lmp

The version you're probably thinking of is the F-13, not the F. The F was a guns only variant built in very limited numbers. The F-13 could employ two K-13/R-3S missiles, but lost one of the two NR-30 guns. This was the first widely exported (and copied) MiG-21 version that saw a lot of combat. One "problem" with the F-13 and the later RP-21 equipped MiG-21s is that the ingame MiG-19P and MiG-21bis already do what would make the earlier 21 variants interesting and unique. Even though they (mostly) shouldn't. For example, you mentioned the Kh-66 and RS-2US beam riders. Those don't go on the bis, the radar (RP-22) is incompatible. If the MiG-21bis developers hadn't included those missiles, it would make, let's say, a MiG-21PFM more viable. Different radar (despite a similar designation, the conical scan RP-21 is quite different from the monopulse RP-22), different missiles, no internal gun, completely different cockpit... That's worth a full price tag in my book. But because the bis already has those weapons, even though it shouldn't, the PFM would just be a worse bis in just about every way. Most players simply don't know or care that the beam riders are unrealistic on the bis. The MiG-19P developers "stole" some appeal of the MiG-21F-13 by including the R-3S missiles. From what I understand this isn't strictly unrealistic, but was something added late and in a limited way. Most users never had heaters on their MiG-19Ps. And again, most people won't know or care - they see R-3S on MiG-19s as "standard". Now, I'm not saying if that didn't happen we'd have two or three generations of MiG-21s to choose from. Chances are we wouldn't. And I understand why the developers did what they did. Those early jets have limited gameplay potential so every bit helps. After all, don't like it, don't use it. But because they did do it, I think the unlikely prospect that we'll get another MiG-21 became even less likely.

Not the frequencies, the entire beacons. The MiG doesn't use the nav aids that are on the maps. Instead, for any selected RSBN, PRMG or ARK channel, it has it's own set of coordinates in a config file, that it points to instead. It's one of my biggest gripes with this module.

That, sir, is a typo. I meant the R-73 that we all know and love. I fixed it now in my original post, thanks for noticing.

The "two of each" loadout isn't the default - it's an airshow thing because it looks cool. A typical fighter loadout would be 2xR-27R + 4xR-73. The missiles on the outer and middle rails should be the same.

RSBN is the Soviet equivalent of TACAN and PRMG is their version of ILS. Both systems already exist in DCS, there are a handful of stations on the Caucasus map, but none on other maps. The only aircraft that can make use of them now is the L-39. The MiG-21 also has an RSBN receiver but the developers decided to ignore the beacons placed on the maps and instead hardcoded their own. Regarding other radio aids, out of the three you listed, the MiG can only use NDBs. It doesn't have a VOR receiver and TACAN is Western military standard, never used in the Eastern Block. There is also no support for Western ILS. The RSBN receiver is much more useful than the ADF for a number of reasons though. 1. We get a lot more channels that are not set by the ground crew. The ADF frequencies are preprogrammed on the ground in the MiG and there is only three of them, or three pairs of outer/inner, I'm not sure exactly. 2. We get range information and generally much better precision. 3. In combination with the PRMG it can be used for precision approaches, even using autopilot. Also the RSBN was planned from the beginning to be a mobile system, that could be set up anywhere quickly. It would make a lot of sense to be able to actually use it this way.

I think this is a must now that we're getting more RSBN capable aircraft (not just the 29 but also the 23). Mobile TACAN stations make it a lot easier to navigate in older Western aircraft, we should have the same for Eastern ones.

It does have an INS and a panel for it. You can choose one of the previously preprogrammed waypoints or airfields (so a total of six locations stored in memory). FF Fulcrum should be less annoying to navigate - because you will actually know which waypoint you're flying towards - but not really more capable than the FC3 Fulcrum. What would make it slightly better though would be mobile RSBN stations, so go and upvote that thread ;).

