Auditor

I've been trying the new export tool and it's *really good*! Great job, Viper! Only thing I would add is the ability to import as well, because there are a bunch of waypoints that serve zero purpose in the existing NS430 I would like to delete, but I have no way of editing or deleting them without knowing what they are. But this is still a massive step up. Works wonderfully if you append the new user waypoints to the end of the existing file, as well. I put my custom navaids.dat in my JSGME folder and import it like a mod depending on the plane I want to fly. Works great!

+1 I want to see working SPO-10 performance and at *least* have missiles that behave like they should. Doubly so on the R-3S, because the 19P is releasing soon and it's going to be using that missile.

I don't even think that the Mig-21 as it is right now isn't playable. It's certainly playable, but definitely not enjoyable. Too many problems persist in it to make it a permanent mainstay among the planes I fly regularly. For someone just coming to the game, I would imagine they could get some time out of it before they run into the problems that the module suffers the most. Which is why it's so frustrating to simply say "Well, I guess thems the breaks" and abandon any hope of it becoming a good module. It's so close to becoming one right now. It has glowing praise and reviews just from how the module behaves right at this moment. And yeah, I agree that voting with your wallet is absolutely the best course of action. I'm probably not going to buy the CE2 at this rate, and frankly, I don't think anyone should as things stand right now. This is from someone who owns the YAK-52 and is proud to own it. That might change if they can show commitment to improving the products they release in the future, but I'm not holding my breath. I'm glad someone's having fun, because when I point out some serious issues that plague the aircraft and the response I get, all in row from several people who weren't involved previously, is "AAAAAAAAAA STOP POINTING OUT PROBLEMS ON THE DISCUSSION FORUM YOU MONSTER! THEY HAVE SO FEW RESOURCES, THINK OF THE POOR DEVS! SOMEBODY HELP PLEASE!" I start to wonder about people. This may sound naive, but I want to have some hope. They have worked on the Mig-21's physics modeling at least once this previous year. So I'm convinced they do have the manpower to do it, and maybe the expertise as well. At the very least, I'm convinced that fixing at least some of the problems aren't outside of their reach as they have completed updates recently that directly address critical issues. Which is why I'm not going to give up posting in this thread, despite the pleas that everyone just stop posting, uninstall the fishbed, and go home.

Yes. PLEASE! The NS430 is supposed to be able to store 99 user waypoints permanently IRL. It's really silly that we can't store permanent waypoints when part of the draw is the ability to save preset locations. EDIT: Excellent work, Viper! I can't wait to see where this goes.

+1, I think lighting in the cockpit in general probably needs an overhaul. Turning the lights on just makes the textures glow instead of having real lighting like in the other modules.

Could I get a link to the stream where you attempted it? If it's saved, I mean. I tried AAR in the 107th server and it worked just fine for me, this was in 2.5.3. However, it still has the problem that I'm not entirely sure is accurate with sloth-like refueling times. This reminds me of another bug that was driving me up the wall: The AI air traffic control of the Kuznetsov (and the Stennis) will scream and moan if you try to taxi while on the deck. By that I mean they will both constantly try to make a call to you on the ATC frequency about taxiing to runway and both get stuck in a loop. It's worse in the SU-33 because you can't tune out the Kuznetsov using your radios in the SU-33 like you can in the Hornet, and since it's a direct call; you can't turn him off by only selecting player communications.

