bkthunder

Glad to see some fixes and additions :thumbup: As for flying the plane, as long as there are bugs and inconsistencies that I consider big (such as this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232088&highlight=fuel+flow) I prefer to spend my little free time on modules that are more accurate at this stage and where I can better simulate RL procedures, the "S" in DCS is important for me ;) On the Harrier it's still not possible to perform a full start-up as per the checklist and there are still bugs and missing features in basic HUD symbology.

As per Natops checklist, functioning of emergency pump LOW/HI should be tested prior to engine start. However, if controls are deflected during the test (as prescribed by the manual), the LOW pump doesn't switch off when the switch is moved back to AUTO (LOW). Removing and reconnecting external power doesn't solve the problem as the pump turns on again as soon as ext power is reconnected. If controls are not deflected, the pump switches off as it should.

Returning to this part of the forum after a while, seems pretty quiet here. The Harrier still has big bugs and missing features, did everything grind to a halt once again and the community just gave up with hoping for a finished AND accurate simulation of this wonderful aricraft? :(

I opened a bug report months ago about this "turbo-prop" sound, and apparently it is realistic. In fact, if you do an F3 view above 350-400Kts, you'll hear the veyr nice and typical whine of the F-18. In F2 view, that whine (without the doppler effect) sounds like a prop. I read somewhere it's given by a change of air pressure going through the intakes..

I'll just throw a couple of thoughts out there: During the Mirage development, Razbam was by far the most communicative 3rd party ever. I've personally praised them more than once for how they handled bug reports etc. In fact, I bought the Harrier because I had trust in Razbam. However, the Harrier has proven a totally different experience and I am very disappointed. The M2000 was developed in cooperation with Metal2Mesh, who had already made a good FSX payware Mirage (as well as an F-15E I believe). The Harrier, OTOH, was made by Razbam alone, first for FSX and now "ported" over to DCS. I think Metal2Mesh added some degree of skills/quality that Razbam alone can't achieve, and the Harrier is a much more complex aircraft than the Mirage. Given the F-18 and Harrier share similar avionics, I bet Razbam has counted maybe too much on ED passing over F-18 tech to them (MFD pages, HUD and such). In a way, I really wish they could use what ED has made for the F-18 (where it makes sense), as the F-18 Avionics is undoubtedly high quality compared to the Harrier's. TLDR: They chewed more than they can swallow with the Harrier, maybe counting on more goodies from ED.

Well, I just had a dogfight with a Su-25 (AI) on GAW server, I had 3 PH, 2 Sparrows and 2 AIM-9, half fuel and no tanks. At 5k feet, with full AB I swear there was no way for me to keep up with the Su-25, he was running circles both horizontally and vertically around me. The Cat was as sluggish as a fulyl loaded A-10 and on a straight line the Su-25 was able to catch up with me as I was trying to gain some distance in full AB.... Provided DCS AI is as dumb and broken as a pile of rotten meat with worms inside, I am pretty sure the F-14 is a total hog in that configuration. Either that, or the FM has to be tuned.

Thanks Hiromachi, I didn't notice a difference as you reported, but I'll try it again. As you said, no AoA difference. I hope you can improve it! :thumbup:

+1

You're right, it's been like that for about "two weeks" :thumbup:

Ah good to know about the Tacan volume, is that realistic though? The big annoyance is the beacon lights though... I will never understand how these kind of bugs remain unresolved for years on end, considering they are right in your face and probably easy to solve. The F-5 could be a fully functional and bug-free module (a rarity).

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 ;)