artao

I think if several of these small devs joined forces things would get done a LOT faster. So many tiny dev teams, not uncommonly with overlapping bits and parts each of them have to spend time individually developing. Unlikely to happen tho. It seems everyone wants to do their own thing. I would pay a reasonable cost for a fix update for the current Balalaika while waiting to buy a new V2 .... some day. If only.

Great for you you've had it 10 years. Woo freakin hoo. I bought it last year. I'm a new user. Thankfully I bought it on sale. So what if YOU aren't interested in AAA games, that's 100% irrelevant to my point. RE: "Of course, I do expect support ... that does not mean that I expect an aircraft totally devoid of bugs." LMAO dude. Known bugs can be EXPECTED to be fixed. They have not been. Barely acknowledged even (AFAIK). RE: "To me it is not broken, I can fly it reasonably well, can you elaborate in what way it does impede your use of this aircraft?" Okay ... Go try to use RSBN/ARK on the Kola map, or Sinai map. NOPE! You have to hand edit files to manually add stuff, and it's still not the actual available nav beacons available to ALL aircraft now in DCS maps; the MiG-21bis can't access those. When the MiG-21bis came out, there wasn't a universal RSBN system. Try to accelerate vertically with a clean plane; NOPE! But with 2nd stage afterbuner of 97k newtons, it should have greater than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio. i.e. - It should be able to sustain vertical flight, even with 4xRadar and 2xIR missiles. Good grief man!! Have you NOT read the freakin bug reports and complaints in this very forum? The flight model is broken, it can't use the RSBN/ARK that exists in each map; it ONLY has the pre-programmed hard coded RSBN/ARK channels. Users have to make modified .lua files to add navigation stations. Even if the dev of the map adds them themselves, the MiG-21bis can not use them. As to INS ... uhhhhh .... You've had it 10 years and don't realize it has pretty much that? It can fly itself back to base and take it in along the proper glide path, then give you control at the final moments to complete the landing. That's kinda better than INS really. Except it doesn't work right. (Or at least I can't get it to work right. Could well be user-error, but I've tried very hard.) The engine is underpowered. The "tail wag" at certain speeds/attitudes isn't realistic. The radar is janky and not at all remotely a radar as most planes in DCS now have. The IFF is "faked." The "beam riding" missile is more like laser-guided. more ....... Are you being willfully ignorant of all these issues? There's others I haven't gone into. They have made their money. As you said, it's been on sale at least 10 years. With over 10 yrs of sales, it must have significant profits for ED. As to your polls, so what? A poll of a fraction of DCS users. Woo hoo. All the poll says is that 32% of the people that responded to the poll have the MiG-21bis. What if any bias is there in the poll? Are there other polls? What are the actual sales states? We won't know as they won't (rightfully so) release those figures, I'm sure. So I base my assumption on how many users talk about the MiG-21bis. It seems quite popular, tho many people don't much fly it anymore cuz of its issues. Which are readily apparent. And assuming that just because they have Magnitude 3 as a company means they know how to run their business ... Uhh, no. Most people who own businesses have no idea how to run them. They have very little income currently, because they're not releasing anything. If they "knew how to run their business" they'd have stable profit along with actual PR. They're essentially modders, being a company is most likely just for legal reasons. And updating the MiG-21bis? Soooo .... They're secretly updating it in the background but not telling anyone about it in the release notes. Gotcha. ..... No. LMAO. How many years has the Corsair been in development now? How often do they update the community on progress? .... Rarely at best. .... Great for you that you have such faith in Magnitude 3, but what have they release AS Magnitude 3, not as Leatherneck? If they're not gonna do the MiG-21bis, they should say so and let it go. I know giving it to the community is a fantasy, I made that VERY apparent in my comment. It is broken in many ways, and should not be sold at full price. I thought I was getting an accurate simulation, and in many ways it is. But many many ways not. I still fly it cuz I love the plane, but I hold a good amount of suspension of disbelief while doing so. As to, "How easy it is to demand other people to relinquish the rights to the software they have created ... have you gifted your own work so easily before?" Yes. I regularly release work (music, digital images) as CC0, as well as free to download by copyright protected.

