How's leatherneck sims?

[Art-J]

MiG-21 is a bit of a special case. It started its life as a private mod made by 1 guy based on FC3 code, then got taken over by 4 other guys (at that time) who created the very first official 3rd party team contracted for DCS, then they reworked and released the plane in 2014 as fully clickable commercial module. Not long after, the team has split into two separate companies to work on other projects.

So it's the oldest 3rd party DCS module at the moment and because of this complicated "half-mod, half-team" history, it just is a mash-up of FC3 code, proprietary code and a bunch of duct tape and zip-tie fixes added through the years later. To bring it to modern standards would most likely require a complete code re-write and no company will do it, unless in a form of a payware "2.0" edition like in A-10C and Ka-50 case.

We know from Mag3's last year post that some form of a MiG refresh is considered for the future, but at this pont in time it's uncertain how deep this refresh will go and when it's going to happen when they're fully busy with Corsair and Crusader projects now.

[Kobymaru]

On 12/22/2023 at 2:03 AM, Rudel_chw said:

as the maker of any user mod aircraft can attest, if a module is not maintained then the monthly advance of the DCS environment will fairly quickly render it unflyable. So I can asure you that the MIg-21 is being maintained actively, as is the case for every other official module. The problem is that for many users "caring" for a module means adding new features or re-do existing ones, just updating it to keep pace with DCS advances is not enough for those users.

Dear Rudel, please don't put false words into peoples mouths. Your last statement about what "caring" means for users is simply not true.

"Caring" for a module means that you fix bugs and issues that are known or discovered along the way. This not about adding new missiles or new variants or completely redesigning the damage model. This is about a large number of small and big bugs that have been known for a long long time. This includes trivial things like not resetting radar/alcohol when rearming and more complex things like the completely broken ASP logic.

You can compare the rate of bugfixes to other modules. And if you do that, you will see that some receive fixes just about every patch, some receive fixes sometimes, some receive fixes almost never. And it is OK to call the latter category "abandoned"! You don't have to take this as a personal attack that you need to defend from, it just is what it is.

Words have a meaning, and it's ok to call a module with a huge list of bugs that haven't been touched in 9 years "abandoned". So I kindly ask you to stop policing this forum like the defender of the mediocre and try to make everyone lower their standards.

 

Quote

so many users feel entitled to constant updates for free and expect that a 40 dollar purchase will give over 10 years of enjoyment.

Let me quote you something from the official ED store where you can buy this module:

Quote

Leatherneck Simulations' recreation of the MiG-21 is, by far, the most accurate and comprehensive simulation of a supersonic jet fighter to date. The fully simulated systems, interactive cockpit, advanced flight modeling and incredible graphical fidelity come together to create a package that will provide you with the most authentic simulation possible. So strap in, and get ready to experience the rebirth of a legend.

What do you think users are entitled to after buying this module? Personally, I believe I am entitled to the most accurate and comprehensive simulation of a supersonic jet fighter with fully simulated systems, interactive cockpit and advanced flight modeling that will provide you with the most authentic simulation possible. Naive, I know, but I am a naive person like that who likes to hold people and companies to their promises.

And I believe I still have not received "the most authentic simulation possible", not just in the pedantic literal sense, but also within the realms of what should be possible for a small developer in the span of 9 years.

Quote

in the same way, other users have found that their favorite module lacks a binding, and rather to vent about it on the forums, they edit the Lua file to implement it (its not that hard, you can basically copy the definition of the keyboard binding into a mouse binding) … search for "quaggles" for more info.

Do these modifications pass the Integrity Checks on multiplayer servers? If not, then this "solution" is not relevant.

Edited December 27, 2023 by Kobymaru

[virgo47]

For my respect to Rudel, who helped me a few times before already, and because my first post really was a bit harsher than I wanted, I'll just cover one issue here:

3 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

Do these modifications pass the Integrity Checks on multiplayer servers? If not, then this "solution" is not relevant.

Yes, it does, if you use Quaggle, preferably with OVGME, as I described here:

However, there are still many outstanding issues. I like flying with MiG-21Bis, but the bindings are lacking a lot. Many switches are either toggle or separate on/off, but mostly not both. Some axis bindings lack inc/dec bindings (pipper brightness for instance, and yes, I actually use this in all other modules). This applies also to the commands you can dig out from the module's LUA files. There are missing commands, or I just can't find them with my skill, but I suspect the first. Even example files for Quaggle injector show only commands setting some values to concrete values, but no toggle or inc/dec actions for those. And then there are some lazy controls like RSBN channels that are easier/faster to mouse click than to bother with any bindings (again, I use this happily on L-39).

I believe these are usability bugs. We can call them missing features, but that doesn't change the result.

I still understand that module needs some minimal maintenance even if nothing changes, just because DCS itself changes, and we don't see that kind of work, but then we also don't know how much of work that really is. I like that Magnitude 3 LLC have a public bug tracker now, but we will see how that helps.

[Rudel_chw]

49 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

it's ok to call a module with a huge list of bugs that haven't been touched in 9 years "abandoned". So I kindly ask you to stop policing this forum

ok, knock yourself out berating this module … wonder what good you will get out of it. I will stop "policing" you, in fact I think I will just ignore you from now on, so you will be happy being negative all you want.