Auditor

Thanks Mortisrose, we appreciate it

I think we should ask for a little bit more than that when there are still bugs open from two years ago.

Oh it's the Mig-19P and the S? In a two-for-one package? I didn't know that part. I'm really looking forward to it!

While I agree, and still stand by my statement that the III has more use in other scenarios, I would still like to know what exactly we're getting into.

So I'm seeing that the decision for a lot of people hinges greatly on which variant we're getting. Can we get a statement fro Razbam about which one they're planning for the purposes of this poll? At least confirm if older statements about the CJ are accurate?

I'm going to need a bit more info before I cast my vote. Mirage III is by far the more ubiquitous aircraft, being flown by over thirty countries around the world. By comparison: the Dagger A is just a rebrand of the Nesher made for export purposes to Argentina, right? Flown by only three countries throughout its existence. It would seem like the Mirage III would take this hands-down. Is there something about the inclusion of one or the other to even up this decision? Would the Dagger make far more sense in the context of when this operation is taking place, or would it be a springboard to other modules like the IAI Kfir? Would it have newer avionics and weapons?

I'm actually not sure if the R-3S is the same on the L-39 or not. Effective range on the L-39 is too short to determine if it's having the same gliding/angular attack problems as the one on the Mig-21. That said : I don't think there's any question about that. the Gar-8 by ED and BST accelerates to the listed max speed of the missile and correctly maneuver as their control surfaces move up until they reach a given stall speed. Leatherneck missiles fly out like a dart, don't reach listed top speeds, and then lose all angular authority shortly before their motors burn out even if they rotate toward a target well within speed parameters. I don't mean to disparage Magnitude 3, but we're talking M3 vs BST and ED. If given a side-by-side comparison of the Gar-8 and the R-3S/R and asked which one was behaving correctly, it would be the Gar-8 every time. Even before I was told that BST and ED were the ones who created it. Good catch on the R-13/M1 being closer to the AIM-9G, which is absolutely correct, but also makes its behavior even more baffling. Biggest inconsistency that I've seen with acquiring is with the R-3S on the L-39 and the Mig-21. The L-39 aspect for it is strictly rear (as it should be), in the Mig-21; it seems to behave more like a most-aspect missile for some reason. Regarding the R-60M: It is indeed most aspect instead of all-aspect. Nose-on engagements still show that it has trouble acquiring. However, that's a pretty minor nitpick compared to the bigger problems of the missiles not even gliding toward their targets.

I would love nothing more than to mount the 73 on the bis, and there are some very good arguments for why that would be a good idea here, but at the same time; there has never been any concrete examples of this happening unless someone wants to try and track down a cuban crew chief and ask them how they got it to work. As all of my searching for examples of this either point back to the ED forums or exist as hearsay on other forums. Frankly I would think that if the SU-25T can fire them in boresight mode, then the Mig-21bis would be equally capable, but I have no proof of that.

The missile problem is actually a twofold issue with all missiles introduced by Leatherneck. This started several patches ago. For one, they do not accelerate to speeds fast enough to retain sufficient energy at effective range. I submitted a bug about it here and they say they're looking into it. Problem two is that they lack any angular authority past a certain acceleration speed. Basically it will turn toward an intercept, but will continue flying in a straight line on its trajectory; almost as if its control surfaces are not modeled. It only affects the missiles maintained by Magnitude 3. So the R-3R, the R-13/M1, the RS-2US are affected. The R-60/M works just fine, because that was introduced by ED and shared by their modules and ED updates them regularly. The R-3S is shared with the Mig-21 and the L-39, but doesn't appear to have this problem on the L-39. I hear "Well they were always garbage that's accurate" all the time, but that's not a good excuse. We have the AIM-9B in this simulator, and the R-3R/R-13 are objectively copies of that missile. That missile works just fine on the Sabre and the Tiger. This is clearly a problem unrelated to poor historical performance. Second part of your post: It's an addon in the game that has very real-world precedence for being mounted in the Mig-21 with other things like a new radio stack and a navigation radio. Comparing it to the Spitfire isn't a good comparison. The Mig-21 was the most used jet fighter in service all across the world. In fact, it's still in service to this day fifty years after its introduction. I can't think of an air force which is still fielding the Spitfire. so naturally, the bis has a wide range of upgrades and retrofits available to it, and some people would like to see it in the simulator. That said, I think all that should wait until any of the problems present in the thread are addressed. These are far more pressing issues. This post also reminded me of another major bug in the Mig-21 that has been open and in 'major' status for over a year: The Mig-21's FM locks at 2G in a sustained turn. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=689 I think I mentioned low-speed performance, but this is related to that. Basically when making a turn at lower speeds, you will find yourself locked at 2G sustained even with the ARU turned off.

