streakeagle

The radar was another difference as well as the fuel capacity and empty weight. I could live with using a bis for an MF, but the very common MiG-21F-13 and to some extent the PF/PFM/PFMA series are in many ways very different aircraft than the bis. I would really like to see the F-13 in DCS World. It was far more historical significance than any MiG-19 variant or later MiG-21s with extensive combat service nearly everywhere over a couple of decades. It also makes for better DACT against US heavy fighters like the F-4 and F-8 with its lighter weight but lower power setup. Visually, I happen to love the appearance of the early production PFM with the tilt-forward canopy, slim spine, and tall tail. Give me one of those with a belly gun pack and I would be very happy. Of course, without the gun pack and only a pair of R-3 missiles, it wouldn't be the most effective fighter, but I would love to fly it anyway. I wish DCS World developers could afford to provide more variants of major aircraft. I love the subtle differences in variants as combat experience and technology improvements led to almost continuous production changes. Unfortunately for me, the economics of such detailed, realistic development versus the marketability of multiple variants leave me stuck with "latest/best" instead of the early and/or historically significant ones I would prefer.

I love Korea servers. The MiG-15bis and F-86F Sabre are two of the best modules in DCS World. All of the fun of flying jets without AMRAAM and AIM-9L/Ms. My only problem is that the Korea servers are not as populated as even the Cold War server.

I recently started participating in online multiplayer. I have little interest in trading AMRAAMs. This server is consistently the most populated of the cold war themed ones, and therefore where I have been spending most of my online time. Thank you for hosting it! The MiG-21bis was once my favorite DCS module, and now that it finally has a decent flight model and some of the other problems patched up, it has become my favorite again. Clearly, this is the best option for enjoying the MiG-21bis right now. My problem is that I prefer the older aircraft and the older versions of a given aircraft. So, I would rather have Vietnam and 1973 Yom Kippur versions of MiGs, F-4s, F-5s, etc. I would prefer F-14A, F-15A, F-16A, and F/A-18A to what we have now. At least the F-14A is coming fairly soon. But I doubt the other "A" models will ever come to DCS.

How do you use SRS with the A-4 Skyhawk? I have SRS and VACIOM Pro integrated and with that setup, VAICOM Pro doesn't recognized the Skyhawk as having a radio.

This should be some kind of stickied post. I had no idea why the canopy wouldn't close sometimes. Now I know :P

Here is someone asking about it for their nVidia gpu/tv combination. Use this discussion to search the internet for more info on 4:4:4, because if you aren't already using 4:4:4, you should be. https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/forums/geforce-graphics-cards/5/183161/uhd-tvs-providing-4k60hz-with-444-choma-hdmi-20/

Color limitations can be from the TV not supporting the wider color spectrum or it can be from the particular color format being selected by windows/gpu driver over the HDMI cable. The 4K signal pushed the limits of HDMI bandwidth, so some hardware needs to either keep the refresh rate down to 30 Hz or sacrifices color capacity to hit 60 Hz. But even if your TV's HDMI port and HDMI cable supports the full color format at 60 Hz, Windows/gpu driver might not have automatically chosen to use it. I haven't messed with this in a while, so I would have to look up the exact settings you need to look at. I had studied it before choosing a TV and played with it when I first got my 4K TV.

I would pay for an E-1. I prefer mainstream, historically significant variants to the present strategy of leaning towards the last/best variant flown. Give me aircraft that fought the most, not rare, low production birds that never saw combat.

ADF should be active the moment the NAV mode is placed in DF. The ADF position on the radio doesn't do anything on aircraft with the NAV mode switch. From 1-103 in the section on TACAN:

Limitations of the color palette being used cause that type of banding. i.e. in the old days of CRTs, 16-bit color tended to have that kind of banding compared to playing in 32-bit color. Different TVs have different color capabilities... especially over an HDMI cable with a 4K signal. When you start reading up on it, you will find it a little confusing as there are several different standards depending on available bandwidth and hardware capabilities. Depending on the model of TV, it can also matter which HMDI port you use to get the maximum quality signal possible for PC purposes and you may have to manually specify the color format being used rather than relying on the gpu/windows drivers to pick what is best for you. Some TVs may not support the highest quality formats over an HDMI cable to a PC. My old (2006) 46-inch 1080p Mitsubishi LCD TV had one of the best color ranges you could get back then on the relatively new large panel TVs. It had a even dedicated VGA port to guarantee PC compatibility. Yet it tended to have banding issues on blue skies.

