Lurker

What about doing a modernized version of the Mig21BiS? Something like the Mig21 Lancer, that's still flying in Romania? Or do you feel that too few people would be interested in purchasing said module?

Test it at 1500ft, that's 500m (or thereabouts) it should be able to reach close to Mach 2 at burnout. Which is exactly on par with the CFD.

I'm afraid that this is going to go nowhere, it's not a real bug report and as such will not get looked at.

That might be done on purpose to limit the micro corrections the missile does during course changes, if they up it's g limit to 5g0, because of the way that guidance works for some missiles in DCS World, it might shorten it's range even more so.

Does DCS World even model the reliability issues of these older model Sidewinders and AIM-7s? Because if we are getting a Naval Phantom, (and the Crusader) then that should be a thing.

Not at all, like I said the thing is a beast. The AI is robust enough to be used as a pretty dependable back-seater, and you have the option to fly with another human in the backseat which is even better (but not necessary). As for advantages and disadvantages, well it all depends on how you employ it. It's got the longest reach out of all the fighters out there, with an active long range Phoenix missile, it's big, carries a LOT of fuel, it's extremely fast up high, and can be a deadly dogfighter once you get the hang of it. You can even do A/G in it, a role it's surprisingly good at, since it can carry a lot of ordnance. It's swing wing design allows it to shine in pretty much every role. Oh, and lets not forget it can land on the boat, if carrier OPS is something you enjoy. As for limited SA, i disagree about that. It's systems are simpler, but no less powerful than the other jets. It can get very good SA if you have a Big Bird in the sky (yes it even has Data Link) it's RWR is great. The only real disadvantage, if you even want to call it that is that it takes a while to learn to fly properly, which is not a disadvantage in my book. If you can handle WWII jets, you already have an advantage against people who are used to flying FBW jets. You fly the airplane, the airplane doesn't fly you.

Then definitely go for the F14B, in many respects it's like a WWII airplane, that really, really needs a lot of rudder. In fact above a certain AoA the plane will depart unless you roll it exclusively with the rudders. One of the most fun fighters to fly and fight in DCS World, feels like you're riding a barely contained wild tiger. By comparison the F18C is a tame housecat, with all the FBW and flying assists you have at hand.

The F14B really doesn't need that many buttons. Most of the stuff you can just klick in the cockpit, that's one of the beauties of DCS World, clickable cockpits. The Jester (AI) wheel is also pretty great, and it's contextual so it requires minimal binds. Your setup should be more than fine for the F14B, the F18C is however a bit more complex, especially since you have to work the radar yourself but it should also be doable. Hopefully you have at least a Track IR though, since you need to click around the cockpit it's useful to be able to look around. (Not to mention the fact that it's great for immersion as well as looking out of your cockpit ) Also there should be a try before you buy period of two weeks per module, for pretty much any module in the game. So there is that. Give it a go, play around with your bindings and have fun going down the rabbit hole

Ping is usually but not always a good indication of network stability. Most importantly ping doesn't show you packet loss, which is probably what is causing most desync issues in DCS World, and is probably what is causing the AWG-9 or the AIM54 to drop locks more often than they should. I have a few ideas (indeed many of them picked up on these very forums) about what kind of approach Heatblur could take to mitigate this, but they would probably be unacceptable to simulation purists. As for Eagle Dynamics, they could work on improving their network code. But it's Eagle Dynamics, and they have their hands full just preventing the sim from falling apart....

@Qiou87 I too would be curious for the reasoning on how HB have decided their release schedule, but I doubt we will get a more forthcoming answer from the one we already have. And it's a pretty extensive one to boot and makes quite a bit of sense to me.

SUBS17 is either the best internet troll I've seen in years, or otherwise......well I think it's self-explanatory.

Hey guys? Where did I say that it can't do A/G? I just stated that it's a purebred fighter. Which it is, and which is how I will probably make use of it in DCS for 90% of the time.

