Redglyph

This is obviously a controversial subject and a simple matter of personal preference, so we should not expect any conclusion either way. I'd say this is ripe enough to be closed ;)

Thanks, Rudel, that helps! The kneeboard pages provided by Baltic Dragon help too, it's just that I missed them the first time because of this "transparent page" bug, I should have known better. I've reported the problems in the ARK-5 thread (here). I think the lack of audio morse ID code, the problem with the frequency knob, and the approximative nature of the frequency indicator, seem to call for a little improvement of the aircraft kneeboard page ;) Showing those frequencies on top of the pre-set frequencies would be a huge help. With some luck they'll implement that at some point :) (as it is now, this kneeboard page is already very helpful)

I suppose those are mainly problems to be reported to Razbam. I had the same problem, setting a specific frequency is as hard as on the MiG-15. This is made even more complicated because the frequency indicator is partially hidden in the cockpit... I think it would be nice to see the frequency on the kneeboard, as BSM did for the F-86 and MiG-15. In this mission, another NDB is very close in frequency but somewhere else entirely. I'm at a loss when it comes to the approach to Krymsk though, - the briefing panel says I will get instructions on how to align the beacons, - the instructor says the kneeboard has the instructions, - the kneeboard has nothing really, apart from the usual map waypoints... (on which the text "follow the..." cannot be read entirely, but I guess it's "follow the river" for waypoint 4). So I select channel 3 to request the approach, but if I switch between FAR and NEAR, I'm still on the previously set frequencies I suppose, and of course it is not aligned. Or is it because I selected channel 3, due to some pre-set system? From the little information in the user manual it doesn't seem so. Anyway, visual approach worked, but it wasn't the intended exercice. EDIT: Maybe I found out something. The "last" page of the kneeboard is usually this transparent page (see screenshot), but I saw by looking at the mission files that there were two extra pages, and the 2nd one shows the FAR/NEAR frequencies for Krymsk. More problems due to DCS I imagine. I'll check that next time I get a chance.

We're getting old cats :O I didn't know that, thanks for the detailed info Shagrat! But after all, Heatblur has spent many, many years working on it, it's only fair there is some amount of weathering :D It's no big deal to me, they're obviously going beyond what we usually see in DCS, I was mainly wondering why people were so eager to get worn-out cockpits in most modules. You must be right, we'll surely see cockpit mods, hopefuly with an option to stick a girl-at-home picture ;)

Oh, maybe we're not talking about the same thing :D I see your point now. But I'd agree that from 1974 to 1987-1988 (first upgrades), even if that's 14 years and not 23, there could still arguably be some tear & wear... if they were all built in 1974. Not all converted A models were built in 1974 (I'm not even sure any of the first A made it that far). Also, and unless I'm very wrong, there was a good share of newly-built A+ from 1987 on.

Got you, but what I meant is that they don't need to be 20+ year in DCS :)

The date in DCS is obviously not 2019 either, apart from a few 30-something Tomcat still flying in the Middle East, the others were retired. See also the current terrains, and the QFU of some runways. Finally, nobody is using QFE anymore :D For a few of those modules, I also wish I had a brand-new shiny cockpit sometimes, weathered cockpits are a bit overrated.

Nothing related to the missions. After discussing that with others, it's apparently a transient glitch, so forget I even mentioned it :) There were duplicated commands for each item in the kneeboard command list, with an obvious conflict between the two sets. After two or three DCS quit/restart, it disappeared on its own. After installing the MiG-19P, several people had a few configuration issues, but it really looks like it's DCS acting up and not a particular module.

I loved that voice :) Haha, good point, nice to have some inside joke ;) The jets are a nice touch, makes it more lively, it's mainly a question of timing but I know it's not easy to control that in DCS. It's good to know the cockpit will get more visibility! The flash light does a good job in the mean time. That's because I was dumb, it works perfectly. The highlight sometimes remain though. I confirm ATC is fine, I was suspecting as much, thanks! And the stick, I have no idea, I restarted DCS and now it's fine. Probably the same issue some of us had when configuring the commands, I suspect a general problem in the latest DCS versions. - Engine test: military power lamps are not ON, even though the RPM are withing the expected range, should I report that as a MiG-19P issue? - Love the final remark on the cockpit preparation that was not well done by the ground crew :D

Fair point. Only the kneeboard is currently not working ;)

DCS 2.5.4.28090 A few minor issues, otherwise a very nice introduction, together with the previous mission! What I noticed: - The two jets taking off at the very beginning make it impossible to hear what the instructor is saying. - He's still mentioning the English bit, which was funny in the video but now since the first mission doesn't have the same accent, it just feels weird. Someone who hasn't seen the video will not understand :D - We have to check the landing gear lever and lock, but they're barely visible because of the darkness of the cockpit. Perhaps if the sun was a little bit further in its course it would conveniently shed some light on those obscure commands ;) Or a mention of the Alt-L light could be made? (though most people know about it, for sure) - ARU-2V mode switch must be checked, but it's not possible because it's hidden, and because any of left / right click will just toggle the switch instead of forcing it to up/down position. (it's more of a DCS + MiG-19P issue than a training mission issue) - I didn't see the light on during the left/right air start test. (? to check again) - ATC is not answering to the start-up request, I had that with the landing mission as well. - moving the stick has no effect on the control surfaces. (? to check again, maybe it was on purpose) time out - to be continued :)

Sadly, and as I expected, this problem doesn't seem to be reported nor shown as known issue, so that's one more report in vain. It would be so much easier with a bug tracker (although... some developers have one and it's either impossible to have problems reported in them, or we can report bugs and they are just ignored - but at least we have a visibility on what they are willing to report/fix).

