The 'bis' doesn't cover the Vietnam War

Buren · February 13, 2015

Excuse me Gentlemen, pure nit-picking here, but this has been bothering me, so...

Why do people here say with seemingly so much self-assertiveness that we have one aircraft covered of the Vietnam war with the MiG-21bis?

It is "bis" variant, people, not the F-13, PF/M or MF. The VPAF never had the former before '73, the end of (overt) American involvement. In fact, production of the bis didn't even start before '72. AFAIK Vietnam didn't get the bis before '79.

It is like saying we have the german side covered of the Battle of Britain with the Bf-109 K-4. :(

Same basic airframe, yes, but different capabilities and nuances and definitely not in the specified timeframe from a historical/grognard standpoint.

Keep in mind, I am not asking/demanding new modules here, only the re-evaluation of an apparently collective approval of a false notion prominent on the forums here.

OnlyforDCS · February 13, 2015

You are correct. Still, and please take no offense at this, you might as well ask the sky to turn green. In most people's minds it's a Mig21, so it's as close as they are going to get to a Vietnam variant, and as such it's better than nothing.

Kobymaru · February 13, 2015

While you are technically correct, you already mentioned the main point yourself:

Same basic airframe, yes, but different capabilities and nuances and definitely not in the specified timeframe from a

the differences in capabilities are small and there are only nuance. You have to consider two things:

- Somebody actually has to *make* these aircraft, and they need as much documentation as possible. If the bis happens to be the one the developers get their hands on, so be it.

- This is not a Vietnam War Era simulator, or a WWII era simulator, but an all-around simulator. And tweaking planes up or down for various variants of different areas is not realistically going to hapen.

This leaves the question: what do you expect?

emg · February 13, 2015

I think many here are aware of that, but starving DCS vpilots make do with what they have. Btw the 109K4 and 190D9 are not the correct variants for the Normandy map either.

When ED gives you an orange, you can still make some kind of apple pie... just with oranges... uhh, yep.

Edited February 13, 2015 by emg

Buren · February 13, 2015

You are correct. Still, and please take no offense at this, you might as well ask the sky to turn green. In most people's minds it's a Mig21, so it's as close as they are going to get to a Vietnam variant, and as such it's better than nothing.

Still, I have a very bad taste in my mouth when I read, for example, in the Phantom who-wants-it poll thread something along the lines that "we got the mig-21 so we need the other vietnam war counterpart".

And by miracle, if somebody would start to make a genuine vietnam war version, then would come the shout outs: "I wanna shoot mavericks", "where's my AGM-88?", "let's make a poll who wants the uberest, coolest, latest version", "how can I be competitive in MP, if I don't have the MLU german/greek variants with the AIM-120?".

the differences in capabilities are small and there are only nuance. You have to consider two things:
- Somebody actually has to *make* these aircraft, and they need as much documentation as possible. If the bis happens to be the one the developers get their hands on, so be it.

I have a problem with the people making inaccurate remarks, not with the developers of aircraft.

- This is not a Vietnam War Era simulator, or a WWII era simulator, but an all-around simulator. And tweaking planes up or down for various variants of different areas is not realistically going to hapen.

Perhaps this is the greatest problem I see in DCS right now. Lack of coherence. It is a theme park filled with the latest variants of well known airframes, without regard of combat theater or timeframe. But that's another matter.

This leaves the question: what do you expect?

People, who are actually well versed in the history of the aircraft they devote hundreds of hours to fly and study and don't make inaccurate remarks about them.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Buren

Kobymaru · February 13, 2015

Still, I have a very bad taste in my mouth when I read, for example, in the Phantom who-wants-it poll thread something along the lines that "we got the mig-21 so we need the other vietnam war counterpart".

It's as close as you're gonna get. Dude, human language is not mathematical! If people say "mig21-bis is from vietnam era", who the hell cares if there were a few switches were added? Almost the whole rest of the aircraft is the same.

Perhaps this is the greatest problem I see in DCS right now. Lack of coherence. It is a theme park filled with the latest variants of well known airframes, without regard of combat theater or timeframe. But that's another matter.

