portman

Interpreting the old docs - I think so. I have never flown a real MiG, but I will ask somebody who has! I also have to correct one point I mentioned: The force required to actuate the micro switches and thus to overwrite the attitude hold mode was 1,7 - 1,9 kp in the longitudinal axis and 1,0 - 1,2 kp in the lateral axis. This also worked in the recovery mode, i.e. you have to let go off the stick after pressing the button for the recovery mode to work.

It's a bit complicated indeed. According to the GDR air force docs I have, it worked like this: You have to trim the aircraft before you activate stabilization mode. In our former air force, the pilots activated the stabilization mode on the runway before takeoff. In the air, with stabilization mode engaged, you could let go off the stick, and the AP-155 would stabilize the current attitude. If there was a bank >6° the bank would be stabilized, if the bank was <6° the aircraft would return to 0° bank and then stabilize it. Bank angles from 80° to 100° did not get stabilized. The heading got stabilized within +/- 3° if the pitch was not bigger than +/- 40° (while climbing or descending) and within +/- 1° in horizontal flight. There were several micro switches under the stick collar which recognized stick inputs by the pilot. So if you put pressure on the stick again (> 1.5 kg), you could kind of "overwrite" the attitude hold and the aircraft did react accordingly. In DCS, your joystick will jump back to the zero position if you relieve the pressure on it, telling DCS "I'm moving the stick back to zero!" Therefore, you have to press "J" to tell DCS "I'm just letting go off the stick, without further inputs". The "J" replaces the micro switches in the real aircraft. Then you can move your joystick around without anything happening, which is basically wrong, because in the real MiG you could overwrite the attitude hold by applying pressure on the stick again... As I said, it requires a bit of "thinking around the corner", as we say in Germany I think, if everyone had a force feedback joystick, this "feature" could be simulated appropriately.

Hey Volator, werdet ihr auf den Tornado umsteigen, wenn er erscheint? Oder muss dazu ein JaboG gegründet werden? Könnte sein, dass ich dann evtl. auf den Geschmack komme Horrido!

There is stll no chance to bind the kneeboard for the Yak to any flight controller except for the mouse, more than 3 years after reporting this issue for the first time!!

Das ist SimShaker Wings, du musst SimShaker for Aviators runterladen.

Du sparst einen USB-Steckplatz ein, und davon kann man nie genug haben.

If the MiG-21 was an ED module, one could hope.... since it is a M3 module... I guess not.

"MiG-23 will be a thing"

Das stimmt, aber leider "gewöhnt" man sich schnell an das neue. Man findet es nach einiger Zeit normal und schaut immer wieder nach neuem oder vermeintlich besserem Equipment. Der Hunger nach "mehr" hört nie auf. Ist halt wie überall im Leben - wenn man einen Corsa fährt, ist ein Golf GTI die Krönung. Wenn man erstmal einen Aston fährt, findet man den Golf GTI plötzlich nicht mehr so geil.

Ich bin eine Zeit lang mit dem Gunfighter und dem Throttle des X52 Pro geflogen. War überhaupt kein Thema.

261° is the magnetic heading of the runway and the same should be indicated on the compass.

Am I the only one experiencing the compass indications are off by about 10° on the Caucasus map? I just returned to this module, sitting on the runway of Krasnodar Center (261° runway heading) and the compass is showing 270°. I did use the GIK-1 alignment knob before engine start, but this didn't change anything. Same behavior in instant missions. Any thoughts?

Rudel.... I don't know why you're defending the developers ... but wait... there was a Rudel guy im the MiG-21 development team back then... is that you? Nevermind... If you have access to real world training material of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces, you quickly realize that you can't do real-world procedures with the DCS MiG-21. That is mainly because of the phantasy implementation of both of the nav systems, RSBN and ARK. Especially the ARK implementation is so far away from the real thing, it's just unbelievable. This alone is enough for someone like me and many others to say "no, thank you" to this module. And as long as this is not fixed, I would recommend the developers NOT to speak of their module as a simulation. An this is just one of the many problems the MiG-21 has. For what it's worth, one module which does it perfectly is the L-39, and hopefully the MiG-29 will be just as good. If you want to get airborne, ratatata some enemies, drop some bombs, and RTB, that's perfectly fine. But there are people that want to fly realistic missions and procedures, and those people just can't work with the current MiG, and that's why this module belongs to the junkyard and not in a game that calls itself a simulation. Period.