Yeah you can, what? I was doing it earlier. The carrier bug, yeah. I can see that, but I thought they fixed parking spots for the Kuznetsov, as well? The biggest difference between the two aircraft is the fact that the Hornet is a waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better Multirole fighter; as well as the fidelity between them. The Hornet flies like a dream with well-modeled FBW, and the Sukoi fights you constantly with a FBW that has to be trimmed constantly(No clue if this is accurate or not). The Hornet has a range of precision weapons and a very accurate CCRP system, and the SU-33 has some dumb bombs, some good rocket pods, and a meh-tier CCRP delivery system. The Hornet has a 100% accurately modeled damage, stress, and loading system and the SU-33 falls apart like balsa wood if you enter a steady dive with it overloaded. The Hornet has some of the best air superiority weapons in the game and the Alamo in its current state can barely go toe-to-toe with the Sparrow. The Hornet lands accurately, and has an entire system dedicated to carrier ops in the Stennis, and the Kuznetsov is.. the Kuznetsov. Bugs and all (I'm not even sure they made that elevator along the trailing edge solid, yet. You used to fall right through it). All in all the biggest difference is the quality between the modules, to be expected with the difference between full fidelity and FC3 minus the bugs. I imagine they group them together because they're technically supposed to be rivals. The SU-33 is theoretically supposed to go toe-to-toe in the multirole space with the F/A-18C. However, that doesn't take into account the bugs and general inconsistencies that the poor Sea Flanker suffers from that cripple it in the long run for anyone seriously trying to use it for the same roles. I would like to see a complete re-work of the Sea Flanker in the future just to fix the issues it was suffering and maybe address some of the problems people have reported with its low loading thresholds and the fact that it has a strengthened frame but seems structurally weaker than the J-11A. I think the idea of the pack in general is to give a redfor plane and an equivalent blufor plane (in theory, if you ignore aforementioned issues). I was AAR in multiplayer earlier.

This was actually in a custom mission that I made to test its behavior. Someone told me earlier that it's intended behavior; that you're not supposed to be able to jettison the dual rocket pods. Is this true?

Hello, So in the last update it became impossible to jettison empty Dual-rocket stations. The weapons jettison key will always jettison an active weapon before it jettisons the empty rocket pods. This has lead to quite some frustration when using the SU-33 in ground attack. Single-station pods jettison just fine. Please tell me if this is happening to anyone else, because I had a really rude awakening earlier when I went to jettison dual-station rockets and instead my only pair of archers fell off; followed by my only pair of Alamos. Further presses did not jettison the rocket pods. Let me know if you can recreate this problem. Thanks

I fully agree with this post, and I hope PFM at least brings some more navigation information for the player considering that the plane is still tracking waypoint information. My current workaround is the use the NS430, but that is likely not the intended solution.

I don't normally necropost threads, but I would like to point out that this problem hasn't gone away. In fact, I think it's gotten even worse since the migration to 2.5. In particular, I'm finding instances where the wings will just snap off while weighing just below the operational load and when receiving rudder inputs, even gentle inputs. To see what I mean, load it to about 68,000 (Max operational load should be 72,000) evenly across both wings and enter a steady dive. A dive at about 15 degrees should do it. Maintain .8-.9 mach and then apply a gentle rudder input. You'll notice the plane start to yaw before the wings simply snap off like silly putty once the yawing force goes away. I stepped away from the SU-33 for some months a while back in hopes that this problem would be fixed in future FM updates, but my recent playtime with it leads me to believe that the problem still remains. I find it odd how gentle I have to treat the SU-33 compared to other FC3 aircraft. I understand that it is one of the heaviest FC3 aircraft, but at the same time it feels like it's a paper airplane at times. Could someone please look into this?

So I just did a few tests in 1.5.8 and in 2.5.3.2. While the A and the G models have noticeable flight model differences between the two; the Mig-29S absolutely seems to fly exactly the same way in both versions. In particular, The A and the G seem to experience forces such as ground effect and additional pitching and yawing forces that the S does not experience in 2.5.3. It's very noticeable when taxiing or on takeoff/landing. It's definitely still a simple flight model, but seems more akin to the flanker's previous SFM performance. Could someone help verify this, as well?

Could you link this video if you can find it? I would like to see it.

Okay that is SICK. I can't wait to have fun with that in multiplayer.