Yeah. ..... <sigh> Yeah. Perhaps the best thing that could happen is another dev. decides to do a MiG-21. ... perhaps -21F even, or multiple variants. I wish I was still new to the plane and didn't know about its faults. I still enjoy flying it, but get frustrated.

What do you think, could it be effective? They kinda seem like they're doing what THEY want to do without considerating what the market wants. Prioritizing aircraft THEY would like to see rather than those with demonstrated commercial success. I would put big money on a bet that more people want the MiG-21 updated than want anything else they have in their pipeline. Just a thought. Cuz otherwise we won't be seeing any MiG-21 updates for AT LEAST 4 yrs at the most optimisic, and that's simply unacceptable. They're a commercial entity, not simply "modders," and many many people have invested in their products. Support is expected; how long is a question, sure. THIS is egregious tho. Nothing to be expected for at least 4yrs as a kind estimate, considering the dev pace of the Corsair. I mean, buy it new now and you pay 60usd. That's the price of a full AAA game. But then you buy it and find out it lacks in numerous areas. Then you get peeved; and rightfully so. .... I bought it on sale, so I'm not as peeved, but still. I expected moar realerer. If they're gonna sell it "as-is" the cost should be reduced to like 30 or 40usd. It's just THAT out of date and broken. (Tho still fun -- in part due to how broken it is) Perhaps even a petition to release the current version to public domain as they work thru their personal list of "wanted aircraft" and then let them make a v2 we can pay for. (ahhh. dreams be dreams eh ) The lack of support for the MiG-21bis is egregiously unacceptable, especially considering how important an aircraft it is. It's basically the AK-47 of fighter aircraft. One can not talk about the Cold War air combat landscape without acknowledging its significant impact and widespread use. The MiG-21bis represents a crucial piece of military aviation history, and its inadequately updated status undermines the historical and technical integrity of simulations that aim to represent that era accurately. It's the most-produced fighter aircraft in history, with the longest run of usage. And surely it's one of the most popular DCS modules, no? I have no stats, but it's gotta be top 5. And I'm curious how much money in totum it has made. Surely, again, in the top 5. It should be priority number one. It's one of the oldest modules but has CLEAR issues, from the flight model and its low-speed handling to the underpowered engine -- which SHOULD put out like 97k Newtons of thrust with 2nd stage burner. Which, in some configurations like A/A missiles without tanks, would give greater than 1:1 thrust:weight ratio. Which is to say, if light enuf it should be able to handle the vertical fight just fine. Even just correct the flight model and engine performance and change the nav systems to what is now DCS-standard and perhaps deal with the radar, and we'd all be happy while they work on a V2. Which I'm sure we'll all happily pay for (as a discounted upgrade). HELL!! Even a low-cost 1.5 update!! I'd pay 10 to 20usd for that.

Okay, much better now. With my curves adjusted right and FFB forces set right and the old flight model, I'm back to feeling competent. Amazing how much settings can make a difference.

No axis conflicts, but DCS did reset my curves. Redoing them has helped. Also, disabling all the FFB forces and leaving only the force trim has helped a good deal too. ... When I first got FFB I immediately went from struggling to hover to being able to hold a reasonable hover. After re-tuning the FFB settings again, I'm about back to that. I so love it when DCS resets controls. <sigh>

Now granted, I haven't flown helo in a few months. But I used to be fairly proficient. NOW tho it's like I've never flown a helo before at all. For one thing I keep getting into unrecoverable VRS when coming in for a landing, around 50ft. It doesn't matter if I'm hovering or moving or how fast. Around 50 ft the helo just drops, and I can't apply enuf collective to recover. Also, has the option to use the old flight model been disabled? It's still in the FMOptions.lua, but I can't seem to tell a difference with it true or false anymore. Finally, the collective just seems ... wrong. I have to hold way more collective than I think I do, and kick more left pedal in; sometimes it feels like the pedals are doing nothing. It feels underpowered and sluggish to respond. DCS reset my control curves, but even fixing that hasn't made much difference. I've got an FFB stick too, and when I got it several months back the ease of hovering was incredible. Now I can't seem to stop drifting in one direction or another and have to overcompensate to slow down. Sure, I'm out of practice. But this just seems ridiculous. If it's just me it's just me and I'll get more hours in -- which I will anyhow.

