Cold War 1947 - 1991

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

This update includes a change to Integrity Check that will fail any modded file in Cockpit/Scripts

 

This will have a tremendous impact on Cold War server as many of us are using mods that fit this category. 

 

All good on my side and I use some mods for the MiG-21's sound, the trees in Caucasus, etc.

[Miccara]

On 9/13/2021 at 6:15 AM, rossmum said:

 

"and the first one is increasing blue's helicopter count and particularly their Gazelle L count."

 

Only issue with that is the rarity of good Gazelle pilots. Very few and far between. I would rather see less Hinds, or give us something to shoot them down with when they want to float around at 6000 feet. My Huey has to drop 300 rounds into the darn things. But, still fun in any form.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

All good on my side and I use some mods for the MiG-21's sound, the trees in Caucasus, etc.

I have 20 mods that are now unusable in MP because of this change. Most of them are quality of life stuff. I only use 3 of them in Cold War but the F5 RWR fix is one of them and this one will have a pretty big impact on the F5 users, as most of them use this mod to make the F5 RWR usable.

 

Apparently there is a Viggen RWR mod affected by this as well.

Edited September 17, 2021 by =475FG= Dawger

[MAXsenna]

I have 20 mods that are now unusable in MP because of this change. Most of them are quality of life stuff. I only use 3 of them in Cold War but the F5 RWR fix is one of them and this one will have a pretty big impact on the F5 users, as most of them use this mod to make the F5 RWR usable.
 
Apparently there is a Viggen RWR mod affected by this as well.

Yup.
Lot's of unhappy users today. List your Borken mods here.

https://r.tapatalk.com/shareLink/topic?url=https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/282040-custom-cmds-lua-now-breaking-ic/&share_tid=282040&share_fid=74365&share_type=t&link_source=app

Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I have 20 mods that are now unusable in MP because of this change. Most of them are quality of life stuff. I only use 3 of them in Cold War but the F5 RWR fix is one of them and this one will have a pretty big impact on the F5 users, as most of them use this mod to make the F5 RWR usable.

 

Apparently there is a Viggen RWR mod affected by this as well.

 

 

Well, that sucks!

[Tavo89]

18 hours ago, MMI_Grim said:

SRS Option please, no more text.

NO!, Remember that not all of us speak English perfectly and it is difficult for us to communicate with SRS.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Tavo89

[Tavo89]

Regarding the missile load of the Viggen, F5 and Mig-21:

MiG-21BIS introduced in 1972, Viggen in 1971 and F-5E in 1972, each aircraft has its capabilities, advantages and disadvantages, for example the F5 is very good at dogfighting, the AJS-37 is a ground attack aircraft with a secondary task as fighter, on the contrary the Mig-21Bis is a interceptor and its wing design is not good for dogfighting, it loses a lot of energy with any sharp turn.

 

I fly against the F-14 tomcat with my Mig-21Bis, against a plane that is superior in many aspects and with an artificial intelligence in the back seat ... And I am not complaining, I accept the challenge in a good way.

 

One solution is to ask the developers for variants that work better as fighters, for example the JA-37 which is an interceptor and can carry a greater variety of air to air weapons. Reducing the number of missiles on a plane like the Mig-21Bis doesn't make any sense to me!.

[Zachrix]

3 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

NO!, Remember that not all of us speak English perfectly and it is difficult for us to communicate with SRS.

 

Just get it and listen to the best of your ability.......

[Alpenwolf]

6 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

NO!, Remember that not all of us speak English perfectly and it is difficult for us to communicate with SRS.

 

 

And that's exactly my concern...

[Alpenwolf]

- The pylons restrictions are mainly to give Su-25T's and MiG-29A's access to R-60M's while MiG-21's can't.

- In addition, and in order to decrease the number of pilots treating the Viggen as a fighter, I'll restrict its load out to 4 or maybe even 2 air-to-air missiles.

- In operation Close Air Support Mi-24P's will be restricted to 4 x Sturm missiles instead of having 8.

