Jump to content

Long time owner disappointed


Muddy17

Recommended Posts

Having this module from the beginning, the changes that have been made to the flight model are crap!.

It does not even come close to the real world reviews I’ve read for over 30 years of the “surprising” handling and agility that even the American test and evaluation unit wrote up forever ago. And yes I know it was not a BIS however the this is ridiculously night and day.

When it was first released I admit it was on rails and needed some tuning, but you’ve nerfed it incredibly or else every other AC in the game is modeled incorrectly.

Stall and AOA characteristics do not match anything I’ve read.

Everything about this module is absolutely awesome except the FM. 

My two cents.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I have to agree. I bought it years ago in 2014 when it was still in "alpha". It was the first module and it had a lot of promise, but that promise did not translate into real improvements. That'll teach me to never buy "Early Access/Alpha/Beta" products ever again.

I just listened to the Air Combat Sim podcast, and that makes me lose hope even more. Turns out that Magnitude 3 mainly cosists of part-time people who do this on the side, they don't do deadlines, they only have like 2 programmers (one of which is responsible for the current mess). And the "planned" improvements are all focused on textures and models, there was not a single word about flight model, ASP/Gyro, the arcade-like ground mode simulation, not even an acknowledgement that there's anything wrong whatsoever. In fact, various comments in this forum or in reddit or on the bugtracker suggest that they believe that that's how the flight model is supposed to be.

At this point I just wish another company would create a completely new independent module of the Mig-21. I'd buy that. I wouldn't buy any more Magnitude modules though.


Edited by Kobymaru
  • Like 11
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
On 8/1/2022 at 11:54 PM, Muddy17 said:

Having this module from the beginning, the changes that have been made to the flight model are crap!.

It does not even come close to the real world reviews I’ve read for over 30 years of the “surprising” handling and agility that even the American test and evaluation unit wrote up forever ago. And yes I know it was not a BIS however the this is ridiculously night and day.

When it was first released I admit it was on rails and needed some tuning, but you’ve nerfed it incredibly or else every other AC in the game is modeled incorrectly.

Stall and AOA characteristics do not match anything I’ve read.

Everything about this module is absolutely awesome except the FM. 

My two cents.

Woooot.... of all the things to complain about in this module you chose the one that is pretty good... Also I like how after "reading some reviews" you think you know better than the actual MiG-21bis pilot who made the FM.

The radar is all wrong. The gunsight is all wrong. The navigation system is all wrong. Weapons are all wrong.

Nope, you choose the one thing that is pretty much on point and have no legitimate arguments to back it. Dolphin flew this aircraft for over a decade before he wrote the FM.


Edited by m4ti140
  • Like 23
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

Woooot.... of all the things to complain about in this module you chose the one that is pretty good... Also I like how after "reading some reviews" you think you know better than the actual MiG-21bis pilot who made the FM.

The radar is all wrong. The gunsight is all wrong. The navigation system is all wrong. Weapons are all wrong.

Nope, you choose the one thing that is pretty much on point and have no legitimate arguments to back it. Dolphin flew this aircraft for over a decade before he wrote the FM.

 

Throw the MiG-21bis module around and you will se some very strange behaviour. Maneuvers not possible by any real aircraft. FM was changed over many years. It was a back and forth, with a lot of pressure from different "experts" on the forums. Not minor tuning, but big changes.

There are also issues with some of the systems (as you mentioned). Realistic ASP pipper and Realistic RWR are optional under special features tab and doesen't work properly in multiplayer. Since when are core features optional and defaulted to off? The issue is most likely that the module is so old that it is almost impossible to make changes without breaking anything. Solution is to put essential features into the special options page instead of implementing it fully into the module? Very strange decision anyways... And what about the radar that kills the FPS at low level every other update? 

I do like the MiG-21, but it's in dire need of maintenance. I cannot recommend it at it's current state and several of my friends has stopped flying it because of the FM and other QA issues (sadly).

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2022 at 7:54 AM, Muddy17 said:

Having this module from the beginning, the changes that have been made to the flight model are crap!.

It does not even come close to the real world reviews I’ve read for over 30 years of the “surprising” handling and agility that even the American test and evaluation unit wrote up forever ago. And yes I know it was not a BIS however the this is ridiculously night and day.

When it was first released I admit it was on rails and needed some tuning, but you’ve nerfed it incredibly or else every other AC in the game is modeled incorrectly.

Stall and AOA characteristics do not match anything I’ve read.

Everything about this module is absolutely awesome except the FM. 

My two cents.

Evidently you've been reading different material than me (we can start with the aircraft's own real-world flight manual and performance charts). If you're expecting Su-27 performance out of the jet then I don't know what to tell you, you're not going to get it and you never will. Wait until the Phantom or F-8 or an F-100 or any other fighter from its own era comes out and compare to that - or hell, compare it to the F-5, which is a near perfect match for it (as evidenced by the fact the US has long used the F-5 to simulate the 21 in DACT) or the F1 (which in my experience so far, it eats alive without much difficulty). The 21 can catch sleeping Hornets unaware but if you expect to beat them in a low speed 1 circle fight or in sustained turns then you're really, really barking up the wrong tree.