The less said about the rudder trimmer the better. I don't like the function, and it's counterintuitive in a terrible way. Not to mention the fact that sometimes you DONT want to trim. That's why tying trim to AP Heading hold is not a great idea. As for the second part, yes, the YAW AP only works (sort of) for springed pedals. However there is something strangely off in the way it engages and disengages, which is why most people fly with it turned off. Which is definitely not how it's supposed to be done in the real Hind.

Well you are wrong. Shaking doesn't affect anything other than your feel, you can control it (by gripping the stick more firmly) and you can easily control the aircraft without the shake affecting your inputs. It effectively translates what you see on the screen, to your hand. If the plane or cockpit doesn't shake, neither does the stick. To me that's a something that is extremely immersive, especially in VR.

Yes.

Have you tried it? Personally have you tried it? Youtube videos can't demonstrate the feel of it properly. It feels right! I for one don't know what I would do if my MSFFBB2 failed, I would definitely try to get another one somewhere.

So which variant of the F1 will be coming first? Is it still planned to be released as per the first post in this thread?

Yes, you are absolutely correct. For some reason this didn't occur to me The more I think about it the more it seems like microswitches need to be a bind-able option with our DCS Hind. Either that, or an AP system would have to be implemented that is completely different than the one in the real Hind.

The problem is that when you set the Windows page file to "System Managed" on high Ram systems (with 32 or more GB ram) Windows automatically adjusts it but usually it never goes above 4GB, until necessary, which seems to be a lot in DCS World. I would imagine the slowdown occurs whenever Windows has to manually adjust the page file size. These are just educated guesses though, but I've had great success with increasing my page file size to 32GB with Unity based games, and maybe this is true of DCS world too. I will try and test this out.

Also while we are theory-crafting for a better microswitches solution, a really simple and elegant solution just occurred to me: Disengage autopilot heading hold whenever physical pedal input is detected. Do not base it on pedal deflection (as it is currently implemented). - So if pedals are left alone (no movement on axis, irrespective of where on the axis the pedals are currently left at) AP Heading hold is engaged - Axis movement is detected, AP heading hold is disengaged. I don't know whether that is possible to code within the DCS framework though, or how hard it would be to do so.

I'm really looking forward to this one. I'm not usually excited for modern FBW jets, but this one is a purebred fighter through and through and I'm excited to see how simple or difficult it's systems will be to learn and use correctly. I wouldn't mind it overtaking the F4E on the roadmap either

If I'm following your train of thought correctly, this would mean that every time the trim button is pressed the Heading Hold is disabled, and then is engaged once again when the trim button is released, with the caveat that it would recognize where the pedals are currently set at (or trimmed at) and take that as a baseline from which to disengage the Heading hold from. Unfortunately this would also mean that unless you press the trimmer, heading hold would not be disabled and we are back at square one. In a scenario where you are trimmed out for an attack run (for example) and you need minor corrections on the rudder so you can bring guns or rockets to bear on the target, you don't really want to trim, but you also don't want the Heading hold to fight your inputs.... I think that an option for springless pedals should be added to the DCS Hind. (Sort of like the different control options for different types of cyclics or joystics that already exists). That way you can tell the module what type of pedals you have (either spring, or springless) and it would adjust the control and AP logic accordingly.

I believe that there is a bug. Or rather if there isn't I don't understand what the purpose of the 9% from threshold is in the DCS Hind. The Hind recognizes pedal inputs less than 9% from center, if you do small corrections with the YAW AP channel on within that threshold the heading hold function will fight your inputs. This can lead to all sorts of wonky flight issues.

I don't see how that would be the case, unless you have faulty pedal inputs. Once again, maybe Im not being clear, the AP Heading hold is always ON (not OFF) unless the pedals are depressed. This would simulate pedal microswitches. This is for spring based pedals. For springless pedals, which do not return to center some kind of bind-able microswitches should be implemented. I agree.

Yes, this is why they have microswitches. However our own pedals do not, with or without springs. So I will ask my question again. Why is there a dead zone for AP YAW HOLD OFF in pedal deflection in our simulated DCS Mi24p?