I'm really looking forward to flying the MiG-29, many moons ago I had the opportunity to sit in a MiG-29 of the Hungarian Airforce and ever since I was hooked!
I must admit, I have a soft spot for Soviet/Russian airframes, I spend most of my time in the Hind and rotors in general but I flew the Fulcrum back in the 90s along with the Falcon and I honestly prefer the Mig, maybe because it's more analog? As impressive as the Apache and Falcon are I feel like a computer is doing most of the work.
Totally get what you`re saying. Me aswell. Love western and soviet/russian. The Ruskies just have something about them. It`s the entire aura and feel of the airframe. You look at a F-16 and think: "Sleek, elegant, aerodynamic". Then you look at a MIG-29. Just standing on the ramp the Fulcrum looks like it`s about to kill something. Same goes for the F-4 Phantom. They already look lethal just sitting there.
Hey buddy..i'm chopper's pilot too on DCS...do u have some issue when u want to launch the standdalone version ???... I would be so happy to fly with another choppers pilot
Sadly, it will not come with any new weaponry, and will be roughly identical to the MiG-29A we already have in capabiliy. It will probably also have many of the flaws the systems on board that the FC3 one really doesn't show fully. Example, it's RWR will be less reliable (per real life issues). I am excited for it- but it really will only be competing with the likes of late Mirage F1, Mirage 2000C in capability. It won't even have R77 like the 29S FC3. With no PGMs or standoff of any kind, this module will be poorly capable and bring nothing new for Redforce in a capabilities terms It will be groundbreaking in being a full fidelity late cold war Russian jet... But I don't think it's what Red really needed. It needs the Su-24, or 34, with soviet PGMs and standoff on board. Obviously maybe someday ED could push this to be the basis for a 29S, or even variants of that which gain a few capabilities in the post 2000s era, but obviously those will be largely be unobtainable documents wise for a decade at least. DCS needs ED to do what it did with the old M2000- accept "the best that can be done" on a few key modules until documents can catch up. Or bite the bullet and make some FC3+++ tier Red strike/multiroles. With ED and Razbam's breakup we have a bad situation losing the MiG-23 to complement the F1 and Phantom/early Tomcats. The 29A really only has one comparable jet in NATO stable, and it is the awkward place that the Mirage 2000C is being a late 80s design flying with 70s and 2000s designs.
I remember some of the things the Luftwaffe DFT commander said of the Fulcrums they got from East Germany, which was the databus and navigational limitations of the MiG-29A with only 2 programmable waypoints and a dependency upon the Soviet ground station system. These were simple box-monocoque sheet metal frame fighters that might look and perform like teen series but are built like Phantoms and in fact the Moscow facility also produced refrigerators in the same factory. Some airframe parts like the fins are outsourced composites, but the bulk of the airframe is really general production skills unlike the NATO contemporaries which are all specialized skill production designs. The MiG was specific to this requirement for massed combat strategy in Soviet doctrine to combat NATO aircraft with nearly equivalent performance in greater numbers from unprepared fields at more forward locations to compensate and ultimately overwhelm. So don't expect superiority or equivalence in 1 to 1 from the MiG-29A, that is far more something to expect from the current production post-Soviet and modernised MiG-29 versions with entirely different military doctrine, the truth is and it is not a technological incapability but a doctrinal requirement that the Soviet version of the MiG-29 was to aim at numerical superiority not technical, but to achieve enough parity in performance for that to work very effectively. Especially in the BFM range. The databus of the fire control set couldn't even handle enough information to properly discriminate targets in any sort of clutter, it just wouldn't cope with the requirements and this is completely unlike the contemporary Flanker which didn't have this problem but was given much better budget to spend money on BVR capabilities against unit cost. Just to make clear the MiG-29A limitations I expect will be present in this module, but the community shouldn't interpret that as Russian technological limitations or even Soviet financial limitations, it's about doctrine and top down management of aircraft projects, it does work well in its lane but badly outside the box.
Got to see the Frecce Tri Colori fly this summer in New York and have been eyeing up the MB-339 ever since. I guess while it’s on sale is a better time than any, and cool to see some news that it is still being updated/supported.
THANK YOU for creating these update videos - I appreciate them. DCS is in DIRE need of more full fidelity REDFOR (noting the difficulties in obtaining enough data / documentation) and noting that DCS is due to get the MIG-17 at some point in the future, with the ED/RAZBAM situation still on-going, we need another Dev to take on the MIG-23 and we also find out where/why the SU-17/22 module disappeared? The videos produced of a flying DCS SU-17/22 also disappeared - why??? As DCS is working on the Supply Management system, there MUST be enough data/documentation to create full fidelity MIL-Mi-17, Mi-26 helicopters, as well as IL-76 or AN-22 transport aircraft (as BLUFOR is getting the C-130, REDFOR needs a suitable FF equivalent). If there is enough data for a MIG-29A, couldn't there be such data for an early variant SU-27, SU-24 or SU-25?? ED should be working with the Devs to try and focus on BLUFOR/REDFOR balance, not just combat but transport assets as well (especially if there is to be a new 'green' map (likely Germany) to come).
Enigma I think explained why DCS is so "unbalanced" in terms kf Red and Bluefor. Mostly because Balance was never planned in the first place. The ED team never imagined the player base making a 100 player server with complex scripting and hundreds of AI. ED planned for it. And still sorta treat it as a Videogame Museum of sorts. That's why they focus on singleplayer campaigns and popular Bluefor aircraft
Enigma I think explained why DCS is so "unbalanced" in terms kf Red and Bluefor. Mostly because Balance was never planned in the first place. The ED team never imagined the player base making a 100 player server with complex scripting and hundreds of AI. ED planned for it. And still sorta treat it as a Videogame Museum of sorts. That's why they focus on singleplayer campaigns and popular Bluefor aircraft
The Su-27 was a lot less exported to NATO friendly nations, and is a more complex aircraft (the MiG-29A ended up in the West plenty). We really need a full fidelity (best as can be done) Su-24 or 34 (probably at an FC3 +++ level). Red does need the full fidelity stuff, but a lot of it is just out of reach for now. As an ecosystem, DCS needs the diversity. My favorite example is the 2000C. It's older releases were quite off the real deal but were in the ballpark. As documentation came around, the detail work came in, and now it is one of the best modules in true-to-life sense. The Sim benefitted from having the platform even before it was perfectly accurate. Not saying to go the free-mods fictive work... but it'd be fine in the interim to accept an in between.