Are you kidding me? This is "the greatest problem" to you? Not the crappy MP interface & netcode, not regular framerate drops, not the coarsly simulated ATC or AI, not the limited theater, not the unrealistic FC-3 flight models but historic coherence?? Excuse me, but this is ridiculous.

I have a problem with the people making inaccurate remarks, not with the developers of aircraft.

People, who are actually well versed in the history of the aircraft they devote hundreds of hours to fly and study and don't make inaccurate remarks about them.

So you're just a pedant who likes to be right? Well you are in the right. Congratulations. Now please go and read your history books and let us play and have fun.

Buren · February 13, 2015

Are you kidding me? This is "the greatest problem" to you? Not the crappy MP interface & netcode, not regular framerate drops, not the coarsly simulated ATC or AI, not the limited theater, not the unrealistic FC-3 flight models but historic coherence?? Excuse me, but this is ridiculous.

I agree with your observations, but the fact that unrelated stuff are bundled in a "limited theater", as you put it, is the most striking for me. Hence my remark of the current state of the sim best described as a "theme park". Hopefully future developments will remedy this.

So you're just a pedant who likes to be right? Well you are in the right. Congratulations. Now please go and read your history books and let us play and have fun.

Never mind, I thought there was more to simming than the memorization of the correct order of button pushing and joystick yanking.

Have fun with your Air Quake then.

NineLine · February 13, 2015

Perhaps this is the greatest problem I see in DCS right now. Lack of coherence. It is a theme park filled with the latest variants of well known airframes, without regard of combat theater or timeframe. But that's another matter.

DCS is a self proclaimed "sandbox" sim, so you can put a negative spin on it by saying its a lack of coherence, but the positive point of view is that we are getting a variety of aircraft from a variety of eras. I would imagine once EDGE/2.0 is in place we will start seeing the same thing with theatres as well...

Buren · February 13, 2015

Please, Gentlemen, let me make myself clear that I have the highest respect towards Leatherneck Simulations for making an excellent module of a magnificent cold war aircraft, which served (and serves!) with great distinction in dozens of countries. I consider myself to be a great fan of the development team. Also I have absolutely no problem with the specific variant they chose to model, in fact it is my favourite one and the one which serves the simulation in it's current iteration the most.

On the other hand, you are right that I am nit-picking about the apparent confusion on the forums regarding which variant served or not served in the historic Vietnam conflict. It was just a shout out. If the style left many with a way too pedantic impression, my deepest apologies.

Buren · February 13, 2015

DCS is a self proclaimed "sandbox" sim, so you can put a negative spin on it by saying its a lack of coherence, but the positive point of view is that we are getting a variety of aircraft from a variety of eras. I would imagine once EDGE/2.0 is in place we will start seeing the same thing with theatres as well...

Truth. It is only my personal preference that I would really like to see a really fleshed out (post-WW2) era, not just a chip of many. But I realize that the latter has benefits in attracting more people (and developers by showing the engine supports many kinds of AC?) to the sim, even if it makes the whole concept a bit ... without substance in its infancy (I am not thinking of systems modelling here!). Let me underline though, that I really like what I see and hear in the previews, especially everything regarding the new engine and the Hormuz map. Fleshing out needs time, but there is perceptible progress. Hope there's going to be more AC/map developers with the engine maturing. I am all for ED/DCS being successful.

NineLine · February 13, 2015

Truth. It is only my personal preference that I would really like to see a really fleshed out (post-WW2) era, not just a chip of many. But I realize that the latter has benefits in attracting more people (and developers by showing the engine supports many kinds of AC?) to the sim, even if it makes the whole concept a bit ... without substance in its infancy (I am not thinking of systems modelling here!). Let me underline though, that I really like what I see and hear in the previews, especially everything regarding the new engine and the Hormuz map. Fleshing out needs time, but there is perceptible progress. Hope there's going to be more AC/map developers with the engine maturing. I am all for ED/DCS being successful.

I think we will see more fleshed out eras and combat theatres as we go along, its just going to take some time to get there.