Several things 1. I'm not using any discriminatory language for either one upgrade or another, what I've posted are facts using the best sources that I can find on the matter 2. The BisD is not the Lancer. The BisD is a designation for existing Bis aircraft retrofitted with minor upgrades like a new radio stack and a gps module. The Lancer is a complete avionics and sensor upgrade offered by an Israeli company, and I agree putting that in when the Bis isn't complete would be a waste of time. The reason I suggestd the BisD is because Magnitude 3 could continue improving the aircraft we have now while working toward that in the future. Ultimately, I don't want a new Mig-21, I want them to finish the one we have. 3. I would like to know about those MF and Bis variants which were not cuban that may have been modified for 73's. Best site I've found on the matter: http://www.urrib2000.narod.ru/EqMiG21-e.html I'm not trying to argue that mine is better than yours, and I would love the 73 on the fishbed, but I also think that trying to modernize what we have isn't the right thing to do. If we want to modernize, there are some simple additions M3 could add in like I've mentioned earlier that do not deviate from the aircraft we already have. I would love 73s to be added, but first I would like the missiles we already have to work.

Croatia was not the only one who modernized Mig-21bis' with additions like the ns430. Romania and Bulgaria did as well, and even upgraded them to LanceRs later in their life. Granted, I'm getting this from off-the-back additions from Wikipedia, but you can't just pretend the BisD upgrades never happened. There are as many as 120-130 BisD's ever modernized. Not including retrofitted upgrades like the NS-430. If the entire topic is about modernization, what would be the standard for the upgrades being 'valid'? 200? 300? For comparison, there were only 175 Bisons ever made. http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/IAF/Aircraft/Current/605-Bison.html I agree, but which one would you consider numerous enough to make? Let's take the simple r-73 upgrade you propsed here: And I agree, I would love the R73. However, Cuba NEVER proved that they were able to reliably upgrade Mig-21bis' to use the 73. It was a hack that affects less than a dozen planes. I'd be fine with 73 being added, either way.

I, too, love the Mig-21. Great aircraft, and I adore flying it every time I'm behind the stick. if it seems like I complain too much about it. Please remember that I only complain because I care.

I understand where they are coming from. Every single retrofit of the Mig-21 I've ever seen to make it up to date with its 90's counterparts includes a GPS and a new radio stack of some sort. It's certainly not unprecedented. For instance, here is a bisD from Croatia. Same aircraft as what we have, but has some nice things bolted on: That said, can we stay on topic guys? I know people want new things added to the bis, and I do too. At the same time, I think some things are more important than wanting the GPS mounted, such as: The SPO-10 literally not working in any way like it ever did in real life Missiles turning toward the target but magically never seeking toward them because they rotate in mid-air but never change course Canopy reflection still not having updated mapping SPS pod being a very useful paperweight ASP being more of a helpful suggestion for the pilot than an instrument. In terms of severity, I rather have all of the above fixed before we start discussing where to mount new radios and the 430.

