FSKRipper

Just a short question. Before flying over the IP I tried to make an INS correction (extra steerpoint). Is there a way to keep the INS switching automatically to the next waypoint since it will make a correction impossible or has the drift to reach a specific value to allow such a correction?

No problems here with grass landings. Could you post a track?

Under cloud free circumstances maybe, but also most of the folks here are more used to drop at 12K instead of 40K which will get you problems for sure. :smilewink: Anyway as Jojo said I know from times where GPS was black magic that an INS update point short of the IP was mandatory.

Tested it myself 2 hours ago, there is no Problem with G-tolerance in compare to the Eagle (even in Multiplayer). The people complaining about it are still owe us some tracks from the current version... Since the OP choose his headline very bad we are all aware that there is some work to do regarding the damage model but this is not the issue here. Complaining about the seeker/damage performance of stock Missiles in the M2000 thread? Come on guys... Maybe some of you joined only in some months ago (or were banned and came back?). This has nothing to do with the Mirage so if you are upset about your online performance take it to the place where it belongs.

Adjusted the default view a bit and I'm fine with the new TIR5 behaviour :music_whistling:

But as always: Post a track or it didn't happen. Screenshots can show anything or nothing, it's the viewers decision.

The 1.5.4 open beta update solved my problem.

And you are sure that you have unchecked the "game flight mode" box under options? When I'm in a slow foward movement I can feel instant feedback from the helicopter when switching the AP off. The helo tries to lean to one side and becomes more susceptible to control inputs. No idea what's wrong on your side but it's working fine in my case...

You should notice a difference at least when flying less than 120 km/h. I recommend a look in Chucks guide: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=166627 See part 16...

Hi Fredrik, I would suggest you use the control config to set the function "Autopilot Master" to your HOTAS. If needed you could deactivate the assist at once and switch it on again for normal control. I use the manual mode for fast and tight turns which works very well with a little practice.

You ever tinkered with physics or specifically aerodynamics? Probably not... Like Focha already said you can do a lot with a helicopter, even maneuvers you think they are impossible. If the helo is still operational afterwards is another think. This "This can't be!" discussion is as superfluous as the "The F-15 can't do more than 9G" discussion.

Hm, you call real pilot input anecdotes or beer party impressions, judge the FM by RC helicopter experience and call a 975kg helicopter several tons heavy.... Even Loopings with helos were impossible some decades ago but you should know better... BTW you should also know that this was a special lighweight RC version with a modified rotorhead in your video. Try to find a video with replica RC helos (Bo-105 or Gazelle) doing the same in your opinion impossible maneuvers. Newton would have no problems with it since it is only a question of design, weight and power. Because you don't do it in RL doesn't mean it isn't possible. But you seem to have your own opinion on that. I own only a private pilot license but I would know what to give on your opinion if I was flying this bird professionally :music_whistling:

Your choice. But blame yourself if the development progress is to slow in your opinion. Nothing more to add.

You ARE in a software corner for Leatherneck product problems only. If it is in conjunction with DCS as a whole it will be addressed and forwarded to the ED Team or other developers but nearly any disscussions here are completely MiG-21 specific. The Problem in this case is the huge community, I don't take myself out of this group but have you an idea how little people are delivering useful bug reports? Since you are following the FC3 Forums very well you should know it... So if a developer offers an efficient opportunity to hunt bugs rather than try to moderate complains, opinions and ideas it would be wise to join in if your heart hangs on this module. BTW it is very satisfying when you can control that your reported bug is in Fixing Progress. Also no one is getting apart since all fixes have to be send to ED for testing and Quality Control. You would think otherwise after you checked out the tracker....

Nope, These forums contain mainly redundant bug discussions, often with no evidence like orded from ED (Version, Situation, Hardware, logs, tracks and screenshots). The LNS bugtracker lists which Bugs are reported, in which development stage with which priority they are. So if you have an honest interest in bringing the MiG-21 foward you would use the tracker of the developers. Some 80 pages FC3 bug discussions would have been a short, constructive database entry, giving the developers the opportunity to work instead of reading treatises of different viewpoints

Maybe you should join the public bugtracker of LNS if you are concerned that your issue is not taken care of. :music_whistling:

Sieht bei mir nicht so extrem aus aber ist sichtbar in 2.0. Unten mal ein Shot aus der aktuellen 1.5.3 (spiele in 1080'er Auflösung) und ein 2.0 als Vergleich bei identischen Grafikeinstellungen. In bin mir ziemlich sicher das das bei ED bekannt ist da bezüglich Lichtproblemen (Sonne durchs Cockpitdach sichtbar etc.) einige Threads existieren. Ich glaube man sollte nicht vergessen das 2.0 noch nicht einmal Beta Status hat auch wenn es schon sehr weit fortgeschritten wirkt.

Thanks a lot for your time guys. As you can see below I adjusted the default view to get a chance to see the guncross through the Revi even if it means that my virtual head is bouncing on the canopy :music_whistling: I think this will be a proper solution until I get what is wrong with my 1.5.3 since even a repair changed nothing.

Thanks Art J. I had both on Auto. It looks a bit strange because I made some movements with Track IR to get the guncross into view. After switching to cruise it looks fine at the start but as soon as I reset Track IR I get these problems again.

Thanks for the tip but this is not the point. In 2.0 I can move around the whole pit and can see the guncross from every position. In my 1.5.3 module there is only one position frome where I can see the guncross through the Revi. I can say for sure that I changed no viewpoints since this problem occured from the first time after I installed the module.

Hey fellow simmers, I'm a proud owner of the Bf 109 since yesterday and encountered a problem regarding the Revi. As you can see in Pic one everything looks fine when flying in 2.0. The "guncross" is always visible even with TrackIR. As shown in pic 2, I have some problems getting the cross into my line of sight and have to make the weirdest sport exercises in front of my computer. Version is 1.5.3 stable. Both Clients are up to date and the deletion of my Input Folder didn't changed anything. I have manually checked the settings in both versions and use even the same options under the special options tab. Is there a Version difference between this two or am I missing a relevant setting?

Can't tell you for sure that there isn't something wrong because the discussions were very balanced between the different positions. The only thing I know for sure is that I have no problems with the dispersion under the circumstances that this bomb was created for. Since the developers (of the bomb) don't intended their "customers" to drop it in a left bank 30° dive it might be an issue with the bomb, otherwise it could be possible that the according DCS "flight model" was simply not optimized for such unusual drop conditions...

There are some light inconsistencies using this bombs but the discussion never reached a Point that proved completely wrong behaviour (taking into account that dive angle, bank angle and wind are relevant factors). In this Video from Bunyap he tested the dispersion and came to the conclusion that you can't tell for sure where the bombs will land. [ame] [/ame] To be honest I never encountered any problems when making a straight low level (400ft) run at 300kts and as far as I know thats pretty much the way they were intended to be used during low level strikes in the cold war era (by faster Jets I should add). Regarding todays air defense threats and environments I would refrain from this tactic which looks a bit suicidal :music_whistling:

This I would call a home Cockpit :thumbup:

Donated! Awesome work starway!