- Maybe restrict the Ka-50 to 6 Vikhr's instead of 12?! That just occurred to my while I was writing this post.

[MMI_Grim]

14 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

NO!, Remember that not all of us speak English perfectly and it is difficult for us to communicate with SRS.

 

My comment was regarding the AI EWR/AWACS not comms in general.

 

But even for SRS, broken english is enough. Comms should be short anyway, you will get a hang of it for sure.

[rossmum]

On 9/18/2021 at 5:17 AM, Alpenwolf said:

All good on my side and I use some mods for the MiG-21's sound, the trees in Caucasus, etc.

 

F-5 RWR broken, not sure about F-5 radar visuals improvement, I'll have to test it later. Viggen RWR mod broken (though not sure if it's supported anymore, which is a shame, it sounds much nicer to me - and was allegedly more accurate, but who knows). MiG-21 and Mirage sound mods seem fine, shaders and smoke still fine as well.

 

On 9/18/2021 at 5:58 AM, Miccara said:

Only issue with that is the rarity of good Gazelle pilots. Very few and far between. I would rather see less Hinds, or give us something to shoot them down with when they want to float around at 6000 feet. My Huey has to drop 300 rounds into the darn things. But, still fun in any form.

 

I think the Hind can be dealt with a little better now with pylon restrictions and forcing human operators (although Petrovich's aiming ability seems noticeably more similar to a real human now, with his corrections coupling into aircraft oscillations badly enough to make him miss). Giving them a max of 4 ATGMs should force them to work together on single platoons of tanks more often, as well as force more RTBs that will get them away from the front. Totally right about the Gazelle, but for my part, I'm waiting to see what they do with it after the Kiowa. I really like the real thing and I feel like I'd enjoy flying it, but the FM just isn't even close to where it needs to be for me to enjoy at the moment, sadly. Hopefully once they can apply some of what they've learnt with the OH-58, it'll become more popular.

 

On 9/18/2021 at 12:07 PM, Tavo89 said:

Regarding the missile load of the Viggen, F5 and Mig-21:

MiG-21BIS introduced in 1972, Viggen in 1971 and F-5E in 1972, each aircraft has its capabilities, advantages and disadvantages, for example the F5 is very good at dogfighting, the AJS-37 is a ground attack aircraft with a secondary task as fighter, on the contrary the Mig-21Bis is a interceptor and its wing design is not good for dogfighting, it loses a lot of energy with any sharp turn.

 

I fly against the F-14 tomcat with my Mig-21Bis, against a plane that is superior in many aspects and with an artificial intelligence in the back seat ... And I am not complaining, I accept the challenge in a good way.

 

One solution is to ask the developers for variants that work better as fighters, for example the JA-37 which is an interceptor and can carry a greater variety of air to air weapons. Reducing the number of missiles on a plane like the Mig-21Bis doesn't make any sense to me!.

 

The MiG-21 is a frontline fighter, not an interceptor. The MiG-21PF/PFM were interceptor variants and most later 21s also had the option of fitting the ground-to-air GCI datalink, but the aircraft was designed as and mainly used as a light tactical fighter. The idea of it being an interceptor is based on incorrect Western interpretation of Soviet air doctrine as well as the idea that anything that flies fast and climbs well is an interceptor instead of a fighter, when really, almost all fighters of its time were designed for speed and climb as it was seen as the best way to win a fight while also providing interception capability. It's the lesson everyone learnt in WWII and then in Korea: whoever gets above the enemy and can make repeated high-speed passes at him will usually win. The 21's wing is bad for sustained turns (so is the F-5's) but fantastic for sharp instantaneous turns, which translates to being bad for a specific type of dogfighting doctrine which the US adopted in the 1970s and 80s, not being bad at dogfighting overall. Its performance is very similar to the F-5 at low altitude in both parameters.

 

On 9/18/2021 at 5:10 PM, Alpenwolf said:

And that's exactly my concern...