OMG I want to kiss you! Thank you, it's all back. I'm very glad some people know the DCS files so well.

Thank you!! It worked!! However, all my campaign progress in Bear Trap is gone.

+1 Here as well. Just like everyone else, including the empty "available modules" list. (cross posted. I'm betting the threads will get merged anyhow)

+1 Here as well. Just like everyone else, including the empty "available modules" list. (cross posted. I'm betting the threads will get merged anyhow)

I kinda wish Magnitude 3 would delay the Corsair simply to apply needed updates to the MiG-21bis such as these navigation issues ... Actually that's all I can think of. Then after the Corsair work on a v2. Somehow I don't think many people would mind a delay on the Corsair in exchange for a MiG-21bis navigation update, but then I'm personally indifferent about the Corsair and very interested in the Balalaika. But that simply remains my wish, if only.

I like to use the pop-up kneeboard which is available in every aircraft. I make it small and put it directly in front of me. Then when needed I pop it up and spam the "mark my location" button to make my location and heading in relation to all the waypoint apparent and clearly defined; I find a single one doesn't always show up that well. The mssing thing with this method is you can only follow the waypoints and see the topography. No other flights nor, more importantly, any SAM/AAA information. I've taken to adding well-labeled waypoints on or near such sites (and Bullseye), then they show up on the kneeboard. But no radar/weaspon range information. It's a tradeoff. .. I mostly play in VR, so jumping to F10 and back can be a bit jarring; particularly how close the map is to my face (not adjustable without affecting cockpit position, sadly)

WOW did you misinterpret what I said. I mean it's a sad state of affairs when the players have to do something the devs should have already done. Not saying anything against or about people modding the game. It's a shame devs have made players so desperate for a fix they had to dive into the files and fix it themselves. Kudos to them for doing it; they shouldn't have had to. That's all I'm saying.

It really is ridiculous that users have to get so desparate that they try to figure out how to do this themselves. Sad, really.

I don't have vjoy installed.

This started happening after the recent update. It only happens in the controller assignment screen. In the mission editor and elsewhere it reads these three keys just fine. This messes up my VoiceAttack setup because, as you know, the \ key opens the communications menu. Since it's reading that key as ], that does nothing and subsequent VoiceAttack commands are all F# keys which end up switching views rather than choosing comms options. I have worked around this for now by changing the key to <Insert> in both the game and my VoiceAttack setup. I did a full clean and repair of my DCS install and this issue persists.

Bit of a necro ... I just acquired a G940 a couple days ago. I have applied this firmware and all seems fine. Have you resolved this issue with being unable to run simFFB under Win 10? I'm experiencing the same thing.

I mean ... Everyone knows the -21 has issues nowadays. PLEASE update it. It's one of the most popular DCS modules. It deserves higher priority than anything else you're working on. As much as y'all might love the planes in your pipeline, the community LONGS for a proper -21 update.

