Dr_Arrow

Ramsay is right, it is not recommended to operate the engine in those RPM regions .

Yes, the drag chutes of FC3 aircraft are way overdone, they act like arrestor wires rather than a chute, in this regard the chute of Mig-21 acts in a very realistic manner. With FC3 aircraft like Su-25 it is nearly impossible to taxi with chute deployed, this indicates that its drag is unrealistic.

I also agree with this. My A-10C wingman thinks it is a great idea to fly like this at night over hostile territory :doh: I even think that this might be a bug :huh:

Yes, there is no stall now, but it is much better on takeoff or landing

A-10 hands down, I was quite proficient with air refuelling other aircraft and even other sims so I thought A-10 would be no different, but A-10 has given me some hard times and a lot of needed training to master it. At first I thought having boom in front of you would make things easier, but it was quite the opposite for me. The boom blocks the tanker lights and distracts from concentrating on the tanker, I really had to learn to delete the boom from my vision and concentrate on the tanker instead, to be successful. Maybe it is easier in VR or RL.

TGP is also very problematic at dusk. While I can see targets as dots perfectly with D mavericks, the Litening pod sees nothing in FLIR mode and absolutely nothing in CCD mode, I fiddled with gamma contrast and brightness, but still . Litening FLIR should be much better than mavs?

Indeed the correct technique according to the manual should be hold the stick at 3/4 of travel, ease a bit when the aircraft rotates and let it fly off by itself. Now the aircraft is quite unstable after rotation and impossible to keep steady. It was also quite difficult previously and I thought that with the new patch it will be a bit more stable, but the opposite has happened. This also applies to landing, now it is very hard to keep the aicraft on main landing gear after touchdown. So in my opinion this change was for the worse :(

Eagle dynamics have changed their facebook cover photo depicting F-15C, so I am pretty much sure the new DCS module will be a full fidelity F-15C. I am still surprised that someone expects ED do something Russian or some Su-35 for that matter, I think this is outright sci-fi. However I would love them to do Su-25A, Mig-29A (9.11) or one of the first versions of Su-27S, but sadly seems like nothing of that is in their medium or long term plans :(

Ziptie: there certainly is a bug. The taxi light moves with the leg, however the cone of light on the ground is not moving. In previous version it worked correctly, now it is not.

I agree, I would also like to have them their time spent on correct ASP, correct sized fuel tanks and wingmen having landing lights off during flight instead of a new cockpit, which was announced with pictures more than a year ago. However we don't have anything for the Mig but the new cockpit promised/announced and I feel it is now quite overdue with the module deteriorating with each new DCS version rather than moving forward (it is designated as being in trunk in DCS world, not a good sign for me). This is not supposed to be negative, I love the module and therefore I care for its future, which I do not see as a very promising one.

+2

What Dakota said, CCIP MAN REL is not a problem, PBIL circle is well visible. CCIP-CR PBIL circle is clipped no matter how you position your head/seat. When CCIP-CR transitions to MAN REL the PBIL circle is visible, however when it is in 3/9 or 5 Mil mode, this means that the impact point is outside the HUD, the PBIL circle is clipped pre-designate and even post-designate irrelevant of your viewpoint position.

I can confirm in CCRP-CR, 5 mil. no matter how high I move my head with trackir the dashed pre-designated PBIL circle is cut in half and also post-designate is cut in half. I've recorded a track, where I move my head up as far as it goes but the circle is still cut in half. Pre designate PBIL: Post designated PBIL: A10_CCIP_CR.trk

I just hope that the old suite will also be available if we get a newer one

I have just tested it and found a probable cause, in Caucasus where target elevation is close to 0, all indications are correct DRC and MRS are correct and CCIP piper is not crossed for the profile 82 30HA2 with DTOF 11.3 MTOF 10.9 min ALT 2000 (it works actually very well). This is in the track (A10_MRS_correct.trk). However it seems that when the target's elevation is much higher like in Nevada (3400 ft), the indications are incorrect and the CCIP is crossed from the start (although the profile is the same and the drop is valid and accurate) using the same profile parameters and same approach. This is in tracks A10_MRS_incorrect1.trk with min alt set to 2000 and in the track A10_MRS_incorrect2.trk where I set the min alt to 5500 to take account target elevation. Target waypoint is set to 3400 feet and setting the waypoint to DTS or manual makes no difference. So in the end I think that calculation of DRC and MRS is always assuming that target elevation is zero and this is where the problem maybe is. A10_MRS_correct.trk A10_MRS_incorrect1.trk A10_MRS_incorrect2.trk