I was thinking about it, and I change my mind from earlier: I would like to see a modern Fishbed upgraded variant like the 2000 or the Lancer. Not just because it's an iconic fighter, but because the function of modern capabilities is practically a new fighter on its own. Both the 2000 and the Lancer can use the Python 3 missile, for instance, which is a more effective missile than the R-73, especially in boresight mode. Not to mention BVR capabilities like R-27's or Derby missiles.

That's neat. So it could track and intercept multiple targets at once. Is this the same radar that could later guide beam-riding RS-1 missiles on later 19PM variants?

That's promising to hear! I haven't tried it recently, so I'm really looking forward to testing out any FM changes when I get home. I was hoping that we would have PFM before MAC comes out. EDIT: I just tested the 29A and I think you're right; it does fly differently than previously. In particular the 'Sticking' effect of the SFM planes when they're on the ground appears to be absent.

I think we could probably end up getting this. The 25P is less advanced than the 23MLA variant we're getting. PD may be another story.

But just because they say 'no' to one, means they will say 'no' to another. This works both ways. I don't see how you don't get this. Also no one has made or put interest in the prospects of new redfor modules because we've been told that there is a belief that there exists very little interest in investing in one due to the popularity of NATO planes. No one has made a real break-out redfor module yet aside from the MiG-21, which is why your argument about it seems a little silly. We won't really know how popular one would be until the JF-17 hits, and maybe not even until the Mig-23 hits. So stating that you can't buy one right now because of license issues when no one has taken the time to try to license or attempt one because of the lack of interest is a chicken and egg argument you're making. You're not saying it can't be done, just that it hasn't been done yet. Which is why I think Schmidtfire is completely correct when he says " I would not be suprised if a 3rd party like Deka Ironworks would make chinese versions of russian aircrafts. It is a growing playerbase + IP laws are a lot looser.". Avoiding the question altogether seems like the future for redfor in this game. EDIT: Also I would like to point out that we're getting waaaay off course of the original topic of the OP. which is the Mig-29 PFM. The Mig-29 PFM is something that is absolutely happening in the near future, and may be the best representation of the Fulcrum that we ever get if no one steps up and finds a workaround for including it.

That looks GREAT! Quick question, how do you designate in the 19P? Is it like the Saber where you sight the target and depress a lock button or does it range things automatically in front? I would like to point out: Many early radar implementations were for interceptions. As in intercepting things at altitude that are attempting to avoid detection or breach airspace. So while it may not be particularly helpful at low altitudes in a dogfight; at high altitudes in, for instance, bad weather or at night. That radar would be as good as gold :smilewink:

What do you think this forum exists for, then? This thread is for issues that we are still noticing with the Mig-21. Do you have a problem with that? I don't understand why someone would be against pointing out bugs they're encountering with the software they bought, but here we are. EDIT: Also I love your signature! :smilewink: That is 100% your own technical problem. Not mine. I'm sorry you don't have a PC capable of running 2.5, but there isn't anything I can do about that. Meanwhile, problems still continue to mount for the 2.5 Mig-21, so I continue to post in this thread. If you checked its current status, you would see exactly why people felt like making its thread: it still has issues open and unresolved that we're still discussing right now. Including issues that have sprung up since the 2.5 migration that aren't even on the list. We know they haven't abandoned the Mig-21. I wouldn't post here if I thought otherwise. People still care about this plane. What is the danger of having a recent thread discussing recent issues with the plane? Do you want people just to necropost all the individual threads that talk about the individual problems like the lighting, the FM, and the missiles? That would spam the forum far worse than this thread does. Do I even have to point out that the M2000C has a running list of bugs entirely ran by a user of that forum? Is that dangerous to have, as well? Basically, if you think there is a better format to this thread or a better way to contact M3 about these problems than please, share your thoughts. You are lying. This is my only post in the 23 thread. and I specifically state that I'm looking forward to the 19P. I have never once said anything bad about them. Saying that I'm demanding changes to the 23 is straight-up a lie. Stop stalking my posts if you aren't going to read them. My posts in the 19P thread were entirely related to the fact that the bugs with the missiles now extend to other modules. I don't know how well you know about the game: but missiles are shared between modules. So me mentioning that the R-3S is bugged in another thread is related to the R-3S being bugged in the Mig-21. They share the same missile code, and yes, the existing bug known by M3 will now affect the 19P. Please explain to the class how talking about R-3S performance with another thread is 'obviously trolling', or quit stalking my posts. You've posted twice now in two separate threads how much you don't want me posting, but you can easily ignore me at any time. If you want to continue this, follow up in PM because your complaining about it here is off-topic.

