Jump to content

Current Mig-29 in game flight model


Guest Guest

Recommended Posts

What is the current Mig-29 in game flight model like? I don't really care if it's not a PFM and how much better it could be with one since there is no release date for an updated Mig-29 flight model. Talking about that seems about as useful as peeing into the wind.

 

I just want to know where it shines and a good way to fly the Mig-29 as it is right now in game.

 

I know IRL the Mig-29 is similar to the Super Hornet. It's a good slow speed dog fighter. Just if the SFM isn't realistic there's bound to me some differences in how you fly the Mig-29 in game compared to real life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The edge-of-envelope stuff is all scripted in the SFMs, so you will experience some very peculiar departures that won't "feel" right compared to what you're used to from flying other modules.

 

Are you interested for the R-77 specifically? If so, what works for me is to fly the Fulcrum more gently than I might normally and try not to over control it.

 

If you're not in it for the Fox 3s, I'd advise giving either of the Flankers a look. Both are now sporting a PFM and are a blast to fly, and you can carry a truly ridiculous amount of ordnance on the Su-33.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the MiG-29S a bit.

 

Once you're in the air, there's not so much difference between the SFM and PFMs, except as feefifofum mentioned, when you're right on the edge of the envelope, which can occasionally produce bizarre results.

 

The most obvious difference is when you're on the ground, specifically during the actual takeoff and landing. Because "lift" is scripted, and the flight model in question is very old and not updated for the new engine, it tends to "pop" onto and off the runway. It's not a deal breaker really, but it doesn't gently lift off, you can't land on one wheel, or anything "natural" like that. It's strictly either on the ground, or not. No inbetween.

 

Otherwise, it is very similar to the other air superiority FC3 aircraft. Functionally identical to the Su-27 and extremely similar to the F-15. The MiG-29 is a short range multi-role aircraft, though, as opposed to dedicated air superiority. Has more slots for bombs/rockets/etc, and you'll typically want to equip a belly tank, at least until you enter combat.

 

Try to avoid afterburning unnecessarily, as it will cut your already limited range, and keep in mind the MiG-29 has a TWO-stage afterburner, a lower end and a higher. The lower end isn't too bad, but the higher end just pours fuel out.

 

It's BVR capabilities are limited compared to the Flanker and F-15, range limited mostly to <65km, with some smaller aircraft not becoming visible until 45-50km. The R-77 is an excellent weapon, though, very effective from point blank out to its maximum range. The large R-27 are wasted on the MiG, the ER versions in particular are longer legged than its radar, so stick to 77s and 73s most the time, and try to avoid fights with people with longer arms than you.

 

The MiG's FM is already in the pipeline. I don't know exactly how long it takes them to do it, or when they started, but it just recently (only a few months) received a brand new 3d model that last I checked was the highest detailed in DCS by a good margin (approximately 350k polys, compared to <150k for most of them). The FM will arrive sooner rather than later, although when specifically, as I said, is in the air.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I fly the MiG-29S a bit....

 

 

Thanks a lot for such a detailed and useful response, I will look at the 29 with diferent eyes from now on :) ... hope you are right about ED updating it on the future.

 

 

Nowadays the only FC3 plane that I fly regularly is the Su-33, but will try the -29 again just to see for myself the difference between the SFM and PFM and how they compare, before its too late and the SFM version disappears.

 

 

Best regards

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most obvious difference is when you're on the ground, specifically during the actual takeoff and landing. Because "lift" is scripted, and the flight model in question is very old and not updated for the new engine, it tends to "pop" onto and off the runway. It's not a deal breaker really, but it doesn't gently lift off, you can't land on one wheel, or anything "natural" like that. It's strictly either on the ground, or not. No in between.