Alter the F-5E Nevada instant action dogfight mission against the F-14 so that the player is flying a MiG-21bis with whatever loadout you like, and have some fun. You start behind the F-14, but with no speed and he is climbing hard to reverse back into you. If you like missiles, you can get him with SARH or IR, but I prefer to fight the same way I do when I fly the F-5E: go for guns. With good flying and good timing, the AI F-14 can be beat. But if you don't execute efficiently, it ends up being like the MiG-21bis instant action dogfight against the F-4: you can stay behind him for quite some time, but can't ever pull enough lead to shoot. If he gets behind on your 6, it is more than possible to win a rolling scissors and spit him out in front of you. But if you stick to guns, it is hard to recover enough energy to point your nose to shoot after doing so. But it is pretty easy to set up R-60 shots if you are more of a missile person. Overall, if you don't kill the F-14 with missiles at the very beginning, this is great training on learning how to efficiently get your nose around. Because if you are too inefficient, the F-14 will come around and shoot you. He won't hesitate to use missiles or guns as required.

I play on a 49-inch TCL 4K TV. It looks and plays fantastic.

I have a Warthog throttle. I have a Winwing throttle. I am adapting a real F-4 throttle. But I would much rather have an adaptable throttle quadrant with lever options similar to the way you can swap stick grips. Thrustmaster created the Cougar with the F-16 grip, but left it open for having a variety of compatible grips. It took them many years to get around to it, but they finally made a 2nd grip for their Warthog giving you a choice between an F/A-18 or F-16 grip. Then VKB and Virpil pop up with the ability to take TM grips and add them to their various grip options. I am in heaven with all of my VKB grips and both TM grips adapted to fit. If I were VKB or Virpil, I would study the throttle quadrants being used in both commercial and military aircraft and design a modular box with 1 lever/axis and the option to easily connect more than one box together to build throttles with as many levers as you need. Each lever would be a stub with some sort of electrical connector for snapping on or screwing on various lever options. The range of motion should be mechanically configurable and calibrated in software so that you could match almost any range of motion used by real aircraft throttle levers. For an F-16, you would need one "box" with one F-16 throttle lever/handle to install on that box's "stub". For WW2 aircraft, it could be two, three, or more boxes to cover all the possible levers of single and multi engine prop aircraft from fighter to bombers. There could be aircraft specific kits with all the required levers and a semi-replica box to mount arrange them correctly. There could even be discrete lever boxes with dx buttons for each position rather than solely analog lever boxes with options for 2-position, 3-position or more. With configuration software comparable to what VKB provides with their sticks, a single analog lever with optional detent plates could replicate both discrete and analog levers in a single package. I can see this so clearly in my mind and I can see having a bench stocked with a bunch of the base lever boxes and lots of aircraft specific levers to plug and play as needed whenever I feel like flying a particular aircraft. My dream would be to have two generic flight sim pits where I could swap controls quickly and easily to have matched dueling pairs... WW2 fights like P-51/Spitfire/P-47 vs Bf109/Fw190, Korea with F-86 vs MiG-15, Vietnam with F-4/F-8 vs MiG-19/MiG-21, and modern with F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18 vs MiG-23/MiG-29/Su-27/ I already enjoy flying various aircraft with the correct stick using a single base and several grips, why can't someone figure out how to do something like this for throttles in a way that would be cost-effective for end users and profitable for the manufacturer?

I wanted a Hornet throttle, but I have the Winwing Hornet HOTAS now, so I would like and F-16 throttle.

