foxbat155

Guys do you realize, that MiG-19S will be pure gunfighter without IR missiles right? Razbam doing MiG-19 not Shenyang J-6 ( from radarless aircrafts only chinese copies had IR AAM's ). So aircraft with missiles is MiG-19P, gunfigher is MiG-19S. Personaly I wanna both.:thumbup:

Straight from my HDD :music_whistling: : http://www.megafileupload.com/2M3jj/Flight.Manual.-.F-14D.Tomcat.zip

From blue side I have only F-8, A-4, F-14, F-16.

Link for download: http://www.filedropper.com/mig-21bispilotsflightoperatinginstruction

You are just more optimistic like me. Beside some sour words from my side, I'm believe too that soon I don't will have reason to complain.

BlackLion I realize that I bought early beta, with many shortcomings and temporary solutions, but 2 years are already passed and I think it's time to fix all this. Workload and lack of time due other themes (modules) is not excuse for me. That's my point of view - client's point of view, I just wanna use what I paid for. I know you posted pages from manual, please remember that I didn't questioned anything what you wrote about landing speed. I'm complaining about aircraft's systems, how those should work. No point in posting almost all pages from manual here on forum, everybody can read original, and honestly that's my purpose. Why?. Because now most people reads only forum posts or LN's manual and they have only tiny knowledge how should be. I'm sure, that LN precisely realize where module weaknesses are, they just don't have time for work over it or they don't wanna do this. More complaining people on the clients side means bigger LN motivation to change situation.

Need facts,proofs, not opinions?. Just read carefully manuals. All facts are there..., lot of them floating around...., in english, russian, polish. Read them and fly LN module and then you will see difference. I can bet that after "manual lesson" your "opinion" will similar to my. People who criticize LN are on "side of insult" ?, do you ever have read how works real RSBN or ARK and compared this to module systems?. I didn't know that rewriting data from manual is now treated like a insult. P.S. After last changes ( 1.5.6 ) FM is not bad at all, need bigger real AOA ( should be around 20 deg, now is around 15 deg.). In my "opinion" of course.

Read part devoted RSBN, ARK, how works weapons selectors, look at the flight graphs ( eg. bouncing from wing to wing in landing configuration starts down FROM 280 km/h not from 400 km/h like in module ), how look cockpit of that variant, cockpit lights description and many others things.

Wake up my friend, 75% of that module is sci-fi, nobody reads real manuals?.

It's a Su-20, export variant of Soviet Su-17M.:thumbup:

Main reason for differences in VSI is that your video shows first generation Mi-8T, we ( in DCS ) have second generation Mi-8MT which have different flight instruments. Many early Mi-8 ( especially those sold outside Soviet Union ) didn't had doppler radar instalation, and because of that was needed different VSI.

I have better idea, we need ALL from tactical aviation from early 70' to late 80', both sides red and blue. :thumbup::pilotfly:

I'm sure that Fitter could get any kind of similar systems during modernization but nobody gave her chance. Soviets in 80's had almost 9000 combat aircrafts of all kinds, they simply don't had reason to care about multirole stuff. Their military doctrine had specific tasks for specific types of aviation ( Soviets divided tactical combat aviation for independent parts: fighter, fighter-bomber, attack, reconaisance ). It's no point compare Fitter to F-18 or F-16, different philosophy. Only comparable Western aircraft are Jaguars and fighter-bomber Mirage F1 variants. Finally CFE treaty killed classic Soviet fighter-bomber aviation, they have to cut large amount of aircraft and they pull out all MiG-23, 27, Su-17 not because all them were bad, but in order to save more modern MiG-29, Su-27, and keep all very important for them Su-24. Today is different story, progress in electronics, combat aircraft are very expensive, less aircraft means more tasks for them, no return to specialized combat aircrafts ( except some nostalgic stuff like A-10 or Su-25 ).

I don't think that Su-17M4 wasn't a capable aircraft, at service start she had one of most wide weaponry, over 150 external stores variants, several types of AGM's, over 30 types of bombs, clusters, napalm containers, 5 types of FFAR's, each with few warheads modifications, wide reconnaissance capability ( few types of reconnaissance pods: photo, IR, TV, laser, Elint ). Electronics was good, modernized KLEN-54 LRTMS, digital multifunction computer, expanded navigation system ( doppler nav radar, INS platform, RSBN, RSDN, ARK, accuracy without radio correction 0,5% route lenght, with correction 0,2%, the same values like eg. Tornado ). Only shortcoming is lack of radar, but this was because of Soviet doctrine for this aircraft class ( concerns MiG-27 as well ), and last argument: Jaguar don't had radar as well and nobody complained. Most people don't known that Su-25T got autopilot, whole weapon system and navigation system straight from Fitter with HUD and Skhval as addition. What interesting Su-17M4 prototypes flown with HUD borrowed from MiG-27K but in serial production was deleted. All aircrafts from early 80's needed modrnization in 90's not only Fitter, current Viggen module it's modernized variant originaly she had much poorer capabilites. Full fidelity Su-25 ( especially in SM variant ) is a dream, but ED cannot do this because some licence agreement problem with Ubisoft?.

