HWasp

I love some aspects of the update, the general handling, the new nose authority, but there are aspects of the performance, that are very difficult to believe. The way, it can pull though the vertical at low speed at 40+ degrees of AoA, and the things it can do inverted.... These things should be looked at I think. Here is another very safe demo flight: newF18_50%demo.trk

Maybe you should look at the actual diagram instead of just reading the numbers only, then you could observe, that at the 7.5g limit the "normal" speed for max STR is around Mach 0.6, which is close to 400 kts and around 20,6-7 dps.

50% fuel take off DCS standard 20C Some of these maneuvers, especially the negative AoA ones look very wrong to me. What is the TWR at 50% fuel? newF18_50%_2.trk

I'm sure there will be many people complaining. My guess, how it will go in multiplayer: Get F-4, load full fuel, 3 bags, 8 missiles, take off 30nm from frontline. Try to use sparrows, but all the MiGs are in the ground clutter of course, so waste one shot maybe. Drop the tanks, merge with MiG-21, still having full internal fuel and 2-3 sparrows and all the aim-9s on the aircraft, try to use the vertical, but this a 21bis and DCS so it does not work, loose speed, struggle with controls, get shot, go complain on the forum. (Just joking ) Regarding the video, I think, everyone needs DCS hours and practice on the given DCS module to get good at flying that particular DCS module, regardless of their background and training. Even if you'd get an F-14 pilot there, who has never flown DCS, practice would still be needed most likely because the actual controls are completely different for example.

If you mean, that they should properly finish the existing ones first, thats ok, nothing against that. I don't really want anything that much, I'm just signalling my willingness to buy an A version of those planes, any of them, if/when they are available.

Valid point. My counter argument is, that new versions of the same plane could (and should) be used to finance graphic/system upgrades of the existing version. My other point would be, that I think the "fun" factor peaked in the 80s latest, and with all the other cold war jets in development, it would make sense to concentrate there and develop a more complete plane set for that period.

I don't really see, how this is connected to what I wrote, but you are not wrong. It really is annoying sometimes, I'd also prefer if modules would come out of EA quicker and get completed. I think that having more versions as I propose would not be against that, it might even help, since that would mean a dev group is more commited to a single type even if versions are quite a bit different, instead of starting something completely new.

I'd buy a F-16A, 15A, 18A "downgrade" even though I have the current modules. Weapon restrictions can solve the problem even right now, more or less, but of course that is not perfect.

I've made a track: You can easily take the DCS 21 into the vertical even below 400 km/h (215 kts), low speed handling and turn rates can be excellent if you don't mess up. Try doing this with the F-5... MiG-21_lowspeedhndlg.trk

The DCS 21bis is not a brick, far from it. It's even overperforming compared to the RL charts in the low speed regime, you just have to be able to control it well enough to keep it on the limit and avoid the stall. You can even keep it nice and stable beyond the red line on the AoA indicator, you just need coordinated control inputs (no slide slip) and careful pitch control, then you can have extremely good turn rates with it. With the emergeny afterburner power is not an issue either. Roll rate is very good as well. The DCS 21bis can dogfight against an F-5 or any other 3rd. gen on equal terms, there are many people doing it daily online on the Cold War servers...

GS is not the right place to start flying the MiG-29. Try BlueFlag '80 (the 1980s server version) or Tempest's server, there you can fight on more equal terms. (1980s weapon restrictions, no amraams flying around) The MiG-29's advantage over the Su-27 is it's superior kinematics, great acceleration and climb rate. You can pick your fights and get away from very hairy situations (if you have the fuel ) and you can give your R-27s a large boost in effective range with your speed. Flying low, trying to ambush people is a valid tactic on GS, with everyone else having amraams, but in the 1980s setting against Sparrows it's a completely different game. There, being high and fast is usually the winner tactic, and the MiG-29 is very very good at that.

While older planes certainly need a bit more skill, learning and patience to operate, they can have a great advantage in this regard: Usually here one switch does one thing, and even if there seems to be more stuff on the surface, there is less complexity altogether. I have too many modules, and I often realize, after not flying a 4th gen for some time, that I can't remember the DMS left short + TMS down long + China hat forward + boat switch aft + blink twice + clap 3 times HOTAS command I would need for the mission... maybe it's just me. I never forget, how to operate the MiG-21 or the F-1, all I need is usually 5 mins of aerobatics, to build back muscle memory. That's much more fun for me compared to relearning the HOTAS. So, learning curve is steeper but useful knowledge is less perishable I think.

They'll certainly need to finish the F4U first, no way around that, but that can be a good thing as well, as that could generate a nice amount of income for the company, more resources for the next projects. Interesting plane, I'll buy that as well. What I really don't want them to do, is to handle a potential free MiG-21 2.0 upgrade as kind of a side project in between the new modules. I hope, that it is planned as main project, and for that, it needs to generate proper income. That is why I'd like to communicate my willingness to pay for it. I hope there are enough potential customers, like me, to support this route.

