bkthunder

the red beacon lights didn't shine into the cockpit (makign them unusable), and the Tacan volume worked properly?

Not sure about the 5%0 vs 80%, years ago in your very module, it used to be 80%. Given the manual provided in the module is not very detailed, the description of this system is not giving any such details. Regardless of that, let's go back to my OP and focus on the main point: Let's make the following assumptions: 1. We all agree that at >80% RPM and below 360 Km/h IAS, the Boundary Layer Control system should be active. In my test I was within these parameters. 2. The SPS (BLC) system should provide extra lift, which for a given IAS, flaps setting and RPM setting, results in a rate of descent that is lower compared to what it would be, if the SPS system was not active. Now, what I reported in the OP is this: if I switch the SPS off, by clicking with the mouse and placing the "SPS" switch on the left wall panel in the "OFF" position, there is abosultely no change in rate of descent compared to when the switch is placed in the "ON" position. Ergo, either the switch is not actually turning the SPS off, or the SPS system is not simulated. Which of these two possibilities is the one at hand, I don't know, so I am simply reporting that the SPS system isn't behaving according to what would seem logical AND according to how it used to operate in previous versions of your product.

This type of attitude is one of the reasons these devs walk away with money in their pockets leaving 90% of the modules bugged and / or unfinished. Well done.

BUMP!

When landing with full flaps, engine rpm >80%, turning SPS on/off doesn't resutl in any change in lift or rate of descent, so either the switch doesn't work or the SPS system is not simulated (it was definitely working in some earlier versions). Another thing, with throttle <80% amd SPS on, there should be unpredictable wing drops because the bleed air being directed to the flaps doesn't have a constant flow. This is also not simulated but it used to be in earlier versions of the FM (form some years ago).

This :thumbup: Even a low fidelity "on rails" FM can simulate the correct numbers, FS98 replicated accurate cruise performance when the airplane was flying straight and level...The F-15 and Su-27 in Lock-On met the numbers, and I don't doubt the MiG-21 does the same when it's well within the envelope. But, the point of a PFM is to have a dynamic and realistic flight model that feels organic and not like it's on rails, something the DCS MiG-21 simply doesn't achieve. Btw, practicing stalls is one of the very first things you'll do as a student pilot. A stall is by definition outside the flight envelope, but don't tell me this is some sort of outlandish maneuver that is normally never attempted or experienced, especially in a combat aircraft. My first flight instructor pulled a stall on my very first flight. Stalling characteristics are a basic part of any airplanes training syllabus, and if you can't have an FM that simulates that properly, I don't see how the rest of the FM can be considered to be at "DCS level". P.S. Did anyone come up with an explanation why I can steer by using the rudder (no brakes) on the ground with no wind, with as little as 3kts forward speed? Very effective rudder on this MiG-21!

I wish they finally worked on fixing and making the FM more realistic, but I still see that scripted stall behavior and all the other issues that have been there for years. Not only they have not been acknowledged, but they even said the FM is great and realistic. That's why I have 0 hope, and even if they fixed the avionics and all the rest, the FM will always be the n.1 reason why I don't touch the MiG-21 and won't trust future M3 modules. M3 really needs the help of some FM coders which I think they haven't had for several years now...

Speaking from a product management point of view, for HB it would make more sense to develop the A-6 first. This is a grumman aircraft, multicrew, t's out of service everywhere, it's a Navy airplane and from the same era as the F-14, so it checks literally all boxes for being the next product and something that fits a logical product development strategy. With that said, and as much as I'd totally love the A-6, a Tornado is sorely missing from the simulation landscape nearly as much as the F-14 was.

But don't you have a MiG-21 pilot in your team? Doesn't he have any documents or at least knows how it works?

Is this fixed now?

The flame is ok, what I don't really like is the spinning disc of fire inside the nozzle.

That, and because it has been the major attack platform in Europe for the past 30 years with nearly 1000 built, and still is for Italy, Germany and, lookie lookie, Saudi Arabia which is right in the Persian Gulf :thumbup:

I know the whole 80's thing etc. I get it and it's great, but: 1. could we have the option to instantly skip to the next/previous song? 2. can we have the option to hear the music also in external view? Thanks :thumbup:

Once the F-14 and Viggen are fully released, but yes, a Tornado would be absolutely fantastic!

F-14 has two low points: external sounds (not too bad but nto on par with F-18 and slightly bugged), and A/B effects. Neither of which are by any means terrible IMO, but could use an improvement especially considering the level of everything else in this module ;)

Constantly overshooting 3 wire with ball centered I know there was some discussion before, including a report of the Stennis being too small by a few feet or so. Not sure what it is, but while I am perfectly able to get consistent 3-wires in the F-14, with the F-18 flying the ball all the way to the deck ALWAYS ends up in a 4 wire or even a bolter. To get a 3-wire I have to keep the ball one unit below the center. I have even tried to "fly" the ball in F11 view, and I end up several feet in front of the 4 wire if I keep the camera centered on the ball all the way to the deck. Now, I would doubt my piloting skills if I weren't able to fly the ball properly, but this is not the case anymore, besides, I do it with the F-14 which is arguably harder to land. Do you have any ideas? Is this happening to you as well? could it be a bug? Thanks!

Lol because *somebody* changed the title after moving it from the bug section :music_whistling::music_whistling::music_whistling::music_whistling::music_whistling:

It sounds like it has been ripped from some youtube video, I doubt they would have such bad sound quality if this was a purpose-made recording

How is this a topic for the wishlist?????????????? It's a bug not a wish, and it wasn't there before the last update.

Since the last update, the nozzles jump from full open to less than 100% position when quickly advancing the throttle to full AB from IDLE and back. watched in slow-mo as well, and it just jumps from one position to another without intermediate animations. The same cna be confirmed from the cockpit gauges. As as side-note, what about that RL F-18 pilot's comment that nozzles close by slightly advancing the throttles without increasing RPM or FF (and this is enough to start taxiing)?

Sorry to be the negative one on this happy bandwagon but... these are the most terrible sounds ever! I mean seriously, it only sounds half decent sitting at idle. There is a single file, no changes looking from the front or back of the plane, the flyby is awful, I don't know how you can even compare it to any of the other modules! Anyways, even though it's a step back, it's also a step forward as we have the first example of custom sounds in what, 4 or 5 years? Keep it up, but please, try to compare yourselves with the other 3rd parties and bring something of comparable quality to the table! The F-18 is the gold standard right now.

Thanks for chiming in! I think a rise in RPM should also happen when the nozzle closes, so it doesn't seem to be just a visual bug.

Internal sounds are ok IMO, but external sounds are really a low point. I think there is something wrong because there is a constant "afterburner" jet noise even at idle RPM and the volume of that sound doesn't scale with distance as much and as well as other modules do. The Harrier has the same issue: if there is a harrier or F-14 idling at the opposite side of the airport, you can hear it so loud that it covers pretty much any other aircraft's noise including your own, with canopy open.

According to Natops (and the F-16 as well - same engine), in SEC mode the nozzle closes completely and there is a slight rise in RPM. This is not currently modeled in the F-14.

Again today flying on Aerobatics online, some random guy jumped in the backseat and as expected, it was impossible to contact the tanker for either of us. There is definitely something wrong here, and it has nothing to do with radios or incorrect frequencies. We literally tried every radio on the jet, nothing works.