LupinYonder

Hello I am long-time Cold war server lover. Is there any chance to get the bomber intercept missions back at some point? I mostly fly Mig-21 and it was so great to finally fly it at the altitudes an attack profile it was mainly designed for. Eventually, when RASBAM releases the EE Lightning I might even fly some Blue and again this aircraft only really makes sense in the high altitude intercept missions. High-altitude bomber intercept missions were such an important component of Cold War military strategy and I would like to see it represented again in the server. Thank you for all the work you put in to the server, it's THE place to be for DCS in my opinion.

Have a look in Cuck's Guide for the Mig-21 I think it will explain things better than I can. There are some beacons you can home in on using the radios. https://www.mudspike.com/chucks-guides-dcs-mig-21bis-guide/

Hi, yes I'm aware that SRS is not part of Eagle Dynamics but I thought this forum section would be my best shot at getting some help from other users. Thanks for the script, I'll try that. As for using DCS inbuilt voice chat, that's fine but most are used to using SRS and there is no cross over with the ingame voice chat. It's a shame this feature came so late after SRS as I'd rather use an ingame functionality over a third party program no matter how good.

This isn't working for me, any one else ? I know I could setup binds in SRS to do it but I'd rather have it in cockpit.

Doh! Ok that solves the 828. Thanks for taking the time to help! Now the 852. Updated mission with another truck transmitting on 114.155 AM ( Channel 1 ) No luck. MI24 R-852 test.trk Mi24 Radio Nav Test.miz

Hi, I'm trying test out all the functions of the Mi-24 radio homing. The mission I have created is for the R-828. I have been following the excelent chucks guide and this youtube tutorial. I have the following questions. 1. I can't seem to get the truck transmitting or I can't pick it up on the R-828 and ARK-U2 2. I have also tried a similar mission with 3 trucks broadcasting on the R-852 and ARK-U2 and the R-863 with no luck 3. As I understand it the R-863 does not use the ARK-U2 but uses the ADF switch on the R-863 panel and moves the HSI Needle 1 ( Like the ARK-15M ADF ) Could you please check my track and mission to see what I'm doing wrong ? Thanks This all stemmed from me being annoyed at getting lost all the time in MP servers and seeing what beacons I could tune into online. I think it's simpler to just rely on the doppler nav system unfortunately. Mi24 Radio Nav Test.miz MI24 R-828 test.trk

Thx. I was on the way to the next waypoint at low alt and contacted them but they said it was clear. I'll try again.

So this is my first DLC camp so bear with me. Mission 1 I'm asked to contact the radar operators, I guess GCI. What Frequ ? tried AWACS but that doesn't seem to be it. I re-read the briefing and couldn't see any mention of this.

As it's such an old module and actually still up there as one of the most popular, I think a case could be made for a paid for refresh ala Black Shark 3 ( if that ever happens ). It seems like the only thing that might allow the devs financially to invest time into an old product that probably doesn't earn them much £££ anymore. It's my fave module by far and I feel they did finally listen and address a lot of the flight model issues that people had, I think the FM is in a decent place now. I have hope, not much though.

Thanks, I often wondered why this happens in the Mil-Mi8 as well

It looks like the fan is on an adjustable arm. Maybe we could just have the option to move it to a less obstructing position ? Realistic and non-heretical

Thank you for your hard work! We are grateful even if we sometimes sound grumpy

MiG 21 flight model lacking any stall is a bug and will be fixed next update https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=939#c1625

Default Apparently the lack of stall is a bug. Shame this information couldn't have got to us sooner as it would have saved many pages of analysis and discussion by the community. Dolphin "Issue related with OB binaries released out of sync with OB version.” Next OB update will fix it. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io...p?id=939#c1625

Apparently the lack of stall is a bug. Shame this information couldn't have got to us sooner as it would have saved many pages of analysis and discussion by the community. Dolphin "Issue related with OB binaries released out of sync with OB version.” Next OB update will fix it. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=939#c1625

The lack of stall is apparently a bug and will be fixed next update. Why this information took soo long to get to the community is just bizzare. It would have been great to get it earlier as it would have saved 20 pages of FM discussion and argument in the community. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=939#c1625

Thanks for the response, seems like we all agree that the updates the MiG has gotten recently give us hope but there is no information about the reasons or direction of the FM updates and core functionality of things like the ASP site for unguided missiles is broken or behaviour is inaccurate. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270426 The work and research in this thread below is incredible! If we had some more information.from the Devs, most of it wouldn't have been needed. We would have known what aspects of the FM the Devs were working on and why, and what changes they had made based in what information. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=270121&page=7