I think it's going to be the 9.12 - but anyway, by writing "hopefully the MiG-29 will be" I meant the full fidelity plane, of course

This. I'm glad to see there are other people thinking like that. After all those years of just playing around in the sim, in 2021 I decided to learn flying from scratch. And since I'm very interested in history and grew up in East Germany, I got hold of training materials from the past and started learning to fly "eastern style". Thanks to the Russian origins of DCS (inner and outer beacons and RSBN / PRMG), this works really well in DCS. First I flew the Yak-52 for six months, teaching myself wind, route and curve calculations. Then I flew the L-39 for a good 2 years and am now moving on to the MiGs. All the procedures that were available back then really work in DCS, provided the aircraft is realistically simulated (the L-39 is, the MiG-21 is not, hopefully the MiG-29 will be). So I understand Hassle very well when he wants to dig deep into the subject. It gives you a lot back. The F-5E is also in my hangar, collecting dust, but one day I will start to learn flying "western style"

The MiG-21 alone has many subvariants that it would be worth simulating. I'm just thinking of the PFM or the MF, let alone the F-13. Apart from that the current MiG-21BIS module has so many unrealistic features that - in a perfect world - it would have to be rebuilt from scratch. If we'll ever get the MiG-23 is also written in the stars at the moment, and I also don't see the MiG-25 or MiG-23BN / MiG-27 anywhere.

Hypoxia occurs when there is not enough oxygen. However, in your MiG you wear your oxygen mask at all times, so no hypoxia is going to occur (except when you turn off the oxygen valve...). The main reason for using the pressurization system is the low air pressure at high altitudes, which your body would not survive (your body fluids start to boil etc.).

I've had a look at the document "The radio and radio measuring equipment of the L-39 aircraft" of the East German Air Force again. According to this document, switching from O to I only takes place if the course angle to the beacon (i.e. the RKL needle) is within a range of +-30°. If the course angle to the radio beacon is outside +-30°, the aircraft switches back to O. This means that the direction of the runway is not taken into account at all, but only the position of the RKL needle.

I guess it has to do with the course selector, which should be aligned with the runway axis on approach, but I don't know exactly, sorry.

This only works if you fly over the outer marker within the limits of +-30° to the runway axis and with the landing gear extended. Your radio compass should then switch to tracking the inner NDB.

Commandos - Behind enemy lines. I can still play it today, and it's tons of fun, but it's just not the same as back in the days... because the times, the places, the friends from back then are all kinda gone now. Just like BeatriceDrake said, it's all about nostalgia and memories.

Google for SIMple SIMpit.

No.

Yes, they were used for approach procedures like "2x180°" and the so called "calculated angle" which were technically bad weather approach procedures, just like I wrote before. Nevertheless, they were used every day. But this has nothing to do with navigation as used on cross-country flying, which was done by compass & stopwatch in the first place. In bad weather and at night, the radar is not just an addition, it is a neccessity. Yes, GCI guided your plane to a position behind the enemy, so that - in good weather conditions - you could see the enemy right in front of you. But at night and in bad weather, you had to switch on your radar to "see" the enemy. Hence, all-weather interceptors were equipped with a radar. This is why the MiG-19S ist not an all-weather interceptor. BTW, these terms were not invented by me, but by soviet design bureaus. But this is getting off-topic. Anyone who knows how to radio-navigate soviet style on the Sinai map, please take over.

Sorry, I don't know if there's a solution for placing ARK stations on the Sinai map. But be assured that compass and stopwatch navigation has nothing to do with piston aircraft. It still was the main navigation type in that "golden MiG era", and would be used in all weather conditions and in night time. Radio navigation systems like ARK and RSBN have always been a navigation aid, but never a standalone navigation type. I personally only use ARK stations for bad weather landings and checking the aircraft's position by cross bearing, and that's what the ancestors did. The term "all-weather interceptor" rather implies the presence of a radar system than the use of radio navigation.