 

Blue Flag has the option of enabling text callouts (I think they're disabled by default?) as well as changing the time between text GCI pop-ups, so people who find them annoying can make them less frequent or turn them off. Their version of the SRS bot also definitely only sees targets the EWR can see, and although I don't think it has quite so many features as the Overlord bot, it works perfectly fine for what it is. It also doesn't require players to change their names, because it won't reply to player communications, it'll just automatically run through callouts for all players currently on its frequency. I'm not sure if it's publicly available though.

[Alpenwolf]

1 hour ago, rossmum said:

 

F-5 RWR broken, not sure about F-5 radar visuals improvement, I'll have to test it later. Viggen RWR mod broken (though not sure if it's supported anymore, which is a shame, it sounds much nicer to me - and was allegedly more accurate, but who knows). MiG-21 and Mirage sound mods seem fine, shaders and smoke still fine as well.

 

 

I think the Hind can be dealt with a little better now with pylon restrictions and forcing human operators (although Petrovich's aiming ability seems noticeably more similar to a real human now, with his corrections coupling into aircraft oscillations badly enough to make him miss). Giving them a max of 4 ATGMs should force them to work together on single platoons of tanks more often, as well as force more RTBs that will get them away from the front. Totally right about the Gazelle, but for my part, I'm waiting to see what they do with it after the Kiowa. I really like the real thing and I feel like I'd enjoy flying it, but the FM just isn't even close to where it needs to be for me to enjoy at the moment, sadly. Hopefully once they can apply some of what they've learnt with the OH-58, it'll become more popular.

 

 

The MiG-21 is a frontline fighter, not an interceptor. The MiG-21PF/PFM were interceptor variants and most later 21s also had the option of fitting the ground-to-air GCI datalink, but the aircraft was designed as and mainly used as a light tactical fighter. The idea of it being an interceptor is based on incorrect Western interpretation of Soviet air doctrine as well as the idea that anything that flies fast and climbs well is an interceptor instead of a fighter, when really, almost all fighters of its time were designed for speed and climb as it was seen as the best way to win a fight while also providing interception capability. It's the lesson everyone learnt in WWII and then in Korea: whoever gets above the enemy and can make repeated high-speed passes at him will usually win. The 21's wing is bad for sustained turns (so is the F-5's) but fantastic for sharp instantaneous turns, which translates to being bad for a specific type of dogfighting doctrine which the US adopted in the 1970s and 80s, not being bad at dogfighting overall. Its performance is very similar to the F-5 at low altitude in both parameters.

 

 

Blue Flag has the option of enabling text callouts (I think they're disabled by default?) as well as changing the time between text GCI pop-ups, so people who find them annoying can make them less frequent or turn them off. Their version of the SRS bot also definitely only sees targets the EWR can see, and although I don't think it has quite so many features as the Overlord bot, it works perfectly fine for what it is. It also doesn't require players to change their names, because it won't reply to player communications, it'll just automatically run through callouts for all players currently on its frequency. I'm not sure if it's publicly available though.

 

Mods failing the IC was reported and ED is aware of it.

 

I'll have to test both the SRS and text variants of the GCI before I include one of the two. Very busy in real life these days though.

[m4ti140]

On 9/17/2021 at 8:30 PM, Sideburns said:

 

Well HB appear to be on the Viggen and did adjust the drag situation recently, the MiG21 however I will concede doesn't appear to be getting much attention.

I don't know what they did but negative drag bug is still there.

21 is being worked on too. They just don't spam changelog with irrelevant stuff, like claiming they fixed a bug they had not. Recently afterburner was disabled when SPS is running, forcing pilots to use brain on landing, I'd say that's a welcome change.

