MiG21bisFishbedL

Good tutorial. The only real addendum I'd include is explaining the gun charging for the Gsh-23 by mentioning that the second and third charges are used to clear jams.

We do know some portions of it are incorrect, but honestly? Far from garbage. And there's a limit of what we can ask of Dolphin887, who did the code and flew 21s. It's a matter of some underperformance and overperformance in certain regimes. What's more pressing are avionics issues. NavAIDs, etc. and the ASP especially.

The PF's canopy is way too good to pass up. That's one of the best portions of the F-13. Sooo sleek.

It'd be really, really nice to have any real ground crew.

F-117, Il-28, Su-24, F-111 or Canberra would be my preferences. For Canberra, I'd want to see a B-57B or B-57G Tropic Moon, specifically.

Yeah, automating it isn't going to help you. Providing some kind of air-to-air assist tool akin to the supercarrier's meatball overlay? Now we're cookin' with gas. Actually, even just having a little display that updates you on tanker movement ahead of time and keeps track of its speed would be pretty awesome.

It's almost as if they're launching and impacting on the runway when activated.

You might be able to squeeeeeze a little more performance out, but honestly? Diminishing returns. It's best to leave auto, as the rest state. Especially if engaged in combat, I'd only recommend toying with it during cruise.

That second image made me think you were painting it up in Finnish colors owing to that masking tape. Good stuff, though. I got a back log to work through, including an A-6.

It's the MiG-21 post Covid lockdowns. Put on a few pounds and such.

It has some quirks, some little 'rules' to keep in mind, but it's a fun whip once you get that down. Just don't go slow, keep your AoA loading mild, stay fast, and you're golden. And, the slow part is debatable. Some like to slowdown, pop flaps, and let enemies sail past. I'm not generally a fan of that, I'm an addict for velocity.

MiG-21SMT confirmed!

So, March '23 it is!

Most of them, but the ones I put the most time into are the Mi-24, Mirage F.1, and MiG-21bis.

The best place to get that documentation is the country of origin. Have fun with that bummer.

Opening up to ground vehicles, as much as I'd love to see that, requires a serious sit down to talk about the engine we have. We will need a lot of things for that. We'll need much better ground handling physics, damage and penetration calculations, and other such things. It needs to be ascertained if this can be done with minimal impact on overall performance. I'd certainly not lament a 3rd party giving us a T-72 or other AFV, but I'd feel a lot more confident in the product if ED were to do it since they really can get under the hood as it would be sorely needed.

And, yet, the developers indicate otherwise. Who will I go with? You? Or the people working on the software itself. It's best to accept and move on, tbh. At best, we get MAC.

This.

The devs behind 2018's Battletech put it best: Game development is 10lbs of great ideas trying to fit into a 1lb bag.

That'd actually be cool as hell.

So long as they take a good long look at what they need to do. It'll be their greatest undertaking yet as map makers: -We'll need multiple countries represented; Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam it self minimum. -Foliage performance, they need to rein in a lot of the foliage performance. Fun fact: Southeast Asia is quite green! -Choose to model the last years of US involvement; We do have the UH-1, but it's not a period UH-1. Easy fix, I'm not sure if US Army or Navy Hueys had flares in country, so just drop that to zero. We do have a MiG-21 and MiG-19, but the VPAF didn't get the 21bis until '78 and I don't think they ever got radar Farmers. Limit the load out of the 21bis and the radar Farmer will underperform compared to VPAF Farmers. Heatblur's F-4? Actual 'nam vintage, so that's a plus. F-100? The same. Model it from resources from the early 70s for the most accuracy, if you ask me. -Appropriate ground assets will be required, too. It'll be a gargantuan effort.

MiG-21 has the Rn-24 and Rn-28 tactical nuclear weapons. The less said about them, the better. They're basically just FABs on crack. They were almost immediately restricted on missions because of what they did to the software's performance. They're still restricted because they're absolute garbage in terms how they're modeled and perform. Mag3 has stated they've no interest in going back to them and improving them. Conventional abilities are clearly the priority and the various teams involved seem to agree upon that.

Gentleman and a scholar.

Yeah, fullscreen is superior. It just runs better.

There's loads of missions and campaigns, both paid for and free. If none please, mission making in DCS is dummy easy so dive right in. I can understand that argument for a lot of games, I legit can, but at the same time? DCS is a sandbox and a lot of it is up to you. That said, more missions and such would always be a welcome thing.