Justificus · February 13, 2015

... its just going to take some time to get there.

Are we there yet? Are we there yet? ;) Quite true. I remember reading about the projected future and dreams of FC after it was first released and watching things evolve since the 90s has been kind of fun. I just wish I wasn't so damn impatient for some of this stuff... :)

313_Nevo · February 13, 2015

Have fun with your Air Quake then.

Pls can someone explain to me how will proper era planelist with proper era map saves us all from Air Quake? :music_whistling:

... play and have fun.

:thumbup:

MiG21bisFishbedL · February 13, 2015

You've got to be kidding me. You get a choice, AAA-grade module like Leatherneck's MiG-21bis, and you're going to COMPLAIN about the specific model they developed/public perception thereof?

Yes, we DO have a 'Nam era aircraft... a MiG-21.

Dear God. Get over yourself man. LoL.

For all intents and purposes it may as well be an earlier model that NV did fly.

No need to get so defensive. You're on a flight sim forum, after all; people obsess over this kind of stuff.

So, F-16A Block 5s are the same as F-16C Block 50/52s, then?

I don't see why you people get so pissy over a video game.

NineLine · February 13, 2015

If a person gets this nitpicky and worked up over ridiculously insignificant details (hell, I saw a thread the other day regarding the aerodynamics of a bomb... wtf?) they may want to consider shutting off the computer, opening the front door, and Doing Life™ (maybe getting one too) LoL

Please stay on topic, if you guys dont like a "nit picky" thread then just ignore it, but I am not sure its any better being nit picky over threads that are nit picky...

I think this thread was meant to be a PSA.... that the model of MiG 21 wasnt a Vietnam variant... but then I dont know if LN ever marketed it that way, so really... it is what it is :)

Edited February 13, 2015 by NineLine

Buren · February 13, 2015

I think this thread was meant to be a PSA.... that the model of MiG 21 wasnt a Vietnam variant... but then I dont know if LN ever marketed it that way, so really... it is what it is :)

I always knew this wasn't a Vietnam War variant.

I never claimed that LN marketed it as one.

I did not ask for a Vietnam War variant.

This thread was started to convey my puzzlement over why do a lot of people believe that the currently available version is a Vietnam War variant, when it is not.

MiG21bisFishbedL · February 13, 2015

They probably just don't know. Their interest lies elsewhere, it's no real biggie.

If a person gets this nitpicky and worked up over ridiculously insignificant details (hell, I saw a thread the other day regarding the aerodynamics of a bomb... wtf?) they may want to consider shutting off the computer, opening the front door, and Doing Life™ (maybe getting one too) LoL

Concern about aerodynamics of something in a flight sim is going to be common place. That's actually pretty important since the methods of aiming/sighting targets is depending on the aerodynamics of a dropped weapon. If it vexes you so, why click on said topics?

On topic, there were some pretty major differences between the MiG-21F-13 (one of the variants the North Vietnamese received) and the MiG-21bis, especially when it came to the aircraft's weight and balance.

Vampyre · February 13, 2015

I think we will see more fleshed out eras and combat theatres as we go along, its just going to take some time to get there.

What I would like to see is a way to assign in service and out of service dates by country that used it assigned to each and every weapon system in the sim. That way the option to force realistic scenarios will exist. It could be an option to click in the Mission Editor (Sandbox/Realistic Timeline). That way realistic scenarios could be set up with the mission designer having little to no knowledge of what the timelines weapons were used in. I do like the way aircraft are broken down by what country uses them in DCS but I wish the player controlled planes would stick to the countries that actually operated them... a Russian A-10C...:doh:. The problem with this right now is the limited amount of countries in DCS World and the fact that there are only a very limited amount of player flyables developed. As DCS grows my hope is that this feature will be implemented for historical realism.

MiG21bisFishbedL · February 13, 2015

Yeah, that kind of creative control should lay with the mission maker. Besides, the A-10C looks hot as hell in some of those fictional liveries.

That's a feature that can be aptly applied by savvy mission making more than anything else.

NineLine · February 13, 2015

I always knew this wasn't a Vietnam War variant.

