303_Kermit

It's one of the case when one has to be either polite or honest. One can't do both, like one can't make well balanced & historical (in the same time) dogfight server. If you're interested in listening a constructive critic, I can share it with you. In simple words, detail build historical mission is invisible in aspect of B-17, A-20, C-17, Ju-88 scripted air operations. It's probably present in aspect of chosen ground attack targets, and naval operations. However it mises many important factors of A2G operations of USAAF (especially CAS tasks) from those era. What I meant is actually described quite well in Wiki: "With the June 1944 Allied landings in Normandy, fighter-bombers began a new direct support role, operating with the assistance of radio-equipped FACs on the ground with the supported formations. Allied tanks were emblazoned with a new white star on their turret tops. Cerise and yellow signal panels were provided to the 3rd Army troops. At least 10 tanks in every armored division were fitted with VHF sets to contact aircraft overhead.[21] Fighter bombers were on call from "Cab Ranks", orbiting points close to the forward edge of the battle area. Although already briefed for a target, the fighter-bombers would first await a call to strike an immediately pressing target. From these Cab Ranks, the FACs could very quickly call on air support for any targets of opportunity or threats to the troops in their area, with uncalled upon aircraft striking their briefed target. These ground FACs operated from White Scout Cars or M3 half tracks (and later tanks) equipped with a wide range of radio sets for both ground to air and ground to ground communications. Airborne FACs were supplied from the Air Observation Post Squadrons (pilots and observers generally came from the Army) of the RAF operating Auster" I can't see a reason why CA WW2 isn't properly used on server. No actual ground actions, no human CA operators, calling a true CAS! Imagine that. I would be glad to perform a roleplay, as well as others maniacs like me. Instead, there's no actual fight on the ground. And it's visible after 1 month of flying "Historical missions" on Overlord server. After 6 months every mission seem to look the same... All down there is static. More than a statues of madame Tussauds. They're actually seem to be more alive... Another sad thing is, that quite ambitious "Overlord" night mission seem to be removed from mission playlist, but that's off topic. Sorry. There are many aspects and reasons why I wrote what I wrote - other than a unjustifiable rudeness. You can't build historical - well balanced dogfight server. And that is what (I believe) you're trying to do. Either it's historical or balanced , currently chosen gameplay is optimized for being playable, not historical. With my best regards, and admiration for what you're trying to do 303_Kermit

And who wrote "I don't like your server?" Surely wasn't me.... And I always thought It's @Night Owl server? Just as I mentioned: I like simple sawmill-dogfight servers, and 4Ya Overlord I my favourite one. Especially I like the opportunity to navigate and fly in almost all-weather conditions. But from time to time I just want to play something more ... Sophisticated. I just think that it's right place to share what I look for. Maybe there are more players like me? @SkewgearI feel quite ... disturbed, that you want me to play a starring role in your dream. I don't know if I shall feel myself... Flattered?!? It's kinda ... New experience for me. Are you sure that it's right forum for such... Manifest? sincerely ... Intimidated 303_Kermit PS. I wouldn't want to be you if miss Piggy finds out...

I hope that my post doesn't violate any rule, but I want to share with you my doubts. I like WW2 and since Overlord is actually a only populated (Warbird) server in DCS World - there's not much choice. I like that there is a possibility to fly MP in warbirds, but... It's not what I look for. I'd like to fly an escort mission - more realistic than is is now. Mission deep inside enemy territory, with fuel tanks (I fly P-47). A real long one. Currently the targets are put so close to the frontline, that German formations has to be intercepted over German territory, and opposite. It's a clear aberration. Currently B-17 aren't performing any strategic operations. Just tactic. I also much dislike that it basically doesn't matter what kind of mission do we have - every fighter flies to "π-Trap" to perform low lvl dogfight. A2A operations aren't in any way connected to A2G operations on server. It's not strange - it's typical to every dogfight sawmill-server. I enjoy much more a engagements like the one organized on Enigma server, where actually I can defend (or attack) something: bombers, or some strategic target. And that it actually matter if I succeed or not. I dream about Enigma for warbirds actually. I had a dream( ), In those dream I flew a Warbird over any other map than these small , claustrophobic, Normandy. To actually escort a "strategic raid" or take part in "ramrod". I felt a true climate of mission I perform. I took care about result. Not just about a "score". I fought over control of some sector... I drove a Sherman or Pz IV. Ehhh... Man can dream. DCS is perfect. It looks like all we miss is a proper gameplay... Dynamic MP campaign like Enigma (or even better one). My best regards Kermit

Of course. There are lots of photos and reports from combat deployment. Interesting fact: When Egypt and Syria bought first series of FL, GP-9 was already developed, and had proved its value. In spite of these arab FL's were ordered without them. @WinterH As for our (and there's a lot of us) "Pointless Vietnam dreams" - VPAF used F-13, PF, PFM and MF variant of MiG 21. Those (plus FL) are also the versions that took part in almost every conflict in 1960-1980. DCS without them is... Incomplete.