Nice video. The 29A entered service ~ 83, GPS came into service ~85 and the Russian GLONASS became operational (officially) in 93. So it's no wonder the 29A used neither...
This is a module that I have been waiting for. Been around since before Flaming Cliffs (LOMAC). Back in those days my friends would not allow me to use Russian planes. They thought I had a major advantage over them. The ability to look at and fire a heat seeker, plus the IR tracking and the ER 27 missiles. So, I am really looking forward to this one.
all this was missed and the story has already been told and a waste of time. They should have done Mig-23 or Tornado,Thank you and Happy Holidays Prickly.... ☺☺
I suppose its possible that RB will still be around post-lawsuit resolution, but I suspect that their goose is well and truly cooked. Who knows when their modules will be removed from DCS altogether? At this point our best hope is that the rights to their code are sold to another developer who can make a fresh start with ED.
Mig-29: Lovely module that few will fly in multiplayer as all "'80s" servers allow later spec F-16/18 and even the A-10c2 that are superior as datalink is a gamechanger in DCS
I think datalink can be turned off in the mission editor, just as GPS can be turned off. All you have to do is disable the datalink on the AWACS (or not have an AWACS present). Without the datalink hub on the AWACS, the datalink (in DCS) is incapable of creating the network.
Q2 "pre-order" for early access in at some later point ... Lets set our expectations. I'm excited for more Red force place is very nice, will buy for sure. Edit Lets hope 2025 is the year of transparency for ED. Update to the RB situation would be nice.
The Czech Republic, following the collapse of the USSR and its separation from Slovakia, had several hundred MiG-21s in its arsenal, as well as 10 MiG-29s. And here, we received our first lesson in capitalism - we decided to trade with Poland. In what was dubbed the "deal of the century," we exchanged our MiG-29s for PLZ W-3 Sokol helicopters. For the next 20 years, we continued flying MiG-21s. While I understand the reasoning behind the decision (costs, etc.), one can’t help but feel a sense of doubt when looking at the PLZ W-3 Sokol.
DCS 20XX and beyond used to come out before the years end. I believe the last 2 years it dropped on or around the 3rd to 6th. Anybody got any guesses on when we will see 2025 and beyond? And what teasers might we see in it?
Well it signals that RB continues working, just not for DCS. Perfectly fine move to make. No point sticking around a platform of an operator that doesn't pay you. I sure hope someone decides to challenges ED and DCS. BMS is awesome but it still is based on an almost 25 year old game and comes with its own quirks because of it (e.g. no keybind changes or even checks during play session). Something to that effect just with modern comfort and accessibility would be very nice. Here is hoping Microprose actually makes a new Falcon.
Thank you PH for another sitrep. Happy holidays to you and family. What change shall we expect do you think in EDs marketing policy? The number of airplane modules is increasing so much that I have no time to learn as I would like to, airframes like the f4, ch47, f1, a10c2 (which i recently bought on a sale). Having 3,4 hours per week to fully dedicate for a mission, campaign, training etc it has become a little burden. For ED the number of sales for airplane modules must also be dropping, not only because of me, but I assume there are more than just me out there. Dramas with RB don't help either. Plus the maintenance it takes for all modules when a core system is changed, like radar functionality, weather, curved earth, esf. If I was to guess, they might try to introduce a subscription model of some sort, for dynamic campaigns? Maybe? It's weak, but if you have played a bit (or a lot) with ME, to make a dynamic-ish mission, the main disadvantage is the time. The mission needs to run many hours to correctly move forces, produce units etc, accommodate ground naval and air units etc. This mission needs to run somewhere. Anyways, curious to read or hear any thoughts. PS. This is also in conjunction with couple of videos from Mr Christie discussing business models for ED. Peace!
Yes, Mr. Christie and I have commented briefly on our respective channels these issues and mechanisms for more revenue gathering and marketing concepts for ED. One of the challenges for ED is that the traditional premiere modules are a game in their own right, and as the franchise has evolved, the ability to use them in conjunction with other top tier modules and assets has dramatically increased. A subscription model has it's issues too, and I don't know if this solves the business model issues outright, it only solves a potential cashflow problem. The team still need to complete unfinished modules, maintain them and the core engine, add fresh material, and also ensure replayability. This isn't the best forum to discuss this, and probably still as both Christie and I have said, we don't fully know all of EDs financial deals. A lot of people assume gloom and doom in this area, but they've been aflloat for many years, occupying what appears to be a lucrative niche in the flight sim market.
Zero interest in any Sovjet / Eastern Block aircraft. Still glad to see this thing coming to DCS to enhance variety for redfor players, although i would have prefered a Flanker for those guys...
What exactly will this new Mig-29 bring to the game? Will it not just be a higher-fidelity version of the FC3 aircraft? Overall, the Western aircraft will still have the edge. It would be interesting if, for example, the F-15/16/18 A models from the 1980s were available. Then, more aircraft could meet on equal terms in a 1980s scenario, with no AMRAAM's advanced targeting pods, etc. There could be a 1980s Cold War server with rules to keep it fair.
Prickly, I have a question about the Cristal light. I haven't been able to get an answer from anyone, so i thought i would ask you. When i jump in the F16 on the Nevada cold start, everything is noticeably darker than on my monitor. Also, while everything in the cockpit is clear and sharp, the outside is blurry. The F16 to my right is very blurry. And the 2 F15 that take off aren't much more than dark spots. Is this how its supposed to be in VR?
Hard to say for sure. It shouldn't be dark. Take a peek at your VR settings in game and double check your main visual settings as well. I noted some things went back to default after the last big patch. Check back to the PIMAX settings too and ensure the sliders aren't turned down for brightness, local dimming etc. One thing to delete and then reboot DCS are your metashaders folder and FXO folders in game. They'll repopulate on a restart of the game, but are notorious for causing glitches if you haven't deleted them in a while.
@Pricklyhedgehog72 thanks. I have done most of this. But I have no idea what a metashader or FXO folder is so I will find and delete them in the morning. It's not drastically darker. But the blurry environment just seems odd. A big part of DCS is the beautiful scenery for me anyway. That doesn't exist in the Cristal light I have now.
Is this an issue specifically for that mission, or something that happens everywhere? Is the main menu darker as well? It sounds like the mission isn't fully loaded. In addition to what Pricklyhedgehog said, I'd put everything on low and see if you get consistent graphics then, and increase settings to try and pinpoint the problem. Might also want to contact Pimax. They might take a while to answer, though.