Magnitude 3/Leatherneck. With repeated and undocumented changes to our favourite model, the Mig-21, it falls to dedicated fans of yours to reverse engineer your module for clues to what has changed and whether those changes are a move to more or less realism. So many arguments, discussions, so much research and questioning could be settled with a better flow of information from and to you, the developers of our beloved Mig 21. The most we seem to get is for poor Hiromachi to let us know issues are being looked at while having very little else information-wise to offer us. Why is the situation like this? Is it a language barrier? Lack of time? Fear of bad feedback from the forum? We are all desperate to know what the ROADMAP is for the 21. What problems do YOU the developers see with the FM and other systems ( if any ) How do YOU plan on fixing them if it is possible of if there are limitations we could be made aware of. If other fans of the Mig-21 agree or have something to add, please comment. It would be amazing if there could be some progress on this issue of communication. Thank you Magnitude 3/Leatherneck for your continued development of this old but much-loved moduel.

This has turned in to a fantastic discussion with data collected an analysed. I have to imagine the Devs went through a similar process. Why are they so silent! It's taken 8 pages ( not counting many many other threads ) and many hours of hard work by Mig 21 fans to discover the FM properties when the Devs could have given us this information or discussed the changes and their intentions with us openly, making a lot of this discussion redundant. If we had a more open dialogue with the devs, a lot of the mysteries of the FM would be answered and a lot of the disagreements over realism and accuracy settled. I mean, they don't even mention their changes in the patch logs! It lands on Hiromachi to try and put out the forum fires while having no real information to offer us. It's very frustrating.

Here are some extracts from an English translation of the Bis manual. They detail the use of the optical site and the methods of Air to Ground unguided rocket use in Gyro mode. These extracts indicate that the site, using radar and data from the slant range unit, can provide an accurate aiming estimate. At the moment, if you follow these methods, the site does not uncage as it should when using Gyro mode in Air to Ground. This is either a bug or mistake of some sort. If you attempt to use manual method e.g. Missile mode, Manual Mode, manually enter depression angle setting using the S5 mark on the right-hand dial, the pipper is also at the incorrect hight and does not provide an accurate aiming point. I believe this is also a bug or mistake. I shall provide a dropbox link for the manual, I don't know it's source or accuracy but it seems pretty legitimate. The pages I've included are from 59-60 and 66. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3haomu0ncy...anual.pdf?dl=0 https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=233447&d=1587570549 https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=233446&d=1587570549

Hi there. Here are some extracts from an English translation of the Bis manual. They detail the use of the optical site and the methods of Air to Ground unguided rocket use in Gyro mode. These extracts indicate that the site, using radar and data from the slant range unit, can provide an accurate aiming estimate. At the moment, if you follow these methods, the site does not uncage as it should when using Gyro mode in Air to Ground. This is either a bug or mistake of some sort. If you attempt to use manual method e.g. Missile mode, Manual Mode, manually enter depression angle setting using the S5 mark on the right-hand dial, the pipper is also at the incorrect hight and does not provide an accurate aiming point. I believe this is also a bug or mistake. I shall provide a dropbox link for the manual, I don't know it's source or accuracy but it seems pretty legitimate. The pages I've included are from 59-60 and 66. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3haomu0ncyb8vop/MiG-21bis%20Manual.pdf?dl=0

If you have a look here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=266878 they describe some of the strange behaviour from the previous patch. This is all separate from the issue/feature I was describing in my original post on this thread. I was describing odd stall behaviour at high AoA which I believe now was simply a rather scripted simulation of an accelerated stall. In the current model, the accelerated stall, in fact it seems all stalls have been totally removed. As if we have reverted to an older FM until the issues can be sorted but that is just an opinion. Also the FFB has stopped working for those who use it in the current release.

Nope, It's broken. I've checked the behaviour against an English translation of the actual Bis flight manual.

Hi I've noticed recently that the ASP site is no longer working correctly for the aiming of ATG unguided rockets. In ground attack, Auto, Gyro modes and with the target locked with radar ( I think it has to be in beam mode but I'm not sure ) the range is giving below the site on the range scales and needle but the site itself is still "caged" as if it's in missile mode and provides no aiming point. I've been reading up on the correct behaviour of the site using an available English translation of a Mig21bis flight manual the way it describes the site function is what we used to have working in DCS.

Thanks for letting us know it's being looked at. A bit more transparency about areas being looked at and possible changes would be amazing. We as users shouldn't be dictating what is and isn't realistic, for the most part we don't have the knowledge and experience. We as users should also not be dictating what is good or not good about the flight model based on how easy or hard it is to fly. A more open discussion and maybe FM roadmap would be fantastic though. Language like " unflyable" and "broken" isn't helpful when Devs are trying to improve something for the sake of their users.