I voted 'no', and let me explain why. I would love nothing more than to be able to fly the 21-93 or the LanceR. I think those would be great additions to DCS. That said; I would rather the Mig-21bis that we have RIGHT NOW work than for resources to be moved to a completely new project. As you can see; it's a big laundry list of problems that exist with the current module. Some of these problems are well over three years old. I don't want to say that maybe there wouldn't be interest in the future, but I don't want to set our sights too high. I feel pressuring M3 to start on a new project when they theoretically have three other projects going on right now (21, CE2, Corsair) is the wrong move and is putting pressure where pressure doesn't belong. If we were going to vote about modernization programs that we could apply in our current situation; my vote goes to the BisD. Croatia's modernization program. Same Mig-21bis, but has some niceties like the NS430 mounted, better location of AoA indicator, and completely new radio stacks built-in. Including a Navigation radio and a dual-band V/UHF radio. This accomplishes two very important things. For one it's enough of an upgrade to be compatible with the other modernized aircraft who aren't limited to twenty radio channels and 99 RSBN channels. But most importantly: This minor upgrade would force M3 to keep working on improvements for the bis as it is the basis for the bisD. Not only that, it is the perfect way to modernize the aircraft without changing too much about how it flies, what it's armed with, or what time period it belongs in. The bisD is really just the same early 80's/late 70's 21 we all know and love with a few modern niceties bolted on, and I would have it no other way.

Any 'updated' clean canopy mods?

For me, one of the biggest issues would be addressing the incorrect behavior of the SPO-10 RWR. There was quite a bit of talk two years ago about this, and was addressed by Cobra back when he still was with Leatherneck. This was a hot concern back when the Mig-21 was still considered new. However, all of that seems to have died down with time and has been swept into the archives. All of it can be best summed up here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192916 and here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168915 Basically, the SPO-10 should be giving the direction of the lock. As well as increase in frequency/tone depending on the energy being received similar to the SPO-15. The only time all four lights should ever illuminate all at once is if the contact is right on top of the pilot. Close enough to give radar energy to all four antenna. I've already submitted what I've found about missile velocity/AoA, past that would be the ASO-2 fix and also the very needed upgrades to the Mig-21's cockpit lighting. If we're talking pipe dreams, I would still like the low-speed behavior of the fishbed to be addressed. Many people have gone through the mig-21's russian manual and have determined that low-speed behavior of the 21, as it is right now, is inaccurate. Particularly AOA at low speeds. But that's just my two cents. EDIT: oh yes! the sps pod. Do we even know if jamming works with it? I would love if Deka Ironworks made a J-7 fishcan! Repainting the Bis with our current J-7 skin isn't really the same as having a J-7 of our own, the flight characteristics and armament are different. Later variant J-7's had look-down-shoot-down radar. The J-7E had a MFD and a HOTAS, the first of its kind to get that. But that's a topic of discussion for another board.

From old manuals I have read: It's an old school analog to a boresight/gunnery radar.

Hello, thanks for the prompt response. I started to notice this when I was doing some testing on the weaponry after I started to notice the irregularities. I did a series of nine tests at 2NM, 4NM, and 6NM respectively with three of the Mig-21's weapons. The R-3R, the RS-2US, and the R-13M1. At 4NM, the missile barely has enough energy to impact a non-maneuvering target with no countermeasures with all three weapons when launched well within RMax on the radar screen. The mission I used was a test mission I created in the mission editor. I've included it in this zip file with all of the logs and tacview files of my testing. Both planes are are 100% fuel at 20,000 feet to ensure no radar obstruction and optimum launch windows for all three weapons. The Mig-27K has no countermeasures, and no weapons or guns. It maneuvers when engaged at 6NM range. All three weapons are launched either ASAP when mission starts or when radar shows best launch windows for the weapons. In the R3R and RS-2US case at 6NM, they're launched at indicated rmax. The thing to notice is the maximum missile speed of all three missiles, they appear to be far too slow for missiles of that caliber. Furthermore, RMax for all three weapons doesn't appear to be accurately reflected on the heads down display for the Mig-21, as rmax for these weapons is reported to be far higher than what the energy capability of the in-game missiles appears to be, and lower than what similar or the same missiles in other modules appear to be. It's not letting me upload files directly to the forum, so I've included an off-site link Thanks for looking into this!

