MiG21bisFishbedL

Long shot, but it's not like it can hurt to try. Or maybe it can? The ETs from Area 51 might come get you! But, the F-117 is still in some limited service, as well.

Wait, what? I missed that. Our server software ISN'T MT? That needs to be priority number 1. Cripes.

Understandable, but quick and cheap isn't always the most dependable way to move product. The DCS ecosystem, I feel, doesn't really allow that to truly succeed. Instead, the push should be for value more than anything. We're all going to be accepting that we're spending a premium on additions, so it's better to make the customer feel very confident in their purchase than it is to make them feel like impulse buying. The reality is that DCS' audience isn't going to grow all that much, if at all, by these piecemeal approaches and ED understands that, no doubt. But, I feel you'd be much farther ahead if you were to cut prices on maps to encourage their sales more than anything. I really enjoy Sinai, but I can rarely find servers running it as much as Syria or PG. South Atlantic and Kola offered much needed greener and Kola's a theatre I'm interested in, but only 1 person I know owns it. I'm not asking for charity, obviously, but cutting the entry fee to these maps would increase their user share could easily prove to be well worth it. After all, these are sales that would have either waited for a price reduction or never have occurred to begin with. It'd be worth it, even if ED has to stomach the lion's share of the price reduction. After all, if I'm looking at Kola (finished, not EA) for $70 US and then I'm also looking at the Hornet at $80 US, what's going to give me more enjoyment? The aircraft. I can fly that on the Caucuses without worrying about having to find a server or good campaign. So, realistically, while trying to make things cheaper for us is appreciated, giving us better value for our purchases is better. Price reductions over all maps that might not be as cheap as selling them piecemeal, but making customers actually feel like they got a lot for their money will go a lot farther than just a lower sticker price. I think this would be a lot more beneficial to the DCS ecosystem than if ED and RB announced that they were best friends forever again. It doesn't get you clicks with outlandish outrage bait titles, sadly. Also, a more detailed roadmap specifically dedicated to back-end developmental goals would be a very good idea. We've been waiting for AI behavior fixes for how long?

Same. Behind the A-6, I think it might be my most looked-forward to.

Underrated post. These are actual issues I'd hold more concern for. Although, I'm kind of a coinflip on 3. I'm of the idea of you make the variant that is most accessible and call it good. The maps and how ED handles maps is real silly, in my opinion. Chopping them up into bits to sell is not the answer and, frankly, a terrible idea. It's one of the frequent complaints I heard about FC3 for the longest time. ED's not offering any real value or convenience by ONLY selling the F-15 or Su-27. It just seems likew a newcomers' trap to squeeze a little extra money out of them. Actually, a better idea would be price reductions across the board for maps to encourage people to pick them up. Moving product should be the #1 concern of any digital storefront since you don't have to worry about inventory. Get more maps out into the wild, get more people using them, and get more people actually playing on places like Sinai. At the present, the only maps I can ever recommend newbies get are Persian Gulf and Syria, if at all.

You're quite welcome. I do recommend touching on the Libyan-Egyptian conflict or creating a modern one. You'll have PLENTY to do with an Egyptian-Israeli setting, for sure, so having those could add some interesting flavor to the experience. Obviously, you know what you're doing if you're set in the 60s and early 70s. But, it could be worth considering a Libyan airborne incursion or the idea of Egypt loaning out its mothballed Fishbeds to volunteers/mercenaries during a counter-insurgency operation.

Also, the nature of 90% of the work is pretty mundane. When HB was showing off screenshots of Phantoms in the lead up to release, they were showing off long completed assets to build up and interest. It's harder to make oceans of code sexy.

Can you post a replay track? I just tried and my RWR worked just fine.

I suppose that does make sense given that Eurofighter has seen its systems evolve in manners few other airframes experience. That, and access.

