Nereid

The keybinding for emergency braking on/off (default LCTL w) just enables the emergency brake but never release it. Disabling/releasing the brake by clicking in the cockpit seems to work.

I was just stumbling over this myself... Yes, we can remap them. But changing the default main keyboard shortcuts in the sim that controls view and view modes is very bad practise. What comes next? Changing the ESCAPE key for some Mig specific purposes? Please don't do this in your next module.

Well.... buy a better joystick then. Any good HOTAS will give you the option to map keys or a combination of keypresses and releases in any order to any button of the stick or throttle.

Track recording is still broken in the current build.

DCS World 1.5 beta Maybe it's not only an issue with the L-39 and I'm in the wrong forum but I have noticed that any track I have recorded when I do a cold start of the L-39 and using the keybord shortcuts for the APU start cover, APU start button, and the counterparts for the engine start button the track is broken (it doesn't reflect opening the button cover or pressing the button and therefore wont start the engine). If I do the same by clicking the controls directly in the cockpit the track is recorded fine.

I disagree completely. The current method won't work at all. This module is prefixed with "DCS" and this feature is a violation of this. Let's hope there is a mod someday that disables this switch.

Navigation is similar to other modules. Just search for tutorials on youtube and adapt it for the Mig-21. But you look for a way to find a ground target? Won't JTAC work with the Mig? Otherwise as YoYo said: RSBN+ARK+VFR.

If this is your argument in this discussion... well it tells us much. It seems we need a realism option for some people here: "[ ] gun cam switch affects existence of gun cam". Some (like me) want more realism and some are happy with less (I don't understand the point in playing a simulation then, but that's not my part to criticize).

Better a pointless button than a button that does things that it shouldn't do. What's next? IFF switches that changes aircraft skin in flight? A button for refilling fuel in flight? This switch is incorrectly modeled. It does things the real thing in the Mig-21 won't to. because this module is a DCS level module it's just done wrong. There is not much room to argue and it's just ridiculous to defend this. In other threads we are discussing way less important things (exact missile behavior, not enough or to much smoke,...) but regarding a switch that creates components in flight out of thin air we are accepting compromises? And some people are telling something like "to much realism"... really? This is a simulation, btw. We WANT realism, there can't be to much... Signed. One of the best options to implement it. If it's there and blocking sight, it should do exactly this: blocking sight. Turning it off should not remove this obstacle. If someone won't want it to block sight, he should just not load it. "turning it off and pretent it wasn't there" is cheating and not some kind of argument to retain the switch the way it is.

Thats not the point. The point is cheating, because thehe told us, "he pretend it wasn't there". thats cheating, nothing more. And the switch has a bug: It causes the gun cam to appear, which it should not do. In your words: Just remove the gun cam completely or implement it the correct way. period.

No. DCS is a simulation. Its simulates the real world up to a special degree. DCS simulates the aircraft and its systems but not external support or manpower for rearming (at least in its current state). So the current rearming of the aircraft as it is modelled is acceptable. But DCS standard simulates the aircraft systems and the cockpit. There is a switch called "gun cam". So what does it in the real plane? It provides power to the gun cam. Does it install the gun cam? NO. So if flipping this switch causes a gun cam to appear is not a simulation of this system/aircraft and therefore some kind of a bug - even when if it's intended by the devs. Again: No. DCS imulates the real world up to a special degree. DCS simulates the aircraft and its systems... but I'm repeating myself. Regarding the "pausing" and other things. There is no switch that pauses the game. If there were any, I would call it a bug, too. Pausing the game is done on a meta layer of the simulation and not in the simulation itself. And yes: if pausing were possible in multiplayer for some and not for other players, I would call this a bug,too. Summary: The gun cam switch is currently simulated in an incorrect way. There is not much to discuss here. It's just a bug or some kind of "broken by design", but its not a well done implementation. You could just argue, that these critics are nitpicking in some way. Yes they are. We are criticizing this module at a very hight level. But we all (including the devs) want a module on DCS standards and this switch won't comply with these standards at the moment.

Ok, I would like a switch to kill an enemy. In multiplayer too, please. And after I have used it, I pretend it wasn't there. Trust me, without much training I would be one of the best pilots out there. Among thousend of other pilots. All are the best of the best, all with very short lives. So, lets transfer DCS into a shooter...

Well, you like to cheat? because removing the gun cam in flight with a switch is some kind of cheating...

Mission editor, advanced waypoints.

This is wrong. The german air force would be part of the blue side (but the side doesn't matter, the nationality does) and the german air force had Mig-21 (and Mig-29) in their arsenal for some time. The Mig-21 was also exported to other countries like India, which are not part of the eastern block. So: A Mig-21 on the blue side DOES make sense, because it was in the NATO arsenal for a (short) time. Well. Then is even worse. because a F-86 CAN communicate with EWR if flown by a russian pilot. And they are communicating by voice, so there is no need for encryption receivers at all.

If no dedicated frequency is needed then this is obviously a bug. But I doubt this. Just add an AWACS in a mission, change the radio channel and try to connect. If this works for every channel, then there is something wrong. If it won't work, you NEED a dedicated frequency. But that wasn't the question. And even in a campaign, the briefing should tell you this.

You have to set the frequency yourself in the ME (advanced waypoint options).

The fixed net is bound to the switches RV55 and RV56 (gyros for NPP, SAU, radar and KPP and DA-200, NPP). if any of these switches is of, the fixed in the HUD net is off. Is this the intended behaviour? Why is the fixed net related to gyros, SAU, NPP, KPP or radar? I understand RV33 but RV55 and RV56?

Just a question: Is an implementation of the circuit breakers planed? They are not of great usage, but the other DCS modules have them. In the Mig-21 they are not working.

Well, how about different german dialects? I want a northern german, because I'm from Kiel. In Kiel we speak a little different than our fellow countrymen in Eckernförde of course. So a Kieler and and Eckernförde dialekt please. Not to forget that one of Munich or from the "Schwabenland". Some dialekts in east Germany are funny, too... And some female voices please. :doh: Well... no. This won't stop. I'm from Germany, but I really DON'T want german voices in DCS. English is just fine.

That's what I said. :)

Strange... On my Mig-21 the other axis is incorrect. Yaw is indicated correctly, but pitch is reversed... Well... the construction tolerances seems to be quite high on the Fishbed... ;)

As Fishbreath said: What if a western nation/aircraft supports an eastern coalition using EWR? The aircraft doesn't matter. Even in a Superhornet they would not be able to call any EWR at the moment. But if an F-18 is flown by a russian or ukrainian pilot, he can communicate with EWR. All western pilots are speaking english only and the EWR just russian and no english at the moment... I would call this inconsistent at least.

Take a look: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=130723

Yes, but if you would, the guncam appears -> immersion destroyed. EDIT: If we don't use this button, why not using it as a quickstart? Not a good idea? Why? if you don't want a quickstart, you could leave it alone. Why not just use another button for destroying a target? If you do not want to destroy it this way, just leave the button alone. Maybe it's now more clear, what I meant to say...