pepin1234

I have seen hard touchdowns and never see a nose up bounce like that we get in DCS. I know what I am taking about. 2 days ago happen to me. I got a engine malfunction and yes I touchdown with a bit more than 300km/h I got a fatal lost with the comical bounce nose up all the way until I crashed. I know I was a little hurried up because my failure but also was not so crazy out of parameters. I know how to land the MiG-29 but sometimes that happen and the very weird is that this only happen with MiG-29 more and more often.

I have seen Mig-29 landing at more than 300km/h. Could be a hard touchdown but do you really think is for get a response of a big bounce as we getting right now. I mean if we bounce is ok, but we are talking about a high bounce that make you lost the total control. This is only my point.... the bounce is so high that we finish in a fatal lost.

I don’t see wishes threads here so I will post this here as it is a helicopter add. I would like increase score with my transport mission in Helicopters. I have Mi-8 module but because we don’t get score with transportation I don’t feel so exited with transport helicopters. I think is not fair do our job transporting troops and all remain as we didn’t something. My idea is give to the on board troops a value of points. That value could be made by the mission designer. To be fair. This Value must be share in half with a possible action by a first person player as CA. Example: I pick up 7 infantry units in the airport. This squat will have about 2 man rockets with RPG. The mission is drop this squat 7 km away a enemy position. If the RPG unit destroy an enemy armor, then the value set by misión editor (all, quarter, half) should be added to my score points. So if the RPG destroy a BTR with a game score value of 25 points, then the transport player should get 12 points score, the rest can be added in case a first person player use this infantry in a possible upgrade first person in the future. I honestly will like get some score with the transportation and we can make it posible with our player job. We need some work in this regards by developers because the transport is a little forgotten. As this is as well helicopter I will post this in the Mi-8 forum. Thanks

I honestly don’t finde any sense with An-2 in DCS. If the developer already have an advanced An-2 model and enough work hours on it and worth it the time, then is ok. I will like instead a MiG-3 or Yak-3. Of course La-5 and Yak-9 will be better. An-2 is a passenger aircraft. Also used for post transport. Not really useful in military.

Yes there are videos with good landing. As well you, me and whoever can replicate a well done landing. If you can do it well is not the point... the real deal is when you touchdown a little bit faster than 350km/h and you make the touchdown with a little bit higher vertical speed... or a little bit nose up... THEN HAPPEN!! The MiG-29 bounce straight up with nose up almost 20 meters. Is not accepted... because they are closing the doors for the people don’t accomplish a narrow range or error they set for landing MiG-29 in a unrealistic manner. When pilots experience that they will not like take the MiG-29 again because they gonna find this hard landing and they will get kill themself trying to land MiG-29. Obviously this gonna make MiG-29 useless for the majority of the players, mostly new ones. I had a friend that he was a permanent MiG-29 pilot. After all the upgrades they did I have never seen again this guy in DCS. One time I contact him and he told me ED have downgrade everything for MiG-29 and is not anymore possible do it well. This is the history who experience success with MiG-29 years ago.... tell me what will say a new player when experience this bounce to the sky landing...?

Maybe because it is a incoming threat. I think is a normal behavior if this is the case. Tactics for ships are not the same as a ground air defense that can be cover. The ships is in open Sea... they must keep defending itself.

I guess was already reported and is no needs to continue upload track. That’s why the [REPORTED] on the thread name was made... should we continually keep posting landing tracks?

if you make a search you will find old threads talking about this issue from the very beginning the Flight physics was upgraded. How come happen that we bounce 20 meters. what kind of physics we got them? and yes is the harder to land for sure. I have all migs and Su and never experience so awful landing, only that happen with Mig-29.

This is not a bug. The Mig-29 is the most hard to land of all the players aircraft and is wrong that landing. The landing behavior is absolutely wrong. Giving you so small errors allowed. Seem that is a programmed trigger that ruin the landing when you slightly over pass some parameters. That was made so from the first day MiG-29 received new flight physics and have been without a fix from developers. Does not matter how long remain like so. They don’t care Edit: the branded [REPORTED] in the name of thread is there for more than 2 years, probably 3. That show you very clear they don’t care and wanted the landing so for some reason. I have a track that proof this behaves still is not fixed.

Currently have we damage levels implemented for supercarrier? I am talking about the functionality damage that in certain % damaged the sensors and systems fail.

I can’t answer your question but seem to me they are doing and redoing the same without showing a clear progress. And what we can see they spend more time in others modules than in MiG-23 as their Facebook show...

