bkthunder

TOViper, been flying for about 20 years here too, sorry to say but you are simply wrong. I'm shocked to hear you believe that and I honestly hope you lied about flying IRL, or else pick-up the PPL ground training level 1 and read it again. I've had a student once that wanted to stall the aircraft after turning downwind because he was caught off-guard by the higher groundspeed, as well as somebody who had a tendency (this is much more common) to overspeed the aircraft when on a windy final, all becuase they get "impressed" by the ground references moving too fast / too slow compared to what they got used to when flying in no wind. I understand you might get the feelign that your airspeed changes, but that's just your eyes and ground references messign with your senses. Look at your instruments, there's only 1 thing that matters: AIR SPEED. I have yet to see any aircraft where the stall speed and VNE are given in GS ;)

In the A-10 engine igniters are turned on when pulling the trigger to avoid a possible shutdown. Hot gas ingestion is a thing.

Sorry but...did you guys wake up now? It's been like this for YEARS. Those of us who have bought the MiG-21 when it first came out know this well. FYI, at one point the plane coudl sustain 46 degrees of AoA, and that verison stayed for months! All along, including the prevoius version, you fly levelled with a negative AoA. The stall is g-loaded, which is against he laws of physics. M3 can't code an FM, they are trying to figure out how to do it based on what was probably developed by the part of LN that became Heatblur. I applaud the recent changes to the FM as a sign of life which was missing for some years, but yeah, that's not to say the FM is more realistic or anything. It's just yet another variation that's probably very wrong, just in different areas than before. We will never know if and when the FM will be ok, because it changed too many times. Sorry, but it is what it is. Either LN hires some real FM coders, or someone rescues the MiG-21 by buying the rights.

Any news? This and the engine bug are serious stuff, why aren't they fixing them?

Any news on this? It's been a while...

Doesn't happen with any other sim/game I have.

I have very bad flickering since 2.5.6 especially on the carrier!

IIRC it's meant to be like that when firing the gun, as a measure to cope with gun smoke ingestion

Honestly, I want ED to stop all development of new modules, and focus on the "world", "combat" and on the "simulation" part of DCS:W. I'm not buying more modules, I have more than enough and they are mostly incomplete for years to come. Focus on the world, this is starting to feel like star citizen where you have a gazzilion ships and nothing to do.

It's not fixed, it's been reported soon after they tried to patch it. Please comment here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264523

Nothing to do with adverse yaw, the VVI and pitch ladder just move on the wrong plane-direction. Easier to see it for yourself tbh. Grab the F-18 and set a strong wind, then bank. Compare with the Harrier. F-18 is the correct one. The other reports, I can set them as solved, but then I'd have to put a random date. The point is, if Razbam can't be ar*ed to clean up their own bug section, I can't simply chase them around. I'm more than willing to mark whatever is fixed as fixed (I'm actually hoping to mark everything as fixed sooner rather than later...), but without a date, an official changelog etc. It's hard. Razbam has this forum with not one but 2 bugs sections. One for open bugs, one for solved. Do they follow the common practice of acknowledging reports and mark them as [FIXED] or [REPORTED]? Nope. Do they at least place the threads in the proper forum section? Nope, they are all mixed. I've set a general rule based on this principle: - The ED forum is the official comms channel for this product - I add to the bug tracker what is reported here, in the bugs section. I don't want to blindly enforce that and deny bugs that are obviously fixed, what I'm saying is, please come to me with what is fixed and a date (or a rough date at least). Thanks ;)

I'm just sorry it's a C-101 and not a Hawk...lol. Or a Harrier,or a MiG-21! These legendary planes would deserve such quality. Anyways this proves a point for me: I'd much rather have a simple aircraft that's simulated into detail, with passion, rather than some awesome jet developed like it's Ace Combat. If you did a Cessna with this level of detail, I'd buy it. I enjoy the little touches, like the ADI wobbling to life. This is a high fidelity sim, and doing even simple IFR, knowing that stuff is accurately simulated, is more satisfying than dropping bombs from a half-assed module with dubious avionics and FM. I'm looking forward to your Mirage F-1 if it's at this level. And more.

168 is not solved, the error persists. They tried to fix it, it behaves a bit differently now, but still goes off to the side at steep angles. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264523 (already in the community bug tracker) 120, 121 do you know when they were fixed? Nothing about it in the posts, and they are in the bugs forum :doh: Thanks!

Yes I agree, I can hardly do a loop with the EB! It seems the FM is accurate, so I'm wondering if I'm missing something?

Can you point out the lines that are repeated / fixed please? (line number). Thanks. P.S. Just to clarify, there may be multiple reports for the same bug, but they are different posts made by different people. Or, in rare cases, in a single post there were 3 or 4 different reported bugs, so those have been split into multiple lines with a common title and description, but the same forum link. Other than that, at the moment I don't see duplicates except for one I removed just now. Let me know what you find please. Thanks!

I was looking forward to giving this a try after hearing about the nice progress you made. Well, so far I've spent only about one hour doing IFR flights in it, but I have to say the attention to detail is impressive. Not a massive fan of the aircraft itself, but you've done a commendable job, the cockpit and instuments feel alive more than in any other module. Hard not to love it. :thumbup:

UPDATE 4/19/2020 - Added 39 new reports (total 170) - Updated stats, see attached image in the OP / or "dashboard" sheet on the bugtracker

Basic as in "fundamental". Nothing in a modern jet is simple. That said, if you can't even code a HUD with a propely working VVI, which is literally in your face 99.8% of the time, how can I expect you to do something much more advanced?

As someone who has bought the MiG-21 when it was first released, I can tell you this: - The FM saw drastic changes, several times, before M# and HB split (when they were Leatherneck). - At one point, the FM felt *very* similar to how it feels now - A bit before the split, the FM felt quite ok, similar to know but with more belivable stalls etc. - After the spit, the FM was (or felt) reverted to one of the early versions from the first release - Now, we go back to something more dynamic. So, I am an FM Nazi, and I lost all hopes for the MiG-21, but *some* change is better than no change, as long as they continue on developing. It feels less on rails now, so it's good sign IMO.

There can be different policies for implementing new weapons and sensors or wait for the official ED solutions, but there is NO EXCUSE for having bugged and erroneous BASIC systems such as navigation displays and functions, switchology, hydro-mechanical and electric systems etc. these are basic. They don’t get that stuff right. I think taking about new weapons is futile when the dev can’t even code a properly working navigation display or the break pressure gauge. Yes, maybe I am pedantic, but how can you trust the implementation of a complex weapons system when basic avionics are sloppy?

Hi, please read the OP. If you want to contribute, I'll give you access. PM me you email (or is it the one you have username?). ;)

Just added 10 other bug reports to the file

They said they only work on what they have on their official bug tracker. The fact 75% of all reported bugs aren't there shows a little problem I think.

@Decoy, I believe that’s clear if you read the bug tracker thread, there is no hint that it wants to become the official bug tracker. Quite simply, three quarters of the bugs listed there so far, are not acknowledged / not on the official bug tracker, and many have been reported multiple times, creating clutter. As a customer / community member, looking at the official bug tracker doesn’t give me a good idea of what and how many bugs the Harrier has, nor does looking at the forum, because there are many fragmented reports. I’m hoping the community bug tracker gives a more clear and objective idea of the current state and development.

[ADDED TO COMMUNITY BUG TRACKER] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1gYpmYD4VVaTn1YkHd_K7CJxOysoOqdN-K5oZs_anX7c/edit?usp=sharing