@khaledassaf6356 No, it's like that everywhere. I just used that as an example most would be familiar with. I have done everything I can think of. I even went to see an eye Dr just in case. I have an above average system, so I shouldn't be having issues in that department. Thanks for the advice.
*"it fills a gap in redfor which is a need of an early 4th gen aircraft the likes of an F16/18"* As they are doing a MIG29A, it only is going to be rival for blufor 4th gen airplanes, if it gets a FOX3 missile. With that being said - I can't for it to be released - we need more full fidelity redfor planes. a lot more
Or, if the server or mission restricts AMRAAM. An F-16 without AMRAAM is WVR-only. R-27R is a better BVR missile than sidewinder, which is all those F-16s can carry. And F/A-18s without AMRAAM are restricted to Sparrow, which is roughly equivalent to R-27R. It's not that difficult to design the scenario to even things out to roughly 1980-1990s equivalent.
@r4dio4ctiv3man9 And that's exactly why Enigma is probably right. The future of balanced MP gameplay in DCS lies in cold war servers. Everything else will and has to be a clusterf*** of mixed "red and blue can use all planes" or " redfor gets these and blufor these" planes aka balancing based on "experienced players". Which, in itself, is also fine I gotta say. As long as people have fun, it doesn't really matter. It's more about preference I guess. I would like to see the planes facing each other, which were intended to face each other. That's my preference an I believe most people have this preference as most reenactments are based on real or fictional conflicts in which US/NATO and Russia/USSR influenced countries battle it out. Now, to go full circle, that's why I wrote my initial comment and why I would like to see more redfor full fidelity planes. There is one big problem with this though. The majority of DCS customers does not play multiplayer and in single player its more important which planes your customers want to fly. The biggest market for DCS is the west and therefore, we see mostly blufor planes. Simple logic, but most likely true.
@@rantanplan178 That´s true. But to be honest, a simulator should never be balanced (except for number of players for each team). Problem is, that this does not realy work for any (competitive) online combat simulator (maybe except for Infantry simulators like ArmA3 or Squad). That´s why i´m only connecting to PvE servers when going for a modern scenario and 80´s servers only when i want to do PvP. And even there you´d still have to accept the M2000 or the Viggen on red team. What we still need for 80s is at least the early model of a full fidelity Su-25, Su-27, MiG-23 and MiG-27 in addition to the upcoming MiG-29.
@r4dio4ctiv3man9 Yea, I agree. Well, except for the "simulators shouldn't be balanced" part. I wholeheartedly disagree there. Especially, as DCS still is a game. We like to call stuff a simulator, but it isn't simulating the entire world nor the jets in it. But even if it would be a simulator in the true sense of it. Why shouldn't multiplayer servers be balanced? If they aren't balanced, they are not fun to play. Simple as that. Therefore, the game DCS should offer options for balanced gameplay. But yea, I agree with everything else. It was my original point to begin with, merely extended by 3rd gen planes and I agree there too. DCS needs more redfor full fidelity modules from all time periods DCS wants to cover. I guess even ED would agree to that. I presume the biggest issue is the consumer market. If there is no interest in Russian modules, why do we expect an incentive in producing them? Imo that's one of the reasons, we haven't seen more redfore modules yet.
Here's a roast of Digital Combat Simulator (DCS), keeping it light-hearted yet critical: The "Two Weeks" Meme: Oh, DCS, where every update is just "two weeks" away... until you realize "two weeks" in DCS time might as well be measured in geological epochs. It's like waiting for your grandma to finish telling a story about her childhood; you know it's coming, but when? The F-16C Saga: Remember when the F-16C was released, and it was like bringing a knife to a gunfight? A beautiful knife, mind you, but still. It was more of a "Work in Progress" simulator than a combat one, leaving you to wonder if your tax dollars in-game were better spent on a paper airplane. AI - As Intuitive as a Brick: The AI in DCS has all the strategic depth of a toddler playing peek-a-boo. You could crash into them, and they'd still think it's a good day to fly straight and level into your gunsight because, apparently, they're on a mission to prove physics wrong. The Joy of Joysticks: Using DCS is like trying to write a novel with a pen that's out of ink. Sure, you can press all the buttons, but good luck getting anything meaningful out of it without a setup that costs more than your actual dream of flying. And if your joystick doesn't have 47 buttons and 12 axes, you might as well be using a banana. Modding - The True Heroes: Without the modding community, DCS would be like a military without its sergeants - directionless and prone to wandering aimlessly. These unsung heroes give DCS its soul, turning the game from "Digital Cockpit Simulator" into something resembling "Combat." Server Stability: Playing on some DCS servers feels like you're trying to land an F-18 on a carrier made of Jell-O. One moment you're flying, the next, you're in the digital abyss because the server decided it's nap time. Realism - A Double-Edged Sword: DCS prides itself on realism, which is like being proud of your ability to make the perfect cup of coffee... at 3 AM when all you want is to sleep. Sometimes, you just want to enjoy flying without needing a degree in aerospace engineering to start your engines. The Eternal Beta: DCS has been in beta for so long, it's like it's entered its own version of digital purgatory. It's "stable" only in the sense that it's consistently unstable. In conclusion, DCS, we love you, we hate you, but most of all, we can't quit you. You're the flight sim equivalent of a toxic relationship - we know we should leave, but the moments when you work perfectly, oh, they're just too good to give up.
Who is actually the party making this module? I would buy it but want it to not 'break' due to no updates. The reason I did not buy the F15 or mirage 2000
@PeypaMikko-1842 thanks for the reply. I recently picked up the F16 on sale. Already have the F18, F14 and F5E. But really wanted the F16 basically just to have it and fly. I am still learning the others though. The F14 is the one I feel like is the most difficult to learn. I am not used to using the jester system for instance
@@robhoofs3932 These are solid choices. Due to current situation between Razbam and ED, your concern is fair. One more thing, some mods (not modules) are based on full fidelity-modules... so if these very FF modules "die"... the mods will die together (Mirage 2000D and Rafale from Split-Air Team, based on RB M-2000C, have been fixed. But how long will they last ?).
