MikeMikeJuliet

Yes, I've drawn the fuel with 0,781 kg/L mentioned in the manual. In the nomogramme the weight is always in the vertical scale. On the top left with the fuel graphs liter amount is on the horizontal scale. From there you can see with the SPS and non-SPS MLW-lines, that the fuel amount is smaller than in the manual limitations. I'm not quite sure if I should have calculated the fuel with the noted specific gravity, which is reported aside from the 0,781 kg/L. Regads, MikeMikeMikeJuliet

One thing I found out by comparing the nomogramme and the manual is that the weight limits and the graph doesn't match up. In particular the manual says that with the BLC disengaged MLW is reached at max 400L of fuel... where as looking at the nomogramme, the amount should be strictly speaking 300L without gun ammo, and 200L with it. I guess the manual gives some tolerances to the pilot, or something doesn't add up.

Yea, that data would either require a really good document, or super extensive flight testing :D Then again, you really don't need anything other than a rule of thumb: MIL power = 30-60 min altituden dependent, AB = "you are already in fuel emergency" :D

Handy! It's just a shame that DCS reloads the default .luas on every update. Makes having custom .luas that much more cumbersome. I wish these functions were editable in-game. Thanks for the input Zeus!

Hi all, I've been building something for the last few days. It is quite crude, but unfortunately for myfirst try, it didn't quite come out as well as I've hoped. The MiG-21bis weight nomogramme! What is it? A line-chart of sorts, that allows you to plot out your current aircraft weight without needing to do calculations. Naturally this is never as accurate as calculations, but close enough. This is part of a MiG-21bis cheat sheet that I've been working on for the last week in my squadron. When it is ready, I will most likely do another thread and post it there. The explanation and an example of use is in the document itself. I've based different weights on the DCS-encyclopedia, and some of them I've verified with changing loadouts and calculating weight differences to get the weight of certain items. Due to the fact that you may load a surprisingly diverse loadout to the -21, the nomogramme is quite wide, which hampers it's use somewhat. For this, and a practical reason, the Nukes are not included in the nomogramme. For such flights, find the weight of the aircraft as is, and add the Nuke weight. I've decided to leave these off because DCS doesn't really model Nukes very well, and thus are not really widely used. While creating this, I came across quite a few oddities, such as: RATO-bottles weigh the same regardless of being new or used (the burnt rocket fuel does not decrease weight) R-60 missiles weigh 59 kg instead of 65 printed in the encyclopedia. Countermeasures don't count as weight... only the dispensers themselves do. The UPK-23 gunpods weight does not decrease with spent ammunition. I've attached the nomogramme as a .png file. This is for those pilots who want to fly the aircraft according to the manual limitations. It may surprise some, but the MiG is actually landed at a very low weight and just barely enough fuel in many cases. I hope you find this useful when planning and executing a more realistic approach to flying the MiG-21bis. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Interesting. I don't think I've seen it done in the game control menus myself. Is this possible with .lua only, or via the control setup screen? Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

This is exactly what I wanted to get my hands onto!

Yea, I mostly meant the brightness of the lightbulb itself... the cones of light that illuminate the gorund are themselves bright enought... at times even a bit too bright. But if you look any aircraft from a little distance away you can barely see the bulb shining even though the ground is light as if it was lit by sunlight.

We need another colour for friendly chat in the text-chat window, or a lighter colour background. During night flight the blue text is impossible to read. The red messages and your own text (orange) is legible, but blue tends to become impossibke with black/dark blue background. I'll post an image when I get to my PC. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The licensing issue is in regards to intellectual rights management. ED nor any 3rd party cannot create a representation of a company's product and sell it. This has been the case with aircraft and cars to name a few in any game, regardless of the level of simulation. Meaning even if the thing only looks like the aircraft you need to have an agreement on the subject. And usually the price-tag goes up with added realism (i.e. the actual simulation). If you use someone else's creations in one of your own, you need to have an agreement/a license. A creation in this case is an aircraft, real or simulated. And it is not about the visuals, the simulation or systems either. ED or the 3rd parties can't use trademarked names either without official agreement from the license holder. For example, ED couldn't call the F/A-18 module "Hornet" if they did not have an agreement in place with Boeing, since "Hornet" in the context is a trademarked name. Plus, remeber for example that the A-10C is endorsed/approved by the USAF. Without their approval the aircraft would only be in the hands of the military, and would not have been ever released to the general public. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

That sums up the conversation pretty nicely :D

Oh, nice, I was unaware of that! No mission I've ever flown has utilized that...