 

I think I know what your talking about. I fly the VSN hornet mod a lot right now for virtual squadron activities. Thing is like a rocket as far as 0-150 knot acceleration on the runway and when you rotate it shoots 200ft into the air even when you barely pull on the stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@chapping

 

I don't know how it behaves, but with the MiG-29, when you start rolling down the runway, you do NOT pull back on the stick much. As it comes up to speed, it automatically starts raising the nose, like a scripted event (watch the AI do the same thing when taking off). After a few more seconds, or if you lightly pull back on the stick, she'll come off the ground.

 

Interesting aspect, is it is heavily affected by the wind. If you have a crosswind, when it pops off the ground it will usually shift a few dozen feet to one side or the other, like the model hasn't been affected until that moment and all the accumulated "crosswind" effect is applied at once. While not a problem really... It would probably make tandem takeoffs interesting if you drift into each other :P

 

Like said, the takeoff/landing is where you see the most jarring "Hey, something is not quite right here" moments. Rest of the time, she behaves ok. Another example of where you see aberrant behavior is doing something like a hammerhead, or zooming up into a stall. She won't gracefully tip over like most aircraft, it very noticeably maintains AoA when it should have long since tipped over, sometimes even sliding backwards. It's difficult to describe, other than to say you can visibly tell that it's being "gamey".


Edited by zhukov032186

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

Mig 35

 

I think it would be cool if DCS could create a Mig 35 with quite an update. I remember the days when they informed me that they could not make a Hornet as the info was classified and they reminded me that they are a Russian Development team, years ago...now look. The FA18 C, still currently in development.

But I am really fond of Russian Jets. I like the Mig and the SU ! Wern't they supposed to create quite an update to the Russian Carrier?

I wonder if they are working on any upgrading or creating a more modern Mig or SU.

Multi-roll AA and AG!:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The large R-27 are wasted on the MiG, the ER versions in particular are longer legged than its radar

When chasing someone who tries to disengage longer range would be very useful. Even if not a kill it'll make the opponent go defensive thus decreasing the range.

🖥️ Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M HOTAS   ✈️ FC3, F-14A/B, F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR, PG, Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be cool if DCS could create a Mig 35 with quite an update. I remember the days when they informed me that they could not make a Hornet as the info was classified and they reminded me that they are a Russian Development team, years ago...now look. The FA18 C, still currently in development.

But I am really fond of Russian Jets. I like the Mig and the SU ! Wern't they supposed to create quite an update to the Russian Carrier?

I wonder if they are working on any upgrading or creating a more modern Mig or SU.

Multi-roll AA and AG!:thumbup:

High detailed Russian fighters are not profitable, as ED said in Russian part of the Forum.:(

:megalol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

That is so not true. Sure, F/A-18 and F-16 are very popular. But they require very complex system development over a longer period of time.

 

The Yak-52 seems very popular at the moment. It is a soviet trainer and it does not even have any weapons! Ka-50, Mig21, Mig-15 and L-39 has all been very popular among the DCS crowd.

 

A full fidelity MiG29, Su27, Su25, Mig23 or Su24 would sell VERY well. There is a craving for eastern aircraft and the "exotic" factor should not be underestimated (just look at the Viggen).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

High detailed Russian fighters are not profitable, as ED said in Russian part of the Forum

 

I've got that impression from the Russian side before - that some of the developers are not that impressed with Russian gear, and don't think it would sell...

 

It's an interesting call to make, given that there is only 1 "High detailed Russian fighter" available across the whole DCS stable, and that's the MiG-15, which - all credit to it as a splendid example of a 1st gen fighter - is to most people under the age of 90 in the west a relatively unknown fighter that saw service in a relatively unknown war.

 

A Cold War fighter that is still in service in many places - the MiG-29, or the Su-27 - would resonate with what appears to be the main age group purchasing their product, people that were exposed to those fighters in their youth, and there are no DCS modules in that class - so how could it be said that "they don't sell" ?

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... sadly you cannot defeat the F-16 SP fanboys... (RIP F-4 in the near future). At least with the F-4 and F-14 we could have had some realistic full fidelity redfor aircraft, which we so much need.