How does the VR headset not react to the motion of the seat? i.e. how does it differentiate movement of your head versus movement of the seat?

Most of the time, the cable doesn't bother me that much, but sometimes it snags or suddenly starts bothering me a lot. I sit in my home-made wooden frame sport scale F-4Martin-Baker ejection seat. All I would have to do is put a hook on top of it to get this benefit. I need to try it out. A quick evaluation: I also use a headset for the mic and higher quality sound and the headset has a Track Clip Pro wired in parallel on it. I already have an audio extension, but it isn't long enough to reach behind me. But when it hangs straight down in front of my left shoulder, I don't feel it. So, what I need is a support rod extending up and forward from the top of the seat for the VR headset cable and a hook for hanging the VR headset on the seat when not in use. I need to get some stuff from Home Depot/Lowes anyway, so I will get what I need on my next grocery shopping excursion.

I could never stomach the SFM with the FC aircraft. Now that they have PFMs, I fly them all the time. The C-101 was always a nice aircraft, a real diamond in the rough unlike the trouble plagued Hawk. However, I never flew it much because of the SFM. Only now that it has a much improve FM do I fly it frequently. So, take it as a real compliment from someone who hates the LOMAC/FC/DCS SFM, the A-4E-C impresses me with how well it flies. If it wasn't for the lack of separate wheel brake pedals, I would have to wring out the aircraft at the edges of the envelope to expose the SFM problems. This is such a well done aircraft. It is a shame for it to be constrained by the lack of SDK access/support. Beyond the limitations imposed by the simple flight model, the lack of radio functionality is a real killer for me. I use VACIOM Pro to talk to the ground crew and AI and then add SRS to the mix for multiplayer. So as good looking and well flying as this aircraft is, I probably won't fly it too much. I really love the Blue Angels skin. I know it has been stated that removal of the hump is not an option by this team, but if it was a check box option along with the weapon pylons, that would leave the aircraft in really good shape as a Blue Angels replica. This team really raised the bar for what a free mod with the SFM can be. Keep up the good work. This DCS ecosystem could really grow if there were a lot more modders producing this quality of material the way FSX has been for years. So, you are not only entertaining old timers like myself that love the older aircraft from the Cold War era, but you are helping draw a bigger crowd to DCS World, which can only be good for everyone involved. Thank you!

Except that ones modeled on real world aircraft are exactly what I want because I don't want to feel like I am sitting at a desk, I want to feel like I am holding on to the same hardware that I see on the screen. TM's products originally started out with the B-8 style grip which was the universal one used in so many aircraft from the P-80 and F-86 all the way to the F-15A. They followed up with F-16 replicas for their high end stick and throttles. Now they have the A-10C/F-16 and F/A-18C sticks. These were all nice replicas and great sticks for flying. With VKB, the MCG Pro is close to being a replica of a real Russian grip AND has about as much as any "gamer" with no interest in replicas would want. With all this great, high-end replica hardware available, what exactly is it that you need for 1g desk flying that isn't covered by Virpil, VKB, Winwing, and Thrustmaster?

My only big complaint about the Warthog throttle is the possibility that the main green board can fail whenever the usb cable is removed/plugged in. Mine only failed after many years of use but others have not been so lucky. TM will sell you the board if you are out of warranty. But they were out of stock when my board failed. So, I would have to wait a few months. I chose to get a second Warthog HOTAS set as the throttle by itself cost almost as much as the complete set at that time. I eventually ordered the board, so now I have two completely operational Warthog HOTAS sets and both have the deltasim mod as well.

In VR, the startup panel switches are numerous enough and in a such a pattern that you pretty much need to find a reference point and count your way over. If I put a commonly used function next to a critical one, bad things happen if I don't start from a reference point and count over. Accidently deploying can be drag chute or lowering the gear in flight is bad. I think the solution is to use something that was made for warthog toggle switches: little shapes that fit on top such as a round lollipop shape for the landing gear handle and a flap shape for the flap switch. For me, this would be a pre-flight when switching aircraft: move the shapes to the correct positions, then you could find them faster and make fewer mistakes when in a hurry.

