Dr_Arrow

I think it might be a problem with detection range. If I have a wingman and tell him to engage ground targets he refuses and detects them only once we are being shot at.

We currently have command for Petro to switch the weapons on, I think it would be good to also have a command to switch all the weapon circuits in the front cockpit off by him. I know it is mostly only procedural thing and does not have gameplay reasons, but if want to fly realistically we should be able to command him to turn weapons off during fence out. Thanks for consideration.

Aside from possible bugs in the AP. I have some experience with professional Mi-17 sim and the technique that the instructor used was always use small increments with frequent trimming (basically press trim move cyclic a bit, release and again). I used the same technique for flying the professional Mi-17 sim and I use the same technique in DCS with FFB stick. Moreover I have some time in the 17 (3 hours of flight with pattern work) and even 24 (1.5 hours) as a passenger, but was able to observe how the pilots worked with cyclic and it was again the same approach with small increments and frequent re-trimming. In my limited experience I've not seen the pilots or instructors to press/hold the trim do maneuvers and release once stable or move the cyclic in big increments without pressing the trim button.

Nazradu: indeed, it seems that it works this way, thanks a lot, now heading AP is finally my friend. I was always under impression that it reacts to trim, but it is disconnected from the trim completely, but reacts to pedals simulating the microswitches in them. It is just strange why it does not disengage when you initiate a turn with cyclic and then add pedals.

What I found out so far and probably can cause problems is that if you have rudder disconnected from trim in special tab and you use heading AP channel, the heading AP channel does not update when pressing the trim. So it seems that it is best not use the heading channel in this case. This applies to FFB stick (G940).

With 2.7 out, I can confirm that the bug is still very much alive. Makes CCRP when releasing more than one bomb kinda useless

In 2.7 we finally have afterburner smoke fixed.

I cannot imagine you need afterburner to arrest the sink rate. I have maybe some 500-600 landings in the BIS, not once I needed afterburner in any of its FM iterations. Afterburner during landing would be a big NO IRL, as the SPS system does not work with afterburner, in fact afterburner is disabled in the real BIS having the SPS system engaged. You must be doing something wrong with such low landing weight.

The real Su-25 has nosewheel steering (it is modeled), which can be switched off and it also has differential braking on top of it. So it would make sense to have independently axis controlled wheel brakes. Nosewheel steering on/off would be also great (for takeoff and landings), but I doubt we will ever get it for FC3 plane.

Yes it is possible, I know even a story of a student performing one of his first solo flights with fuel pumps disengaged, where he wondered why the empty tanks lights were blinking during pattern flight in turns even though the fuel tanks were full. Only after landing he realized that fuel pumps were off when switching the engine off. It wasn't however Bis version, but the fuel system is nearly the same.

As Frederf said, it is an age old bug. I spent with it countless of hours and MRS is bugged. It works better when the terrain with the target is at 0 MSL, but more factors come into play. I hoped this will be corrected with A-10C II, but apparently not.

Yes, it has been always like this. I also spent countless hours practicing CCIP, trying all different settings and approaches, but it is nearly always X-ed even if you do a perfect by the book run with correct angle, TOF, SEM settings. It is a pity this was never fixed.

Hello, there is a whole thread about it just below yours: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260199

S-24A and B both produce strange smoke when fired as shown in the screenshot. S-24B works OK with Su-25, but with Mig-21BIS the smoke is somehow corrupted. I have no mods and have tried repair and deleting FXO and metashaders so probably the problem is not at my end - other rockets and missiles work well with Mig-21 and other aircraft. Screens attached.

This is about as realistic as the FC3 module in SP. This is absolutely not how the aircraft is normally operated in real life, so no use of such F-15E in SP for me. Even the now ancient Janes F-15 had a somewhat live AI WSO in the back. Flying a multicrew aircraft like it was a single crew one is a big no go for me in SP. I applaud Heatblur for their JESTER for the best single player representation of a multi crew aircraft ever. I would never fly the F-14 without it.

In the real Mi-24 you can fly from the front seat, but it is meant only for emergencies so in case the pilot gets seriously wounded or killed WSO can fly and land the thing. It is really not meant for fighting, or maneuvering.

Oldfox: I have the same issue, when zoomed in the movement is jerky as in your video. I am also using Warthog HOTAS, TGP slew works ok when zoomed out, when zoomed in it is very jumpy. I always thought that it is a feature :)

foxbat: nice graph, there were also two engine options (for export at least) R-29 and AL-21F. In my opinion Su-17M4 with AL-21F would probably be the best variant for DCS :)

Yes, this is what is happening, it might have to do something with suspension/wheels/tyres drag modeling.

Thank you for your work and contribution. I am looking forward to the next version :thumbup:

I've already reported this bug, but it is still present. This concerns only AI, player controlled L-39C works as intended. If you select L-39C in ME and assign it to fly at 6000 meters, the AI is unable to keep the assigned altitude. AI with assigned ground speed of 600 km/h will be unable to keep its altitude until it stalls, although its engine is running at 99%. L-39ZA does not have this problem. Makes L-39C AI unusable:doh: I suspect it is an AI engine table problem. Please try to fix this, it has been like this for the past 3 years. Track attached. L-39C_problem.trk

I like the mod, however I am not really sure if the afterburner should be that loud internally. It is clear from the operating manuals that engagement of the afterburner was mainly checked by increased temperatures, kick during take-off and of course indication on the panel, because it really was not that audible. From my own experience in pressurized cockpit during an engine groundt test, the engine sound was really muffled (RD-33) even without ear plugs. Just food for thought ...

I confirm this, also when you press AP Engage button in the cockpit directly by clicking on it, autopilot will not engage.

Thanks Frederf, that might be it, there is maybe some contact-no contact with the surface cycle. For devs: Tyres health it is probably not a good approach in their modeling. Even more when you manage an excellent smooth take-off and you get rewarded by burst tyres :( Something like a function of burst probability/ground speed would in my opinion bring much more realistic tyre burst results, or if they are working with tyre health just tie it to ground - speed and not take-off/landing cycles. I hope it finally gets looked at, because it is something I remember to happen as long as I have Mig-21BIS (bought in pre-purchase campaign).

No I do not have numbers for this, I doubt any graphs or numbers for this exist. Frederf has given you numbers which show there is a problem in modeling, making the landing unnecessary hard. I have several technical manuals for different versions of Mig-21 and I also have a special manual with the methodology of pilots' training in our airforce for aircraft Mig-21F-13 and Mig-21UM, where the process of landing is described in a very detailed manner direct translation from the Mig-21UM manual (this is the same description as in F-13 manual): The plane has to be levelled out at 1 meter above runway. Corresponding to the sink rate of the plane pull the control stick back at first smoothly and later more energetic, because 1.5 - 2 seconds before touch down the plane has a tendency to lower its nose (NOTE: before touchdown) Touchdown occurs at a speed of 270 km/h with normal landing weight, practically with the stick completely pulled back. After touchdown put the throttle to IDLE and release the chute. After putting down the nose gear, retract flaps and begin to brake. Our Mig-21BIS does not behave like this, you cannot land with stick pulled back, because the plane is unstable and it will lift its nose and even lift from runway at very low speeds. As Frederf said you need to pull the stick to 27% before landing to obtain correct attitude after touchdown it suddenly needs 77% or it will smash the nose down. The transition is sudden and therefore hard to counter. I am also attaching the picture of the manual I use as a reference.You might argue that it is not for BIS, but UM should generally behave in a very similar manner.