 

I am a bluefor aircraft driver mainly, but I would definitely get a MiG or Flanker, if one comes out.

 

I would have bought the Mi-8 as well, as I believe I would like it more than the Huey, but I don't have anything else, Red, to pair it with.

 

I might even go as far as risking, by buying a RAZBAM module(MiG-23), if it ever comes out, as they like to take on a lot projects.


Edited by Shadow KT

'Shadow'

 

Everybody gotta be offended and take it personally now-a-days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got that impression from the Russian side before - that some of the developers are not that impressed with Russian gear, and don't think it would sell...

 

It's an interesting call to make, given that there is only 1 "High detailed Russian fighter" available across the whole DCS stable, and that's the MiG-15, which - all credit to it as a splendid example of a 1st gen fighter - is to most people under the age of 90 in the west a relatively unknown fighter that saw service in a relatively unknown war.

 

A Cold War fighter that is still in service in many places - the MiG-29, or the Su-27 - would resonate with what appears to be the main age group purchasing their product, people that were exposed to those fighters in their youth, and there are no DCS modules in that class - so how could it be said that "they don't sell" ?

 

This is one of those occasions, where you miss the rep system :) . 100% agree and in regards to your last paragraph, I think that the popularity of FC has a lot more to do with this, than the "easy learning curve".

JJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got that impression from the Russian side before - that some of the developers are not that impressed with Russian gear, and don't think it would sell...

 

It's an interesting call to make, given that there is only 1 "High detailed Russian fighter" available across the whole DCS stable, and that's the MiG-15, which - all credit to it as a splendid example of a 1st gen fighter - is to most people under the age of 90 in the west a relatively unknown fighter that saw service in a relatively unknown war.

 

A Cold War fighter that is still in service in many places - the MiG-29, or the Su-27 - would resonate with what appears to be the main age group purchasing their product, people that were exposed to those fighters in their youth, and there are no DCS modules in that class - so how could it be said that "they don't sell" ?

 

Spot on. I'd purchase a full fidelity Mig-29 or Su-27, Su-33. The sim is becoming if not already "out of balance" in terms of multiplayer blue vs red. One of the strong reasons I was drawn to DCS and it's predecessor software was the fact you could fly both sides on basically equal technologies. Not the case anymore, unless you are flying on the Korean War Servers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A full fidelity Russian 4th gen, Id personally rank just as high as the F/A-18C, F-14 and F-4, but not as high as the F-16 (my favorite bird). But Id certainly hit that pre-purchase button on any full monty Russian 4th gen.

 

For now Im just happy that we get the MiG-29 PFM 'soon' :thumbup:

- Jack of many DCS modules, master of none.

- Personal wishlist: F-15A, F-4S Phantom II, JAS 39A Gripen, SAAB 35 Draken, F-104 Starfighter, Panavia Tornado IDS.

 

| Windows 11 | i5-12400 | 64Gb DDR4 | RTX 3080 | 2x M.2 | 27" 1440p | Rift CV1 | Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS | MFG Crosswind pedals |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only part of it. We have MiG-15/21 and Mi-8/Ka-50 now, MiG-23 and Mi-24 and Jf-17 on the way. Obviously they're making red air. Eastern powers are less free with their tech. Full stop. They don't care about video game enthusiasts. Case and point, Chizh saying Su-17/22 is possible but requires gov authorisation but Su-24 is offlimits (likely also Su-25/27 from what was said).

 

Priorities :

#1 Permission from government and permission from IP holder

#2 Availability of materials

#3 Market appeal

 

If you can't get government approval all other points are moot. These aren't toys, they're weapons and a matter of national security. Some nations are more restrictive than others. You also have to get permission from the corporate entity who owns whatever design you're after.

 

After you get permission, you can evaluate the availability of information. You also have to be careful not to scoop up 'sensitive info' or if you do that it is with permission of the governmental authority.