I was testing the 052B and 093 sub, Nice job. I understand that is WIP and still need more code for torpedoes. Not only for the torpedoes itself, also for the countermeasures. I think ED have a lot of work to do on this regard. Meanwhile the Kh-27 could be coded to do some antisub task. What is the plan for the Sea operation in the near future?

Was mention by the developers somewhere in this forum

Yes you right. But also all depend if Russia provide the APU pylon or they take it from other MiG-29. Of course both cases for Syria pass as well for some others countries

Yes the developers told already we will get the Soviet ML version. That’s why the SPO-15. I will love the countermeasures dispensers because other wise we will go nuts. I don’t now if that special version have it.

the last 2.5.6 version is buggy. just left wait until next update

The mod is not yet finished. I guess FC3 should be installed.

Also Cuba Recently received about two batches of last export versions of R-73. Will be so stupid believe those R-73 will be for the few MiG-29 still operational (I believe not more than 6 units). Obviously Cuba increase with this mod the carriers units for that Missile.

You must keep talking about one of the upgrades in the MiG-21-93. This R-73 missile mod on the Cubans and Indians 21bis have been taken from the MiG-21-93. Is not an indigenous Cuban mod. Was made by the MiG team on charge for that project. That’s why we must say this mod is part of the MiG-21-93. As mention before. The same mod was implemented on Indians units that didn’t received the whole 21-93 upgrades.

Just confirm ones again. Our Soviet ML version will have the same RWR we find in MiG-29 (I don’t remember the type name), countermeasures dispensers, and what else?

I think your question is already answer. All the MiG-21Bis in decent condition can receive the upgrades or part of the upgrades. Including the R-73. I don’t know what you mean about a specific aircraft... as mention before Cubans and Indians MiG-21 received the R-73. I don’t know other country with this upgrade. The amount of upgrades have to do in what the client can pay or airframe condition. As the Magic I was used in combat in Iraqi Mig-21, the R-73 was used by Indian Mig-21 upgrades, that standard that Indians called Bison but as all the airframe was not in condition to receive the whole Mig-21-93 upgrades some of the units lack the reinforced wing, canopy and sensors. You are asking for a specific unit, aircraft? You always can call the Indian Minister of Defence and Cuban Minister of Defence for more dumb questions. Your question is like: MiG-35 can’t be make in DCS with Thrust Vectoring because you still don’t see a single Mig-35 with this engines. Is a matter of what the client buy.

The mod was part of the MiG-21-93. India because they had enough MiG-21 units at that moment in good condition for that upgrade. At the same time Russia was not able to restart the production of MiG-29 and the idea for that moment was the upgrade. Including the R-73 in that upgrade. Cuba is in a deep economic crisis and still they can’t buy new Migs. That’s why the mod. If the aged airframes were worth it for that job, that is a different discussion. Since 2000s Russia managed to restart the Migs production so no need for that mod anymore.

Trying to convince people R-60 is good enough to not look to R-73 upgrade... give me a break. Will be a pleasure have this outstanding missile in 21bis inventory. The difference in our point is that you want to dictate what is right and what is good in name of the whole DCS community as a spokesman... Is as simple as give to 21bis an improvement made in real life. As a request. That’s why the thread was made for. You can spend paragraphs with your opinions against a formally request. As Hiromachi point is giving only the Magic I missiles as an option to simulate a real life conflict against F-14A. Such idea is really welcome in my opinion. While you want to close the door to a missile to the general players. Even more important, R-73 was already used in real combat by an Indian Mig-21 in last year border incident. For your understanding the Bison upgrade was not uniformed implemented in every unit. You will find some MiG-21 upgrades in India not called a 100% Bison upgrades. Not all countries with MiG-21 were able to have MiG-29 pylons to make this mod as Cuba and India did.

Hiromachi told is more probably make only Magic I because Iraqi used it in combat as a modification. What about the use in combat of Aim-9X and we have it right now shooting down MiG-21bis from the Cold War in the sim. You can read in this thread: we don’t know the wires connection. The IR light should be adapted. The pylons should be adapted. The radar is not compatible. A bunch of stupidities never hear before in DCS and we can see It here when someone ask for a new short range missile mod as IRL show.

I understand you all with your negativity for R-73. The things is we are free people with money that pay what we can buy. I am really sorry to hear Hirmoachi telling the no go for R-73. We suddenly see Aim-9X and Igla in other modules and someone tell R-73 and Vaann! You have an armament menu to choose what you think is right for you. Let the people be happy. People here asking for a new stuff and others telling that should not happen. This is nasty! There are new simmers in the game and it is a smart move bring something new still IRL.