GrmlZ

Great Work. Really looking forward to flying the F-14.

If you operate under the very simplified impression that asking for more money for a product will automatically lead to earning more money, than no it does not seem like a good idea. However, things are more complicated than that in reality. Keeping the WW2 ground units free will help grow the WW2 portion of DCS, which would lead in turn to more sales for existing and upcoming WW2 plane modules. The current plan of paywalling the WW2 ground units will be a turnoff for many people and slow down the growth of DCS WW2 as a whole, leading to less sales of WW2 plane modules.

While i understant that, i fear the current course of action will not lead to more income. More likely the opposite. I for example like to build and play missions with friends in co-op. And not everybody owns everything, that immediately means those units are out when i build a mission. With other players not owning planes i can easily deal with. I can just provide more options to fly, so that there is something for everybody. But if they cant even join if they dont own some ground units, well the only way to deal with that is not to have them in the mission. That means my interrest in having them is very low, since i have little use for them if i cant use them in the missions i build. And some large WW2 servers will handel it similarly. Not having a use for WW2 units in turn means my interest in the normandy map drops as well and with it my interest in the whole WW2 scenario in DCS. On the other hand, if the new units would be free the interest in the WW2 scenario would go up, leading to more sales of the new map as well as existing and upcoming WW2 plane modules. On top of that the WW2 units would also work well with for example the Korean era Jets and to some extent the Vietnam era planes. I planned to use them in those scenarios, but again, if people not owning them are banned from playing the missions, i cant do that. Long story short, I understant the need for a certain amount of income to make up for the cost of the Map and Units. However the choice that makes you the most money is not always the most obvious one. As a matter of fact there are often cases were offering something for less money ends up making you more money too. Take gaming consols or printers which are often sold at a loss, for less than it cost the company to make them, because it means more sales of related products (games,ink cartridges) and more money in the long run. And i am quite certain this is one of those cases. I am confident offering the units for free for everyone would end up creating more money later down the line for ED, while the current way of doing it is nothing but a heavy blow for the entire WW2 scenario and with it the sales of ALL modules associated with it. So, not only is the current split customer unfriendly, it wont make you more money either.

The radar is so much cooler on NTTR. :D Las Vegas Nellis

Yep, maybe the same bug that the Hawk got?

The Mission is bugged for me, the narrator gives you the wrong QFE. Thats why the target symbols dont show up. About 30 to low. You can get the correct one from the kneeboard, then it should work.

Aaand that right there is were I call BS on this Mig-21 EM chart. The F-5E has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.73 in this example and about 3000 lbf less thrust than weight. The Mig-21bis with emergency mode well over 1. With about 3000 lbf more thrust than weight. That is an extremly impressive thurst with the emergency AB, even for modern fighter standards. Yes, the Mig is a delta which creates more drag in a turn and the F-5 is not, but that is simply not enough to make up for such a huge thrust difference. Especially sicne the F-5 with its higher wingloading turns at a somewhat high AoA as well. The F-5 was never known for havign a great sustained turnrate anyway. So, if that chart claims that the Mig-21Bis has less sustained turnrate at M0.7, than there is something wrong with the chart. Either it is not with emergency AB no matter what it says on it (would be understandable, considering the strain that it puts on the engine and the extra maintanence required after use) or there are other factors in play we dont know about and are not mentioned directly on those two sheets. That is always a danger with charts like that, that you dont know the whole story behind them most of the time. Also, 11.5 degree is actually worse than what you find in charts of older Mig-21 which have no emergency Ab and a much lower thrust to weight ratio. While those older models are lighter and should often have a better instantaneous turnrate, sustained should be better on the bis with emergency ab than any earlier variant. This is supposedly a Fishbed C. Though cant confirm that.

I too want a good FM, and when i see a problem, and the Mig-21 certainly had a few, especially with the radar, i will complain about it. But the few second differences you get are easily explained without needing a FM issue for it. The problem is the AoA, i think you might underestimate how much a slightly higher angle of attack in a turn can make. And i am sure the test in that chart was flown with a fixed AoA that was deemed sustainable, making it a sustained turn. If you look at your track, which is pretty good btw, you can still see that when you turn into your first turn you are at 820 TAS (accelerating as you turn into the first turn) and 1850m AGL. At the end after a few turns its 720 TAS and 1790 AGL, that energy had to go somewhere. If you did not throttle back, it went into a higher AoA than a true sustained turn would be flown at. And that is simply enough to explain a turn that is a few seconds faster.

You really hate LN for some reason, do you? But, as with your previous videos in the other thread, your execution is flawed and shows in no way a problem. You are flying the turn at an unsustainable AoA. Consistently over 20, the Mig-21 cant sustain even 20 at 700 kph. What you are doing is trade speed AND altidude for energy. You can see that your speed is going down during your turn and your variometer is consistently pointing down. The extra energy you get from trading in speed and altidude you put in a higher AoA during the turn. That is where your extra seconds are coming from.

Great news. Finally some more russian aircraft. I was hoping someone would do a Mig-23, its really needed. And the Mig-19 will fit in well too.