True. It's similar concept to FL - it's kind of PF with 4 pylons: And here is PF next to Fl I believe:

That's actually MiG-21PFM type 94 with GP-9 pod and double intermediate pylon "Monsun" that I meant, yes. MiG-21PF type 74 doesn't have GP-9 capability. Sorry for my English

True... somehow I'm myself surprised how it "sneaked out" ... I think the Polish modification with 4 pylons came to my mind, but it 's very similar to FL probably. About F-4N - afaik it's a F-4B mod. Englisch Wiki (article with a star) states, that it took part in conflict. here: https://www.history.navy.mil/content/history/museums/nnam/explore/collections/aircraft/f/f-4n-phantom-ii.html is a phantom F-4N that took part in conflict, scoring one Vietnamese MiG-19 "The F-4N Phantom II (Bureau Number 153915) on display is painted in the markings of its final squadron, Fighter Squadron (VF) 154 operating from the carrier Midway (CV-41). While serving on board the same carrier in VF-161 during 1972, the aircraft downed a MiG-19 fighter during aerial combat over North Vietnam. The crew of the aircraft during this flight was Lieutenants Patrick Arwood and James Bell." My best regards Kermit

1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but we're going to get 1974 F-4E - it's not that far. 2. Everybody know that later we may expect a Navy Phantom. B, J, or N (as far as I recall , and correct me if I'm wrong) all of them took part in Vietnam War. So, as you see there is a logic behind what I wrote, and one may need MF/PFM/FL/PF/F-13 development for DCS. More than Bison or Lancer

I like FL for the same reason

Check yourself. Make a pool. We'll see

... Agree, and that is why a grownup part of MiG-21 community wants to have classic MiG-21 first; not the "most fancy one". - MiG-21 bis without bugs and simplifications in FM,DM, Radar, and Radionavigation - There comes a classic enemy of MiG-21: F-4 Phantom : whole family is expected, so I wish to oppose them whole family of "балалайка" PFM, MF, F-13. Lancer and Bison are "Nice to have", but not that needed. It's like having Ketchup and forgetting about Sausage... Like learning how to cut a single hair in 4 parts alongside it's length, without knowing how to cut a bred...

I talked about both planes together. Since both modifications were prepared roughly at the same time. Both Modifications poses modern weapon , PESA radar and modern RWR. Anyway I proved my point. Watch out what you wish for, because it actually may came to life someday, and you realize that there's nowhere to fly it, and you like much better MiG-29A anyway... I guess it will be truth for 99% of virtual pilots. Who would choose MiG-21 bison/lancer over MiG-29?

Neether had them MRF1 Over Angola MiG-21bis meet MRF1 on equal terms. Check reports from dogfights. In DCS Fox 1 of MRF1 aren't better in any case than the R-3R of MiG21bis. Here is an description of Bison specification: Helmet mounted sight, vertical scan, R-77, R-73, R-27

After Wikipedia (english): "MiG-21bis upgrade program for the Indian Air Force, developed from the MiG-21-93. Modernised aircraft are also known as "MiG-21 Bison". A contract for the upgrade of 125 Indian Air Force aircraft was signed in January 1996, with an option for the upgrade of 50 additional aircraft. While it was originally planned to upgrade at least 30 aircraft at the Sokol Plant in Russia, in May 1998 the contract was modified: only two prototypes would be modernised in Russia, while the 123 remaining aircraft were to be modernised by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited in its Nasik factory. The first two upgraded aircraft were presented in October 1998. The serial phase of the modernisation took place between 2001 and 2008. The modernisation includes an overhaul of the airframe, with a 10-year service life extension. A new drop-shaped canopy with a single-piece windscreen replaces the old one. In the cockpit, a new head-up display is installed, together with a multifunction display. The controls are redesigned to a HOTAS arrangement. A new autopilot is added, as well as an inertial navigation system and GPS receivers. The aircraft are equipped with the Phazotron Kopyo (Spear) radar, developed from the Zhuk and capable of simultaneously tracking eight targets and engaging two of them. The MiG-21UPG upgrade also includes compatibility with new air-to-air weaponry, like the R-27, R-77 and R-73 missiles, the latter of which can be cued to a helmet-mounted sight. Other new weapons include the Kh-31A anti-ship missile and the KAB-500Kr guided bomb. Chaff/flare dispensers are installed on the upper side of the wing root. The old radar warning receiver is replaced by the Indian-developed Tarang, and an internal jammer is added.[8]" I just stick to the known facts. IMO Helmet mounted sight, internal jammer, pulse doppler PESA radar, modern RWR, place it as an opponent for F-16 / F-18 rather than MRF1. With my best regards Kermit PS. Full article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-21_variants#Upgrade_programmes

Actually the proper opponent for MRF1 was ... MiG-21bis. They met over Angola couple times on equal terms. Reports say, that bis poses better Radar (!), R-60 were equal to the Matra -550 of South African Air forces. MiG was better maneuverable, Mirage better performed on low altitude because of economical Engine - adjusted for low lvl operations. Introducing a Lancer/ Bison would be ... huge overkill.