We need DCS standard ( not FC3 ) capable single seat attacker for red side, that's all. Bench with candidates is short: Su-17/22M4 or MiG-27D/M/K. In my opinion is easier get good documentation for Fitter. This not excludes more complex aircraft in future.

I like your optimism, I'm just more demanding. I'm impatiently waiting for this, MiG-21 is my favourite Cold War red side fighter. That's true and that's why i'm not judging FM, I just wrote about surprisingly big FM fluctuations. Systems implementation can be rated by anyone who is able read and understand, we have enough documentation for this. Now back to Su-22, all above confirms that is great choice for module. Fitter is much simpler than Su-24, less time for developing, smaller failure risk, less reasons to complain in future.

Kev I really have hope that someday we will get full MiG-29,Su-27 and F-15 modules and this didn't happen so far only because ED is busy. Now except 3D, FM they have nothing with RL, just read RL manuals. This is like compare chip chinese watch copy from Ebay with real Rolex, looks similar but..... LN MiG-21 is not good module for now( but with chance to good in future ), low amonut of systems working like should be, FM was changed so many times, even LN lost orientation which is correct, weapon system is half done, navigation system is purely sci-fi. Take one day and read MiG-21 pilot's manual ( lot of copies flying around ) then compare with module and you will see difference. I'm here for fun with "real" aircraft all rest is just time wasting, but I'm enough optimistic to believe that in future many things will change for better.

Well it's not about hers avionics is modern or not, it's about mentality = russian obsession about secrets, especially military secrets. Please remember that Su-27 and MiG-29 are not DCS standard of sim ( with RL connect them only 3D model and partially FM, all systems are ED's "licentia poetica" ). Most complicated and "real" russian plane in DCS is L-39, sorry LN but MiG-21 is for me like FC3 with clickable cockpit.:music_whistling: Regarding to MiG-25: BM variant is still cassified, from fighter's data links are classified, because still in use on older MiG-31 variants.

Honestly this is very sensible decision, maps sizes in DCS just do not justified this. I think more rational is ask for long range radio-navigation system which originally was on board MTW-2.

Don't get me wrong, Su-24 is a great aircraft and great idea for dcs module but.... reality. I think she is still too classified and rather no chances for good documentation and approval from Russian MOD. Su-17/22 is still in service in Poland and few other countries, it's much easier find documentation ( even I have few nice "papers" ). Of course lack of radar is some kind of shortcoming, but except this in his time Su-17M4 was really capable aircraft regarding avionics and weaponry. And what is important she had good flight charakteristics, in clean configuration maneuverability like Mig-21, very stable in landing configuration, high AOA etc. In my opinion this is very realistic and practical choice for module for now, in future Su-24M of course is must have.

Su-17M4/Su-22M4 don't have the same gunsight like Su-25, it's only optical head taken ( VG-17 ) from whole ASP-17 set, but connected with on board digital computer what gave a lot new capabilites but still displays only targeting cross. Su-24/Su-24M don't have HUD, at least hard to call this system a HUD, she displaying only two symbols from terrain avoiding system and in attack mode targeting cross, that's all. Only modernized variant like Su-24M2 and Gefest got real HUD's. Honestly lack of HUD isn't a real problem.

RL Mi-8 have few additional fuel tank options: up to 4 tanks inside cargo compartment, up to six on the external hard points, and two on fuselage sides mounted above standard tanks ( in two bigger/smaller sub variants ). Even standard fuel tanks have 3 variants with different capacity. Users just order option they need.

Well, I think that crucial is definition of "close" :smilewink:. Without documentation is hard to say it's true or not, but I have page from manual and there is stated that with 33/72 degree wing position aircraft have useful AOA up to 33 degrees.

Vortex generators on pitot tube, additional "dogtooth" on fixed part of wing, additional 33 degree wing position, heavy modified control system. According many russian sources with those changes MLD had turn radiuses close to MiG-29. I'm sure that 23 will suprise you.

I think better option is ask hard for MLD, many nice toys: better aerodynamics, flares/chaffs dispensers, better radar, close combat mode ( similar to MiG-29 ), Archers.:thumbup: