zerO_crash

Supporting it a 100%! Also, fantastic work with the information gathering @Jaku Ugra -> $$$

It's been already mentioned many times, but I'll remind everyone of the fact that MiG-21Bis was built using many custom solutions due to there being no official ways to program in or code the workings of many of the systems. Hence, a 2.0 is effectively a new module, built from scratch. This shouldn't be looked at as a obligation from the developer either, as they pretty much delivered as well as they could within an already delayed timeframe. As such, if we are to be truly delivered a new module with new technologies and implementations (and hopefully more variants of the aircraft), I suggest that people people here grow up and realize that 60$ is borderline an insult to the producers. Wages and prices go up (it's called inflation), yet you all suggest that the cost of a module should remain constant since about 15 years now! How about reversing the logic and instead realizing, that we should be happy for any Redfor module we get (given that the most popular ones are bling-bling western ones), and in addition, that a dev. has to invest around 2 million USD to create a module alone... I for one, will state that given the risk-factor and upfront payment, I don't see any problem at all with the devs claiming a 80+ USD reward for their product. Whatever the MiG-21 lacks in digital suites, it more than makes up for in analogue systems, which often are more complex to design for proper feel and quirk. @Magnitude3 LLC I say don't bother with the "5 dollar too expensive..."- part of the community, instead, show what you are capable of! I'll happily buy multiple licenses just to reward a quality product, and support ambition and innovation!

As Hammer1-1 states, diluting the oil is a possibility. One can try it (the nice thing about a simulator), however in practice, I'd be careful with altering any part of such a critical procedure. Warm-up processes, although written as simple as possible for the pilot to follow, will often bear less obvious effects to the untrained eye. Heating up the fluid is one thing, heating up the specific parts of the engine, is another. The closer you get to the destined heat level of a fluid, the easier it will be for the heating source to compensate for the delta loss of heat exchange inside the engine. What I'm essentially saying, is that there are parts inside the engine that need to be heated up as well (often rubber parts/other lubricants/pieces of metals that are designed to accept a certain level of flex, etc...), besides the fluid, and in this case, the temp. sensor might not pick the loss in temperature over the circuit, because the loss in temperature is small enough and source of heat able to heat it quickly enough. If you don't give them proper time to heat up to their designed temperature, you might very well end up causing more wear and tear, and not even be aware of it. One thing I can give you an example of is that oil, besides lubricating, is used for cleaning the system as well (from metal pieces and dust pollution). If you don't allow the oil to cycle through enough, it simply won't clean the system properly, to the point where metal bits and pieces could cause a catastrophic failiure of the engine. As a tip - I'm not an enemy of trying new things, quite contrary. However, with props., I'd much rather perfect taxiing and multitasking (setting flaps while taxiing, and otherwise doing all the checks prior to take-off), before attempting to alter such critical procedures. Especially since you'd really need to read a maintenance or technical manual, in order to be sure that you aren't causing the engine harm.

I'll add that, depending on the version of the Me262 chosen, it might either feature a Junkers Jumo 004, or a version of it (smaller modifications). Regardless of the engine made, in the worst case, make the 004B, and now you have the engines ready for a Ho229. There are plenty of allied aircraft using the same/similar (variants) of engines as well. The deal would be sweet for both sides (customer/ED).

Hi, I'd like to request multiple types of shells for the Mk-108 Motorkanone on the Bf-109 K4 (AP, HE (Mine shells), HEI). In addition, not sure why it wasn't added, but there should be a mix including tracers (in different proprtions). It can be observed from WWII videos of Mk-108 use (Bf-109, Me-262, +++) that these cannons would often be equipped with tracers for air combat, and not only. Tracers in particular, are a major lacking feature. I understand that making ballistics for new shells will/might take time, but please do consider an ASAP implementation for the tracers themselves. Thanks in advance!

Frankly, maybe ED can consider growing their WWII department somewhat and give the era more well deserved focus as well. It's important to keep in mind that while DCS has amazing depth overall, when it comes to physics, helicopters and prop. aircraft are among the most visible instances that simply make this simulation play in a league of its own. I have no doubt whatsoever, that our promised Me-262 would sell like hotcakes, even to those who are inherently not interested in WWII (imagine getting to try the closest-to-life simulation of the worlds first mass produced jet fighter?!). That said, other aircraft (e.g. something with torpedoes, or other unique armament/aircraft) would truly shine as well. This becomes even more apparent when one considers how much customers ED can snap from games out there. I'm happy for what we have, and a steady and stable expansion is better than rushed and not thought through (thinking of the business practice itself here), but the overall benefit from a grown WWII division would be immense (based on observation).

Fantastic news! It's great to see things happening behind the stage Good find @MiG21bisFishbedL !

Splendid! Couldn't be better!

