future of this module?

[Art-J]

The DCS MiG selector selects pylon for launching - and that pylon only, meaning You always have to switch to next pylon to launch the next missile. The real one acted as a firing order selector - it only told the weapon system which pylon to launch first, but on subsequent presses of the trigger button, the remaining ones were launching as well in correct order (pilot didn't have to flip the switch after every launch again).

[Dahlbeck]

That sounds nice, why can't we have that?

[Esac_mirmidon]

Ask LNS.

[NeilWillis]

I guess some people will always be super critical no matter what decisions have been made by the developers.

 

I can see that there are a few minor niggles - the weapons selector may not be what you desire, but it works, and is not what I'd call a bug.

 

I have no issues landing either. The lateral wobble you find so off-putting just doesn't happen here. Maybe it has more to do with technique than flight modelling? It is very easy for blame to be apportioned unfairly, and unless you rule out all other possibilities, it is unjust to point at Leatherneck.

 

What you have in the MiG-21Bis is a complex and detailed simulation. Do you really expect miracles? It is clear that Leatherneck have some more tweaking to do - and I emphasize tweaking. It certainly doesn't render the module flawed as you appear to be suggesting.

 

If the Viggen is as goods as the MiG-21 then we can look forward to a very good looking, and sophisticated module. I'd say Leatherneck should be proud of their work, and frankly, you're being very short sighted in the complaints you make, without real substance in the case of the lateral instability that you allude to. I also think the weapons selection procedure is by design, and as such, describing it as a bug because it doesn't suit you is hardly fair.

 

Considering what a moving platform DCS World has been over the last 12 months, I'd suggest you ought to cut them a little slack.

[Vincent90]

Neil, it's intended to be a simulation.

 

If there is something fishy about how the avionics work, which has no gameplay benefit, and is already been recognized by the devs as erroneous and on the bug list, then it is a valid argument in a discussion to bring the issue up.

[portman]

If the Viggen is as goods as the MiG-21 then we can look forward to a very good looking, and sophisticated module....I also think the weapons selection procedure is by design, and as such, describing it as a bug because it doesn't suit you is hardly fair.

I don't know if you've ever been in a hair-raising dogfight in the MiG-21, but the workload of switching between the weapon stations, switching between IR/SAR (which is also a "priority switch" IRL), flying your plane, keeping your enemy in sight, and watching your energy status is just ridiculous. And if they call it a simulation, they should in fact simulate the real plane. I would suggest to first finish a module and all its systems, before starting some Viggens and Tomcats and whatnot, but that's just my two cents.

[some1]

That sounds nice, why can't we have that?

 

My guess is that it would require LNS to rewrite most of the weapon systems logic and maybe ASP too. And after long and turbulent development this module endured, I can only imagine how the underlying code looks like.

Arguing that this is "as designed" is just ridiculous. With this level of argument, you can excuse any error in the simulation - screw the manuals and the real thing. I can't see any reason why this was made like this in the first place other than by negligence.

 

Anyway, I applaud LNS and have a lot of respect for them for continuing the job and releasing the module after Beczl/Indiegogo fiasco, but that doesn't mean I'm happy with the current state of the MiG-21 systems. I'm just pointing out the errors.

[NakedSquirrel]

The module doesn't seem abandoned at all. I put the module down for a while to focus on some of the helicopters and the Mirage, but recently picked it up. They've done a lot with the flight model, stalls are a lot more significant than when I first played the module. The plane also doesn't seem as responsive to big changes in AoA, which makes sense for the small delta wings.

 

I bought the module over a year ago and when I noticed how unfinished the trainings were, I just decided I'd play later when the module has matured, when training missions have voice and are not sarcastic and actually teach me something, when the module is out of beta and what I learn is final.

 

I love the training missions, they are amusing. I do wish they had voice overs though. :thumbup:

 

The DCS MiG selector selects pylon for launching - and that pylon only, meaning You always have to switch to next pylon to launch the next missile. The real one acted as a firing order selector - it only told the weapon system which pylon to launch first, but on subsequent presses of the trigger button, the remaining ones were launching as well in correct order (pilot didn't have to flip the switch after every launch again).

 

You can do this with the (1-2) (3-4) pylons selected on the pylon selection rotary. Is that what the manual is referring to?

[some1]

You can do this with the (1-2) (3-4) pylons selected on the pylon selection rotary. Is that what the manual is referring to?

 

Nope, that's for firing missiles in pairs, completely different thing.

[QuiGon]

Neil, it's intended to be a simulation.

 

If there is something fishy about how the avionics work, which has no gameplay benefit, and is already been recognized by the devs as erroneous and on the bug list, then it is a valid argument in a discussion to bring the issue up.

 

I agree. I had no idea, that the weapon selector works different IRL than it does in DCS, but now, knowing this is the case, I would like to have this changed. It is indeed not a gamebreaking bug, I'm not even sure if I would call it a bug at all, but it is a misbehaviour at least. And not, it's not a miracle that can't be fixed.

