MiG-29 9.12A: To BUY or NOT TO BUY? [Thoughts]

A few weeks ago, the first Soviet “Full fidelity” module in years entered the pre-purchase phase. Now offered at $55.99 rather than $79.99, the price will increase as the Early Access is launched.

The Fulcrum

The MiG-29 9.12A is an export variant of the venerable Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-29, known in NATO shores as the Fulcrum. Multiple export variants exist following a logic that can be summarised as “motherlands BFF’s get the best toys”. The 9.12A, in fact, is only slightly modified compared to the original version used by the Soviets and was exported to nations close to the USSR. For example, to Poland and East Germany. The 9.12B is a much more tangible downgrade and was exported to Iraq and North Korea.
Ordnance-wise, the MiG-29 9.12A should carry most of the weapons already available to the Flaming Cliffs version. However, the R-27 ER/ET apparently required a minor update, and the diffusion of such variants and their number is up for debate. Ergo, those missiles should be made available on a country-based criterion or as an option to the mission designers.

Fun fact
The R-27ER can reach hypersonic speeds in DCS. Its performance is twice or more what is described in available sources in many scenarios, and it suffers from a plethora of issues, ignoring most of the constraints of the real counterpart. For instance, the IR seeker is not simulated, and behaves like a radar one sine triggering the target’s RWR. Since I have conducted missile tests in the tens of thousands in the past, let me know if you are interested in seeing more about the R-27 ER / ET.

To buy or not to buy

So, with the imminent launch of Early Access, I pondered whether I should get it. And yes, I am a closed beta tester, but I would have to buy it anyway – it’s a long story.
Over the years, I have bought several modules and opened them only once or twice, and just for tests and comparisons. For instance, the F-16. Yet, it is a good way to support the business. But what do you think? I made a poll on YouTube, and the results are interesting:

• 45% have bought or will buy it now;
• 27% will not buy it;
• 28% will buy it later on.

I then replied to the vast majority of the comments, and some interesting points were raised. Here are some of them:

1. Quality concerns: Heatblur non plus ultra, especially now that RAZBAM is gone. ED’s radar modelling is lacking, and, given the status of clouds and weather, there is a serious concern that their EOD will simply ignore them.
   Hopefully, they will use Heatblur’s tech for their RWR rather than the magical RWR of the Hornet.
2. Weird setting: the MiG-29 9.12A is a late 80s to 90s aircraft that will face 2000s-2010s US modules in most servers. And no, the weapons are the least of the issues, which makes seeing the F-16C block 50 in Cold War servers utterly absurd, but hey, you do you. The biggest issue is the lack of peers. We still do not have a contemporary for such a time frame: the announced F-15C is post-2000. The Mirage 2000C was kind of there, but it sank along RAZBAM. The F-14 somewhat fits, depending on the variant. The J-8II might work, but it’s a frankenplane, a weird combination of Phantom II and Flogger, that has no suitable scenarios in-game. Next, the Mirage F1M arrived later, so the F1EE is an option, but a generation older, like the Phantom. The F-4E DMAS is also from the mid-to-late 80s, but by the 90s, it is primarily an air-to-ground asset in US service. The current -45MC sets between the mid-70s and the early 80s, since there are a couple of functions that push the timeline forward (e.g. CAA and VISIDENT differences compared to the older version). The F-4E is probably the only solid choice to represent non-US forces.
3. Buyer’s PTSD: although I bought the F-16 on day one of the Early Access just to support ED, I opened it only months or years later. I have been told, however, that its status at launch was beyond abysmal. This experience still haunts players.
4. Lack of deadlines and standards: this point affects pretty much every dev team. However, there is a difference: the module’s status at launch. If a module is in very good condition when released, long EA periods are more tolerable; otherwise, it is hard not to consider some modules as de facto abandonware.
5. Communication issues: events such as the release of the Iraq and Afghanistan maps have highlighted once again how ED struggles with clear communications. Their choices to close the lua files first, and the models more recently, without a proper explanation, continue the trend. Now and then, we also see some quite odd takes, like the 7,000 hours it took to make the remastered F-5E, which is mostly the same as before. If not, they clearly should have spent more time showing customers the neat innovations they added in all those hours.
   The following video by Junkers Manufacture should help you quantify the concrete meaning of 7,000 hours of work. Skip to 02:30 to see what I mean.

Conclusions

Personally, I see two major issues:

1. In primis, the fragmentation of the gameplay experience that is not based on the type and capability of aircraft, but on the quality of the devs.
2. Lack of standardisation. Heatblur’s RWR is a significant first step, assuming it is adopted for the Fulcrum, but there are so many other issues.

Both of these points deserve a dedicated video, as they are quite off from the original topic discussed here.

So, will I buy it? Eh, I don’t know, to be honest. The MiG-23 is what I really wanted, a perfect companion to F-4E, Mirage F1 and MiG-21 bis. But that did not happen.
On one hand, I kind of need the MiG-29 for testing purposes, to see how it fares against Tomcat, Phantom II and Mirage, but I struggle more and more to justify the cost. We know that ED often listens to the feedback, see my videos about SAM AI reaction and follow-up discussion. Perhaps all it would take is a more open approach, better communication between the dev team and their community managers, to have players more informed on what’s going on under the hood. Players do not mind waiting too much as long as they know a particular feature is coming and it is actively being worked on. The lack of communication and clarity is what kills the enthusiasm in the project in the long term. Some steps are being taken. I wonder whether this is not enough. What do you think?

---

DCS Modules
I compiled the following list of DCS modules based on their status reported in the eShop. The vast majority of them should be included.
• “IN DEVELOPMENT” MODULES

  MiG-29 9.12A
  EUROFIGHTER TYPHOON
  A-6E
  G.91R
  F-15C
  F-35A
  F-104
  C-130J
  TORNADO
  KFIR
  PC-9/A
  A-7E
  BO-105
  La-7
  MiG-17

• “EARLY ACCESS” MODULES

  CH-47F
  F-4E
  F-16C
  F-14
  SUPERCARRIER
  AH-64D
  MIRAGE F1
  MOSQUITO FB IV
  Mi-24P
  JF-17
  YAK-52
  WWII ASSETS PACK
  AJS-37
  IRAQ TERRAIN
  AFGHANISTAN TERRAIN
  KOLA TERRAIN
  SOUTH ATLANTIC TERRAIN
  NORMANDY 2.0 TERRAIN
  SINAI TERRAIN
  SYRIA TERRAIN
  PERSIAN GULF TERRAIN
  NTTR TERRAIN

• “COMPLETED” MODULES

  OH-58D
  F/A-18C lot 20
  P-51D
  BLACK SHARK III
  MB-339
  A-10C II
  P-47D
  FW-190 A-8
  I-16
  CHRISTEN EAGLE II
  NS 430
  SPITFIRE LF Mk IX
  F-5E
  SA342
  L-39
  C-101
  MiG-15bis
  MiG-21bis
  Bf-109 K-4
  F-86F
  FW-190 D-9
  Mi-8MTV2
  UH-1H
  COMBINED ARMS
  CAUCASUS TERRAIN
  MARIANAS TERRAIN

• “UNAVAILABLE” MODULES

  F-15E
  MIRAGE 2000C
  MiG-19
  AV-8B
  MiG-23 MLA

• DAMNATIO MEMORIAE

  HAWK T.1A

Share this:

• X
• Facebook
• Reddit
• Email
• Print
• More

• WhatsApp
• LinkedIn
• Telegram
• Pinterest
• Tumblr
• Pocket

Like Loading...

Related