It's MiG-21-93 Photographed at the Paris Air Show, Le Bourget. The pictured sole prototype MiG-21-93 was first shown in 1993, and incorporates an refurbished airframe fitted with avionics and weapons of the MiG-29. The only known customer for the type is the Indian AF, reportedly 125 of their MiG-21s were to be refurbished (with Russian assistance) by Hindustan Aircraft Limited (HAL) to the new version. Designated MiG-21 Bison. On foto below prototype of Bison carrying 2xR-73 + 2xR-27(ER?)

What would be the opponent then? There's nothing more in DCS... F-18C, F-14, F-15C, MiG-29, Su-27, JF-17... and F-16CM Against that you have plane with low amount of fuel. With some good maneuverability... For 1975... Maybe 1980. Maneuverability that strongly depends on payload. When I flew DCS MiG-21 I could always say without watching my wings if I have 2xR-60 or 2xK-13. ~100kg extra had noticeable (if your arms aren't made out of wood) impact on "small delta" agility. Carrying 2xR-27+2xR-73 would have probably serious impact on performance. Lancer could be a disappointment for you guys.

I wasn't precise. Now I am: F-16 , F-18, and probably JF-17 are quite different story. It's totally offtopic.

AJS is kinda... Old anyway. AJS modification came into life about 20 years after MiG-21bis. Modifications made him great strike-fighter. As a fighter he wasn't much improved. Also he carries many 1960-1970 armament. Can be easily adjusted into 1960 Coldwar. F-16 with AiM-9X, AiM-120 AMRAAM, and thrust to weight ratio 1,4 (vs 1,05 of F-16A) is quite other story. Anyway... The AJS plane was decommissioned in 2005 - about the time when F-16CM comes from. Most (not all) of MiG-21bis also came to a graveyard in that time. They don't match even hypothetically.

I believe that you missed the point. Just as I wrote above. Lancer/Bison are no match for F-16 anyway. Neether BFM nor BVR. You need MiG-29SMT/M/M2(MiG-35), Su-30, Su-35.

No it isn't. It's 1974 plane. DCS F-16CM is about 30 years younger. They don't meet in the air. Just like Bf-109E don't meet in the air MiG-21 MF (about same time difference). MiG-21 is a fair opponent for AJS-37, F-5E, MRF1. In development are others: F-4 (whole family), MRIII/5, IAI Kfir, A-7(D?). So there's whole logic content and CA asset for it. Gen 4+ planes are just ... another story. They don't suit. F-16 is fair opponent for F-18 and it's ok. We need PFM / and possibly other older russian planes Su-7, Su-15. Also some interesting Chinese planes would be wellcome, like Nanchang Q-5 or Chengdu J-7/F-7 (MiG-21F-13) MiG-21bis is a killer on 60'-70 cold war servers: like Enigma. As far as I see it's also (by far) the most popular. Nobody needs "Lancer" or "Bison". If you're F-16 fan - you need MiG-29SMT/M/M2(MiG-35), Su-30, Su-35 and others that I forgot of. With my best regards Kermit

I'm quite happy from my P-47 8x0.5'' Last week I killed a 109 Pilot while he was leaving his cockpit I saw him getting out right into my tracers 20 m away from me. As far as I know Fire effectivness against FW-190 strongly depends on firing angle. There are orginal documets about it. If you aim well short burst can burn 190. If not one can struggle shooting random parts Best regards.

Why?! To pose an easier target for F-16 ?

AI Behaviour is independent from the plane they fly. - So if AI flies F-16, MiG-29, F-15C it's ok - If AI flies F-86, P51, P47, FW-190 it's insanely stupid

You're confabulating Sir. Alied planes enjoyed high quality 100-120 octane gasoline. Very rarely was it below 100 octane. Todays fuel is probably more ecologic, since in WWII a component of fuel was ... lead (PbO). In Eastern Europe Lead was a component of gasoline up to ~1990. For Engine built in old standards modern fuel may be to aggressive. PbO used in old fuel used to create a protective layer around Valve socket, and Valves. Without it, those element will be destroyed just in couple hours. Modern fuel requires much more expensive materials for Valves and Valves Sockets. In thermodynamic sense modern fuel isn't any better than those in WW2.