BlackLion213

If we want to have a serious discussion on what constitutes "too much" for a DCS module, then comparing similar programs is the only logical approach. The problem is: DCS is a unique product since (at least from what I can tell) no one else is really producing combat flight sims to this level of detail and fidelity. PMDG might be comparable (not on the flight model, but on systems) and VRS is probably quite similar to a DCS module. The PMDG 777 add-on for P3D costs $134....VRS Superbig costs $60 and the TacPack is another $50 (so $110 for the same level of functionality in every DCS module). Suddenly, $50 seems pretty darn good. :) Not to stray off topic too much, but I re-entered the flight sim world after a 12 year hiatus. I bought a program before DCS and several add-ons. The base program was $60 and all of the add-ons were around $40-50. The add-ons do not have nearly the detail of a full DCS module, yet they are pretty similar in price. Plus, the base program cost real money. When I started looking in to DCS, the pricing seemed totally reasonable, even before I realized that there were periodic sales. Once I started playing, it seemed like a relative bargain given the quality - which frankly astounded me once i started playing. There will always be the issue of people wanting more than they can spend, but that's not ED problem. -Nick

I thought that was coming from Belsimtek...the perfect opponent for DCS Lada. :megalol: -Nick

In fairness, they said "hope" not "promise": Not to mention all the work that's been put into the MiG-21 since the 1.5 open beta. From Rudel earlier today: We now have twice as many MiG-21 liveries coming (and seem to be more-or-less done). That said, I'm still hoping for next week and I hate the delays. However, every big project that I have followed (or more tellingly...contributed to) has been delayed over the past 2 years. I don't want to be the pot that calls the kettle black. :music_whistling: I'm with you...I feel good about November. -Nick

Would that be so unrealistic? Excluding the part about a Chinese F-16 (unless you mean one of their indigenous aircraft that is similarly multi-role). Alliances these days have little relation to the past, plenty of Soviet equipped nations could be part of a coalition with NATO, Japan, India, or the US. Back in the 1980s, this scenario is highly doubtful. In the 2000s, perfectly plausible IMHO. -Nick

Wow! That's a ton, this means about twice as many liveries as we have now. :thumbup: There is some interesting stuff in there. #4 and #5 (front to back) are very interesting, I have no idea of the nationality. Also, it seems that you upgraded existing schemes even further. VVS Grey is looking good, I like the new blue tac numbers. :) I agree that the back row looks like Poland and Czechoslovakia. Can't wait to check these out. Also, the new canopy details/window sealant looks excellent. -Nick

Looks excellent to me. :) Can't wait to try it, that might be my new favorite MiG-21 skin. What Polish scheme are you working on, if I may ask? -Nick

Hmm... Why does every discussion of the F-14 immediately lead to a discussion on the F-15? If they are so impressed by their own capabilities, why do they feel the need to reinforce their abilities every time we discuss something else? Seems like their might some insecurity over in Eagle country. ;) Some "Phoenix envy"...if you will :D I kid...sort of. ;) I like the F-15C, but not every discussion needs to be a comparison. -Nick

