bkthunder

Thanks man, will do. I won't be at home for a few days, when I get back I'll do soem testing and see how that goes. Thanks a lot for your time trying to help me out ;)

@Frag I used the F9 view from the carrier and zoomed a lot. @TOViper, next video I make I'll give it a go. Actually I first look for the song, then I make the video to fit... I guess I work in reverse :D

I actually moved the page file to another drive where I have more space, set to system managed. So far I didn't get a CTD, instead the game "crashes" back to the main screen (like getting kicked by the server). Well, better than before I guess...:huh:

Jonne summed up some good points. There are more, but trust me, everybody asks the same thing and to write a list of bugs all the time is pointless. That's why you were pointed to bug sections etc. The truth is most bug reports are old but they have not been addressed. The FM itself has seen so many radical and opposing changes through the years, it basically became impossible to tell what is realistic and what not, other than the obvious flaws such as the hardcoded stall behaviors, the AoA etc. which are obvious to anyone with a basic grasp of aerodynamics. The engine behavior is also scripted. The external sonds are the stock Su-25 sounds and are just terrible. You can steer on the ground at walking speed just by using the rudder, and this aircraft has a castoring nosewheel (i.e. you steer by differential braking only, at least until the speed is such that your rudder has enough aerodynamic authority) ETC.

That's because these people are talking about two completely different things. The people that say don't buy it are doing so because the module is flawed and simply not a study sim. Other people love it because "it's great fun" or "it's not fly-by-wire and the textures are nice, YAY!" Ace Combat is great fun too you know? Try before you buy makes all the sense in the world to me, especially when a single module is now more expensive than a full flight-sim used to be.

There are still things to fix / work on, even the control surfaces movement is off with flaps down.. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=218215

I have page file set to automatic...

I keep having out of the blue CTD, no logs produced. I attach here the onyl log I could find. There random crashes happen in MP mostly, I was flying in TTI, only few players online. It happened twice this morning, once with AV-8B, once with Viggen, always when I was near a target area populated with AAA and SAMs. dcs.rar

That surely is not the experience we are getting with the MiG-21. There are open bugs that are 4 years old, no fix. When talking about buying a module (this vs. that), there are many opinions about how good it is, how fun it is etc. But all of these should be measured starting from a common point: this is a study sim. So sure, the MiG-21 is playable, you can shoot stuff, it's fun to land. But does it do all those things in a realistic way, representing the real aircraft?

Better head over to the MiG-21 section and have a read. My 0.02$, don't even consider buying it. Go for the Mirage, it's in a much better state and Razbam is actively (even if slowly) adding things and fixing / updating it.

Yeah I agree, I mean, I have no knowledge of the inner workings of DCS and surely the damage modeling of ground units can be improved, but the lack of visible damage is the main point. How does a unit behave when the health is low but there is no visible damage? Is that truck still able to drive around if the health is, say, 30%?

I'm surprised this isn't getting more attention. It's quite a basic part of how the Harrier engine works and has a great effect on the realism of vertical landings. In fact, what I have to do now is to wait a few seconds with nozzles fully forward and brakes set until the engine spools down enough, to avoid moving forward when I touch down. In real life, the engine spools down very quickly and the pilot can rotate the nozzles back as soon as he is safely on the ground.

Trust me, art is the only part of this module that is excellent. The rest...well..:music_whistling:

Thanks Bunyap, that's exactly the kind of detail I was looking for! Mind if I ask how you calculated that pressure rise would be 3 psi?

Yeah that's clear, but it doesn't always give a 2% RPM rise, sometimes it's less even though the temperautre is nowhere near the limit...

Checked the manual, and it definitely doesn't change FOV in the TPOD / HTS mode. What it does is set the TPOD in slave mode (which doesn't work correctly btw).

+1. Please fix this, it's been fixed in almost all other modules and it's extremely annoying.

When the beacon is on, the light affects the inside of the cockpit, while it should be impossible to see it, since there is the whole fuselage between the beacon and the cockpit...

This is very strange, I just tried to make sure and on my PC, with TPOD in HTS mode, the NWS button just undesignates the target, while the Sesnor select swith left cycles between WD/NR fov...

Selecting the SEL/CMBT button and going full throttle doesn't really seem to produce any noticeable effect, other than *sometimes* a 1-2% increase in top-end RPM. In most cases I have not seen RPM go higher than 109% (which is the normal limit, not the combat thrust rating). Can anyone with more knowledge add their $0.02 and explain what is this supposed to do? Am I missing some keystrokes to maybe push the throttle further forward (like the gate in the mustang)? Thanks

What I'm asking is basically why a soft target like a truck didn't get completely destoryed with a 500lb bomb hitting just a few feet away from it. What is the logic / physics behind this behavior? Is that what would actually happen in reality? Which brings up another point: I understand DCS has only 2 states for objects (dead or alive), so in that case wouldn't it make more sense to have the object be 0% to 49% = dead, and 50% to 100% = alive, rather than alive and kicking till it's absolutely at 0% health? Regardless of the "amount of health" left, wouldn't you agree that IRL that truck would be at least damaged to the point of being totally disabled?

A while ago I posted about what was, apparently, missing blast damage for bombs and rockets. I was told by Wags that blast damage is indeed modeled. So, in the screenshots below you see a hit from a Mk-82 coming off an AV-8B. The truck received no damage, as far as I can tell that's not an armored truck (just a flatbed, with barrels of fuel on it). Given that blast damage is modelled, can anyone with better knowledge than me, explain what is the logic behind a simple truck not exploding in these conditions? Is it a bug or is it realistic? :huh:

Funny thing is, everyone has the same experience of bombs and rockets being useless unless you direct hit, but if you report it you get the offical answer that blast radius is modeled correctly...:music_whistling:

Another art update? Not holding my breath...

The problem is no one would spend money to buy the rights to a product that is not generating revenue... To be fair, I think the MiG-21 should be a very popular module, but probably many people in this community already have it, not sure how much more there is to chew. It would be great if someone could buy it, fix it for good and re-launch it (of course we already paid, so we just need to be delivered the product we bought...not pay for it again)