_Firefly

Wait a minute, the Fulcrum can't use the standard R-60? The 9.12 and 9.12A should both be capable of firing the regular R-60 (albeit in boresight mode only), though I'd have to consult my books to verify this. I remember reading about the R-60M being integrated with the Shchel-3UM helmet-mounted sight (this works as intended in-game), but with no R-60Ms on the server that's of little concern.

Excellent, already passed the word to other members of my squadron. Hopefully we'll be able to get our own GCI. I'll have to leave work early to make it on time. :D

Yup, if you don't seal the canopy your MiG quickly becomes a convertible.

Installed this yesterday, the new sound effects are phenomenal! Thank you Nin for your excellent work, hope it's going to get included in the vanilla module. Here's a video from a quick test I did yesterday:

@Hiromachi, I have a high quality scan of a complete Polish operator's manual for the 21bis. It includes the segment that Schmidtfire posted. I'd be happy to send that to you, PM me if you need it.

Just wanted to save fuel. :) I suspect there's no magic involved, more likely it's just a properly tuned suspension setup. Speaking of which, here's a video of Hungarian MiG-21bis squadron operating from a grass airstrip.

@m4ti140, that seems like a fair assessment. IMHO the key factor here is that the springs are far too soft for this amount of suspension travel. As a result the plane effectively rides on the bumpstops when taking turns even at moderate speeds, thus causing the effective spring rate to skyrocket. It appears that DCS does not model low speed damping and weight transfer correctly, so instead of bouncing around like a 1970s American land yacht (losing its chrome hubcaps in the process) the tyre sinks through the ground, making the game engine think the plane is riding on its wheel rims, just like a car with a blown tyre. I suspect M3 modelled it this way in order to make the Fishbed capable of taking off from grassy airstrips (just like the real aircraft), even though the latter aren't used on modern maps. Thanks for the tip, that's exactly how I take off in the 21. Glad to learn I'm doing it right. I haven't done many mil power takeoffs since the FM update, which is probably why that time I held too much weight over the front wheel for too long, not expecting the shimmy to be so severe.

Bumping this thread just so the Sukhoi doesn't get forgotten. REDFOR needs its strike aircraft and the Fitter would be... a perfect fit (pun very much intended).

Sure, I'll add my 2 cents.

AvioDev is a polar opposite of Razbam - they stick to what they have on their plate and don't ask for seconds if they haven't finished. I appreciate that. Still, I'm really looking forward to seeing this on the Cold War server, love the F1 in Spanish camo. [picture from Wikipedia]

As a Fishbed pilot, I'm perfectly fine with Harriers being on the server as long as they don't have Sidewinder Mikes. To think Blue has such an abundance of strike aircraft to choose from while Red only has the Frogfoot... Alpen, I know you'll agree with me when I say that Red desperately needs the Su-17 and MiG-27. I'd love to fly the Fitter in Polish or East German colours.

Alpen always uses the default channel ("0" in the MiG-21, 124 MHz) for human GCIs for the sake of simplicity. I like to turn down my in-game radio volume while keeping SRS and TS volume up. IMHO the best way of solving this issue for Red would be to have multiple GCIs and ground unit commanders in a single TS channel and use separate SRS frequencies for different types of aircraft (e.g. one for MiG-21s, another for F-5s etc.). That way the GCIs could coordinate air and ground combat between themselves and relay relevant information to smaller numbers of pilots. The major weakness of this idea is that it would require the participation of multiple Red GCIs in every single mission. At JG-1 we have some people who could do GCI for us, but not every squadron has that luxury.

IMHO Korea is a much more likely candidate than Taiwan. Here's why: 1. Adding the Republic of China as a playable nation is bound to stir huge controversy in the PRC. ED understandably doesn't want to upset the massive Chinese market and lose their support for new and existing Chinese modules. 2. Any number of conflicts could play out in Korea, from an alt history ending of WW2 to the present day. Because the Korean Peninsula is region of significant strategic importance, any such conflict would practically guarantee some degree of participation of at least two, potentially three superpowers through geographic proximity and/or vested interests in the area. 3. It seems to me that Russia would be far less likely to join a conflict across the Taiwan strait than a second Korean War. The majority of REDFOR hardware in DCS is of Russian origin, so keeping Russia as a potential actor on a given map seems like the sensible thing to do. As a side note, both areas seem equally well-suited to carrier operations and benefit from being located in South-East Asia, a region woefully underexplored by combat simulators in general. I'm not convinced that a map of the Fulda Gap would be feasible given the density of population centres in Western Europe, it might take up A LOT of drive space. Both the Balkans and the Aegean seem like very interesting ideas though. We have enough Middle Eastern maps as is, so any region with plenty of green (or white, depending on the season) would be a welcome change. Maybe Kaliningrad could be an option?

Indeed. Last night I tried a mil-power takeoff and got the shimmy at about ~150 km/h. A few seconds later either the tyre exploded or the front landing leg got bent (couldn't tell for sure, no external views) and I had to skid to a stop...

Agreed. They're all rather enjoyable, so having 3 of them in rotation for any given week (say, one each on Caucasus, Persian Gulf and Syria) would be more than sufficient. Besides, I'd like Alpen to maintain a semblance of sanity, those updates must've made his hair go grey. :smilewink:

Question from someone completely unfamiliar with mission design - wouldn't it be easier to change the missile stocks to unlimited for the time being? I realise that would go against your philosophy, but given that the MiG pilots have to venture with knife to a gunfight IMHO that would be better than nothing.

This would explain how I was shot down during my first sortie. Not fun at all.

That is mighty impressive. Fingers crossed for this mod becoming an official module. :)

After today's update the warehouses are broken. Alpen, I'm sure you're looking forward to fixing this again...

Alright, will have a go the next time it's on Thursday.

I wish these were hosted during the week and not on Saturday, as I'm not available during the weekend... :/ With enough lead time I could put together a full Schwarm of JG-1 members to join in on the fun, potentially with GCI support.

Agreed. Alpenwolf always limits the numbers of advanced machinery anyway, so it's not like the addition of one or two modern gunships is going to turn the balance on its head. Same goes for the Mi-24 and the potential AH-1 (late versions of course).

Are you running the clean cockpit mod? This has happened to me before, I had to uninstall the modded files and run DCS repair to make it work again. I've since switched to a different cockpit mod, which is installed in the Saved Games folder rather than your game's directory. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3311157/

Damn, was hoping for some Friday night action. Thanks for the info.

Is the server offline? Did today's update break anything?