It's been a really long time since the original release. I know many people consider the plane unfinished, it certainly has it's problems, but overall I think it was great value and it still is. I don't known how many hours I have in it, but more than enough to call it a great buy. I'd like the 2.0 version to be a proper complete overhaul, bringing this beast up to the current standards in all aspects, and I'm very much willing to pay for it! If you'd develop another version as a bonus, even if it's as similiar as a -21MF, I'd be happy to buy it for full module price, if bundled with the 2.0 upgrade of the bis. Classic cold war module production for DCS is booming, and we need the MiG-21 in it's full glory. I hope, there are enough people, who think the same, willing to spend on this holy cause.

That would be nice to have as an option. I think the AI should have attack profiles based on expected threat levels, that could be set in the Mission Editor or in Dynamic Campaign. One could be the current low threat "target practice" type, then one intermediate, that is more agressive, and one with bomb/rocket toss.

I would be interested, what type of changes can we expect regarding AI ground attack / CAS behaviour with the new GFM, when it releases? I'm hoping for a new AI, that flies much more agressively by default. Are the attack profiles, speeds and altitudes going to be redone? Regarding unguided weapons, will there be an option or a logic to change profile and release parameters based on expected threat level? (For example AI firing rockets further away from target at a higher speed and more agressive profile if high threat is expected.)

I think you should consider the possible preferences of people outside the US a bit more, because for me, living in Europe for example, the Navy Phantoms are a very distant thing. I have never seen one, not even in a museum. I'm quite certain, more people have some kind of a memory or connection to the F-4E worldwide, than any other version, simply because that was exported all around the world. The Navy Phantoms are also cool, I'll buy that module as well, 100%, but HB has made a sound decision bringing the E first. Honestly, we should all just be very happy, that these cold war legends finally start to show up in DCS. F-4, F-104, MiG-23, F-100, Kfir, etc. whichever version, I don't care, I'll buy them all!

Fresh aircraft does not mean it can go over it's ultimate load limit. There is simply no guarantee there. It's already 150% of the normal limit, so no, I don't like to see that happen routinely in DCS. If we look at it like this, it is not wrong either if the aircraft falls apart 1% over that, it has the right to do so. It's the over-engineering of the over-engineering that protects you at that point... Again, best compromise would be to make it a bit random. It's good to hear that RAZBAM has those features, I'm not up to date on those, will check it out later.

Punish might have been the wrong expression for what I meant. Provide feedback, that they are doing something wrong is better. Is it a warthunder thing to show people, that going beyond the ultimate load limit of their aircraft is not good? Where exactly would you draw the line then? By cumulative damage I meant cumulative within a single flight, simple as that. Again, I don't think it's good or realistic to simply draw a line at 1.5x and be done with it, but on the other hand it is not wrong either. Nobody will ever guarantee, what exactly happens and when exactly beyond that limit.

I agree, these things should be standardized. Best option imo would be an increasing chance of catastrophic failure + cumulative damage further increasing that chance if multiple exceedences happen. The F-5 specifically could use a special control option, that would decrease stick sensitivity as speed increases to aid people flying without force feedback, stick extensions etc. (like the ARU in the MiG-21)

While I have to agree, that wings might break way too easy, and it might not be realistic as it currently is, what would be a more realistic way to punish people for ignoring the limits and abusing their "single use" throw away plane constantly? While simply breaking the wings at a fixed 1,5x limit G is simplistic, that is the legal limit, and it has the right not to withstand more abuse, even though IRL it would survive as it is over engineered for obvious reasons. There are many factors here, like lack of feedback, lack of control forces, so there are no perfect answers to this, but is it surely the correct way to go for a study sim to allow people to pull 13 Gs on a 7,xG plane every single time in practice, just because on the handful of IRL overG situations it did not break? This also paints a wrong picture. I'd much prefer a more complex model with random cumulative damage, not just a simple G=x you loose wings for sure, but I think limitations should be still enforced. That being said, I think the current model is not that horrible, it really just needs a bit of attention and practice. Honestly, I don't even remember the last time I lost a wing during a merge. (I drop the tanks in time though, not trying to go for it with 3 bags:) )

There are at least 3 mystery birds among the 4th gens in DCS now, the Hornet, the M2000 and the JF-17, for them there is no solid data publicly available regarding sustained turn rates, and unfortunately this makes it quite impossible to settle debates about this subject. I don't think it's a good idea to take DCS bfm relative performance too seriously, at least for the modern planes with classified performance data.

Thanks! I think the R-24 in game now is still from the Lock-On era, just as old as the MiG-23 model. I'm sure they'll update it for the module's release.

I've also started to use the radar on the F-5, even if I can't lock up a contact, somtimes it can help a lot. I'm a bit worried about Jester though, because I always found it very slow to work the radar through it in the F-14. I hope they'll create a way to point the radar where I want more quickly, otherwise I think it'll be very difficult without PAL or anything similiar in the F-4. Anyway, really looking forward to it!

Dude... seriously... You start this whole crappy argument about the MiG-23 when I didn't even mention it in the first place, then call me a liar just like this... What the hell is wrong with you? Ok, let's have it your way, F-4 good MiGs bad, everyone is happy! Have a nice day!