[zerO_crash]

I don't know if you've ever been in a hair-raising dogfight in the MiG-21, but the workload of switching between the weapon stations, switching between IR/SAR (which is also a "priority switch" IRL), flying your plane, keeping your enemy in sight, and watching your energy status is just ridiculous. And if they call it a simulation, they should in fact simulate the real plane. I would suggest to first finish a module and all its systems, before starting some Viggens and Tomcats and whatnot, but that's just my two cents.

 

+1, that last part is spot on.

[BadHabit]

I use a x52, has a rotary/button on the index finger Left hand. Unshifted to go through pylons, shifted to switch IR-SAHR. I know it doesn't solve your super reality bitching, but I guess it doess the job very well and I am sure if my old x52 can do it newers can do it better.

 

To go back on topic, I really see a very well done and almost finished model no major bugs or something that can keep a pilot who loves these kind of ac's away. The module delivers.

 

So far my biggest complain, as I like playing more SP and Campaign missions is having more options on the comms menu for the flights the player commands. Line jettison tanks or specific weapon, Fence ion & out, WP steering and situation call and more I can't really recall.

[The Legman]

Nope, that's for firing missiles in pairs, completely different thing.

 

I just used those and fired one missile after holding weapons release, and then another after holding weapons release. It didn't fire two. So if it has to fire two, it doesn't work or i did something wrong.

 

Edit: i know that they are supposed to be for release in quick succession, but you can fire one and then the other later.

Edited December 12, 2016 by The Legman

[NeilWillis]

I don't know if you've ever been in a hair-raising dogfight in the MiG-21, but the workload of switching between the weapon stations, switching between IR/SAR (which is also a "priority switch" IRL), flying your plane, keeping your enemy in sight, and watching your energy status is just ridiculous. And if they call it a simulation, they should in fact simulate the real plane. I would suggest to first finish a module and all its systems, before starting some Viggens and Tomcats and whatnot, but that's just my two cents.

 

There is no denying it is not ideal, but that's not the same as being broken.

 

Of course we would all like it to match the real thing, and for it to be simpler to use, but that wasn't the point of my post. I was just refuting the suggestion that the MiG-21 is borked.

 

Sometimes I'd recommend people just sit in the cockpit, and look around. The MiG-21 is a work of art. Don't get too hung up on minor issues, but of course, improvements would always be welcome.

[Whisper]

+1, that last part is spot on.

 

Nope it's not, unless you want them to continue working for ages for zero revenue, something you would not do. They have to move forward at some point, even if that means slowing down released modules development. That is, if they want to continue as a studio

[Laobi]

Here's a potential work-around for the time being. We're all pretty much agreed you start with your outer pylons first.

 

As 3 &4 are the outer pylons on the AA part of the selector a solution is quite simple using the HOTAS. Program your weapon release button to fire on press and go previous selector position on release, on takeoff set your selector to 4 and you're all set. Regarding the IR/SAR issue, bind it as any operation that's regularly used should be. It's not perfect, but it's a workaround until LN make a change if there is no reason not to.

[The Legman]

Nope it's not, unless you want them to continue working for ages for zero revenue, something you would not do. They have to move forward at some point, even if that means slowing down released modules development. That is, if they want to continue as a studio

 

Well, early access, beta etc has a compromise behind. We are paying the price of an AAA game per released module, so it is expected that the promises are fulfilled. If there are problems on the FM, i am pretty sure Leatherneck knows and i hope they do something about it.

 

On the last stream, and also recently on the AMA on hoggit, they stated that they want to be more transparent in terms of development and such.

 

I quite understand that devs run from forums if people starts getting toxic. But if there are issues, there are issues. There is no "Moving forward" because that would mean losing the trust on the company and therefore neglecting them all their future revenues because they lose any credibility.

 

The first module is like the presentation card, it sets the ground of your standards for the community. And the Mig-21 is a beautiful and very well done aircraft, but it has several issues that have been there for long time, and sometimes all it takes is "we are looking into that". Silence doesn't earn credibility. But it's not like they have stopped pushing changes on the Bis.

[Whisper]

Well, early access, beta etc has a compromise behind. We are paying the price of an AAA game per released module, so it is expected that the promises are fulfilled. If there are problems on the FM, i am pretty sure Leatherneck knows and i hope they do something about it.

 

On the last stream, and also recently on the AMA on hoggit, they stated that they want to be more transparent in terms of development and such.

 

I quite understand that devs run from forums if people starts getting toxic. But if there are issues, there are issues. There is no "Moving forward" because that would mean losing the trust on the company and therefore neglecting them all their future revenues because they lose any credibility.

 

The first module is like the presentation card, it sets the ground of your standards for the community. And the Mig-21 is a beautiful and very well done aircraft, but it has several issues that have been there for long time, and sometimes all it takes is "we are looking into that". Silence doesn't earn credibility. But it's not like they have stopped pushing changes on the Bis.

 

I never said they should not fix issues nor talk about it, by "moving forward" I meant they have to now put a portion of their time into work that'll earn them something in the future, they cannot dedicate full time on a something that doesn't help them for a living. Again, nobody would do that, so don't expect them to do so. I was just reacting on the "fixing released products first instead of working on new modules" assertion. After some time, this is not possible anymore, we should all be aware of this.