As long as when it does release it is 99% complete, the JF17 was released in that state so there is no reason why ED cannot do it and not an EA version that is never completed eg F18, F16, Apache
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 how long 6 years from release in 2018, I am not waiting another 6 years for the Mig to be completed, my eyesight will have given up with age by then
@@Lisa-Azra_Broad But how much of the aircraft's completion can you attribute to your ability to use it effectively in game? I hear these complaints all the time: it's a common mantra among some players. Most of the time they're just on the bandwagon and talk in blanket terms with little to no specifics in order to trash ED. Two years ago I was flying regular sorties with the Air Warfare Group, some of whom were current or former military pilots, when the Hornet was in EA. It's lack of completion had no effect on our ability to conduct a variety of missions and do a lot of training, dropping bombs, strafing, formation techniques like tacturns, etc. And I still get a large audience wanting to learn more about basic airmanship: startup, taxi, navigation, comms, landing patterns, DME arcs, instrument flying, all of which are bread and butter stuff for fighter pilots by and large. This is a massive syllabus for sim-pilots most of whom fly on average a few hours a week. And then someone comes to me and says, ED needs the data cartridge completing asap, and this module is crap because it's so unfinished. And that, that's the kind of stuff that makes me laugh, because the average player, and I include myself in this, has barely scratched the surface of these sophisticated deep study jets.
I wish they had done this with the Su-27, a far better plane. I feel many people after buying are going to sadly realise why this was the Russian widow maker
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 makes me laugh, there are plenty of friendly countries which have the Su27, Ukraine, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, China, there was none of this data excuses with the JF17 and that was a Pakistan/China project. EA are no longer in Russia that excuse is getting lame and the glaring elephant is how can they do the Mig and not the Sukoi
@@Lisa-Azra_Broad Not really, there's publicly available data, and data which ED can legally use to recreate in a video game for profit. Say for example the ex-employee who tried to smuggle an F-16 manual out of the US. You can easily get hold of one, but as soon as you try to remove it from the country of origin, you run afoul of the law. It's not just the airframe: it's all the components that make up the aircraft as well, which may be subject to legal and copyright laws, not to mention national security concerns. I'm not sure why people think you can just grab this stuff and use it just because an ally has it in their stable.
@@Lisa-Azra_Broad Because it's old enough that it's publicly available data is not subject to copyright, and the airframes being modeled are likely export versions to former Soviet block countries like East Germany. That's one of the caveats that ED was able to exploit several years ago when they ran into issues with updates to the Ka-50.
Intrigued by the MiG-29, but not completely sold. Yes I will learn that unclean metric system to I can fly it...............if I HAVE too, since I'm a dirty yankee and still measure in feet and miles.............but I draw the line at learning another alphabet so I can learn another language, so I can THEN learn Russian abbreviations. If there is a switch to put at least English abbreviations on the switch captions, then you might have my attention. Standing by to find out
There's usually a setting to set cockpit instruments to native language or English. However, instrument readouts will still be in the metric system, which the rest of the world outside of the USA uses.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 Not for aviation, they don't. Altitude is in feet and distance is in nautical miles, even in "metric" countries. Russia is basically the only exception, because they were not operating in NATO or flying commercial to the US or western Europe for most of the Cold War
@@bronco5334 yeah English to metric I can make work. Cyrillic to English may be a problem. I have the SU33 and I don’t BELIEVE it has a button to change the captions. Will look later
Razscam is pathetic. This is on brand for them, and I am glad I only bought the Harrier when it was on deep sale. The MUDHEN is cursed. This is the second time the M2M has worked on it for someone else and gotten screwed. They need to leave it alone after this and never touch it again. They had so many other things they were working on that just went nowhere. Oh, well, good thing that Razbam isn't the only developer for DCS nor the best.
Dumbest comment ever. You clearly didn't understand anything about what happened. The scam is on ED. They didn't pay Heatblur for 18 months after F-14 release and they did the same to Razbam after F-15E release. Razbam did an awesome job on F-15E and it was a good early access release, it was in a far better state than F/A-18C or F-16CM at launch.
@@JoJo-vm8vkyour opinion of a dumb comment , iv been knee deep in dcs since 2012 before it was dcs this sim has stayed around the same level for 15 years except graphics and new jets helicopters. Razbam dcs regardless who is right or wrong. ED. Needed to get out in front of it and make a statement or garuntee that the mudhen would be finished by Ed or whatever but this fucking no noise no awnsers for months leaves me after 15 years countless thousands of dollars does this mean other modules or developers can become dormant or dead what’s the point to keep upgrading like the f5 for 15$ every few years???! Theirs sort of directionless so ya cool point.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Mig-29 is looking fantastic. I’m sure it will become an iconic aircraft must have module.
Nice info here.
I'm really looking forward to flying the MiG-29, many moons ago I had the opportunity to sit in a MiG-29 of the Hungarian Airforce and ever since I was hooked!
I must admit, I have a soft spot for Soviet/Russian airframes, I spend most of my time in the Hind and rotors in general but I flew the Fulcrum back in the 90s along with the Falcon and I honestly prefer the Mig, maybe because it's more analog? As impressive as the Apache and Falcon are I feel like a computer is doing most of the work.
Totally get what you`re saying. Me aswell. Love western and soviet/russian. The Ruskies just have something about them. It`s the entire aura and feel of the airframe. You look at a F-16 and think: "Sleek, elegant, aerodynamic".
Then you look at a MIG-29. Just standing on the ramp the Fulcrum looks like it`s about to kill something. Same goes for the F-4 Phantom. They already look lethal just sitting there.
Hey buddy..i'm chopper's pilot too on DCS...do u have some issue when u want to launch the standdalone version ???... I would be so happy to fly with another choppers pilot
@@Bryan-cd9cl No, DCS runs pretty flawlessly these days. Are you running DCS or steam DCS?
Thank you and Happy Holidays Prickly.
as a long time MiG driver in DCS, this is a welcome addition, but as long as it gets appropriate weapons as well.
Sadly, it will not come with any new weaponry, and will be roughly identical to the MiG-29A we already have in capabiliy. It will probably also have many of the flaws the systems on board that the FC3 one really doesn't show fully. Example, it's RWR will be less reliable (per real life issues).
I am excited for it- but it really will only be competing with the likes of late Mirage F1, Mirage 2000C in capability. It won't even have R77 like the 29S FC3.
With no PGMs or standoff of any kind, this module will be poorly capable and bring nothing new for Redforce in a capabilities terms
It will be groundbreaking in being a full fidelity late cold war Russian jet...
But I don't think it's what Red really needed. It needs the Su-24, or 34, with soviet PGMs and standoff on board.