Funnily enough, the biggest issues the module has are all its systems. The ASP has capabilities it shouldn't (CCIP for bombs, instead of just rockets and guns, and the pipper's ability to lock to things), the radar overperforms and shouldn't be able to lock/stabilise on ground with the locked beam mode (though really the bis shouldn't even be able to carry the Grom in the first place), the navigation system is painfully lacking compared to its real-world capabilties, and the autopilot doesn't even begin to reach what the one in the real aircraft does. Stabilise mode right now just applies an absolutely horrific damper/lag on all your control inputs, when what it should actually do is provide the ability for the jet to essentially auto-trim and let the pilot just fly it by pointing the nose with the stick and then letting the autopilot do the work. "Nerfing" is a funny term to use in a game that markets itself as a simulator.

To me it just sounds like maybe you should spend less time deluding yourself about the capabilities of a nearly 70 year old airframe (or at least, a 50 year old upgrade of it) and more time getting a feel for the aircraft, because once you do it absolutely will live up to what it's supposed to do in terms of handling. In fact, it probably does a little too much at low speed and high angles of attack. Don't carry too many missiles, don't go into a fight with more than 2000-2200 litres of fuel, never carry external tanks into a fight, and don't just monkey the stick around like you're in a Hornet. Less is more.

  • Like 13
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

Throw the MiG-21bis module around and you will se some very strange behaviour. Maneuvers not possible by any real aircraft. FM was changed over many years. It was a back and forth, with a lot of pressure from different "experts" on the forums. Not minor tuning, but big changes.

There are also issues with some of the systems (as you mentioned). Realistic ASP pipper and Realistic RWR are optional under special features tab and doesen't work properly in multiplayer. Since when are core features optional and defaulted to off? The issue is most likely that the module is so old that it is almost impossible to make changes without breaking anything. Solution is to put essential features into the special options page instead of implementing it fully into the module? Very strange decision anyways... And what about the radar that kills the FPS at low level every other update? 

I do like the MiG-21, but it's in dire need of maintenance. I cannot recommend it at it's current state and several of my friends has stopped flying it because of the FM and other QA issues (sadly).

You would be very surprised what manoeuvres are possible by a real aircraft when someone starts throwing the stick around in particular configurations. I would say that the 21's wing rock does feel a little odd in that maybe it's not quite rolly enough - the few video examples I've seen of its stall behaviour usually resulted in it rolling over completely on its back by the second or third swing - but it's certainly not the worst, there are other aircraft in DCS that will only ever just kind of mush forwards or stop going forwards and start going down with no other apparent change in attitude. The 21 will also do the latter if you enter a stall with no sideslip or just yank the stick through the wing rock, but honestly I suspect half the reason it feels so "canned" sometimes is just that DCS air is very dead and so there's rarely anything to give some feeling of life to it. It's hard to explain but if you play some other sims or go fly on an average day you'll notice the difference very quickly.

As for the Air Combat Sim podcast, by the way - if you're surprised that Mag 3 are all doing this part time, then you might be even more surprised to learn that most if not all third party devs are doing this in addition to other occupations, or have retired from a previous job and are doing this for the additional income. Flight sim development as a third party for someone else's sim is not exactly the most stable or lucrative job on Earth, it's something you do because you have a passion for it.


Edited by rossmum
  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does some odd things. If Im pulling too hard in a turn, it starts a weird flop back and forth. The wing rock and high alpha behaviour also looks and feels strange to me. The canned feeling came during the last updates the the FM, from memory it used to be more alive and less on rails. As for the flameouts, probably accurate but seems strange that it is instant with no audible cues or fluctuations of rpm before flaming out. But as you mentioned, the systems are the big elephant in the room.
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
12 minutes ago, Schmidtfire said:

It does some odd things. If Im pulling too hard in a turn, it starts a weird flop back and forth. The wing rock and high alpha behaviour also looks and feels strange to me. The canned feeling came during the last updates the the FM, from memory it used to be more alive and less on rails. As for the flameouts, probably accurate but seems strange that it is instant with no audible cues or fluctuations of rpm before flaming out. But as you mentioned, the systems are the big elephant in the room.
 

Old FM literally ended where the wing rock is now. It only simulated in-envelope behaviour, the moment you stepped out it turned into a literal brick.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth mentioning as well that the aircraft handles quite differently based on whether you use the stabilise mode or not. Reading the real aircraft manual will give the impression you should just fly with it on at all times except combat, which would be true if it actually worked, but in DCS all it does is slap a gigantic damper on your inputs so it makes the aircraft feel completely different to how it feels with the system off. Anecdotally it seems quite a few people haven't realised this yet (though I doubt you're one of them, it still bears mentioning) and so are experiencing a completely different aircraft to the rest of us.