First and foremost, thanks for the amazing and pro-bono work you do, Currenthill! To talk about the attention to detail, or overall fidelity of the units doesn't even begin to cover it. This is by all means, art! The pedant in me can claim that you have much to be proud of, don't take that lightly either! I'm not sure what plans you have in store for the future, obviously the units you present on your www. are a fine work, and implementing more of them into DCS natively, would be a dream. However, I do also look at this from the perspective of a mission designer (when not in the air). It would of course be awesome to have the Ka-52 AI implemented, as well as simply more of the units that you bring. Even more civilian, with different color palettes on each unit. It allows for creating more vivid and realistic scenarios. A place where I see an immediate deficit in unit choice, asumming it could be of interest to you, is the department of soldiers/civilians. We currently have very few models of soldiers, and even fewer if you consider the new high-quality ones, that are properly animated. I am wondering if you would be interested in widening this aspect of the simulation. Have more soldiers, from different countries, with variations of weapons/apparel/camo patterns/colors/ranks? As an example, even adding a basic model of a recognizable officer (prestige uniform), would already open the doors to creating missions where a pilot might need to verify/engage or verify/protect a high-ranking persona. With the addition of more transport modules (Huey, Mi-8, Mi-24, CH-47F, C-130J (soon), +++), this would not only bring more authentic feel to the transport mission, but also allow to create more varied combat environments. I hope this could be of interest to you, appreciate your work again, and do keep the models coming. Uploading some WIP missions that show just how a creative mission designer can untilize such units! You give us the tools, and this is the effect (not complete)

Luckily, Russian aircraft more than make up for the lack of Yugo aircraft. That is even more true, when considering the latest AI units/structures added by CN and ED. We have enough variety to simulate this area. What speaks even more in our favour, is the sheer fact that any testimony from the wars in Balkans, will confirm that due to extremely similar uniforms, language and culture among the local populous, the theatre was a nightmare in terms of ROE and IFF. It would be refreshing to make IFFing and SA a major consideration again. You know, make you think twice before pulling the trigger. The mix of the terrain type, and close proximity to both Italy (NATO) as well as Adriatic and Ionian seas... Yes please! It would be important though, to have the map be from around 80s-90s for optical coherency and authenticity. Much of this aspect lies in real estate models, cars, and otherwise all the detailed objects. That's what e.g. makes the atmosphere to splendid on the other maps, and that's what would do here.

Uploaded both the .trk and .miz. It's a simple and short setup placed on Caucasus. The Grad (first of three units to test-fire at the C-RAMs) starts firing just after 02:00 minutes into the mission. I also purposefully didn't put the C-RAMs into one single group (rather all four individual) in order to give them different setups (one is set to not fire below 100m AGL, etc...). Some observations made by me based on this quick setup, and more complex missions: - It can be observed that the unit doesn't even engage the 120mm mortars (third and last group to fire at the C-RAMs). This is contradictory to public information on the unit, where it got created for the reason to " ... counter indirect fire from mortars on US bases...". The S-8 rockets are detected and intercepted just fine. *1 - The range at which the C-RAMs engage might seem a little short, but I have no conclusive data on this. This is purely based on IRL videos showing the system in action. - It can further be observed, that all of the C-RAMs fire, and well into the ground, even the one specified not to engage below 100m AGL. If these units were placed in a base (natural habitat), there would be blue-blue collateral. - It can also be observed that as the C-RAMs get overwhelmed by the GRAD, their turrets at some point keep pointing at the ground and aim for targets that shouldn't be there. There is a target priority issue here. - In more complex missions, even maintaining above 45 fps, I notice that the C-RAMs might not perform well at all (won't spot incoming fire from S-8 units, nor engage). This might point to a greater AI issue, as I've noticed that with 1500 units +, there are certain "artifacts" in the AIs behavior, not only related to C-RAMs, but e.g. artillery units. This warrants more investigation, as I've even had them C-RAMs in a group of units, and they all end up targeting and firing on the same incoming threats. Overall, there is no target distribution per se, the logic is very poor/non-existent, priority system non-existent (simply target the next in incoming queue), no smart algorithms, +++. This results in the unit being rather flashy, more so than useful. *1 C-RAM Centurion Phalanx LPWS C-RAM CAUCASUS TEST.trk LPWS C-RAM TEST.miz

As a red4life pilot, I have admit that those are some fantastic news! Eurofighter was already a much welcomed surprise, but Rafale in addition, makes me a double agent now! Amazing! Keep at it ED & 3rd parties!

It still doesn't work. Firing at the ground, tracking munitions below the ground, generally, not really usable in the capacity it was meant to. I have a simple mission showing the problem if it's still needed.

Bumping this, as this is still a problem. Practically useless unit, until the above-mentioned bugs get solved.

True as well