Obviously maybe someday ED could push this to be the basis for a 29S, or even variants of that which gain a few capabilities in the post 2000s era, but obviously those will be largely be unobtainable documents wise for a decade at least.
DCS needs ED to do what it did with the old M2000- accept "the best that can be done" on a few key modules until documents can catch up.
Or bite the bullet and make some FC3+++ tier Red strike/multiroles.
With ED and Razbam's breakup we have a bad situation losing the MiG-23 to complement the F1 and Phantom/early Tomcats.
The 29A really only has one comparable jet in NATO stable, and it is the awkward place that the Mirage 2000C is being a late 80s design flying with 70s and 2000s designs.
I remember some of the things the Luftwaffe DFT commander said of the Fulcrums they got from East Germany, which was the databus and navigational limitations of the MiG-29A with only 2 programmable waypoints and a dependency upon the Soviet ground station system. These were simple box-monocoque sheet metal frame fighters that might look and perform like teen series but are built like Phantoms and in fact the Moscow facility also produced refrigerators in the same factory. Some airframe parts like the fins are outsourced composites, but the bulk of the airframe is really general production skills unlike the NATO contemporaries which are all specialized skill production designs. The MiG was specific to this requirement for massed combat strategy in Soviet doctrine to combat NATO aircraft with nearly equivalent performance in greater numbers from unprepared fields at more forward locations to compensate and ultimately overwhelm. So don't expect superiority or equivalence in 1 to 1 from the MiG-29A, that is far more something to expect from the current production post-Soviet and modernised MiG-29 versions with entirely different military doctrine, the truth is and it is not a technological incapability but a doctrinal requirement that the Soviet version of the MiG-29 was to aim at numerical superiority not technical, but to achieve enough parity in performance for that to work very effectively. Especially in the BFM range. The databus of the fire control set couldn't even handle enough information to properly discriminate targets in any sort of clutter, it just wouldn't cope with the requirements and this is completely unlike the contemporary Flanker which didn't have this problem but was given much better budget to spend money on BVR capabilities against unit cost. Just to make clear the MiG-29A limitations I expect will be present in this module, but the community shouldn't interpret that as Russian technological limitations or even Soviet financial limitations, it's about doctrine and top down management of aircraft projects, it does work well in its lane but badly outside the box.
Well said. Chronically misunderstood by NATO fans who enjoy the sugar high of 'LOL Soviets so primitive'
Good pilot > Machine
Merry Christmas PHH!
Thanks!
Got to see the Frecce Tri Colori fly this summer in New York and have been eyeing up the MB-339 ever since. I guess while it’s on sale is a better time than any, and cool to see some news that it is still being updated/supported.
Super but where is Hellcat and Pacific?
I am too awaiting this Highfidelity Fulcrum. But I want a Flanker much more.☺️
THANK YOU for creating these update videos - I appreciate them. DCS is in DIRE need of more full fidelity REDFOR (noting the difficulties in obtaining enough data / documentation) and noting that DCS is due to get the MIG-17 at some point in the future, with the ED/RAZBAM situation still on-going, we need another Dev to take on the MIG-23 and we also find out where/why the SU-17/22 module disappeared? The videos produced of a flying DCS SU-17/22 also disappeared - why??? As DCS is working on the Supply Management system, there MUST be enough data/documentation to create full fidelity MIL-Mi-17, Mi-26 helicopters, as well as IL-76 or AN-22 transport aircraft (as BLUFOR is getting the C-130, REDFOR needs a suitable FF equivalent). If there is enough data for a MIG-29A, couldn't there be such data for an early variant SU-27, SU-24 or SU-25?? ED should be working with the Devs to try and focus on BLUFOR/REDFOR balance, not just combat but transport assets as well (especially if there is to be a new 'green' map (likely Germany) to come).
Enigma I think explained why DCS is so "unbalanced" in terms kf Red and Bluefor.
Mostly because Balance was never planned in the first place. The ED team never imagined the player base making a 100 player server with complex scripting and hundreds of AI.
ED planned for it. And still sorta treat it as a Videogame Museum of sorts. That's why they focus on singleplayer campaigns and popular Bluefor aircraft
Enigma I think explained why DCS is so "unbalanced" in terms kf Red and Bluefor.
Mostly because Balance was never planned in the first place. The ED team never imagined the player base making a 100 player server with complex scripting and hundreds of AI.
ED planned for it. And still sorta treat it as a Videogame Museum of sorts. That's why they focus on singleplayer campaigns and popular Bluefor aircraft
The Su-27 was a lot less exported to NATO friendly nations, and is a more complex aircraft (the MiG-29A ended up in the West plenty).
We really need a full fidelity (best as can be done) Su-24 or 34 (probably at an FC3 +++ level).
Red does need the full fidelity stuff, but a lot of it is just out of reach for now. As an ecosystem, DCS needs the diversity.
My favorite example is the 2000C. It's older releases were quite off the real deal but were in the ballpark. As documentation came around, the detail work came in, and now it is one of the best modules in true-to-life sense.
The Sim benefitted from having the platform even before it was perfectly accurate. Not saying to go the free-mods fictive work... but it'd be fine in the interim to accept an in between.
@@EleoliusThey can take a Ukrainian SU 27.
I’m actually so excited for the fulcrum I’m going to cry
I bought the Mig29 Falcon 4.0 add on the day it was released along with Art of the Kill. The sim was absolutely amazing.
Sorry, I forget to add - have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year
Nice video.
The 29A entered service ~ 83, GPS came into service ~85 and the Russian GLONASS became operational (officially) in 93. So it's no wonder the 29A used neither...
This is a module that I have been waiting for. Been around since before Flaming Cliffs (LOMAC). Back in those days my friends would not allow me to use Russian planes. They thought I had a major advantage over them. The ability to look at and fire a heat seeker, plus the IR tracking and the ER 27 missiles. So, I am really looking forward to this one.
all this was missed and the story has already been told and a waste of time. They should have done Mig-23 or Tornado,Thank you and Happy Holidays Prickly.... ☺☺
I suppose its possible that RB will still be around post-lawsuit resolution, but I suspect that their goose is well and truly cooked. Who knows when their modules will be removed from DCS altogether? At this point our best hope is that the rights to their code are sold to another developer who can make a fresh start with ED.
man... that -29 is impressive
I'm not personally interested in this a/c, but I'll still buy it
just to communicate my support for ED
: )
Are you sure about that?
ruclips.net/video/Fcsp5uM0QB8/видео.html
Mig-29: Lovely module that few will fly in multiplayer as all "'80s" servers allow later spec F-16/18 and even the A-10c2 that are superior as datalink is a gamechanger in DCS
I guess most of those flying the FC3 Fulcrum in multiplayer will switch to the FF module. That´s not too few ppl...
