bkthunder

Thanks for reporting it, I was about to post the same thing. This is quite annoying.

I just flew a mission in the totally pitch-black night of 2.5, and I have found the Harrier to be absolutely uselss in these conditions. This is definitely down to a lack of proficiency on my side with this aircraft, and probably on the other hand due to the many missing features, but what really stand out for me are the following issues: 1. The FLIR image, both on the HUD and on the MFD is so high contrast that you can't see anything except buildings 2. The TPOD image is the same as the FLIR, it's incredibly hard to make out anything, the buildings are green blocks, the rest is pitch black 3. Unable to slave TPOD to the ARBSS aiming point 4. The NVG goggles have no gain controls I'm sure things will be refined, but was the current "image quality" coming from the TOPD and FLIR wanted, or is it still under tuning?

The default head position in the A-10C is wrong, plain and simple. If you look straight down you see that the viewpoint is hovering just above the control stick, instead of being close to the headrest. The hud is sized to match that wrong head position, so when you move back where your head should be, parts of the hud are cut off. As far as I see, the A-10 is the only module with this problem. I don't think ED ever acknowledged the issue, so I doubt it'll ever get fixed. Either play with the default view (which sucks), or move back and raise the seat till you can see the compass at the bottom of the hud, and accept that you loose the top part of the hud.

The server is generally a great experience, but is there a reason why you place Harriers at "road bases" where: a: you can't refuel or re-arm b: the road is full of light poles, so you can't take off c: you can't do a vertical takeoff to avoid the light poles because of "a" At the same time, harriers are not found at any airbase. So basically, it's extremely hard to fly Harriers on this server.

Thanks for explaining your point, it's clear now ;) I think the FM in this model is just broken. After all, this is the oldest 3rd party module in DCS, and it was developed in a fragmented way (Beczl, then LN). I wouldn't be surprised if the "EFM" of this MiG-21 would be more akin to an embellished SFM, in fact it does feel very scripted during stalls etc, like flipping a switch. I would love for anyone to take this module up, and bring it up to DCS standards. I also feel ED should guarantee more quality control, because they are the ones putting the DCS label on it at the end of the day, and we (used?) to trust that label. Here we are with an unfinished product, 4 years into "early access" and there's not even the shadow of a roadmap to fix the issues. No word form the devs, nothing. Even a "Sorry, we fu**ed up and we don't know how to fix it" would be far more acceptable than this rubber wall. This community has a lot of passion and heated conversations, but it's also very understanding and forgiving when devs are transparent. ED should buy the rights to this project from LN, and finish it.

+1

In a module that fails to properly simulate basic stuff such as afterburner engagement sequence and castering nosewheel, do you seriously think they simulated AoA probe errors due to low battery voltage?? :doh:

Yes, people do, and the keyword is "improve".

Since officially the MiG-21 is still under development, 4 years after the release, are we going to have type-specific external sounds, rather than the stock Su-25 ones? Every other 3rd party module has proper sounds...

The point is (in case you actually didn't get it): the manual didn't change 25 times in the past 4 years, but the FM did.

This MiG-21 has gone through so many extreme (and opposing) changes in its FM, at each stage labelled as "the most realistic", that it's just impossible to trust these devs on FM anymore. Is it realistic now that it falls like a rock? Was it realistic then, when you could cruise all day long at 50º AoA? Same thing applies to aileron rolls, stalls etc.

This project is dead. The only reasonable courses of action are: A: declare it dead and refund B: ED takes it up and fixes it

Oh, and let's not forget, if there is a sim today that can do an aerobatic-prop-driven airplane justice, it's DCS. Torque rolls and gyroscopic maneuvers have never been properly replicated by any sim, maybe only X-plane got close, but DCS is unparalleled in the FM department.

Fully agree. With how nice the scenery is looking now, there is definitely an argument for "recreational" flying. Of course, a full set of Navaids and civilian AI traffic would be great too :D

Bump, would be nice to hear a word from the devs on this one.

It's a matter of what you advertise vs. what you actually sell. If it said "great looking 3D model with approximate rendition of the FM and systems", then I would have probably skipped buying it OR I would have bought it knowing the limitations, as I did with FC3. But it was (and is) advertised as a highly realistic simulation, which is not, and that's after 3+ years. The fact that it is enjoyable as it is (for me it's not, but everyone has different tastes/priorities), is irrelevant. The relvant part is: they put a price tag on a box with a product description. The product doesn't match the description.

It's such a unique airframe, it has many trade-offs to be able to be a VTOL fighter. I surely hope they nail the nuances of the flight model or it would be a big detriment form the authenticity of the module.

This has been around for ages, during wing-flex the right wing has a hole.

Reading the Natops manual, I found some interesting things about the Harrier's limitations and peculiar traits that make this a very interesting aircraft to fly. For example the manual speaks about learning to fly 3 different airplanes in one, with different behaviors according to the speed / altitude regime that you're flying at. High AoA departures seem to be something to really look out for at high altitude, hard maneuvering above M .78 is a big no-no, also departures due to loaded rolls or excessive sideslip are strongly emphasized in the manual. Another interesting thing is the "Refueling probe effect". I understand the FM is under heavy development, and currently it doesn't exhibit any of the above characteristics, but are these things going to be modeled in the final version?

I agree, but I think they should be held accountable for selling a product that was never finished. In most industries this is a breach of contract. We should start to take these things more seriously if we want to encourage more quality in 3rd party offerings. These are actual registered companies, and should be held accountable for what they sell, just as anybody else does. Voting with our wallets is one thing, but if you're advertising something as "the most realistic etc..." and then produce a beta that never gets finished, a refund is in order. We have not bought into a kickstarter campaign, where you bet on a project knowing that your money could be lost / wasted. We bought an early access product that by all means should have been finalized. This kind of business practice really stinks.

Great info! Thanks! And the model looks fantastic, if you ever make a fully fledged DCS module out of it, I'll definitely buy it. The best aerobatic team deserves a DCS representation :thumbup:

Thanks for confirming this, CptSmiley! :thumbup::thumbup:

What does the rotary on the throttle do? Is it for the gunsight distance control?

+1.000.000.000

Well, that's not true. SAS on or off makes no difference, and if the SAS was really compensating, the ailerons would move when applying rudder, to counteract the roll, which is not the case. P.S. I am not criticizing, I am simply reporting things in case Razbam aren't aware of them. I love this module and want to see it rendered properly in the FM department. I know Razbam can do a good job here, and I hope they will simulate the nuances of this awesome aircraft!