Fishbreath

There are plenty of multi-position switches/knobs in other modules that can be cycled through all their states with one key. I think that's what people are looking for. There's no reason at all why e.g. AA mode/AG mode has to be two keys, although the option is nice if you have physical switches that send a different button on up vs. on down.

Edit: I can't even say that. Standby while I look for Russian sources. <.< Edit edit: How are diagrams of an airfoil so hard to find?

It's still plenty doable, it's just very touchy when you get over about 1500L of fuel. Descent rate is the most important thing to watch (as low as possible), followed by touchdown speed (<330kmh or so; I haven't tested exactly when the tires pop). AoA is a secondary concern; it's hard to smack the MiG's tail even with a steep landing. That said, a target AoA rather than a target weight and airspeed gives you a lot more information about how to construct a good approach if you have to land above landing weight. For those who are asking, I went back and looked at some of my MiG landings. A 350kmh approach with 700L of fuel is about 7-8 degrees AoA on the gauge, and a 290kmh touchdown is 10-11. If you're heavy, that approach profile will put you over the threshold fast, but the MiG bleeds speed fast in a flare at approach power, and between the brake chute and the brakes, you can afford to eat up a lot of runway before you touch down.

You need to give a weight to turn a speed into an AoA. 290kmh with full fuel and three drop tanks is way different than 290kmh at maximum landing weight. You are right, though, that in general, flight sim landings are cringeworthy.

It's an internal testing skin. It's working exactly like it's supposed to. You're just using it wrong. The livery that appears when zoomed out is the default livery, since the testing livery apparently doesn't have LOD versions, so if you want those colors, just pick the first one in the list.

Negative Gs are a departure condition for the Flanker. The immediate blackout thing seems to be a real issue, though. I was testing inverted engine performance, and my pilot blacked out instantly, from full conscious to full black screen, as I was gently rolling upside down.

So are we saying that NAV TGT points from the mission editor now behave like ones entered in mission (with no elevation data)? That's a bit of a bother for preset target points, but it does seem a little more likely to be accurate behavior—I thought it was strange that there would be another way to enter target points with hidden elevation data, but I didn't have any evidence to point either direction. I guess this resolves it. Fortunately, I haven't written about slewing to NAV TGT points in my Ka-50 guide yet, so I don't have to change anything. <.<

It points at the coordinate at sea level.

It seems like I was wrong--the director bars are working correctly, but they're very sensitive. My process for instrument landings is now to get close with the deviation bars, and to use the director bars to keep myself lined up until I can see the runway.

With the most recent patch as of today, the side-to-side director bar is pretty much accurate. The pitch director bar still seems to almost always indicate more and more climb the closer I get to the station at Senaki, even when I'm on glideslope.

I solved it by applying the registry fix at the bottom of this page: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/faq/activation_wiki/

I'm having the same problem with the same symptoms. The MiG was working fine until the latest update, then the DRM window said my hardware configuration had changed (it hadn't). I tried reactivating, and the DRM window froze. I killed it and DCS and reinstalled the MiG, and now the DRM window says, "Unable to run the application due to integrity fault of the Activation Key. Re-enter a valid Activation Key or re-activate the application. If the error recurs, press "Error report" and send the report to product technical support." It still fails after verifying and re-entering my activation key. I suppose I could reinstall everything, but I'd really rather not, if that's an option.

There's a sound that sounds like engine noise, but is actually static from the radiocompass receivers. You can get rid of it by switching the radio from compass to nav mode, or by switching the navigation source to RSBN and turning down the RSBN volume.

For me, 1.2.11 added a bunch of axis assignments that overlapped with others, for some reason. You might have had the same thing happen.

On the ABRIS' NAV mode screen, there's a calculated estimated time of arrival. There's also a mode for estimated time to waypoint on the PVI-800 panel.

You can land it with full internal fuel less one pattern's worth, but it's vastly more difficult than with the rated loads. (I find I have to level off in ground effect at the threshold, and very slowly let it settle. Takes a ton of runway, but I can get it down.)

Is this similar to the bug with the A-10A's Maverick slewing? Maybe if so, we'll finally see that one fixed alongside this one.

Best range cruise is actually 600-650 kmh IAS. Climb speed is 870kmh TAS.

I seem to recall hearing that 4x twin R-60 launchers is not a loadout the actual MiG can take, so it doesn't work when you try to load it in the game.

I've been up to Mach 2.05 at 11,000 meters. You have to be at high altitude to see Mach 2, and subsonic and low supersonic acceleration is poor at altitude. If you're able, go supersonic at 7,000 meters or so, and try to stay supersonic until you've reached about 10,000 meters. You should be able to hit top speed pretty easily there. If you can't do a supersonic climb from lower altitude, make sure you're starting no lower than the recommended climb speed (870kmh true airspeed). The faster you're going, the faster you'll accelerate past the difficult transonic and low supersonic regimes.

Storing a target point with the Shkval/PVI doesn't capture target elevation data. (I don't think the forum ever determined if this was correct behavior or not; it's still in 'we don't know' territory as far as I'm aware.) In the absence of elevation data, the Shkval makes assumptions about the target's elevation that may not hold. I haven't done enough mountainous flying lately, but I think that saving targets with the datalink does keep elevation data and slew back onto the saved point correctly. Just another odd little Russian hardware idiosyncrasy.

Hey, Shark-Bait, I'm just speaking the only language you seem to understand. I'm perfectly happy to have a reasonable conversation, but I'm not the one who called himself a savant and everyone else in the thread morons. Unfortunately, you're wrong here, and since you seem to react to that sentence like a vampire does to garlic, I predict this conversation isn't going anywhere, and that you belong on my ignore list. Anyway, one more time: 1) 250-350m is the best range for accuracy on maneuvering targets. 2) The radar has trouble providing lock/ranging information on targets within 500m. 3) Since AUTO mode is the one you'll be in most of the time, and since it gets hard to flip switches once you're in close with a maneuvering target, it makes sense that the fewest switch flips to select the gun gets you a reticule setup which is most useful in close-range dogfights against maneuvering targets. 4) Since you can be much more methodical in your approach to a bomber, if you want to use the gun at longer ranges, you can switch to MAN and follow the more complicated, less dogfight-ready manual ranging procedure.

First off, cut the attitude crap. Nobody likes a smart-aleck. This is entirely consistent with using the sight as recommended. As you're closing in, align the target with the pipper. As soon as the pipper frames the target—that is, the target is 300m distant—begin firing. The next page is available for me. It goes on to say: "[...] reticule still remains in the field of view); the best precision in firing is achieved within the range of 250-350m." It further goes on to describe the process for attacking a target with the fixed net sight. The way people respond to 'aggression' is by thinking you're a bit of a dick. Your arguments are based on a reading of the operating instructions document. (I don't know its provenance exactly; I do seem to recall hearing that it was provided to NATO pilots as an insight into the -21bis' capabilities.) There are some cases where I'm more than willing to allow that Leatherneck may have gotten something wrong, but they're MiG-21 experts and you aren't, and in this case, there is no evidence in your favor beyond 'things should work this way'. I've had enough experience with simulated Russian military hardware to understand that you just can't say that about it.

Yup, if you leave it off, it doesn't write tracks.

You can definitely adjust the Shkval's brightness and contrast with the knobs—if you turn brightness all the way down, then turn contrast all the way up, then adjust brightness until you can see an image, you can see at night. (It shouldn't work, because there's noise in the video system that isn't modeled, but it's a handy way to pretend we have a Ka-50N.)