Hello, I don't know when exactly this has started, because this isn't a metric that I've been keeping track of patch-to-patch, but the missiles specific to the Mig-21 have been experiencing severely decreased performance as of late. In some cases, these missiles barely leave gun range before becoming too slow to pursue targets. Just as a few examples: https://imgur.com/a/IaIeb5l I'll embed the R-3R image below: Each of these screenshots were taken at the moment of motor burnout, both planes traveling at 400 knots. The R-3R and the R-13 are objectively copies of the AIM-9B; the missile at the very top. I'll embed that image below: That missile (fired from the tiger ii) is able to hit Mach 2. The R-3R and the R-13 can barely cross mach 1.6 before burning out. The RS-2US, since it has no other in-game analog, should easily be able to hit Mach 2. I understand missile performance has been a huge sticking point on this subforum, but this has clearly been a downgrade since the last time I checked. That's why I didn't bother necro'ing any of the previous threads on the subject. I remember before the 1.5 merge having missiles that could hit Mach 2 just like the AIM-9B. This is a serious problem because the only missile that does hit Mach 2 like it should be doing is the R-60: This missile was originally an ED missile seems to be the only one that is functioning anywhere near correctly. Can someone from M3 give a statement as to the design decision that went behind the missile downgrade? Otherwise, this appears 100% to be a bug that has lingered from the upgrade.

So I have been VERY disappointed with how VKB has been handling stock. I've been waiting for the MCG for almost a year. My wait started in December of 2017 when I was told new stock would come in February. Flash forward to then, nothing happened. Date pushed back to March.. Then April.. Then! They announced that they were getting a shipment via their newsletter. "Oh boy!" I thought, "I better get in on that!" Within the span it took for me to log into my account the day that they became available, they were sold out. How many did they sell that day? 14 units!! Now, I am not an expert on the manufacturing process, shipping, or delivering. However, I am acutely aware that if you have something that is considered long-awaited, you may want to get more in stock than 14 of them. Or at least let people pre-order the things so it's not a mad scramble within the span of ten or so minutes to grab as many as they can. VKB's lack of being able to pre-order something has been by far the most frustrating part about this. Earlier this month, the MCG was available for all of a single hour. No clue how many they sold, but it once again highlights the problems at play. I know this isn't rrhode's fault, but at the same time it's absurd how this just keeps happening. I'm convinced the September period for ordering them is going to last all of eight seconds. :doh: 4 hours is too long. I went on lunch break at work to preorder one when it became available a few weeks ago and it was out of stock by the time I got someplace to order it. You're looking at a turnaround time of less than a half hour.

Seconding the above questions. Any ideas on where waypoint information is being stored? I'm noticing that it doesn't save user waypoints from mission to mission, but that seems like the greatest tool in this kit. I might be able to chop together an AHK script that inputs one if I can't find it.

I was actually just on the way to post this bug. Basically the heightmap was not meant for anything that can fly faster than the MI-8. I noticed the MiG-21 in particular experiences massive freezing and stutters when the GPS is either in moving map mode or heightmap mode in multiplayer. The problem gets worse the faster you fly as it has to preload in more terrain and I'm guessing that messes with the client sync. This is not just in PG, either. I was having this happen in Caucauses earlier as I flew further north. If you stay within the radius of its moving map, it's fine. But as you move out to the outer ranges, that's when the problems arise. Definitely, definitely needs a more efficient terrain loading algorithm now that every plane can use it. It's only usable now in short bursts, but should be turned off ASAP to prevent stutters. Which is a shame because I was thinking of using it as a replacement for navigation modes in a lot of these planes where you can't put in INS waypoints like the FC3 aircraft.

Seconding and bumping this bug. It doesn't seem to recognize the afterburner detent as being the engine turned on.

Oh come on, please, PLEASE tell me that me and OPPOTATO aren't the only two that care about declare on an aircraft with no IFF. At the very least tell me if it's a bug or not, please?

Seconding IFF and I'm going to add: I'm pretty sure Declare not showing up on the AWACS menu is a bug and should be added back as a hotfix ASAP. As in 'as soon as someone notices this problem they should be updating the AWACS menus to allow it', because it's basically the best stopgap people can ask for until the IFF is added. I can declare in my Mig-21 but I can't declare in my F-18? Definite oversight, IMO. Now I can live without it much like I live without it in the F-5, but I can declare in the F-5 last I checked, and the F-5 also has this thing where you're expected to get within visual range before you use any of your missiles; which removes tracking problems and also lets you know if one of those dots on the horizon is coming to kill you or not. Maybe it's a personal problem, but I'm flying the F-18 like a big F-5 right now, and that just feels wrong. I'm not even packing Sparrows anymore because the risk of ramming one up a friendly's ejection seat is too high to risk on most servers.