You're acting as if it's literally impossible to find second-hand accounts for these planes or that they're top-secret despite being export products. I actually don't know if you're being serious or not. You're repeating the same thing again and again and not even addressing that we have contradicting evidence that it's entirely possible to create modules without consent from the original manufacturer. For example: the Fulcrum is a 40 year old plane, and has had hundreds upon hundreds of people fly them. It's an airframe that is as old as the Mirage 2000. Why do you keep repeating again and again that these are government contractors and that there's no way they would let them model something for a video game when we have the M2000C in the video game? when we have MiGs in the video game? Are you hoping that I just give up and ignore that? You keep hammering on and on about "Stop thinking in video game terms" but completely ignore evidence that contradicts your argument. The whole point of what I was arguing for is that we could easily get export or copycat products in the future. Or, who knows, a third party dev could get UAC's blessing on modeling an older aircraft. It's entirely baseless speculation and you admit that it is. So why do you keep 'thinking in video game terms'? I think claiming that all of Redfor is off-limits while we're getting new redfor modules is kind of silly. Don't you think?

I don't know what the point of your post is other than telling people to stop complaining about something that has clear and obvious issues. I think the biggest takeaway is that you probably haven't read the entire thread because your list is missing some of the *new* bugs that have sprung up in recent patches. Such as the new busted missile physics, the lighting screwups, and the latent FM problems like the 2G hard-coded limit. While sure, maybe you're sick of clicking this forum and seeing threads complaining about it; maybe there's a reason there are threads complaining about it. It's not like these are all the same few bugs, the plane accrues new bugs as time goes on. So telling people to just stop complaining is pretty hollow. I don't know what you expect us to do if the plane continues to get bugs and will continue to get bugs into the future. Just uninstall it and quit flying? I'm going to be pretty disappointed if that's going to be your next response, because I do love the Mig-21 quite a bit. Again, I make noise because I care.

Shouldn't you be really, really angry then? All of these problems are known issues, and seemingly no progress has been made on any of them for months without any word if they're being worked on or not. Why aren't you here keeping these threads bumped so people will acknowledge these problems? My join date was really when I decided to start posting on the forum, not play DCS. Which is why I keep posting in this thread; I've been flying the fishbed long enough to know that I would like to see change in it. Like this, yeah. I would imagine the original backers of the project must be platinum-level mad by now.

There's no proof of that. These modules are going to see the light of day, and in fact the 19P is close to completion. All of the other modules developed/announced by Razbam have also been released so far. The 21bis isn't going to magically disappear off of ED's store anytime soon, either. Despite the fact that it is technically still in Early Access. What you're saying is that yes; you can indeed bypass them if you develop an airframe that they don't care about. Which is why the 23MLA is fine, despite the fact that variant is a widely popular export variant and the MLD is a reserve aircraft for the Russian air force. Or the 21bis, despite the fact that many former Warsaw pact countries still use it such as Cuba and yes, Serbia. My point to all this is that I think Schmidtfire is more correct on this issue than Zhukov. The doom and gloom over Redfor aircraft is speculation based on Russian laws, and it's true that they don't want their active service planes models. At the same time, other developers have found workarounds, and have readily made aircraft without cooperation from their parent company or home country. Which is why export/copy aircraft might be the future of Redfor when developers finally getting around to making them. Basically: I don't think it's correct to use what happened to the SU-27 as a measure of policy toward Redfor aircraft. That seems to be more the exception than the rule.