Well, its not really surprising. The F-5s Thrust to weight ratio is mediocre at best. The Mig-21Bis has a better one just in normal AB, with emergency AB the Mig-21Bis thrust to weight ratio is pretty impressive. 4th gen fighter level. The F-5s good instantaneous turnrate also has a lot to do with its LEX giving it the ability to pull high AOA, but high AOA costs energy. The flaps add drag also. So again, the F-5 can turn well, but you need to know about energy management in this plane. As a matter of fact, it is great for learning just that. There isn article here with an interview with an USAF pilot that flew the F-5E in the agressor role, as well as the F-15, F16 and Mig-29. http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/how-to-win-in-a-dogfight-stories-from-a-pilot-who-flew-1682723379

no

The speed of the F-5E at the start of the video just before you switch camera to the Mig21 is ~350 kp/h !! and the mig 21s is over 560kp/h at the same time. Well of course the Mig wins if you dont do anything but fly in circles with such a massive speed difference. Second fight, you merge and the F-5 goes in a tight as can be HORIZONTAL turn, wasting energy, the Mig uses the vertical. Again, outcome is not surprising. In any case, the F-5E vs Mig-21Bis matchup in DCS is pretty much what one would expect looking at both planes capabilities. The F-5 can outturn the Mig, but you still need some basic knowledge of energy management. Especially since a decent mig pilot will use his better thrust to weight ratio or higher speed to get an energy advantage. Also, that "article" is simply not a viable source in this form.

The latest 1.5.5 patch has fixed most of the issues i reported in this thread previously. Needs more testing, but so far its looking pretty good for me.

Want! One of my favourite jets. Cant wait for some low level action in the F1.

Same here. And we had Mig-21 co-op scheduled today. :( DCS-Crash-20160926-072651.rar

Hi Wanted to ask if there are any updates on this? Anyone know if 2.5 will address this?

Looks nice, also, that F1 tease... :D

Very nice. Finally i will get an answer to a question that is bugging me sicne ages. Can my flying make a co-pilot airsick in a sim? :P

Air 2 Air visibility in 1.5 extremely bad and needs improvement asap. Hi. I am getting more and more into DCS Multiplayer as of late. Which is great, but one thing that bothers me a bit is Air 2 Air visibility, more so than in any other sim I played. I think the air to air visibility in DCS 1.5 needs to be improved by a substantial amount. There are multiple issues with the A2A spotting in DCS 1.5 at the moment that make dog-fighting significantly less enjoyable. In this thread I would like to point some of them out as well as give a few ideas of what could be improved. The Model enlargement doesn't help in the situations I am talking about btw, because the planes are to close to be enlarged, and should be big enough to be seen anyway. Now, with threads like this it is not uncommon to blame the player. Get glasses, learn to play, this is how camo paint works and so on. So let me give you some examples of the issues with the current A2A visibility in DCS. Here for example I am attacking a Mig-23. Well, I take your word for it radar.... Here is a Mig-23 right behind my Buddys F-15C. Just right behind it, cant miss it.... In case you missed it anyway. http://i.imgur.com/vTP9j72.jpg And here we got a nice picture of a P-51 climbing up behind my Fw-190 and about to open fire. Its in the Blue circle, the black bar below represents the wingspan. http://i.imgur.com/QnFEvxw.jpg And last but not least. Here we have a Mig-15 over the Green field in about the middle of the screen. The one a bit to the left and up. Ok ok, thats a bit unfair, there are a lot of green fields here, let me help. This one, right in the middle. Distance about 1.5-2km. Still difficult, lets zoom in a bit. Oh, there he is. http://i.imgur.com/Rrdqm9E.jpg Well, I hope those example show that there is indeed a problem. And not a small one. I always try to get friends interested in DCS, but when doing some dogfight training they often leave frustrated because they can barely see me even when they are using F2 and Bad-Lock view to help. And I am not talking about people new to flight sims in general btw. Now, lets talk about what could be improved. At the moment I would say there are two main problems: First, geometry of planes sometimes disappears completely, or blinks in and out of existence. Might be when geometry like wings get smaller than one pixel and dont render anymore. (this should never happen unless you want to simulate pilots with a massive visual impairment) Might be a different problem too. Here is an example. A F-86 Saber at from behind at a range of about 800 meters. Geometry keeps appearing and disappearing, good luck getting an ID on that plane. Geometry should never disapear. Even when wings, tail sections and so on get thinner than 1 pixel. Than it should still be drawn with at least one pixel thickness. Here I made two quick comparison pictures in Paint between what we currently see and what we in my opinion should see. Here I am in a BF 109 and have another BF 109 in front of me. As you can see Wings and vertical stabilizer dont or barley render, even though at this range the wingspan of the plane would be high enough that you could still see them. Here is how it should look like. A second problem is the color of the planes. It seems that at the moment most planes in DCS when to far away for there actual color to render, default to a light color tone, which is very difficult to see over most textures and blends in with the background extremely well. Almost like a chameleon. Here are two examples. Here you can see the silver Mig-15 without problem. But change the zoom just a little bit, and it is almost invisible. It seems to have taken a light grey blue color that blends in with the background extremely well. The plane is still in the same spot. Here the same with the previous example over green field. Nice and visible. Change zoom a bit, suddenly light grey-green, almost impossible to see. A bit more and its just gone. http://i.imgur.com/mT1AB8y.jpg In order to improve this, the “defaul” color that most planes seem to get needs to be a lot darker, and lose the chameleon effect. Again, a bit paint magic to show that. Here we have the picuture with my buddys F-15 and a Mig-23 behind him how it looks now. And this is in my opinion more how it should look like. Just my two cents on the current A2A spotting situation. I very much hope that we see some large improvements here soon, or with 2.5 at the latest. Because the current portrayal is not realistic and makes it really hard to get people interested in DCS dog-fighting.

I will take a look as soon as i have the time. Maybe take out the good old Huey for a spin. :)