The afterburner detent is only useful for a limited group of customers: those flying jets with afterburners. People flying helos, WW2 planes, civillian flight sims, and space sims don't want or need a detent. WW2 flight simmers by far outnumber fighter jet simmers and civil flight simmers are an orders of magnitude larger than either of those. I like the Warthog detent solution: optional and via third parties there are many custom detents available. I don't have a Virpil stick. But I can't imagine how it could be any smoother than my VKB and the spring tension can be varied widely to suit your taste. I can't stand the cams with any kind of detent around the center. But the "aviation" cam is so mild that only if you put double #40 springs on it do you start to feel the transition at the center.

It is by far the best since the original release. Whatever flaws may be left, this FM is the only one I have liked better than the one it had when originally released. Between clean glass and a much improved FM, the MiG-21bis had risen back up to where it was when it first came out: the top of my list for DCS World aircraft. As long as the MiG-21bis doesn't get broken by later updates, only a properly modeled F-4 Phantom will remove it from being by favorite. After years of being a hangar queen, I am back to flying the MiG-21bis a lot of the time.

From the caption for the video you linked: This is an outdoor museum piece. Yes, you can find a video of a poorly maintained aircraft, but how many videos from the cockpit did you have to go through to find that one? I just watched four other videos on youtube with a search for "MiG-21bis" that showed the view through the glass being very clean. Some were still beat up looking from many other aspects inside the pit and around the frame, but they tend to have just minor scratches, not dusty/yellowed glass that you can't see through. I am interested in flying the MiG when it was a frontline fighter and relatively young... 1970-1990, not 2020 dinosaurs. So as long as "dirty glass" is a simple option not requiring any mods, I am ok with it, but if I have to go back to what we had before, the DCS MiG-21 can go back in my hangar. Right now, I am flying it in multiplayer and it is a blast being able to see... and when I am using the desktop monitor instead of lo-res/blurry VR, the glass still has visible flaws that more or less match what I have seen in videos. I can contrast that to flying the MiG-15bis, which has a baked in reflection and I can't see through it at all when there is glare from the sun on the front winshield/gunsight. I used to have the same issue with the MiG-21bis, now I can see to fight instead of being blind over a 30-60 degree sector of the compass while the AI sees me perfectly and punishes me for being blinded. What I like about this video despite its distant view and only short glimpse right at the start is that you can see the periscope mirror and canopy frame look damn near pristine. Apparently, some dinosaurs look better than others.

From my perspective there are five major geographic areas involving jet air combat that should be in any game trying to replicate history: Korea, Vietnam, Israel, Iran/Iraq, and India. The Syria map covers Israel, so it most certainly belongs. Of course, having a map is one thing, having period ground objects, AI aircraft, and flyable aircraft is another. I am more interested in F-4s and Mirage IIIs than F-15s and F-16s. So, the map will be of limited value to me. The best I can do is fly the MiG-19P and MiG-21bis against AI F-4s, or maybe fly the A-4 mod with AI F-4 escorts.

But don't throw away the TM grips... get adapters. The Warthog grip is still the way to go for the A-10C and F-16C and the Hornet grip is great for the AV-8B, F-15C, and F/A-18C. I don't know if I should waste my money on a new Hornet adapter. I assume it has a different firmware so that it shows up in game as a hornet grip and not a warthog grip. The problem with using the warthog adapter on the hornet grip is that they have slightly different button assignments and the game can't tell the difference between the two. But I could replace the one on the hornet grip and then I could have separate stick profiles in DCS. Right now, I have all aircraft except the F-16 and A-10C mapped to work correctly with the Hornet grip. So I have to switch grips to fly those two aircraft and switch back again to fly anything else. Of course, the MCG Pro is configured to work with everything to avoid the need to swap grips, which is why it ends up being my most used grip even though I prefer using either the hornet grip or the F-14 grip.