xxJohnxx

I get your point for those switches. There are benefits and disadvantages to both approaches I guess. However, just FYI, you can use a normal switch as you described when you edit your: DCS World\Mods\aircraft\MiG-21BIS\Input\joystick\default.lua For example, you can make the airbrake a one state switch with a line like this: {down=device_commands.Airbrakes,up=device_commands.Airbrakes,cockpit_device_id=devices.AIRBRAKE,value_down=1.0,value_up=0.0,name='Alternate Airbrakes On',category='Flight Controls'}, If you look through that default.lua you can quickly figure out the commands you want to adjust.

This has been a topic for discussion since release. Some users like the added realism with, some users don't. However, looking at it from a technical standpoint, there are only a few commands you could remove (the gear down lock would be one of them) without losing functionality. The gear up/neutral/down, the radar off/standby/on and all the other multiple key commands are quit important to the simulation because they change the behaviour of the systems. I am personally happy how it is now, I am doing lot's off stuff with the mouse anyway. When I bind my buttons to my hardware I always think about it, how difficult would it be to operate the control in a real situation? The gear lever? Easy to find by just taking a quick glance. Therefore it will be mapped to a button. Flaps? Easy to find again. To buttons they go. The radar off/standby/on switch? Small, not really "easy to feel" switch. Therefore I will operate it with the mouse.

Drag is not reducing logarithmically but squared. Meaning a high increase of drag when just gaining little speed. I can't judge if the current behaviour is realistic or not, but at least it seems you can exeed the IAS of 1300km/h in certain situations.

I guess it is a difficult thing to implement anyway. Not because the coding side is difficult, but because after implementing a quirk like that you will get pages worth of discussion about it not being realistic. Take the recent thread about nosewheel steering and the Kh-66 for example. Apparently most people here are for 100% realism even for weapons they don't necessarily have to carry. It is probably not likely to see the suggested feature being implemented, unindependent from it might or might not being useful. I guess for the devs it is probably the best to stick to 100% realism, which probably makes it easier to argue their design decision in front of the users.

No, if it is not ready it is not ready. Compare it to a car. You can drive a car without a radio, but you can't drive a car without wheels.

Real? Well all the electric trims I used (which where on general aviation aircraft) behaved about the same. It is generally a bit easier because of force feedback, but it is not to far off. Neither is trimming always alowing to level out and fly hands off. That's what the autopilot is for.

Agree to most of the stuff above. As mentioned above both Belsimtek and Leatherneck released pretty solid products. I have flown the UH-1H, the Mi-8, the F-86 and the MiG-21 all from day 1. All of the products had some bugs and also all of their flight modells were adjusted (normaly just minor changes though, except the UH-1H, which got improved (more realistic) over time), however I never got the impression: "this is a buggy mess". Yes, some things don't work and there might be a problem here and there, however well within reasonable limits. And if you don't try to destroy a whole army in your first flight, but instead go ahead and try and learn to properly fly the aircraft, which, if done at least to a somewhat consistent level, takes some couple of evenings worth flying, you probably won't even see those problems anyway. Also, it depends on the time you buy a beta product. While at the initial stage, you personally might want to wait because of the reasons you mentioned. However after a couple of weeks most of the bugs are fixed and the beta products are at pretty solid level. This is for example true for both the Mi-8c the F-86 and MiG-21 that all have been in beta for some time now.

Trimming is fine for me. Kinda what you expect from an older aircraft.

Apparently there will be a new GUI frontisde comming with EDGE. Hopefully they get the multiplayer GUI up to todays standarts as well.

Thanks! Not sure yet. Kinda out of ideas what to do.

This might help:

That's a very good question. I guess beam mode is used for getting the range on a jamming target, but I am not sure if you could guide a R-3R. This would actually be something worth trying out in the sim. Well yes, the radar can give you range (as could a simpler radar) but if you try to fight an enemy, the RP-22 has a lot of advantages over the RP-21. While you loose the capability to fire RS-2US you get the benefit of firing the R-3R. That alone together with the improved situational awareness probably is enough that speaks for the RP-22. And even with the IR missiles the RP-22 is quit useful. In bad weather conditions, at night or even during the day, it is much easier to get a lock with one of the IRs if you have locked the target with the radar first. If you bring the locked-target symbol on the radar screen into the circle (that is showing up in the middle, lower part of the screen) you have the target right in the IR seeker bore-sight. Once the IR return is big enough, the seeker will immediately pick up the target, without you having to move the nose across the horizon hoping for your IR seeker to find the target.