In total, the Egyptian Air Force was a prolific operator of the MiG-21. The operated the type as early as 1962 with the MiG-21F-13. The era you're probably interested in starts in '72 with their first acquisitions of the MiG-21M and MiG-21MF. These types are fairly comparable to the bis to the extent that it can stand in for them. They represent the most advanced version of the Fishbed they received. Maybe the F-7Bs they got in '82 might have better refinement, but I'd need to know more specifically about the examples acquired. The 45th and 49th Squadrons flew the MiG-21MF with a possible third unit I'm trying to identify. Operationally, it seems their employment by the Egyptians (and other Arab Air Forces during the various Arab-Israeli conflicts) wasn't optimum. Frequently, they were tasked to be fighter escorts for MiG-17s and MiG-19s. This is a frequently cited reason for their high losses, but realistically? The Soviets didn't do anywhere close to a good enough job training these air crews. The best Egyptian Fishbeds had it were when Soviet advisors were flying them with the term 'advisor' having extremely wide goal posts as to be expected for the Cold War. My sourcing is Famous Russian Aircraft MiG-21 by Yefim Gordon and Keith Dexter. I do offer caution if you hunt down this book: It's a fantastic 'hard facts' resource. But, I find some of Yefim's conclusions to be suspect and he does mislabel a thing or two here and there. So, if you're making an Egyptian-Israeli mission, expect MiG-21s to drop like flies more often than not. But, if you're not going down that predictable path, there's also the Egyptian-Libyan conflict. There weren't big furballs like we saw during the Yom Kippur War, but there were air-to-air engagements. And here? The MiG-21 gets heavily favored. In fact, we see the MiG-21 perform better than the MiG-23. It underpins why so many export customers chose to stay with and acquire updated MiG-21s as opposed to getting the newer, more expensive, MiG-23 as they saw it as a bridge too far for a performance increase they didn't really need. Again, Volator's cited book by Tom Cooper? Pretty damn good and definitely worth hunting down. Addendum: Your opponent inventory should include Mirage F1s, F-4 Phantoms, MiG-23s without BVR weapons (I'm pretty sure the Libyans had the same RP-22 as the 21bis in their Floggers), and A-4E-Cs. Your ally inventory should include MiG-15s (to stand in until we get the MiG-17) and the MiG-19. After '77? Egypt got F-4 Phantoms and stopped relying on the Soviets. Then, if you go into the 1980s, that ally pool opens way open with the start of the Bright Star exercises. http://www.easternorbat.com/html/bright_star__82_eng.html Check out those Vipers with the original tail feathers. As for beyond the 80s? The EAF retired the MiG-21 from active units by 2010. However, they're kept in reserve in the same way the USAF keeps F-117s in storage; prepped for reactivation if needed. These particular aircraft serve as either geo-political tools (as they gave some to the Libyans) and, most obviously, for an emergency.

No one wants a half cooked release. Viggen, Tomcat, and Phantom were all worth the wait. Let Finke and the gang cook. Sure, they could give us updates, but at the same time? How exciting could screenshots of oceans of code exactly be? That said, I honestly expect a word on EF soon. Just something tells me in a coming autumn/winter update, they'll mention it.

I can go do some digging in my books, I got nothing to do this morning. Have some patience and I'll be back with SOME answers, hopefully.

It's still an update from this year that is referencing '22. It's definitely not ideal, but not much can be done until their resources are freed up. Tough, I guess? I don't like it either. But, it is what it is.

I'll take it, mine sucks in real life.

Yeah, but they also played second fiddle to the Aztecs, eventually. The Nahuan princess I know is predicting it to coincide with the full release of DNF 2001.

Helluva way to get fired.

Having pilot customization, period, would be cool. Nothing too indepth, we definitely don't need much. Maybe a motopatch or two. Nothing those who are insecure would erect as a strawman.

https://magnitude-3.com/2024/07/13/2024-summer-update/ Our beloved Fishbed, while on break, is not forgotten. Rest assured work will be started again once our core team has time. More information can be found in our Summer ’22 update. Link below:

More of the Grand Canyon would be spectacular.

You dropped this:

Yes. That's how it goes. Also, the Eagle exists because they needed experience in the creation of a prop engine model for the Corsair, so the work on the former is applicable to the latter (or vice versa), probably. The MiG-21 is still playable, it isn't broken. But, what it really needs? Mag3's undivided attention. It's art assets are outdated, obviously, and some flight dynamics need to be looked at. So, honestly, we need to be asking what is taking the Corsair so long? Sure, better a TF2 or STALKER than a Daikatana or a DNF, but still.

Your input is enlightening and nuanced.

I wonder if ED will cover neck injury in an updated EULA?

They do, but it isn't a question of will. It's a question of resources.

In my experience, if it isn't hard? It'll find a way to become hard. A better question to ask is "Is it worthwhile?" Here? Absolutely. It'd also require an overhaul of AAR physics, which we really do need. That alone would make it worth it, nevermind the additional facet of gameplay.