[Pikey]

News to me that it worked like this, it would be a large quality of life improvement for combat, I always wondered that there had to be a Russian simplification for this. But I have to admit, its nothing that can't be bound to your stick and be meaningless once you have the flow and practice as pressing two buttons for one isn't immensely difficult. Unless you are reaching for your mouse and clicking the dial....no one does that...do they?

[gospadin]

PRMG on the other hand isn't so great. On G/S is 1500m above the runway at 20km which is a ~4.3° relationship. That's really steep! A 2_2/3 degree slope would be much better both historically and functionally.

 

Not quite sure I agree, though I could be completely wrong relative to russian planes.

 

I believe 4° was the standard glide slope of the USN and USAF until sometime in the 1970s.

 

3.5° is the "standard" glide slope for USN carriers today, but they'll adjust up to 4° when weather is bad because it provides more margin on a pitching deck.

 

Today's modern PAPI system for civilian runways was invented in 1974, and the first demonstration was 1976. There are a lot of ILS approaches today though that are beyond 3.0°.

 

--gos

[Frederf]

Not quite sure I agree, though I could be completely wrong relative to russian planes.

 

I believe 4° was the standard glide slope of the USN and USAF until sometime in the 1970s.

 

3.5° is the "standard" glide slope for USN carriers today, but they'll adjust up to 4° when weather is bad because it provides more margin on a pitching deck.

 

Today's modern PAPI system for civilian runways was invented in 1974, and the first demonstration was 1976. There are a lot of ILS approaches today though that are beyond 3.0°.

 

--gos

 

No.

 

The manual for the actual MiG-21bis says 60-80m over inner beacon. 1500m from the touchdown point and 70/1500 is the tangent of 2.6719 degrees... aka 2°40''. Alternatively compare 200m flying over the outer beacon. That is also 2.5-2.7 degrees range.

 

That's visual approach. Look at the values for height and distance-to-threshold in the specific POLYOT section of the manual. 8-10km to go, 400-500m. 5-6 km 250-300m. Dividing these numbers you get 0.05 every time.

 

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to use the arctan function on their calculator.

[portman]

The Mig-21 is a beautiful and very well done aircraft, but it has several issues that have been there for long time, and sometimes all it takes is "we are looking into that". Silence doesn't earn credibility.

True. I love the Bis. But the silence from LNS about the MiG sometimes looks like "we don't give a damn" to me. And this is also the reason the F-14 won't be a day 1 purchase for me anymore....you know... the burnt child dreads the fire.

[The Legman]

Well, Cobra just stated they are looking into the FM because it is outperforming. So that's a good thing on their end.

[zerO_crash]

True. I love the Bis. But the silence from LNS about the MiG sometimes looks like "we don't give a damn" to me. And this is also the reason the F-14 won't be a day 1 purchase for me anymore....you know... the burnt child dreads the fire.

 

Again good point :thumbup:

 

@Whisper. As it was mentioned before, communication is dead, and to be quite honest, having LN getting their own site for reporting issues, is probably the thing that damages the reports the most. They want it easier, and by that force you to spend more time to register and use their own system for reporting bugs. Sometimes you`r unsure if bug, or simply behaviour you`ve never experienced before on an aircraft, is there any way to discuss it at their bug report? NO.

 

As simple thing as pilot body (come on, Razbam even got it for M2000C before LN even get`s it for MiG, if ever) was requested, and what? Silence to the max. Is LN ignoring posts they flat out would have to reply with a "no" to? I had a very positive idea of LN in the beginning, sadly with time it`s got worse.

 

I don`t favour any 3rd party dev over any other in DCS, I like to think of them as equal. But you can surely see how much more positive guys over at Belsimtek and Razbam are, where just asking for a simple thing, get`s it added the same day (helmet sun protection, or whatever you care to mention), (ED correcting elevator shape and adding additional closing hatch to Spitfire), and those in a so short time Charles Darwin would be astonished. I`m sorry, but LN is just NOT on that level. Asking things here is like slamming your head against a wall, forget getting response, or anything done until next century.

 

I have full respect for them if they have a problem fixing the MiG, might take time, so be it. But not responding to anything at all, and claiming that the module can be considered "out of beta" is just flat out rude to anyone who supported them with their wallet.

 

In case any LN-associate actually bothers to read this, know this: I still love your module and will continue to, but you might want to consider fixing things soon, as one update is one step forward, and two steps back, it seems.

Edited December 15, 2016 by zerO_crash

[NeilWillis]

And who can blame them for not entering into the debate here by replying to this unwarranted vitriol? Like all third party developers, they started out with the best of intentions, but the soul destroying, baying pack has ensured they have changed their policy.

 

In case you hadn't noticed, they're also busy with more than one project, and a simple task like adding a pilot into a cockpit may be affected by things like increased poly count causing an excessive drain on system resources and slower frame rates. They have acknowledged that a pilot would be necessary at some point, but it sure as hell isn't a game stopper.

 

Also, as a separate independent company, why should they not have their own bug reporting system?