I don't know that much about the AWG-9 compared to other F-14 systems, but I managed to pick-up a few things from prior conversations and postings. One important bit of background: the AWG-9 and essentially all of the F-14A/Bs avionics were quite old for it's operational life. The AWG-9 was developed in the 1960s and was fully 1960s/analog tech when it became operational in the F-14. It's tech was regarded as rather ancient by the 1980s (let alone 1990s and 2000s), but it's capabilities were so far ahead of it's time that it managed to stay relevant and adequately capable for most of the F-14s career. However, as an analog device, it was much more operator dependent than more modern radars. I learned a ton from a dearly departed blogger named Neptunus Lex - a former F/A-18A/C pilot who entered the fleet in the 1980s (one of the first nugget pilots to fly the Hornet). He really added to my Hornet interest, but really did me in by adding to the Tomcat's lore. Sadly he passed away in 2011 (accident at Fallon). He was an avid Hornet proponent (no surprise), but not particularly harsh to the Tomcat (unlike most USAF pilots). He spelled it out pretty clearly. To him, the Tomcat was certainly not less capable than the Hornet in A-A, but wasn't much better for the average engagement. The Tomcat had a definite advantage at the extremes of sensor range, but the Hornet had much better avionics and was much more consistent. Basically, the digital signal processors, et al, really improved the usability of the radar. The Tomcat, all analog, was at the mercy of it's operator. If he RIO was good, the AWG-9 offered a bit more and could create an impressive radar picture. If the RIO was not so good, then the radar picture might suck. These highs and lows were not present in the Hornet (and by extrapolation - not the F-15C or F-16C either). In short, the Tomcat and AWG-9 were the stuff of hyperbole - amazing stories about when it worked and serious criticism when it didn't. Basically like an Italian car from the 1980s or 1990s. ;) There was also considerable criticism of the Tomcat for the many, many times that it would suffer a radar failure, mechanical problem, missiles wouldn't tune, etc. My favorite quote from Lex (paraphrased somewhat - been a while): "The many times that the Tomcat would struggle off the deck, climb to altitude, and join up with a big strike package only to sign in as "IFF only" - it was enough to leave my oxygen mask caked with the salt of my tears." Though, it sounds like that scenario might be coming to your Leatherneck F-14...that's what I call a complete experience. :D Finally, everything I've read about the AWG-9 seems to state that the Phoenix was launched and guided via TWS mode. Data was sent from the radar to the missiles for mid-course guidance, with terminal guidance provided by the Phoenix's own radar (everyone knows that last part). I'm not aware of anything with TWS mode that would alert an aircraft to an inbound missile. It wasn't "locking" 6 targets per se (the radar was not following each target like STT), but the TWS offered enough detail and target info to get the Phoenix most of the way there. The AWG-9 could track and display 24 targets in TWS, but could guide 6 missiles (which may have more to do with the fact that the Tomcat could carry a max of 6 Phoenix's - not sure though). Also, it could detect sea skimming missiles. It was the first US aircraft that could do that (IIRC). But I don't know how that ability compared to later radars. Part of the challenge in these comparisons: the AWG-9 stayed essentially the same for the Tomcat's entire career while everything around it changed. What it was "good at" really depended on your point of reference (both for time and hardware). Best, Nick

Actually: SFM------->AFM------->EFM/PFM EFM uses the same underlying physics as the PFM, but the term EFM indicates a flight model developed outside of ED. It gets confusing since the EFM can be built closer to AFM standards depending upon what is built into it, but the underlying physics model for the EFM is more advanced than the AFM in the Su-25, for example. Overall, when you see EFM you can feel pretty confident that you are getting PFM quality work. ED has several criteria for calling something a PFM (SMEs with direct experience with the airframe and detailed control/response data (IIRC)). So I wouldn't judge an EFM that isn't called a "PFM". -Nick

Seriously, looks awesome! I'm not a helo guy, but I'm excited about this one. Thank you for sharing the pictures. -Nick

Also, since this topic mentions the Flap HOTAS mapping. Since the most recent update, the flap mapping is fixed. There are now 2 options. You can assign a key/switch for each flap position (retracted/25 deg/45 deg) or a key/switch for flap retract and flap extension. I like the new option to extend or retract in steps - works great with the TM Warthog. -Nick

I hadn't fought the MiG-21 against the F-4E for a while (been focusing on the F-5E recently), so I just flew a quick mission to refresh my memory. Your question about the rudder is a good one: the rudder really is the primary flight control for roll in most MiG-21 dogfights (for me) since you spend so much time at high AOA. Above 15-20 units of AOA, the rudder is the only means of rolling the aircraft, but roll authority is quite good. The MiG-21 is also really good at rudder rolls (like a small barrel roll) and it's an excellent counter against rolling maneuvers by your opponent. I also found that the AI in the Phantom really favors barrel rolls, displacement rolls, and yo-yos, in addition to the classic vertical maneuvers of the Phantom. You can use rudder rolls (which the MiG-21 seems to do quite well) or true barrel rolls to counter this very effectively and keep the nose ahead of his flight path. You can gain the advantage pretty quickly using this approach. Unless I'm already in a favorable firing position, I don't follow the phantom into the vertical. I use an inclined bank (with varying degrees of inclination based on energy) to keep him in-sight. Once he is headed back down and you can determine his direction of flight, either use a rudder roll or adjust/reverse your turn to achieve a favorable angle. Finally, I keep my speed between 500-800 kph. My STR seems quite good around 500-600 kph, but you have to watch your energy and avoid stalls since you are at or below corner speed. Luckily, the MiG-21 offers excellent auditory feedback to help you keep AOA between 20-30, which seems to offer the best turning performance for me at mid to low speeds. There is also a new auditory cue since the 1.5.1 upgrade that gives you feedback on how many G's your pulling (a roaring sound that increases in volume/coarseness as G increases). This really helps to maintain optimum G during maneuvers and allows you to fine tune control inputs to maximize available G as your energy state changes (while keeping your eyes out of the cockpit and on your opponent - this might be the most important part of the whole engagement). Hadwell shared this reference a few months ago, I found it quite helpful too: http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-1222/index.htm The MiG-21 is a very competent dogfighter and performs very well at high AOA. Real air combat depends on much more than just STR/ITR and very few aircraft had the luxury of being developed with only STR/ITR/rate of climb in mind - most others had to carry payload, certain sensors, certain performance requirements (commonly top speed and rate of climb for the MiG-21's era). It could use better sensors for fighting modern western fighters, but it's aerodynamic performance is quite good. It was designed to fight other airplanes and with the right tactics and piloting, it will do that quite well. Best, -Nick

Just updated and took a test flight, it's fixed! For me, everything is working perfectly, nice and smooth even on max settings (new max settings to boot). Great work Leatherneck! :thumbup: -Nick PS - funky trees/objects also fixed by ED. Things look great.