I think datalink can be turned off in the mission editor, just as GPS can be turned off. All you have to do is disable the datalink on the AWACS (or not have an AWACS present). Without the datalink hub on the AWACS, the datalink (in DCS) is incapable of creating the network.
@@bronco5334 which afaik none of the popular 80s servers do because it would upset bluefor players
@r4dio4ctiv3man9 would you downgrade from the fc3 29g/s? Flying on red team you are disadvantaged enough already
@@everwake242 There aren´t any 29g/s on 80s servers.
MiG-23 from Razbam is more important for DCS, but MiG-29 is my favorite aircraft of all time.
was
I watch your sitrep every week hoping to get some news about developement of the F6 Hellcat and the 1944 Marianas map…….
Indeed, stay tuned...hopefully news will come soon.
And a Merry Christmas to my weekly Hedgehog. 🎄🍺
Q2 "pre-order" for early access in at some later point ... Lets set our expectations. I'm excited for more Red force place is very nice, will buy for sure. Edit Lets hope 2025 is the year of transparency for ED. Update to the RB situation would be nice.
Mig looks good, but until all the ongoing ED problems are fixed, not buying a thing. Good job PHH
I would love the eurofighter
Its in development. Hopefully a 2025 release, but I doubt it.
I love the MiG-29, but unless they add the S version with R-77's, its gonna have a really hard time in-game against BLUFOR.
The Czech Republic, following the collapse of the USSR and its separation from Slovakia, had several hundred MiG-21s in its arsenal, as well as 10 MiG-29s.
And here, we received our first lesson in capitalism - we decided to trade with Poland. In what was dubbed the "deal of the century," we exchanged our MiG-29s for PLZ W-3 Sokol helicopters.
For the next 20 years, we continued flying MiG-21s. While I understand the reasoning behind the decision (costs, etc.), one can’t help but feel a sense of doubt when looking at the PLZ W-3 Sokol.
DCS 20XX and beyond used to come out before the years end. I believe the last 2 years it dropped on or around the 3rd to 6th. Anybody got any guesses on when we will see 2025 and beyond? And what teasers might we see in it?
Usually comes out in the first week or so of January
MiG-29 is cool 👍
Well it signals that RB continues working, just not for DCS. Perfectly fine move to make.
No point sticking around a platform of an operator that doesn't pay you.
I sure hope someone decides to challenges ED and DCS. BMS is awesome but it still is based on an almost 25 year old game and comes with its own quirks because of it (e.g. no keybind changes or even checks during play session). Something to that effect just with modern comfort and accessibility would be very nice. Here is hoping Microprose actually makes a new Falcon.
You must have been reading my mind- I was thinking where is the Mig 29- and bam
I'm still waiting for the Corsair.... 😔
@@taiser_35 Fulcrum might be released before the F4U Corsair... yikes... Mag3 guys may need some help from ED.
I wonder if the DCS mig-29 will see the light of day before the BMS one.
It will
#DCS should add detailled maps of Russia now, that would be helpful.
No data link?
Main problem is F16/18 we have in game are not early models but from 2000s. We need MiG23/25 to be paired with F14/F4
Thank you PH for another sitrep. Happy holidays to you and family.
What change shall we expect do you think in EDs marketing policy? The number of airplane modules is increasing so much that I have no time to learn as I would like to, airframes like the f4, ch47, f1, a10c2 (which i recently bought on a sale). Having 3,4 hours per week to fully dedicate for a mission, campaign, training etc it has become a little burden.
For ED the number of sales for airplane modules must also be dropping, not only because of me, but I assume there are more than just me out there. Dramas with RB don't help either. Plus the maintenance it takes for all modules when a core system is changed, like radar functionality, weather, curved earth, esf.
If I was to guess, they might try to introduce a subscription model of some sort, for dynamic campaigns? Maybe? It's weak, but if you have played a bit (or a lot) with ME, to make a dynamic-ish mission, the main disadvantage is the time. The mission needs to run many hours to correctly move forces, produce units etc, accommodate ground naval and air units etc. This mission needs to run somewhere. Anyways, curious to read or hear any thoughts.
PS. This is also in conjunction with couple of videos from Mr Christie discussing business models for ED.
Peace!
Yes, Mr. Christie and I have commented briefly on our respective channels these issues and mechanisms for more revenue gathering and marketing concepts for ED. One of the challenges for ED is that the traditional premiere modules are a game in their own right, and as the franchise has evolved, the ability to use them in conjunction with other top tier modules and assets has dramatically increased. A subscription model has it's issues too, and I don't know if this solves the business model issues outright, it only solves a potential cashflow problem. The team still need to complete unfinished modules, maintain them and the core engine, add fresh material, and also ensure replayability. This isn't the best forum to discuss this, and probably still as both Christie and I have said, we don't fully know all of EDs financial deals. A lot of people assume gloom and doom in this area, but they've been aflloat for many years, occupying what appears to be a lucrative niche in the flight sim market.
Zero interest in any Sovjet / Eastern Block aircraft. Still glad to see this thing coming to DCS to enhance variety for redfor players, although i would have prefered a Flanker for those guys...
What exactly will this new Mig-29 bring to the game? Will it not just be a higher-fidelity version of the FC3 aircraft? Overall, the Western aircraft will still have the edge.
It would be interesting if, for example, the F-15/16/18 A models from the 1980s were available. Then, more aircraft could meet on equal terms in a 1980s scenario, with no AMRAAM's advanced targeting pods, etc. There could be a 1980s Cold War server with rules to keep it fair.
Prickly, I have a question about the Cristal light. I haven't been able to get an answer from anyone, so i thought i would ask you.
When i jump in the F16 on the Nevada cold start, everything is noticeably darker than on my monitor. Also, while everything in the cockpit is clear and sharp, the outside is blurry. The F16 to my right is very blurry. And the 2 F15 that take off aren't much more than dark spots.
Is this how its supposed to be in VR?
