage more than one target with the RVV-AE?

[Olgerd]

Is there any info on whether it can engage more than one target with the RVV-AE?

 

As I know it can not. It may be considered as an export version limitation I think.

[S77th-RYKE]

Is this the "SMT" with N-019 radar, and 9.12B avionics?

 

Or, it really has Zhuk?

 

-SK

 

If I'm ever in the neighborhood I would like to drop by Mikoyan/Gurevitch and pretend to be a customer just so I can have this conversation ;

 

-And what kind of radar would you like Mr. Bigshot ?

 

-Zhuck me please

 

:)

[superserb]

SCREAM FOR ME LOCKON COMMUNITY !!!

 

SEEEEEEEEEEEMT//SEEEEEEEEEEEMT............Yeah! :icon_supe