Phew...that's a relief! I was afraid you'd try to post pictures too....;) I've haven't tried tuna, but clams on pizza is really good. :) -Nick

Oh come-on...he didn't say tuna in ice cream. :D Though never say never, maybe more like a sesame/Poke flavored....no that's definitely not going to work... Well....it's been estimated in the past. Might be better Karma to hold on the guesses... -Nick

NICE! Thank you for taking the time to post videos and pictures. This is shaping up to be an amazing module. Thank you for your tireless efforts! -Nick

I'm not a software developer and I have almost no real understanding of the coding process...so major disclaimer. :) That said, I think the issue is knowing what bugs will present themselves...and then finding it...and then finding a solution...and then finding another solution for the bug that was created by the first solution... With DCS 2.0 constantly changing and new (unprecedented) features being added, no one knows what they will encounter next. Plus, many of these modules contain unique features. It just seems to me that debugging new software on a new software engine with previously untested features would take time. How do you prepare for those problems? Since I don't know how you would, I'm assuming that it would take time. Not excuses, just the time require to actually solve problems (which are new). Am I crazy? (wait don't answer that...:D) -Nick

How else can you prove that something is wrong? If the FM felt not quite right to the developer, they would likely adjust or further validate prior to release. So the customer's report of an FM problem likely contradicts the developers position, should they changes something to validate one persons concern without checking data or requesting data? What if the FM seems off to you, but perfect for me...should they change it for one customer at the expense of the other customers who like the flight model? Data is the only way to solve it, it is the (generally) trustworthy mediator of these discussions and issues. Plus, if someone cannot find any data or references to support their position, why should it be given much weight? These models were created with data, they should not be torn apart without some basis of support. My 2 cents, Nick

It wasn't a comment on the timing of an announcement, it was acknowledging that the ongoing changes to DCS 1.5 and upcoming 2.0 require a fair bit of attention in addition to the usual development time. I was referring to DCS as "the shifting ground" which will likely shift less in the near future. That said, I am intrigued by the identity of the upcoming modules, but even more so by the upcoming theaters. Since these will be the first third party theaters, I am curious to see what things will look like and what the future holds. You're not the least bit curious? :huh: -Nick

This sounds highly plausible. :thumbup: Leatherneck mentioned that they plan to separate the modules in-game and that one my be released a while before the other. No mention of whether they would be sold as one package, though I bet they will be sold together. I also agree that the F-14A will likely come out first. I don't think the F-14A has any extra features (perhaps more complicated engine modeling) that won't also be present on the F-14B, so the B might be a bit more work with the A-G stuff. Plus, it doesn't make sense to release the more capable aircraft first, many people might not pay as much attention to the subsequent release. That said, I'm looking forward more to the F-14A (though it's a close call)...so I might be biased in hoping it is released first. ;) -Nick

Yes, it is a really nice render. :) Bodes well for what's to come. :D -Nick

Perhaps, but DCS 1.5/2.0 is a pretty big change. We can at least agree that it's a better excuse than usual? ;) -Nick

It's a render from Leatherneck's facebook page. It's not VF-103, they became the Jolly Rogers after the disestablishment of VF-84 in 1995. The era and style is mid-80s VF-84. Here is a picture of VF-103's version which was a bit different: -Nick

Those of us who live in Northern California can sympathize, it's hard to build your house on shifting ground. ;) I bet that all of Leatherneck's projects are feeling the effects of DCS' constant changes with 1.5 and the addition of features as it moves towards 2.0 and beyond. -Nick

One interesting thing: are these trees different in some respect? I zoomed in while over-flying and they seem much more 3-dimensional than the other trees in the Black Sea map. Is this part of the bug or is ED integrating a new tree model for this map? Has anyone else noticed the same? I can only tell when flying directly overhead. Regular trees look like a paper cut-outs in a cruciate configuration (been that way for me since I started with DCS), these new trees seem to look more like real trees and they happen to be the ones that are visible at distance. The other "legacy trees" are not behaving normally. Thoughts? -Nick