I know. Thrustmaster's TARGET software allows for that as well. I've done a lot of scripting with it myself. But you can enable all keys from any given joystick (and a bunch of keybinds that *should* have been in the original file) by modding the control .lua files. This proves that it is not out of the developers hands to provide for comprehensive keybinds and support for at least the most common HOTAS'. If a game needs to be modded or used scripts on to be able to play it as it was designed, I'm afraid that to me would indicate lazy design on the developers part. My gist on this is: too few products (even within DCS) support any HOTAS' to the level required to actually properly utilize the systems coded in the modules. Now, with the A-10C, I'm not sure if the controls are coded such that key A -> ON provides a function, and key A -> OFF provides for another... or if releasing A from ON provides the second function... but I do know they have combination-keys with short and long presses. And if these are not coded in in advance, a player is unable to achieve such functionality with the DCS control setup screen. Instead you need to either mod the .lua or write a script. By all accounts creating the .lua is not difficult if you know what you are doing (a squadmate of mine does custom control .luas), and the developers at RAZBAM certainly have the knowhow. So I feel this is something that could be adressed, making the Harrier on par with the A-10C, which works beautifully straight out of the box with Warthog HOTAS. All this is especially prevalent, because updating DCS re-installs all the control .luas, meaning you need to manage them with JSGME/OVGME, or manually. Not a big issue, mind you, but one of those unnecessary hurdles in the way of properly enjoying the game. With due respect. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

The same thing works the other way too. Nav-lights are way too dim and you can't see them from very far off. In visual conditions during the night, especially strobes and beacons on an aircraft can easily be spotted way over a dozen miles away. This would add to night traffic in DCS, and also give much needed weight to remembering fence-in procedures (weapons on, lights off), since forgetting lights ON will give away your position. Similar issue with landing lights during the night. If you look at an aircraft from the front, yourself being on the opposite end of a runway (or looking at an aircraft that is landing), the landing lights should shine very intensely. Now, the shine can barely be seen at all, so in night time it is really hard to see traffic approaching, when the cone of light does not yet hit the ground. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

What if we made radio-navigation beacons destroyable? I mean... just like any unit with a radar you can destroy it... being able to do the same to Navaids would create new mission possibilities. For safety, such a feature should be an option for servers - so those who want permanent Navaids can have them invulnerable. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

Judging by this, are we correct in assuming that the Harrier will support multiple switch directions in our HOTAS'? Meaning, you can bind a 2-way switch's ON and OFF positions for example (compared to the common way that only the ON position of any key is available to be bound)? It would be a shame to be unable to utilize HOTAS to its maximum effect with a Module as complex as this one. Regards, MikeMikeJuliet

I guess he is pointing to my long post a couple of pages back. And I admit, I might have used language that does not convey a message in a polite manner, of which I apologize. That said I still stand behind the gist of the post.

The point of discussion never was about the classic "it looks like it's ready, gimme gimme gimme".

In that case, the Fokker would win against a whole fleet of F-22s :D Norris would only use the Fokker to elevate himself to a proper altitude, and then jump against the passing F-22s to roundhousekick them out of existence.

I just don't get how a bunch of you are all over this saying "disappointed, Harrier won't be out untill x months away"... ED said "several weeks". Why? Because they do not yet know how much more work needs to be put in by RAZBAM for the module to be ready. If they said "A couple of weeks" even that would be too specific... if they said "a couple of months" that again would be too specific. Remember, ED only had this to test this week. They don't know how many bugs and tweaks this will take. If there are less bugs than anticipated and/or RAZBAM can fix them fast, the "several weeks" might as well turn out to be one or two weeks. Unless something goes truly wrong - which is possible, I'm not denying that - the Harrier is coming shortly. RAZBAM has no control over ED:s policies for quality, so they've done the best they can, which is to provide the aircraft to ED for review. And there still is 15 days left of Q3 and you are talking about december? If you are referring to the DCS-curse that ED has been struggling with over the last years, that is a different thing. That is ED, not RAZBAM. For example, the new Caucasus, or 2.5 were tentatively hinted to be coming out at time X. Oh, they did not. In contrast, RAZBAM has stated numerous times over the last 2 months that they are on schedule. Now they have delivered to ED - on schedule. This is not about VEAO and the Hawk or P-40. The project has been shown to progress constantly. I don't know about you, but I'm a bit tired this teen-age angst that when a thing doesn't happen exactly at the second it is expected people just throw the towel to the corner and bust open a can of ice-cream. Harrier was planned to be released on Q3. Never promised it would make it. "Planned" being the key word here. Thanks, I feel better now. The Harrier is coming, within a reasonable time from the revealed schedule, and in my eyes, RAZBAM has already delivered.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter15092017.html Harrier is in ED internal testing, and timeframe is "several weeks". Preorder, then early access... So, RAZBAM is in fact on schedule, but now it is up to ED (and RAZBAM to provide fixes to ed) weither the Harrier gets released this month or the next.

Strange, that I got to see that too, and I'm on a desktop browser, but it disappeared soon after.

Many thanks!

Yea, those ones... No, this is something else. And on the chit-chat subforum for a reason. Those kinds for "internet sensation" tests... they are not what this is about. Besides, the case here from the outset is utterly absurd... no-one here is trying to prove the case one way or the other. At least for me, thought experiments are a way of keeping one's reasoning fresh... and a way to look at things that one doesn't agree on from the opposing side. Not a way to prove biased arguments.

All of those pics are.