It seems unlikely we'll get a MiG-21bis update anytime soon; as in the next 5 to 10 yrs. I have heard "rumors" shall I say that the company is a bit ... unstable ... as well as having at least three other planes in-queue before the -21 is even considered. And the -21 isn't in any known pipeline i'm aware of. And I think we can all agree that the -21 needs an update. And yet it seems to be one of the most popular modules. .... Its foibles are more than simply frustrating at this point, once you learn of them from others. Some are quite obvious simply trying to use them, like the radar weather filter not working and hard-coded radio frequencies. Others not so much as the Grom not actually being beam-riding, but simply SARH; there's another A-A missile the -21 can use that's also beam-riding, but not sure if that's even attempted in-game with our bis. But if the dev company is dying/dead, we have little to no hope of improvements there. The entire module is so old that DCS has advanced far further than its own capabilities, and deprecated others. Also, many IRL pilots preferred the 'F' over the 'bis." More nimble. Held speed betterer in turns. More responsive. Beyond that, more modern variants such as the Bison and LanceR. It's really a travesty that aircraft devs don't do multiple variants -- aside from the Mirage F-1 devs. Not that interested in that plane, but I'll buy it JUST because they implement multiple variants. We, as users, should ...... "ask for" ... that more. SO!! The MiG-21F is older than the bis, and many pilots preferred it over the bis. There's tons of 'em in museums all over the world. Laser scanning and/or photogrammetry is easy enuf, for the model. Free software, free public access to samples. The flight model wouldn't be hard to ... well ... IDK the "DCS way" with regards to flight model modelling. Can it simply use straight-up aero sim data? Cuz from a laser-accurate model that can be derived pretty darn tootin' well. And from there what's left is avionics. I've never attempted modding DCS, nor any other game aside from making a few maps for old FPS. However, I've studied 3D graphics for over 30 yrs now. I'm quite capable in that regard -- tho dealing with game engines isn't in my ken really. But, coming from old-school modelling I'm decent at low-poly but look good. ... Depending what the render engine supports. And that is on DCS. It seems it can handle normal maps, cool. How about displacement maps, or vector displacement. SDS? What poly/vertex count is acceptable? Regarding aero, I have a fair bit of experience designing model rockets. That's aero, and aero is aero. I've designed and flown rocket-boosted gliders that exceed "normal" speed ranges of fighter aircraft as well, so I do grok aero. Avionics is the largest stumbling block probably. But with the 'F' being so old that info can't be hard to come by, mostly unclassified. Bison and LanceR less so, but hardly hard to find. Perhaps a new company is needed, eh? Since no one else is jumping on possibilities. Or, rather, a bunch of companies with very few devs each. Perhaps a better solution would be the merging of several current DCS module makers. Combine resources. Each of 'em has super-limited dev. resources, so DCS module dev is slow. Put them all in the same company and add more, that would speed up a LOT i reckon. Which is to say: Looking for others interested in forming a dev company to make such things. Other projects could include: Century Series aircraft pack in the spirit of FC3 Maps, such as Fulda Gap, Vietnam, Spratly Islands, Taiwan straight, and others.

User-addable and editable would be even more awesome.

Oh gods yes please? I don't like using the F10 map while flying and the kneeboard maps can be a bit fiddly and don't show much information. And ... The frequencies are hard-coded in the MiG-21? <sigh> And here I've been trying to figure out what I've been doing wrong. I keep learning of things in the MiG-21 that no long (or never did) work. Such as the radar weather filter not really working. ARK system being all messed up. Apparently some IFF issues. Hard-coded frequencies. Others. The MiG-21 needs an update; and deserves it. It's got to be one of the most popular DCS modules. One thing's for sure: The Soviets-Russians sure don't like letting their pilots manually adjust radio frequencies.

Thank you. Much clearer. All we were asking. The vagueness was offputting. How about where will the game will move and how if I switch to standalone? And the Tacview question. From what I read originally, trying to get Tacview to work, is that for Steam DCS you have to use Steam Tacview, and for standalone DCS we have to use standalone Tacview. Is this the case or have I misunderstood something?

What does "people were breaking the EULA" mean? Must be something super serious to do this over the weekend so suddenly without telling anyone. It sure would be nice to know what that means rather than just that vague incredibly broad statement. Sure, we don't "have a right" to know, but it sure would be be appreciated by the rest of us who AREN'T breaking any EULA or anything. I don't really know what it ultimately means to choose either Steam or Standalone. Pros and cons? I already know VR runs more smoothly if I use the "force vr" and "force openxr" run arguments, so SteamVR doesn't have to run. But what about Tacview? Will I have to reinstall that as standalone or will it still work right via Steam? It'd suck to have to have two versions of Tacview installed, cuz I use it for IL-2 as well. Also, if I switch to standalone, what will that do to my install? I imagine it will move it out of my Steam library. Ideally the user has full control over where it ends up, as I'm quite particular about that. A bit more clarity would be much appreciated and lend some good will to the community. Also, "We have no plans to drop Steam" isn't exactly all that comforting, considering that before this weekend you also had no plans to make this change. It's a legit concern.