 

Lastly, you can worry about whether your product will sell.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's only part of it. We have MiG-15/21 and Mi-8/Ka-50 now, MiG-23 and Mi-24 and Jf-17 on the way. Obviously they're making red air. Eastern powers are less free with their tech. Full stop. They don't care about video game enthusiasts. Case and point, Chizh saying Su-17/22 is possible but requires gov authorisation but Su-24 is offlimits (likely also Su-25/27 from what was said).

 

Priorities :

#1 Permission from government and permission from IP holder

#2 Availability of materials

#3 Market appeal

 

If you can't get government approval all other points are moot. These aren't toys, they're weapons and a matter of national security. Some nations are more restrictive than others. You also have to get permission from the corporate entity who owns whatever design you're after.

 

After you get permission, you can evaluate the availability of information. You also have to be careful not to scoop up 'sensitive info' or if you do that it is with permission of the governmental authority.

 

Lastly, you can worry about whether your product will sell.

 

then Mig-25 is the most probable next fighter to announce, but they will not do such announce for now. As they didn't with Mig-15 and Mi-8 at the time.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... That RED aircraft won't sell stuff is just so not true!

 

That might be your reality.

I'm pretty sure the ones (ED) selling this product knows what they are talking about. It has been said in various interviews and Q&A's by the devs themselves.

It's not that they don't sell at all, just that the western hardware sells more. Russian hardware appears to be a niche within a niche. :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Win10 64, Asus Maximus VIII Formula, i5 6600K, Geforce 980 GTX Ti, 32 GB Ram, Samsung EVO SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

then Mig-25 is the most probable next fighter to announce, but they will not do such announce for now. As they didn't with Mig-15 and Mi-8 at the time.

 

I would be ok with that :p It's worth noting that the equipment allowed so far is either very simple (Mi-8) very old (MiG-15) or no longer in active service in the RF (MiG-21, MiG-23, Su-17/22 etc). The Ka-50 is an outlier probably mostly because of the timeframe it took place in. The Mi-24 is in service, but is a very simple aircraft and in the process of phasing out in favor. Technically Su-24 is phasing out, too, I think, but if I remeber they are going through service life extensions along with the Su-25s. I dunno.

 

Government entities aren't always super logical in their decision making :p Maybe Mil and MiG are more open minded than Sukhoi, too. A lot of variables.

Де вороги, знайдуться козаки їх перемогти.

5800x3d * 3090 * 64gb * Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That might be your reality.

I'm pretty sure the ones (ED) selling this product knows what they are talking about. It has been said in various interviews and Q&A's by the devs themselves.

It's not that they don't sell at all, just that the western hardware sells more. Russian hardware appears to be a niche within a niche. :)

 

 

Well, they haven't tried selling a DCS-level modern Soviet aircraft like the Flanker or Fulcrum, so their argument that it won't sell as much as western hardware is baseless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
That's only part of it. We have MiG-15/21 and Mi-8/Ka-50 now, MiG-23 and Mi-24 and Jf-17 on the way. Obviously they're making red air. Eastern powers are less free with their tech. Full stop. They don't care about video game enthusiasts. Case and point, Chizh saying Su-17/22 is possible but requires gov authorisation but Su-24 is offlimits (likely also Su-25/27 from what was said).

 

Priorities :

#1 Permission from government and permission from IP holder

#2 Availability of materials

#3 Market appeal

 

If you can't get government approval all other points are moot. These aren't toys, they're weapons and a matter of national security. Some nations are more restrictive than others. You also have to get permission from the corporate entity who owns whatever design you're after.

 

After you get permission, you can evaluate the availability of information. You also have to be careful not to scoop up 'sensitive info' or if you do that it is with permission of the governmental authority.

 

Lastly, you can worry about whether your product will sell.

I would like to hear the rationale behind restricting simulation of export variants, as well. Many of them are downgraded for that exact reason, and some of them aren't even created by the original factories or manufacturer. Surely, exports would have looser restrictions, no?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...