Horns

It's nice that Dolphin was flexible enough to adjust the FM based on user experience, but the variety of hardware devices and combinations would have become plain during that process yeah? Users use the same variety of hardware with other modules but they seem to get better results, any idea why? Are there any further significant adjustments that will be made? Not trying to be *that guy*, I just happen to have been looking at learning this module again and trying to nail down where the flight model is and where it might foreseeably go.

I had tried to brainstorm possible reasons before I posted, but when you spoke about being beaten by "something simple" it reminded me that the Razbam planes don't seem to like my HOTAS buttons at certain settings at mission start. Got that sorted and now it seems to be fine :pilotfly: I'm downloading Tacview now. I wish I knew about it sooner, it will be nice to have that since I don't trust the in-game tracks anymore. Thanks for all the help

It seems like a lot of posts refer to a known issue while awaiting a fix, which makes perfect sense at the time but it makes it tough to link mentions of issues to the detailed posts that demonstrated the existence of the issue, and it's also tough to identify whether changes were made and whether that resolved the issue. Coming at this from this point in time looking backwards, a bucket list would make it easier for me to see which issues were resolved, but of course that's not the focus when identifying and rectifying issues. Thanks to you both.

Working my way through the training missions, have a couple of problems with M05 Radar. There are two occasions when contacts are referenced that I have been unable to see at all on radar. I'd like to confirm that these are issues with my application of the radar rather than problems with the training mission itself, so I'd appreciate some feedback on this... The first instance of not seeing a radar contact is when the difference between PPI and B-Scope is being demonstrated. The VO mentions "contact flying directly in front of you as a reference". The other instance is when the IFF functions are being demonstrated and we are told to observe two contacts on radar. I have done this mission five times or more and I haven't been able to see any of these three contacts at any time, regardless of radar settings used. After following the VO further and turning to waypoint two, there are other contacts mentioned that do become visible. Can anyone confirm if there is a bug with the first two instances (totalling three contacts) of contacts appearing? If the mission works correctly and I'm likely to be doing something wrong please let me know. Settings used listed below. Radar is in "Em" mode, tried both PPI and B-Scope, low, interleaved and high PRF, 1, 2 and 4 bar scan, aperture at 15, 30 and 60, antenna left and right and up and down, and ranges 5 - 80 nm.

That makes sense. It might be best used as a bit of fun when negotiating with the computerized systems in the newer airframes get a bit much. Thanks!

I understand why some may like the dirty canopy, but I believe it’s very unrealistic for those who want to use this in a Korea or Vietnam context. I find it hard to believe the canopy could reach that state in regular service while near new.

I'll start by conceding that I know there are a bunch of threads where the MiG-21 flight model is talked about but it's tough to work out what is now or will be soon, so I ask: How does the accuracy of the DCS MiG-21's current flight model compare with the accuracy of the flight models of the other full-fidelity aircraft in DCS? Is the accuracy of the MiG-21's flight model likely to improve significantly by the end of this year? I believe this was the first 3rd party module in DCS and this bird was in the middle of the LN breakup, so I know there are good reasons this module had issues, and if those aren't fixed I can live with that. I'm not trolling Rudel or anyone else, I'm just trying to decide between learning this a/c right now (I already own the module) or taking another look at it in a year or so. Thanks for reading.

I have had pretty consistent results with the RB 04, but I usually launch them from 50 - 100m radar altitude. I know you’re within the specified altitude range at 40m, but maybe if you try releasing them from lower you’ll get different results that might help explain what’s going on now.

Apologies, you are correct on both counts, the manual does appear to suggest that the ships need to be one behind the other to be detected as a group. Tbh I always used single anyway because I found it tough to judge if ships were within 2700m anyhow. Hope someone can give you some useful info.

I think the selector should be on "group" to make sure they head for separate targets if that is what you want them to do. Also, a few times I made the mistake of not pitching down enough when I fired, and it seemed like the missiles overflew the targets and went on their wayrather than heading for them. Others may have more valuable input, and Cobra847 would be the authority on RB04 targeting logic.

Awesome, ta, I guess that is what I mean :)

Is the localizer deviation line in the M2K accurate in both position and time? It feels like there is a huge lag with it starting to move, and when I turn back to correct the line just keeps sliding in the opposite direction, no matter how hard the turn is. Can anyone suggest a way to deal with the issue? Should I just disregard the line, follow my navigation and correct my heading once I see the synthetic runway? If the line isn't functioning as it should, is there a workaround? I found some old threads reporting issues with the localizer deviation line, but I'm not sure if what I'm seeing is what was spoken of in those, and since they were a couple of years old I was hopeful that those issues would have been fixed already. If anyone can offer any advice it would be welcome.

Awesome, cheers for the heads up :)

Thanks so much, I didn't even think of checking the DDIs! Much appreciated :)

How do people determine the speed and altitude to that is most fuel economical in the aircraft in DCS? Is the data available somewhere or is there a general rule or formula? I don't see it listed in the module manuals or forums...

The Viggen is what made this game click for me. It is forgiving with speed, had some give with AoA but makes it clear when the pilot pushes that too far. The tutorials are very good for someone with minimal flight sim knowledge, and flying low made it much easier to acquire targets when I was learning, although I think target spotting should be better now with everything. I do think JohnathanWinters has a point too with the Mirage, I was about ready to quit DCS because the Su-25T was so tough to fly. The Mirage gave me hope because the act of flight itself was so easy. Ultimately I moved on to the Viggen because I struggled learning the cockpit due to it being in French, and the manual at the time wasn't as informative as I needed, but the manual has been updated since so that might be different now, and maybe OP's friend's memory is better than mine.

As far as I can tell, this is the last official word on the Mirage 2000 English cockpit. Do we have any idea when this will be forthcoming? If there is a more recent official comment on this I apologize and would appreciate it if someone can direct me to it. I don't want to be the "are we there yet?" guy and I'm aware the standard answer is "when it's done/two weeks", but Tuesday will make it a full year since I purchased the M2K, expecting the official English cockpit "soon" and trying to be patient. This official word predates that purchase. Gospadin (RIP) was kind enough to provide a mod that has been useful until now, but we really do need an official one that doesn't require third-party utilities to work.

Aesthetics are the reason I wanted to remove it too, the rest of the a/c has a beautiful symmetry to it, but perhaps it will grow on me too :) Gotcha. So I guess it's removable in case there is some circumstance which might require that probe to be disconnected, but in the absence of that it's always on. Thanks to both of you :thumbup:

Thanks for confirming that JoJo. It makes sense that users wouldn't want to commit to not needing air to air refueling when they could otherwise provide it.

Page 17 of the new manual states "Air to air refuelling capability is provided via a removable probe..." Do we have the option to remove the probe in DCS? If so, how do we do it?

Nvm

Does the forum share resources with the update servers? Are we all changing this outcome by observing it? *gasps*

38 :)

Didn't someone say that about 50 pages? Still like men btw?

I bet they wish they had advertising on these forums now