Well, not only for the R-3R. The RP-22 radar has some big advantages over the older RP-21. Some of the differences are: - Higher frequency - Change of the basic operation mode (Glimmertracking ("Flimmerpeilung") was changed to Monopulse-Tracking). - Signal processing -Off-bore tracking (tracks 30° off-bore sight in all directions except towards ground (because of ground clutter reflections). The RP-21 couldn't do this, you had to have the target directly in front of you to lock and track it). On the RP-21 (and subsequently the RP-22) the beam mode was actually intended for use against airborne jamming targets or whenever other disturbing signals could prevent normal operation. The RP-21 originally did not send any orientation information, used by both the RS-2US and Kh-66, when being operated in fixed beam mode. Fixed beam mode was just used for ranging. With the introduction of the Kh-66 however, the RP-21 was adjusted to also send orientation information when in fixed beam mode, which allowed it to fire both the RS-2US and the Kh-66 in that mode. While the RP-22 radar, which the MiG-21Bis has, can also be operated in fixed beam mode, it is a bit different. The frequency was changed from 2.4GHz (RP-21) to 3.2GHz (RP-22), and no orientation information was sent. Therefore you could neither guide the RS-2US nor the Kh-66 with the Bis. While in theory they could have adjusted the Kh-66 to the higher frequency and changed how the RP-22 operates (both being quit complicated/expensive) at a later point, it is pretty unlikely given the fact that the Bis wasn't really a ground pounder and if it would have been really necessary they would have included it from the start.

This post I made a while back explains the technical reasons why neither the RS-2US nor the Kh-66 were usable with the RP-22. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2220318&postcount=3

Both the RS-2US and the Kh-66 could not be guided by the new RP-22 radar, as the RP-21 had a different method of tracking. The RS-2US definatelly could not be launched by the Bis, and the Kh-66 has the same guidance systems, so the existing Kh-66s are definatelly incompatible. While it might has been possible that there was a Kh-66 with adopted guidance, it is very unlikely.

DCS World\Mods\aircraft\MiG-21BIS\Entry\03_Views.lua Line 10: CameraViewAngleLimits

This was ment ironically, as both SAMs and MANPADS are currently just not realistic.

+1

So you want the Kh-66 removed?

Not on the small map we have right now. Even on the longest distances between to airports available currently, you will hardly reach cruise altitude with that bird before you have to descent again. The M$ Flight crowd that flies such type of aircraft probably would not be very interested into that.

The SPS-141-100 seems to be broken for now. It does not detect any AI radar locks, neither does it jam any enemy radar systems. The enemy AI is not affected by it at all.

Which skin are you using there? One skin exists that is used for testing and therefore has different textures as you are experiencing.

Instead of the fixed beam mode you can also hold down the "lock" button. When you to that, and there is no target within the TDC gate, the radar scans a narrower scan pattern which decreases scanning time and can make locking the targets a bit easier.

Missions can not add anything to your DCS Installation, so that shouldn't be the problem. If the repair didn't help, it seems to point towards the graphic card. What card are you using? Did you download a newer version of drivers?

This free simulator here might be relevant to this whole discussion. For the guys that don't know it: SAMSIM is a one man project, in which several old sam systems are modelled 'realistic to the switch'. Currently the SA-2, SA-3, SA-4, SA-5, SA-8 and the mighty Shilka are simulated. You can play on the training range or you can play in one of multiple realistic scenarios (Vietnam, Serbia, iron border, etc.). You will also play against different enemies, from B-52 Bombers to F-16s flying SEAD and DEAD trying to hunt you down. In my perspective it is very interesting to get to the other side of those smoke plumes and try out the different tactics involved and how the systems can be used. It also shows how bad DCS is modelling the SAM systems in some of the more advanced areas.