Well... Define program. AFAIK the INS in the Fulcrum-A can store a total of 3 waypoints and 3 airfields that are preprogrammed before flight. No console in the cockpit to change them or add new ones I'm afraid. Other than that, you get RSBN/PRMG and an ADF (with preprogrammed channels as well I believe?). So unless ED gives us a knee board page for changing waypoints, there won't be much programming. Expect a lot of things to be chosen for you by the ground crew or the aircraft designers themselves. Another example would be radar display ranges tied to the PRF, no choice in the number of bars for scanning in elevation... That's just how they designed planes on that side of the curtain

One thing I find quite annoying is when the countries which are present on the maps are missing liveries. In case of the MiG-29 those would be Russia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Technically also the US I suppose. Of course it's great if other countries get their liveries, I will be heartbroken if Poland and Ukraine don't, but it's really annoying to have the right country, right airbase, right aircraft but wrong livery.

I'm pretty sure this is already planned considering the ongoing rework of the F-16C and F/A-18C radars, but it's definitely worth saying. The differences in radar modeling between modules are very visible and going back to an older (or just worse) implementation is quite painful.

F-15C or A-10A perhaps? No FBW but at the same time no real quirks in the FM. All the modern aids are there (HUD and flight path marker mainly), but at the same time the simple avionics won't distract from the flying. The Viper can be tricky during takeoffs and landings. The Hornet is easier if you insist on a full fidelity module, but the trimming logic doesn't carry over to other planes.

Turning really hard isn't the be-all and end-all of defensive flying. The FW-190 with its great roll rate can spoil attacks, force overshoots, win scissors fights. Its speed allows its pilot to disengage once he has an opening and run from fights he isn't likely to win. Can a slower, more maneuverable fighter outturn the FW-190? Sure, but how about two? Or four? Fights often aren't fair. But if you can run away from a single Spitfire, you can run away from a full squadron of them just as well. Of course in any defensive scenario you are at a disadvantage, pretty much by definition. And not every fight can be won, regardless of what you do. Particularly if you've already given the enemy every possible advantage to begin with - like in your scenario above. Also consider that a turning fight, whether you initiate it or it's forced on you, will probably take you all the way to the deck. You'll be slow, you'll have poor SA, any friendlies you were escorting will be gone, any bombers you were intercepting will be gone. Even if you win, you will be at the mercy of anyone who shows up to investigate. Defensively it's definitely better than dying, offensively - not a great option in most cases. So, to sum up, being able to turn well is nice and the FW-190 is (broadly speaking) not a great turn fighter, but... 1) as Ala13_ManOWar said, it's not as bad at it as you initially made it out to be 2) turning isn't your only defensive option and usually isn't your best offensive option ... so since everything in airplane design is a trade-off, sometimes sacrificing some turning ability for other advantages can be preferable.

In that case, it's a nice solution. It should please just about everybody. I hope ED listens and we will see improvements here soon.

Oh, sorry about that, that's what the forum "quote" feature did and I didn't check if the author was correct . I was just putting my two cents in rather than trying to discuss with anyone in particular. At any rate, I agree that, if we get a proper simulation of IFF (and I hope we will), there should be some way to make it work across systems in the less hyper-realistic missions.

Frankly, I don't see how that improves the realism of the simulation. It looks like added complexity for complexity's sake. I think this should be handled like it would be in the real world - with a good deconfliction plan, rules of engagement, other sensors, proper communication and a dose of common sense. It would make the air war so much more tactical and interesting. This would work for proper MP missions and we could always have some sort of cheat (like the current "magical" system) that can be enabled in the mission settings by public server owners.

I've seen plenty of people surprised by their helicopter "suddenly falling out of the sky", though I admit it was mostly a problem when the Huey and Hip were new (yes, I've been here for a while). How close to perfect is the modeling of VRS or various doppler filters is really besides the point I'm trying to make. Which is that there are plenty of people confused by the various intricacies of the simulation, realistic IFF would be just another one of those intricacies and not something that would break the game. Yes, it has the potential to be more frustrating than someone not understanding why he lost a radar lock, or control over his helicopter, or why his GBU didn't guide/explode, or why the engine died in his WW2 fighter... but these intricacies and constantly improving fidelity is why I and many others play DCS with all its issues rather than move on to other games.

