Kobymaru

Seems to have been adressed in the latest patch https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/release/2.9.18.12899/

For me the carrier was Roosevelt. Not using Tobi eye tracking, but I am using OpenTrack 2023.2.0

I just did the naughty and ignored the LSO who told me to wave off because the deck was occupied. I got swiftly punished by a crashed game. Looks like it was related 2025-07-24 23:30:20.179 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000001875c6 (Flight): LSO::updateLSO + 0x1336 2025-07-24 23:30:20.180 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x000000000015414b (Flight): woATC::Control + 0x62B 2025-07-24 23:30:20.180 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000babcf (Transport): wAirService::controlService + 0x2F 2025-07-24 23:30:20.180 INFO EDCORE (Main): 0x00000000000ba3c1 (Transport): wAirService::GetParkingObjID + 0x91 dcs.log dcs.log-20250724-233020.zip .trk file does not exist and is instead a .trk.writing file and 100mb, so I can't attach it. Is it needed?

Ohh I see! that actually worked, thanks! I found the reason for the bad alignment: Jester has a bug where he screws up the OWN A/C coordinates if queue up multiple waypoints for him to enter from map markers. Apparently you're only allowed to do one at a time.

My tomcat had a bad INS alignment, so I wanted to fix it. I tried doing it with the RDR fix method and the VIS fix method, and both of them worked - but only for the LAT/LON coordinates! I was flying at 12.700 ft and own A/C -> ALT was showing -653 ft after the fix. When entering the waypoint coordinates, I did add the correct altitude of the waypoint.

I feel so reassured about Mig21 development by the reassuring words in the yearly newsletters that I completely forget about the complete absence of patches to the module and the ever-increasing list of breakages that has been going on for the last decade.

Yeah sure. We know. They know. Everyone knows. But petitions don't change anything. That's what I thought too, but no. That's wrong. They're like 1-3 people, part time, so pretty much just modders who are getting paid. Them being a "commercial entity" is only relevant legally, it has no other practical consequences. They'll update it when they'll update it, which is probably never, so it's best to let it go. My Mig21 has been parked for a while, and if you want to get the full fidelity soviet cold war feels, I can highly recommend the Mi-24 Hind. BTW I don't want to justify anything or placate you, I was just as frustrated as you once. But there comes a point where you have to accept that the module is pretty much dead and move on with your life.

https://chucksguides.com/aircraft/dcs/mig-21bis/ That's the official limits. In practice you can go a bit over, but you'll have to figure out how much by yourself

I don't know anything about ballistics, but there is something screwed up with the gunsight. The missing puzzle piece is that ASP scale is incorrect: Using this correction I was able to get my bombs a lot closer to target.

What does the Gaming mode do, and how is it different from the realistic mode?

You mean like this? https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=1139

It seems to be horizon stabilized in low-altitude mode, but in my interpretation not in regular mode.

Good find! This helped me find the corresponding section in the english MiG-21 manual: Looks like this is specific to the context of the Low Altitude mode. Is it in the same context in the polish version? The reason why I thought it is stabilized only in the roll axis is this: https://www.mig-21-online.de/mig-21/funkmessvisier/fmv-beschreibung/ translation A similar section is from this document (page 17,18) https://archive.org/details/RP-21_Sapfir_radar_technical_manual/RP-21M -MA technical description/ Bit strange that they emphasize roll stabilization but make no mention of pitch stabilization. Either way, doesn't seem like it 100% clear which way it's supposed to work.

Thanks for your input! I tried to do some digging and you're right that it is stabilized in roll with ±70° in roll. However, I could not confirm the pitch stabilization. Do you have a source for this information?

Dear Rudel, please don't put false words into peoples mouths. Your last statement about what "caring" means for users is simply not true. "Caring" for a module means that you fix bugs and issues that are known or discovered along the way. This not about adding new missiles or new variants or completely redesigning the damage model. This is about a large number of small and big bugs that have been known for a long long time. This includes trivial things like not resetting radar/alcohol when rearming and more complex things like the completely broken ASP logic. You can compare the rate of bugfixes to other modules. And if you do that, you will see that some receive fixes just about every patch, some receive fixes sometimes, some receive fixes almost never. And it is OK to call the latter category "abandoned"! You don't have to take this as a personal attack that you need to defend from, it just is what it is. Words have a meaning, and it's ok to call a module with a huge list of bugs that haven't been touched in 9 years "abandoned". So I kindly ask you to stop policing this forum like the defender of the mediocre and try to make everyone lower their standards. Let me quote you something from the official ED store where you can buy this module: What do you think users are entitled to after buying this module? Personally, I believe I am entitled to the most accurate and comprehensive simulation of a supersonic jet fighter with fully simulated systems, interactive cockpit and advanced flight modeling that will provide you with the most authentic simulation possible. Naive, I know, but I am a naive person like that who likes to hold people and companies to their promises. And I believe I still have not received "the most authentic simulation possible", not just in the pedantic literal sense, but also within the realms of what should be possible for a small developer in the span of 9 years. Do these modifications pass the Integrity Checks on multiplayer servers? If not, then this "solution" is not relevant.