[Tavo89]

10 hours ago, rossmum said:

The MiG-21 is a frontline fighter, not an interceptor. The MiG-21PF/PFM were interceptor variants and most later 21s also had the option of fitting the ground-to-air GCI datalink, but the aircraft was designed as and mainly used as a light tactical fighter. The idea of it being an interceptor is based on incorrect Western interpretation of Soviet air doctrine as well as the idea that anything that flies fast and climbs well is an interceptor instead of a fighter, when really, almost all fighters of its time were designed for speed and climb as it was seen as the best way to win a fight while also providing interception capability. It's the lesson everyone learnt in WWII and then in Korea: whoever gets above the enemy and can make repeated high-speed passes at him will usually win. The 21's wing is bad for sustained turns (so is the F-5's) but fantastic for sharp instantaneous turns, which translates to being bad for a specific type of dogfighting doctrine which the US adopted in the 1970s and 80s, not being bad at dogfighting overall. Its performance is very similar to the F-5 at low altitude in both parameters.

 

 

 

The Mig-21 is an interceptor fighter, its wing design is very good for many things but not for turns, it loses too much energy. The F-5 makes better turns, it's definitely much better for dogfighting, it's its strength.

 

 

Look at the angle of the wings and stabilizers, obviously the F5 will perform better in turns and at low speeds, in low and medium altitudes. The delta wings must be larger to retain energy better, the delta wing of the Mig-21 has a smaller size and an angle of 57 °.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Tavo89

[Zachrix]

7 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

 

The Mig-21 is an interceptor fighter, its wing design is very good for many things but not for turns, it loses too much energy. The F-5 makes better turns, it's definitely much better for dogfighting, it's its strength.

 

 

Look at the angle of the wings and stabilizers, obviously the F5 will perform better in turns and at low speeds, in low and medium altitudes. The delta wings must be larger to retain energy better, the delta wing of the Mig-21 has a smaller size and an angle of 57 °.

 

 

How do you reconcile this with something like the Mirage?

[Alpenwolf]

8 hours ago, Zachrix said:

 

How do you reconcile this with something like the Mirage?

 

The Mirage's wings' are way wider (wingspan) and longer (e.g. longer alongside the fuselage). Think of each wing as a right triangle of which all 3 legs are longer with the leading edge being wider. That's a bigger space of the two wings together and thus more lift. And let's not forget the engine with more thrust than the Fishbed's 1,33:1. Other factors are not to be neglected, but that's mainly a reference to the wings you talked about.

[rossmum]

18 hours ago, Tavo89 said:

The Mig-21 is an interceptor fighter, its wing design is very good for many things but not for turns, it loses too much energy. The F-5 makes better turns, it's definitely much better for dogfighting, it's its strength.

 

 

Look at the angle of the wings and stabilizers, obviously the F5 will perform better in turns and at low speeds, in low and medium altitudes. The delta wings must be larger to retain energy better, the delta wing of the Mig-21 has a smaller size and an angle of 57 °.

 

I don't have the charts on hand to compare their turn performance IRL, but I can tell you now that in DCS they aren't very widely separated. The F-5 will sustain around 13.5-14°/s against 12-13°/s from the 21bis. The US used the F-5 specifically to simulate MiG-21s in the aggressor role because at speeds below ~M 1.5, they have very similar performance, particularly for earlier MiGs with a little less engine power to play with than our bis.

 

I can tell you definitively that the MiG-21 is a tactical fighter, not an interceptor by design. It is termed "light frontline fighter" (=tactical fighter) in Russian, "interceptor" to them implies something very different - a larger aircraft, usually twin-engined and with a larger fuel load, and with an even lower emphasis on turn performance in favour of speed, acceleration, and climb. The Su-9 (which does look kind of like a big MiG-21, from a distance) was an interceptor per Soviet definition while the 21 was not. The PF/PFM and later subvariants of MF and bis were adapted to point-defence interception, but the type itself was always a frontline fighter, like the MiG-19 before it and the MiG-23 after it. "Interceptor" in Soviet service means an aircraft was operated by the PVO (air defence forces), not the VVS (air force), and was used in a completely different manner operationally.