Wouldn't the public MP issue be solved by having a server enforceable "relaxed IFF" mode? People are also confused by Doppler radar blind speeds, VRS in helicopters and a plethora of other realistic phenomena all the time. Doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. That (and AI that could work within it) would probably be much more difficult to put in than the IFF overhaul itself. I suspect this is why we don't have realistic IFF yet.

1) Our F-5E only has an IFF transponder, not an IFF interrogator. Regardless of any improvements to IFF simulation in the game, F-5E pilots will have to identify their targets visually. 2) The biggest limit of the current implementation is that IFF always magically "works". Transponders cannot break, cannot be left turned off or incorrectly set up, are always compatible (Soviet and NATO systems shouldn't be) - in fact, there doesn't even have to be a transponder on an aircraft for it to be correctly classified as friendly by other aircraft on its side. If IFFs were modelled better it would mainly increase false negative responses and thus - blue on blue cases. I don't believe it would completely break MP servers. The WW2 and Korean fighters, as well as the F-5E have to rely on visual identification and people deal with it. Players of modern modules would eventually get used to the new limitations, though accidental shootdowns would be more common.

The included mini-campaign and the single missions include some good examples of fairly complex, A-G focused missions for the Hornet. Typically you're given ground attack or SEAD duties as part of a larger strike package with capable escorts. Most of the time the Eagles and Tomcats splash any bandit before he gets close. You can focus on attacking ground targets without the mission feeling too sterile or safe. If that's too much for your friend, you could always downgrade the MiG-29s to MiG-23s (etc.), or get rid of them altogether in the editor.

I suspect getting rid of the deadzone is what made the difference. My previous stick needed one because it was so old and worn out - and I couldn't AAR anything if my life depended on it. Now I have a VPC stick, got rid of the deadzone and making those ever so slight corrections is a lot easier. Congratulations on your progress!

No deadzone, no curves. I use some curves for other modules, but the F-16 feels fine without any. It was the other way round for me - Hornet proved much easier than the Viper. Somehow after I found out where the basket needs to be, I hit it every single time without any tricks. Only works for the Hornet unfortunately - connecting to the basket with the Harrier is a different matter altogether. Once I'm plugged in, staying on the tanker is much easier even if I have to do it longer than when using the boom.

In the Hornet you're supposed to have the anti-skid on for field ops, but off for carrier ops. On the deck you only ever use brakes at very low speeds and so anti-skid is not needed, thus having it off means it can't fail and get you into trouble. The in game aircraft is set up accordingly by default so perhaps the mission had you start on the deck or intended you to land on it and that's why it was off?

The practical way of achieving this (or something similar anyway) is with high off boresight, lock on after launch missiles rather than rearwards firing missiles. You avoid the control issues stemming from launching with a negative velocity, accelerating through zero to a positive velocity. And if you want you can launch them forwards or 90 degrees to the side (from the notch for example) or wherever you need at this point. Nobody is building rearwards firing missiles, but everybody is building high off boresight ones for a reason. However regardless of how you do it, you'll be sacrificing a lot of range. In a normal launch the movement of the shooter contributes to the energy of the missile (and considerably), in your scenario, the missile needs to expend a lot of energy to even start flying in the right direction. So it can be done, but at the cost of (a significant amount of) range. However in practice I can't see why it would ever be your plan A, rather a last ditch effort to create problems for a bandit who sneaked up on you or forced you on the defensive. Since the MiG-23 Soviet/Russian fighters have IRST capability which help eliminate Doppler radar blind spots and in the modern world of datalinks individual sensor limitations become less and less of a problem. In the end the guy on your six will still have a big advantage.

I may be reading this wrong, but I think it may have been just Gypsy's way of saying "the APG-68 has a pitiful range" rather than serious advice?

I fly in 1920x1080 so a pretty low resolution these days. I can see the lights well enough, but I use a fairly narrow field of view. Maybe it's something you can experiment with?