I never claimed that LN marketed it as one.

I did not ask for a Vietnam War variant.

This thread was started to convey my puzzlement over why do a lot of people believe that the currently available version is a Vietnam War variant, when it is not.

Which if you re-read my post that is what I was saying... maybe you are overly defensive ;)

As for people believing that the current available variant is a Vietnam War variant... well people make mistakes, luckily we have internet forums nowadays with so many people eager to correct others ;)

Buren · February 13, 2015

Which if you re-read my post that is what I was saying... maybe you are overly defensive ;)

Hehe, right. Maybe I should take a break. :lol:

As for people believing that the current available variant is a Vietnam War variant... well people make mistakes, luckily we have internet forums nowadays with so many people eager to correct others ;)

Well, some of you probably know what Cunningham's Law is. :D

Vampyre · February 13, 2015

This thread was started to convey my puzzlement over why do a lot of people believe that the currently available version is a Vietnam War variant, when it is not.

It is because they simply don't know about the history. They see a big screaming piece of metal ripping through the air and sowing death and destruction to everything in its path and that is exciting. A lot of these guys are coming from backgrounds that are non military, and are really just becoming really interested in aviation. They know the very basic facts and that is about it. The good thing is that they are learning and that is of key importance to our hobby. I too get kind of frustrated sometimes (like when people say the blurry LN Tomcat photo is something other than a Tomcat, or a Bis is pretty much the same as a PFM). This being an internet forum... well... it comes with the territory so the goal is to educate and help them learn the history. There will always be knuckleheads out there who don't want to learn but there are fewer of them than there are of the people who truly want to learn and understand. Nobody knows everything but most are willing to learn and that is very good for our community.

Vampyre · February 13, 2015

If you removed that fundamental freedom from the player/mission builder, you'd pretty much destroy the sandbox that ED and the devs have created for you to play in...

I'm pretty sure you didn't really read my post thoroughly and understand it. Read it again. I want both options.

Home Fries · February 13, 2015

It is your responsibility as a mission builder to ensure historical accuracy in loadouts/airframe assignment etc, if you want the developer to do all the legwork for you in that regard, expect a much higher priced module.

A higher priced module, like the Strike Fighters 2 series?

In all fairness, open architecture has been a cornerstone of that series since its inception, and allowing a date range for weapons loadouts, variants, or skins is as easy as adding a line in a config file. I would also like to see something like that in DCS. It's not a lot of work to add that to a database, and I'm sure you would have somebody creating a mod enhancing those capabilities.

I'm in agreement with Vampyre on this one, if for no other reason that if a checkbox were implemented this would at least reduce the number of loadout combinations visible onscreen (making for a less cluttered interface).

EDIT: we already have national restrictions on aircraft that requires modding a lua file to work around, or unrealistic affiliations (i.e. A-10C for everybody); being able to uncheck this for sandbox builders would be a good thing I would think.

Vampyre · February 13, 2015

It is your responsibility as a mission builder to ensure historical accuracy in loadouts/airframe assignment etc, if you want the developer to do all the legwork for you in that regard, expect a much higher priced module.

The price issue is moot in my opinion. The recommendation is for a core game update to include a timeline that is selectable in the ME. Yes, it will take some initial work to update the limited amount of units currently in the FREE sim but after that it will be a part of each module from the get go and could be implemented in a simple manner. The whole point of having the ME is to make it easy to put together missions. I'd rather have that than have to rely on everyone making a mission being knowledgeable on each and every weapon/platform in the sim. The developers of the modules are the experts and have already done that research.

Sign In

The 'bis' doesn't cover the Vietnam War

Recommended Posts

Buren

OnlyforDCS

Kobymaru

emg

Buren

Kobymaru

Buren

NineLine

Buren

Buren

NineLine

Justificus

313_Nevo

MiG21bisFishbedL

NineLine

Buren

MiG21bisFishbedL

Vampyre

MiG21bisFishbedL

NineLine

Buren

Vampyre

Vampyre

Home Fries

Vampyre

Recently Browsing 0 members