Hard to say for sure. It shouldn't be dark. Take a peek at your VR settings in game and double check your main visual settings as well. I noted some things went back to default after the last big patch. Check back to the PIMAX settings too and ensure the sliders aren't turned down for brightness, local dimming etc. One thing to delete and then reboot DCS are your metashaders folder and FXO folders in game. They'll repopulate on a restart of the game, but are notorious for causing glitches if you haven't deleted them in a while.
@Pricklyhedgehog72 thanks. I have done most of this. But I have no idea what a metashader or FXO folder is so I will find and delete them in the morning.
It's not drastically darker. But the blurry environment just seems odd. A big part of DCS is the beautiful scenery for me anyway. That doesn't exist in the Cristal light I have now.
Is this an issue specifically for that mission, or something that happens everywhere? Is the main menu darker as well? It sounds like the mission isn't fully loaded.
In addition to what Pricklyhedgehog said, I'd put everything on low and see if you get consistent graphics then, and increase settings to try and pinpoint the problem.
Might also want to contact Pimax. They might take a while to answer, though.
@khaledassaf6356 No, it's like that everywhere. I just used that as an example most would be familiar with. I have done everything I can think of. I even went to see an eye Dr just in case.
I have an above average system, so I shouldn't be having issues in that department.
Thanks for the advice.
@@jamesmcd71 Ooh, double check your IPD too...
*"it fills a gap in redfor which is a need of an early 4th gen aircraft the likes of an F16/18"*
As they are doing a MIG29A, it only is going to be rival for blufor 4th gen airplanes, if it gets a FOX3 missile.
With that being said - I can't for it to be released - we need more full fidelity redfor planes. a lot more
Or, if the server or mission restricts AMRAAM. An F-16 without AMRAAM is WVR-only. R-27R is a better BVR missile than sidewinder, which is all those F-16s can carry. And F/A-18s without AMRAAM are restricted to Sparrow, which is roughly equivalent to R-27R.
It's not that difficult to design the scenario to even things out to roughly 1980-1990s equivalent.
@@bronco5334 This. pretty sure this will enhance 80´s servers a lot.
@r4dio4ctiv3man9 And that's exactly why Enigma is probably right. The future of balanced MP gameplay in DCS lies in cold war servers. Everything else will and has to be a clusterf*** of mixed "red and blue can use all planes" or " redfor gets these and blufor these" planes aka balancing based on "experienced players".
Which, in itself, is also fine I gotta say. As long as people have fun, it doesn't really matter. It's more about preference I guess. I would like to see the planes facing each other, which were intended to face each other. That's my preference an I believe most people have this preference as most reenactments are based on real or fictional conflicts in which US/NATO and Russia/USSR influenced countries battle it out.
Now, to go full circle, that's why I wrote my initial comment and why I would like to see more redfor full fidelity planes.
There is one big problem with this though. The majority of DCS customers does not play multiplayer and in single player its more important which planes your customers want to fly. The biggest market for DCS is the west and therefore, we see mostly blufor planes. Simple logic, but most likely true.
@@rantanplan178 That´s true. But to be honest, a simulator should never be balanced (except for number of players for each team). Problem is, that this does not realy work for any (competitive) online combat simulator (maybe except for Infantry simulators like ArmA3 or Squad). That´s why i´m only connecting to PvE servers when going for a modern scenario and 80´s servers only when i want to do PvP. And even there you´d still have to accept the M2000 or the Viggen on red team. What we still need for 80s is at least the early model of a full fidelity Su-25, Su-27, MiG-23 and MiG-27 in addition to the upcoming MiG-29.
@r4dio4ctiv3man9 Yea, I agree. Well, except for the "simulators shouldn't be balanced" part. I wholeheartedly disagree there. Especially, as DCS still is a game. We like to call stuff a simulator, but it isn't simulating the entire world nor the jets in it. But even if it would be a simulator in the true sense of it. Why shouldn't multiplayer servers be balanced? If they aren't balanced, they are not fun to play. Simple as that. Therefore, the game DCS should offer options for balanced gameplay.
But yea, I agree with everything else. It was my original point to begin with, merely extended by 3rd gen planes and I agree there too. DCS needs more redfor full fidelity modules from all time periods DCS wants to cover.
I guess even ED would agree to that. I presume the biggest issue is the consumer market. If there is no interest in Russian modules, why do we expect an incentive in producing them? Imo that's one of the reasons, we haven't seen more redfore modules yet.
Here's a roast of Digital Combat Simulator (DCS), keeping it light-hearted yet critical:
The "Two Weeks" Meme: Oh, DCS, where every update is just "two weeks" away... until you realize "two weeks" in DCS time might as well be measured in geological epochs. It's like waiting for your grandma to finish telling a story about her childhood; you know it's coming, but when?
The F-16C Saga: Remember when the F-16C was released, and it was like bringing a knife to a gunfight? A beautiful knife, mind you, but still. It was more of a "Work in Progress" simulator than a combat one, leaving you to wonder if your tax dollars in-game were better spent on a paper airplane.
AI - As Intuitive as a Brick: The AI in DCS has all the strategic depth of a toddler playing peek-a-boo. You could crash into them, and they'd still think it's a good day to fly straight and level into your gunsight because, apparently, they're on a mission to prove physics wrong.
The Joy of Joysticks: Using DCS is like trying to write a novel with a pen that's out of ink. Sure, you can press all the buttons, but good luck getting anything meaningful out of it without a setup that costs more than your actual dream of flying. And if your joystick doesn't have 47 buttons and 12 axes, you might as well be using a banana.
Modding - The True Heroes: Without the modding community, DCS would be like a military without its sergeants - directionless and prone to wandering aimlessly. These unsung heroes give DCS its soul, turning the game from "Digital Cockpit Simulator" into something resembling "Combat."
Server Stability: Playing on some DCS servers feels like you're trying to land an F-18 on a carrier made of Jell-O. One moment you're flying, the next, you're in the digital abyss because the server decided it's nap time.
Realism - A Double-Edged Sword: DCS prides itself on realism, which is like being proud of your ability to make the perfect cup of coffee... at 3 AM when all you want is to sleep. Sometimes, you just want to enjoy flying without needing a degree in aerospace engineering to start your engines.
The Eternal Beta: DCS has been in beta for so long, it's like it's entered its own version of digital purgatory. It's "stable" only in the sense that it's consistently unstable.
In conclusion, DCS, we love you, we hate you, but most of all, we can't quit you. You're the flight sim equivalent of a toxic relationship - we know we should leave, but the moments when you work perfectly, oh, they're just too good to give up.
hahaha, nice...