This will be a necro post. I've been recently practicing CCIP drops, inputing correctly all the necessary data, but I always seem to get the cross in CCIP reticle because MRS always falls down no matter what minimum alt, DTOF, MTOF, RTSE I set.. I cannot get CCIP to drop without X with any of the standard profiles for example for 30 degree dive 82 30HA2 (DTOF 11.3, MTOF 10.9, RTSE: CLM). I do not know what but there seems to be something wrong with MRS, even in most youtube tutorials CCIP is crossed. I think there has to be some long standing bug, which it would be nice to have it corrected.

No performance loss at my side, runs solid 60 FPS with not a top of the line hardware (i7 2600K, NV1070).

Not wanting to go too far OT, but I agree Weta43, I was just trying to say it was not some implementation or coding error in MCAS but rather a fatal design flaw, which is always hard to correct. It is difficult to understand and swallow that Boeing knew about the expected loss of 1 aircraft and still pushed it out in a way it was. In my engineering experience it is also quite absurd, because in any design it is always the priorities - safety first, second, third and then long nothing and safety again long nothing and only then maybe some performance/costs. Even when re-designing an old system, the first question is, will it be considerably more safe? I thought that this principle today really applies to everyone dealing with civil aviation.

If you have empty amno for the GSH-23 cannon the Mig will roll slightly, because the amno box is off center, could this be the problem?

The same problem goes for the FAB family of bombs.

I absolutely agree, FM is very good inside envelope - outside it, well for example there aren't any RL pilots I personally know who went outside the envelope with 21 and lived to tell the tale so I am pretty happy with FM. To those I have spoken, all told me that they feared abusing limits of the aircraft a lot and falling into spin was a dreaded regime (among others). You can fly the 21 BIS according to the real flight manual and for me it is a testimony of a good FM.

Thanks for your answer Hiro, I appreciate all fuselage corrections and everything what will be done regarding the external shape of Mig-21. However I cannot understand contrary to very small discrepancy in external shape, which 99% of users won't notice that such a big error like 490L tanks being maybe 30% smaller than they should be still hasn't been fixed, I like your work and support it, but sorry - I sometimes feel like fighting with windmills to get something updated (new files for the tanks were supplied long ago), please see: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2757565&postcount=1

AeriaGloria: yes, the correct technique is shown in the video. I am amazed and you see it in many tutorials on YT, people are used to land on all three gears with eastern aircraft a lot (L-39, Mig-29, Su-27, Su-25, etc.), which is absolutely wrong. In flight training as per RL training manuals you are specifically taught to land on main landing gear only, aerobrake and gently put the nosewheel down as shown in the video. But anyway in training you got to fly familiarization flights (around 20) and 40-60 circuit flights in L-39, before you are allowed to go solo with L-39). So I also think it is a good practice to master MLG landings with low descent rate with L-39 (and of course other tasks) and then try to proceed to more complex aircraft.

There is currently no word from the developer about anything, we'll maybe see some update about a future update sometime in autumn/winter/spring or maybe summer, something to do with ducks...

yep, we rolled it out in just three months and it has been a huge success with only two crashes (*writing from jail*). But seriously no, the tragedy is that MCAS itself worked just as designed without a flaw (according to available data), the problem is much more complex from control (cybernetics), diagnosis, HMI (human machine interface) and air-frame integration points of view. I think I have a pretty good idea how complex technical systems are and how difficult is it to develop them, what I previously wrote was just my concern that in case of ED with modules and features growth, it is a problem of resource allocation and the major delays are caused by it. I have just a feeling that the company is trying to bite more than it can chew (whole WW2 thing, MAC agenda, core DCS, modern aircraft, new engine, old stuff deprecation, etc).