  

2 hours ago, Alpenwolf said:

The Mirage's wings' are way wider (wingspan) and longer (e.g. longer alongside the fuselage). Think of each wing as a right triangle of which all 3 legs are longer with the leading edge being wider. That's a bigger space of the two wings together and thus more lift. And let's not forget the engine with more thrust than the Fishbed's 1,33:1. Other factors are not to be neglected, but that's mainly a reference to the wings you talked about.

 

The Mirage's TWR is not all that crash hot - it's about equivalent to the MiG-19 and MiG-23 at ~0.9:1. That's not significantly better than the 21bis (~0.78:1) and is actually worse than the 21bis with its additional AB mode enabled (which puts it above 1, up in the realm of F-16s and other such things).

Edited September 20, 2021 by rossmum

[Alpenwolf]

53 minutes ago, rossmum said:

 

I don't have the charts on hand to compare their turn performance IRL, but I can tell you now that in DCS they aren't very widely separated. The F-5 will sustain around 13.5-14°/s against 12-13°/s from the 21bis. The US used the F-5 specifically to simulate MiG-21s in the aggressor role because at speeds below ~M 1.5, they have very similar performance, particularly for earlier MiGs with a little less engine power to play with than our bis.

 

I can tell you definitively that the MiG-21 is a tactical fighter, not an interceptor by design. It is termed "light frontline fighter" (=tactical fighter) in Russian, "interceptor" to them implies something very different - a larger aircraft, usually twin-engined and with a larger fuel load, and with an even lower emphasis on turn performance in favour of speed, acceleration, and climb. The Su-9 (which does look kind of like a big MiG-21, from a distance) was an interceptor per Soviet definition while the 21 was not. The PF/PFM and later subvariants of MF and bis were adapted to point-defence interception, but the type itself was always a frontline fighter, like the MiG-19 before it and the MiG-23 after it. "Interceptor" in Soviet service means an aircraft was operated by the PVO (air defence forces), not the VVS (air force), and was used in a completely different manner operationally.

  

 

The Mirage's TWR is not all that crash hot - it's about equivalent to the MiG-19 and MiG-23 at ~0.9:1. That's not significantly better than the 21bis (~0.78:1) and is actually worse than the 21bis with its additional AB mode enabled (which puts it above 1, up in the realm of F-16s and other such things).

 

 

As far as I always knew/thought, MiG's were primarily designed to intercept American bombers. Quick start up procedure, mostly no alignment needed, one engine preferred over two (again, quicker start up: MiG-15, -17, -21, -23, but in time that had to change to adapt to more developed American assets), etc.

Egyptian pilots had their MiG-21's in ca. 50 seconds ready to go! I remember reading more or less the same about Vietnamese pilots.

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 minute ago, Alpenwolf said:

 

As far as I always knew/thought, MiG's were primarily designed to intercept American bombers. Quick start up procedure, mostly no alignment needed, one engine preferred over two (again, quicker start up: MiG-15, -17, -21, -23, but in time that had to change to adapt to more developed American assets), etc.

Egyptian pilots had their MiG-21's in ca. 50 seconds ready to go! I remember reading more or less the same about Vietnamese pilots.

Absolutely.

 

The Mig-21 is an interceptor. That doesn't mean it cannot maneuver because it is actually a very capable opponent.

 

However, it is a classic example of a purpose built interceptor.

 

 

[Alpenwolf]

Server News:

 

- Operation Street Fight has been removed from the server. It's the mission with the lowest population.

- Work on Close Air Support 2 continues (the mission's name will change). It'll take a while to finish, because I'm trying to implement something really challenging, but it's worth it!!!

[rossmum]

It literally isn't an interceptor per the documentation of the country that built it, and that wasn't its primary use. If the MiG-21 was an interceptor by trade it would have served in the PVO, not the air force.