I will buy it but not sure if I fly it....I very glad it is here...
Are you sure about that?
ruclips.net/video/Fcsp5uM0QB8/видео.html
the new RB airframe is not for DCS
Who is actually the party making this module?
I would buy it but want it to not 'break' due to no updates. The reason I did not buy the F15 or mirage 2000
ED is making this module (like F-16, F/A-18), so MiG-29 will be more "secure" than Razbam's products.
@PeypaMikko-1842 thanks for the reply. I recently picked up the F16 on sale. Already have the F18, F14 and F5E. But really wanted the F16 basically just to have it and fly. I am still learning the others though. The F14 is the one I feel like is the most difficult to learn. I am not used to using the jester system for instance
@@robhoofs3932 These are solid choices. Due to current situation between Razbam and ED, your concern is fair. One more thing, some mods (not modules) are based on full fidelity-modules... so if these very FF modules "die"... the mods will die together (Mirage 2000D and Rafale from Split-Air Team, based on RB M-2000C, have been fixed. But how long will they last ?).
I will buy the MiG-29 simply because it does not have that hideous blue cockpit.
Hideous? No u
I honestly don’t know if I will want the mig29 it’s in the weird state of modern but not
It's a hybrid...
As long as when it does release it is 99% complete, the JF17 was released in that state so there is no reason why ED cannot do it and not an EA version that is never completed eg F18, F16, Apache
F/A-18 is out of EA, Lisa.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 how long 6 years from release in 2018, I am not waiting another 6 years for the Mig to be completed, my eyesight will have given up with age by then
@@Lisa-Azra_Broad But how much of the aircraft's completion can you attribute to your ability to use it effectively in game? I hear these complaints all the time: it's a common mantra among some players. Most of the time they're just on the bandwagon and talk in blanket terms with little to no specifics in order to trash ED. Two years ago I was flying regular sorties with the Air Warfare Group, some of whom were current or former military pilots, when the Hornet was in EA. It's lack of completion had no effect on our ability to conduct a variety of missions and do a lot of training, dropping bombs, strafing, formation techniques like tacturns, etc. And I still get a large audience wanting to learn more about basic airmanship: startup, taxi, navigation, comms, landing patterns, DME arcs, instrument flying, all of which are bread and butter stuff for fighter pilots by and large. This is a massive syllabus for sim-pilots most of whom fly on average a few hours a week. And then someone comes to me and says, ED needs the data cartridge completing asap, and this module is crap because it's so unfinished. And that, that's the kind of stuff that makes me laugh, because the average player, and I include myself in this, has barely scratched the surface of these sophisticated deep study jets.
I wish they had done this with the Su-27, a far better plane. I feel many people after buying are going to sadly realise why this was the Russian widow maker
The problem is there's not enough data to properly produce a full-fidelity Su-27 that ED can get their hands on apparently.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 makes me laugh, there are plenty of friendly countries which have the Su27, Ukraine, Indonesia, India, Vietnam, China, there was none of this data excuses with the JF17 and that was a Pakistan/China project. EA are no longer in Russia that excuse is getting lame and the glaring elephant is how can they do the Mig and not the Sukoi
@@Lisa-Azra_Broad Not really, there's publicly available data, and data which ED can legally use to recreate in a video game for profit. Say for example the ex-employee who tried to smuggle an F-16 manual out of the US. You can easily get hold of one, but as soon as you try to remove it from the country of origin, you run afoul of the law. It's not just the airframe: it's all the components that make up the aircraft as well, which may be subject to legal and copyright laws, not to mention national security concerns. I'm not sure why people think you can just grab this stuff and use it just because an ally has it in their stable.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 I can understand that so why is the Mig 29 being produced and not being subjected to the same legal issues.
@@Lisa-Azra_Broad Because it's old enough that it's publicly available data is not subject to copyright, and the airframes being modeled are likely export versions to former Soviet block countries like East Germany. That's one of the caveats that ED was able to exploit several years ago when they ran into issues with updates to the Ka-50.
Intrigued by the MiG-29, but not completely sold. Yes I will learn that unclean metric system to I can fly it...............if I HAVE too, since I'm a dirty yankee and still measure in feet and miles.............but I draw the line at learning another alphabet so I can learn another language, so I can THEN learn Russian abbreviations. If there is a switch to put at least English abbreviations on the switch captions, then you might have my attention. Standing by to find out
There's usually a setting to set cockpit instruments to native language or English. However, instrument readouts will still be in the metric system, which the rest of the world outside of the USA uses.
Its not that hard to learn how to use metric and translate it to imperial. Just study and practice man its not rocket science.
@@Pricklyhedgehog72 Not for aviation, they don't. Altitude is in feet and distance is in nautical miles, even in "metric" countries. Russia is basically the only exception, because they were not operating in NATO or flying commercial to the US or western Europe for most of the Cold War
@@bronco5334 yeah English to metric I can make work. Cyrillic to English may be a problem. I have the SU33 and I don’t BELIEVE it has a button to change the captions. Will look later
Razscam is pathetic. This is on brand for them, and I am glad I only bought the Harrier when it was on deep sale. The MUDHEN is cursed. This is the second time the M2M has worked on it for someone else and gotten screwed. They need to leave it alone after this and never touch it again. They had so many other things they were working on that just went nowhere. Oh, well, good thing that Razbam isn't the only developer for DCS nor the best.
thanks for the yap session
Dumbest comment ever. You clearly didn't understand anything about what happened.
The scam is on ED.
They didn't pay Heatblur for 18 months after F-14 release and they did the same to Razbam after F-15E release.
Razbam did an awesome job on F-15E and it was a good early access release, it was in a far better state than F/A-18C or F-16CM at launch.
@@JoJo-vm8vk It's a great aircraft indeed, as for who's to blame, that's not quite as clear cut as some people seem to believe.
@@JoJo-vm8vkyour opinion of a dumb comment , iv been knee deep in dcs since 2012 before it was dcs this sim has stayed around the same level for 15 years except graphics and new jets helicopters. Razbam dcs regardless who is right or wrong. ED. Needed to get out in front of it and make a statement or garuntee that the mudhen would be finished by Ed or whatever but this fucking no noise no awnsers for months leaves me after 15 years countless thousands of dollars does this mean other modules or developers can become dormant or dead what’s the point to keep upgrading like the f5 for 15$ every few years???! Theirs sort of directionless so ya cool point.