It's funny, I had no idea the Michelin guide was even known outside of Western Europe :)

Yep, I saw they were known values. Again, I have zero problem with that :) The full data set is probably not accessible to the public anyway, probably stored somewhere in Mikoyan OKB archives. I wonder how much details those manuals contained anyway, when we look at a modern jet, airliner or military fighter, there is usually an entire volume of tabulated data, abacuses and curves to determine the performances. But when we look at older manuals, even the MiG-21bis which was later than the MiG-19P, they don't contain that much. Unless they are not public, or less accessible. Beside what was said, the 'P' must also be more interesting for us since it was an all-weather interceptor with a radar. It's very interesting as a point of comparison in the evolution of those aircraft. The difference in performance or in the manual are of little importance.

I've read long and extreme debates in these forums on the accuracy of modelling, and some fans are sometimes quite radical. Saying that you started from another's aircraft model and extrapolated the dynamic characteristics is courageous :D Personally I have never flown a MiG-19P, so I won't notice any difference and that won't ruin my day ;) I also know that even several abacuses don't contain enough information for an fully accurate modelling of a system as complex as a supersonic aircraft, and that sitting in my chair won't give me anything near the actual sensation of flying. But still, it's a little bit like knowing there was a fly in the soup, even if it has been removed, some prefer just not to know ;)

Hm, probably a piece of information that not everyone will like.

Great, thanks! Nice to see you took the time to describe the systems, the history and operations! :) That's more or less the format they were using back then (at least it's the case with many other aircraft). Insight into the human physiological limitations and techniques to mitigate them improved over time ;)

Thanks :thumbup:

Did you mean EFM? Or is this module only AFM for now? There's a good review article by Mudspike that mentioned an EFM level (which of course, doesn't say it all in terms of actual criteria because it's only "part of PFM", but still, is normally quite superior to SFM and even AFM). Since it's not indicated on the product page, it's not easy to be entirely sure. It seems to be ASM, too. So from what I understand, it's a change due to the change from SFM to EFM, correct? :)

I was talking about the -C, but the OP clarified above. And I would definitely not rely on Wikipedia :D

Ah OK, I thought it was the general model, I have no idea about the different lots within that model so disregard my comment. 100% with you there! And hopefully those will evolve to catch up. But you see my point, that may be very subjective, and several votes could be more representative. Or not, it's really your idea after all :) Valid point also about the ASM (and I also prefer those). But there is a renewed trend in DCS to also try and get more casual users with a simpler systems and cockpit handling. If they represent a good share of new users, they would be very interested in such a guide. But on the other hand, it means someone has to write a mini-review for these modules. Or would they? Ah well, maybe a guide for simpler aircraft is not as necessary as for the advanced ones that require so much learning time.

An interesting summary for the newcomers, definitely a good idea! I like the tags and the simplicity of it all. Even if at first glance the description seems shorter than each of those products deserve, there's just too much we could say about them. So, very well done. A few suggestions: - I think an important criteria for the aircraft is the available DLC, even though there's a section on some of the campaigns. For ex. the A-10C is the richest in that regards (and by the way, I don't agree its mission set is limited, on the contrary! It's simply a ground attacker and not a fighter). - Beware of the PFM notation, don't forget 3rd parties won't have this qualification but the EFM one, which doesn't mean inferior! That's why the CEII must be EFM and not PFM, by the way (unless I'm wrong, please correct me if that's the case). Most ED's modules are PFM except a few FC3. - The ASM criteria may be important too, a non-interactive cockpit and limited system modelling are much less appealing to more demanding users. And it may be more appealing for casual users. - "The best DCS has to offer" would probably deserve a poll for each, for instance having no "star" for the Mi-8, the M-2000 or the F-86 is definitely going to be a controvery. One star for the MiG-21 seems fair (who doesn't love this one?) but on second thought it has no campaign, very bad training missions, and is getting completely outdated, I wouldn't like to buy this one in its current state if I were a new DCS fan. - Same remark as above for the "fidelity" (I suppose you mean the systems and flight modelling since there's a separate label for the 3D modelling). Actually a yearly poll/contest would be very interesting :D The only challenge is to find a formula that isn't overwhelming for you when gathering the results. A few fixes: - Bf-109 is PFM/ASM. - F-5 is PFM/ASM. - The F/A-18C was produced much earlier than 1998 (first flight 3 Sep 1986, production started in 1987). I haven't checked the others. Don't take my word on that date, better to double-check. More stuff: If you plan to expand the campaign section, you should check out the "The Museum Relic", one of the most creative campaigns around and a great incentive to get the F-86 or the MiG-15, which are otherwise much underrated modules IMHO. I can try to send you a couple of paragraphs on it, or put them here, if someone else hasn't yet.

I'm rather looking forward to the Supertucano, but whichever the next one will be, we know they're taking great care of the quality of their modules, including the missions! :)

:thumbup:

Very good idea! :) Note that there is a coffee stain on this sheet, so they do drink coffee up there. What if we buzzed the tower? ;)