 

The "F" in the first variant's designation literally meant "frontline". Mikoyan's two interceptors were the MiG-25 and 31, Sukhoi primarily built interceptors and Yakovlev and Tupolev also had designs in that role. The Soviets needed larger aircraft with all-weather capability and longer range to serve in the air defence role, and the initial MiG-21 was a clear weather daylight tactical fighter with no radar search capability (only radio-ranging as in the F-86) and very little internal fuel capacity. The Vietnamese used it in an interception role because it was all they had that was really suited to the task, but that was both outside of what it was designed to do and outside of how the Soviets operated it. Pact allies often operated MFs and sometimes the second bis variant (izd. 75B, we have 75A) as interceptors as that's what they had - with the sole exception of the MiG-25, particularly thanks to Belenko, the Soviets never exported any of their actual interceptors to anybody, not even their closest allies.

 

Western lay sources term the 21 an interceptor because they generally lack understanding of how the Soviet military was organised, or apply the same standards to the USSR proper as they do for its allies, but the fact of the matter is that the 21 entered service with two guns, no missiles, and no radar and picked up an interception role later in life. The true, purpose-built single-seat interceptor of the era was the Su-9, while the Tu-128 and Yak-28P covered the more remote border areas due to being larger, longer-ranging, and having more powerful radars. They did pick up adapted frontline fighters (21PF/PFM, 23P) where necessary to fill gaps in capability, but it seems to be the particularly western idea of "fast, high rate of climb, poor sustained turn rate = interceptor" that's been at work in the English-speaking world while the actual Russian nomenclature, let alone doctrine, is rarely even translated properly outside of military intelligence circles.

 

Air defence, particularly Soviet air defence during the Cold War, is one of my primary areas of interest and I will absolutely die on this hill

 

e/ To further expand on the matter, western fighters of the era also had absolutely terrible SA and were entirely reliant on outside control right up until the 70s. American fighters in Vietnam were under the control of either the big radar station at Da Nang, the Red Crown picket ships, EC-121s, or some combination of the above just as much as the Vietnamese were reliant on ground control to find and kill targets (remembering as well that the Vietnamese did not have many MiGs with their own search radars until partway into the war when they received their first PFs). The whole mindset of Soviet fighters being interceptors slavishly following ground controllers' orders while Americans searched the sky independently or coordinating chiefly with other flights is a weird conflation of more modern US air doctrine combined with assuming the Soviet air defence force was actually the same thing as the air force (they were not even the same service branch - the Soviets had five, not three - army, navy, air force, air defence force, strategic rocket force).

Edited September 20, 2021 by rossmum

[Sideburns]

On 9/19/2021 at 1:35 PM, m4ti140 said:

I don't know what they did but negative drag bug is still there.

21 is being worked on too. They just don't spam changelog with irrelevant stuff, like claiming they fixed a bug they had not. Recently afterburner was disabled when SPS is running, forcing pilots to use brain on landing, I'd say that's a welcome change.

 

The negative drag issue has been improved but not gone yet, I think they only ever claimed it was an initial adjustment not a fix. Hopeful the big Oct update for Viggen will include proper fixes for the speed bug.

 

As for the MiG21 the SPS fix was good, had suspected a few were dogfighting with landing flaps and AB and saw a few dropping out of the sky when it was fixed a few months ago. The non flaps/AB related,  general FM low speed handling overperformance has been reported for over a year now. If M3 are fixing things in the background I would be grateful to know what these things are, latest OB updates have been fairly sparse for the MiG21.

[rossmum]

Nobody was dogfighting with landing flaps because the flaps physically cannot deploy fully at the speeds people were dogfighting at. Even pulling to within a hair's breadth of a stall in AB at sea level will leave you too fast for the flaps to come down far enough to trip the SPS microswitches. This is the difference between actually testing things and studying the aircraft, and looking for any excuse to claim an advantage.

[Apok]

Rossmum, the interceptor or fighter confusion comes mainly from whats USSRs concern was. And that was bombers. You must look at requirements given to plane designers to know what its meant for. Until MiG29 it was mostly climb high as fast as you can. 25 was for dealing with XB70. 31 was for bombers and thier low flying cruise missiles. Vietnam used 21 as its supposed to be used - textbook GCI intercepts.

Edited September 21, 2021 by Apok