Vincent90

Nice to see an update :thumbup:

Yet when one of the people who has worked for those companies voices his knowledge and advice about the subject, he gets shut down by the Armchair Airforce. NeilWillis' summary is quite good, although I want to add "privacy" as another important factor to consider when using a picture. Not very important when we're talking about virtual aircraft, but one that gets overlooked way too often, even by large corporations.

Dolphin already came out and said that agility/stability would be tweaked after the patch that influences Starforce would be out of the door and stable. The problem are not the figures that Leatherneck uses (Novak's arguments are strong and accurate ) but that Vmax is achieved from the first roll input, which is literally impossible. What the most accurate curve is only a real MiG-21 pilot can answer. Thank god that they have one that can easily mount a GoPro in a UM to check what the real roll acceleration/deceleration is. :)

16Gb should be plenty for at least the next couple of years, especially with DCS. By the time an upgrade is warranted DDR5 should be a common divider Really regret going for 32Gb on my current build :(

More MiG-31 goodness

https://www.quora.com/How-much-would-it-cost-to-privately-own-and-operate-a-MiG-21 http://jalopnik.com/maintaining-vintage-a-russian-mig-17-is-ridiculously-co-1676509391 And that is the effort for some of the most produced single-engined fighters in the world. A set of new batteries for those alone will set you back 80-90k. The costs to operate the (twin-engined) F-5 should be MUCH higher. It is like buying a second-hand supercar: the resale prices are rediculously low, but maintenance is what breaks the bank.

@cichlidfan: That it is a lot of work is not an argument. We have an AI FM (and SAMs) of 15 years ago, which behaves in a completely bizarre manner. I got rid of my F-86 and WWII aircraft exactly because of this behavior. Really hope that ED will step up and ditch this decades old stuff that is currently like an anvil tied to ED's leg.

Perhaps you could get rights to translate it to english? Would love to read a well translated copy :)

Isn't that why we have The Fighter Collection? ;)

Solty, this point has been debunked so many times it is not even funny. 1944 G6's were superior to the K, so what you actually want is an aircraft that the P-51D, which was designed with a completely different philosophy and purpose than the 109, can curbstomp into oblivion. You can preach your fantasy all day long, but it won't convince anyone whose mind is in reality.

@myhelljumper: That is not entirely correct, but since this subject has been brought up. @Dolphin: Will the landing gear suspension be updated to the real limits at some point? Or at least made an option under the "Options -> MiG-21 -> Special" menu?

I was more worried about the deck crew when I saw that cable snapping. Are there any safety measures to ensure the crew doesn't get hit by a cable flying around?

Furthermore, the wing on the XIV had the tendency to wrinkle at pressure points. To offset some of the load, the clipped wing negated at least some of the stress off the wing. You are correct to suggest that engine and propeller provided most of the performance gains. However, they weighed 1000's of lbs more than early-war Spitfires, so the performance gains in one area led to performance losses in other areas. I can fully recommend Morgan & Shacklady's Spitfire - The history for more info about Spitfire evolution. It is considered The Bible of Spitfire reading. :thumbup:

I don't follow German defense news, but does that upgrade mean that Germany remains committed to the NATO nuclear sharing program? Edit: Nevermind, found the answer: http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/108/1710875.pdf , page 47

No, wind is a force that is directly calculated to the FM. That is also the reason why we won't be able to get glider-esque aircraft like the U-2.

The title of this thread says everything I can say really. A Spitfire Mk I/II pitting it up against a Bf-109E above South-East England would be just amazing. A worthy successor to the Normandy '44/'45 project. :thumbup:

You can call it plain "fantasy". A bad development for a simulator Imho. Optional is fine, but the current DCS trend of enforcing fantasy stuff needs to stop. @Apache600: Oro-57K pod http://militaryrussia.ru/i/284/50/AoX2CkpY3D.jpg

Opened up the Yefim Gordon to find out where the confusion stems from. It seems all S planes had the SRZO-1 IFF, with the SRO only for the P planes. The 19-P's up until c/n 62210625 had the SRO-1 IFF, and from c/n 62210626 they swapped it for the SRO-2. The PM lacked Sirena-2 SPO until it got added in late-production PM's. The book doesn't mention production P's with SPO, only that they prototyped it on P and decided that SPO should be installed for day-fighters [variant S] only. But then again, this is Yefim Gordon talking. ;) I hope his upcoming (updated) book is a bit more exact Avionics' wise.

I don't understand how they can sell that stick for $99, while its closest competitor (MT-50) sells for €159,-. Call me sceptical about that VKB grip. I'm currently using a TM Hotas X, which was fine as an introduction to see if flight sims were for me. In all other regards, it's a piece of crap. A VPC joystick and throttle, coupled with an MFG Crosswind would be perfect for my needs. Having said that, I blew my upgrade budget this year on a 4k screen, and next year it's going to a Volta GPU, so I'm not in the market until Late 2018/2019. @cichlidfan: Mate, why not just a single joystick, throttle and pedal combo. Damn :D

I have a 10cm thick table edge, will this mean I won't be able to mount the MT-50?

Wait....are you actually suggesting aircraft documentation is deliberately fraudulent? You should always prefer documents and numbers above pilot interpretation. Like the word suggests: it's an opinion; subjective to every individual. Verified numbers are where you base a simulation on. Having said that, of course pilot input is crucial to augment the simulation. Not everything is, and can be, written down. But to suggest that pilot input > verified documentation is just plain false. As Yo-Yo often says: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2847042&highlight=Pilot#post2847042 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2864178&highlight=Pilot#post2864178 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2425207&highlight=Pilot#post2425207

+1 Each time I want to 'just fly', I take the MiG-15. It is just such a pleasure to be in that cockpit, and that FM never gets boring. :) The MiG-19 has some pretty big shoes to fill, can't wait for it.

Ralfidude by far! Pretty much the only hardware reviewer I take seriously :)

Landing it within its limits is by far the hardest thing to master in the MiG-21, so you're right on target, learning curve wise ;) With how much fuel do you land? You can always burn up some more fuel before landing to ease pressure off the landing gear. By the way, I always put armament switches in the 'proper' position during taxiing. That way, you won't lose any time during start-up and are pre-prepared for when combat commences :) Awesome that you're able to meet a real MiG-21 pilot by the way! I would love to pick his brain and introduce him to the DCS module :)

Already tried if installing Windows 7 or 8 solves the problem?