Hiromachi

I am looking at it all the time buddy. We have a list of priorities but there is also time for bug fixes. Right now we will be trying to prioritize fixes for the radar.

Just more UVs. All I see for a while now are UVs. Once Rudel is done with this and retexturing there will be something to show.

It clearly fits an arbitrairly taken "classic definition" which does not account for different requirements for the design stipulated by party requesting new type of fighter, nomenclature existing at a time and other factors such as technical solutions and evolution of designs throughout decades of aviation. Original MiG-21F did not have a radar (rangefinding radar doesnt count here) nor any guidance system (ARL-SM was added in later variants) that would make it even remotely useful in interceptions, particularly at night. With F-13 were missiles added (a pair of heat-seekers which is an equivalent do what later Sabres could carry). Implying that design armed with two 20 mm cannons, having no radar and no guidance other than radio can pass for an interceptor is a bit too much. Or to reverse the point, many other jets at a time that were not inteceptors, prioritized things like speed and climb. Including F-104, which also was not considered interceptor (especially after failure to include SAGE). Now MiG-21PF received a radar - RP-9, later modernized to RP-21. But it could not guide any missiles. Only with introduction of MiG-21PFM and modernization to RP-21M standard would RS-2US missiles appear in service. And PF / PFM were an actual attempt to adapt MiG-21 as interceptor. Rossmum is right, Soviet Union had a dedicated lineup of interceptors which included radar, dedicated type of missiles, autopilot and guidance system (ARL of some sort, with later designs connected to autopilot). MiG-21 could perform interceptions. In fact it could do so very well due to mentioned speed and rate of climb. But it was by design and requirements a light frontline fighter.

What ED does and what enhancements introduces, is only related to their modules. What Burritto asked about is whether F4U will have new damage model, "new" meaning the one released last year for all ED warbirds. Not new in regard to whatever improvements ED is preparing for future. And the answer is no. F4U will have old damage model (one prior to the last years warbirds upgrade) because new one is not a part of SDK. Our requests to gain access to it sooner were denied, as ED wishes to release it for 3rd parties only in a complete form. We will make some improvements on our own, thats for sure, but current warbirds damage models are not available for 3rd parties to implement and there is nothing we can do about it. We can only hope for ED release final version in not too distant future

It's not. As I said previously, the one to blame is @-Rudel- because of the artwork. We always blame him anyway But seriously, if there is time to work on the features, than we can fit them. Module itself is always a priority.

I can help here too, since I checked that recently myself http://www.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/index.php/digitalizacja/katalog/2307 Pages 114 to 116 describe SPO-10 This part: "Z chwilą zmniejszenia się odległości między samolotami do 2-5 km /w zależności od mocy opromieniowującej stacji radiolokacyjnej/, stacja ostrzegawcza SPO-10 zaczyna pracować na wszystkich kanałach /świecą wszystkie lampki/." basically means that when the distance between planes decreases to 2-5 km / depending on the power / strength of emissions from the radar station/, SPO-10 warning station starts to work on all channels / all lamps are lit/. SPO-10 has four channels, hence four lights are lit.

Artwork. Remodelling is done, UVs are finished too, Rudel has to retexture some parts of the cockpit to account for the changes made in the shapes / new objects. Rest of the team is looking into aircraft carrier operation and trying to get Bat bomb working.

As was explained in our development updates, we have decided to significantly remodel F4U, as we have gained access to original manufacturing drawings and plans. It's not different to what ED Mosquito is going through. All devs wish to ensure the very best quality of their product, and visual side of things is extremely important here

As it should according to the manual. Strong emitting source at closer ranges will get all lights lit as all four receiving stations are hit by emissions.

Flight manuals and some technical publications are available. It takes time and patience to collect them, I've been doing so for almost a decade now and have at least 3 version fo flight manual, engine manual and some minor publications. Real problem is with aerodynamic data as Nakajima after the war as most of so called "zaibatsu" was split into 12 companies (one of them is Subaru) so there is no one unified archive or museum as you had for Mitsubishi in Nagoya. In fact, to this day, there are no certain information about aerodynamic characteristics of the Nakajima NN-2 airfoil and its derivatives. Similarly, a problem would arise with propeller as Sumitomo Heavy Industries was far behind companies like Curtiss, Hamilton or Rotol and data about each propeller to this day remain missing. So we know they produced propellers of lower efficiency but we dont know exactly how low, bar for a few aircraft where separate publications were found. Finally there is prop pitch mechanism, as Ki-84 used electric pitch changing mechanism based off French Ratier design. I guess combination of CFD and available data could allow developing Hayate but it would still be a tough task.

I dont have ffb joystick to test this behavior but I have forwarded this for further inquiry guys.

Ok. Must be from my test than. No worries, it will make it than

Mig-21_CP.edm.lua I think, I have that in mine.

It's already been moved... As for experimental feature option, it stays there. We have for it another purpose.

It has built internally nuclear warhead.

I'm busy with taking pictures of many things. But I think it's time for a truly unconventional module. A fully simulated and immersive DCS bug

We have manuals, but if you feel like it, you can send me material. Or try creating a ticket on Mantis: https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view_all_bug_page.php That way you can attach materials so that Dolphin will see them too.

Not yet, but Im forwarding all your and Shmal material to Dolphin

We cant control it locally - i.e. per each glass, so that we could adjust different levels of reflections for canopy and different for front glass which is after all very different.

There was no single color. It changed during usage after every major maintenance/overhaul. Paint wore out and than cockpit would be repainted, more often than not, with paint different than used originally by manufacturer. I have pictures of both turquoise and blueish cockpits, Similar thing can be said about exterior. I've read more than a few debates between modelers and former maintenance facilities workers and pilots trying to find out what color was used, what color was applied in year X and why the heck exterior colors from various years dont match. On the attached picture you can see pretty well that under the blue paint there is turquoise one. Anyway, we are away of the desire to have the turquoise color as default and Rudel will look into this when we can finally tackle Phase 2 of cockpit.

We already did around 2.7 release

Glass reflections appeared in all modules due to changes in materials introduced by ED in 2.7, there is nothing to change one our side and we are waiting for ED to provide tools to adjust level of reflectivity. And I fly MiG-15. It's canopy reflections are the exact type of baked in reflections.

There are no baked in canopy reflections.