Also to back up Matt's post - yes, this. I finally started playing DCS in late 2018 and at that time and for most of the following year, the 21's FM would simply switch off and it'd start dropping towards the ground while still retaining whatever AoA you commanded. When the wing rock finally appeared (or reappeared? I've been led to believe the module had it at or near launch but it 'broke' at some point) it made the jet feel much more alive and forced me to improve my flying a bit. There was also that one patch in early 2020 or so which broke the FM so the aircraft wouldn't exhibit any departures at all, I had to stop flying for a month and a half so I wouldn't pick up bad habits from the 21 suddenly flying like a Hornet. In general I'd say the FM could probably use some tweaks to out-of-envelope behaviour including extreme low speed handling, but it's better now than any other point since I started playing and it still exhibits more believable post-stall behaviour than some other modules do.

e/

I think the overspeed flameout is just a DCSism to prevent people accelerating to mach stupid, but I'm not sure. 1300 IAS is a dynamic pressure limit IIRC but I'm pretty sure the M 2.05 limit is due to directional stability, like most double sonic MiGs. The fuel starvation flameout is pretty similar to how other modules model it (and makes perfect sense, you're not going to have fluctuating RPM if combustion just stops), and the R-25 is pretty hard to choke otherwise. You'll get comp stall bangs and fluctuating RPM if your antisurge doors fail or the cone is in the wrong position, but that's about it, to kill it by excessive AoA in DCS requires load factors beyond what the aircraft can structurally tolerate.


Edited by rossmum
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ooh I love it when someone brings up the “lack of qualifications to complain point”.

m4t140 . if you bought a new car and drove it a while and after the first few oil changes it drove like crap your just gonna suck it up?..

and btw, I have several hundred hours in it.. it is my go to, but it’s in need of a rebuild or a new module. I’ve paid and more than put the time in. 

 Thanks for the positive input Rossmum BTW.

like I ended my OP,, just my 2 cents.


Edited by Muddy17
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I flew it the other day for what must be the first time in over 2 years, and it broadly felt good to fly. My biggest criticism is the engine just quits if you lfy too fast. The real thing doesn't do this, and if anything you'd get surging/banging sounds out of the engine before it died. Seems "off" and a hack to offset game-isms.

I rarely use nav functions in DCS in anything. Most of the aircraft I fly don't even have moving maps, anyway.

It's definitely an older model, and anyone who was around when it was first started will be aware of what happend. We are still unable to get away from 3PD that don't understand systems and are unable to write them properly. Not so long ago a more recent module was feature-frozen with wholly fictional behavior (presumably because the math was beyond the developer). It's not hard if you actually understand what you're doing, and the level we are trying to get to with DCS means you can't be half-assed about it.


Edited by Tiger-II
  • Like 1

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, rossmum said:

if you're surprised that Mag 3 are all doing this part time, then you might be even more surprised to learn that most if not all third party devs are doing this in addition to other occupations, or have retired from a previous job and are doing this for the additional income. Flight sim development as a third party for someone else's sim is not exactly the most stable or lucrative job on Earth, it's something you do because you have a passion for it.

What can I say, if you treat sim development as a hobby or a side hustle, maybe stick with releasing free mods and don't charge as much money for a module as other game studios charge for a whole game? Getting a bit annoyed about the dismissive comments saying we should just be happy with what we got.

Ultimately it just doesn't fit in DCS, because people have certain expectations about module realism and module quality. If people want some arcade like fun shooter, there are other games like War thunder. But I have seen the love that ED or 3rd party developers poured into other modules and the results of it and what level of fidelity is possible. It's never perfect, but it's pretty damn good and often keeps improving. Whereas Mig 21 has been pretty much forgotten if judged by actual quality over time.


Edited by Kobymaru
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

What can I say, if you treat sim development as a hobby or a side hustle, maybe stick with releasing free mods

 

Try to place yourself on a developer's position for an instant. Let's imagine that you want to build a Module for DCS yourself, you already know that it could very well take a couple of years of work before you can have it accepted by ED for selling it on their Store and Steam, and it also requires the work of at least 2-3 people (programmer, digital illustrator, manual writer, mission designer, beta testers, translator, etc) ... how do you pay those people during 2 years?  get a loan? launch a kickstarter? .. well, it may amaze you, but many take a second job while they proceed with the Module development.

 

28 minutes ago, Kobymaru said:

and don't charge as much money for a module as other game studios charge for a whole game?

 

Again, imagine you as a developer ... you have just finished your DCS Module and now have to put a price on it .. you know the development expenses that you have had, and you can estimate how many copies would sell .. let's say, 20,000 copies? ... can you charge the same price as a game that might sell 200,000 copies?

 

  • Like 6

 

For work: iMac mid-2010 of 27" - Core i7 870 - 6 GB DDR3 1333 MHz - ATI HD5670 - SSD 256 GB - HDD 2 TB - macOS High Sierra

For Gaming: 34" Monitor - Ryzen 3600X - 32 GB DDR4 2400 - nVidia GTX1070ti - SSD 1.25 TB - HDD 10 TB - Win10 Pro - TM HOTAS Cougar - Oculus Rift CV1

Mobile: iPad Pro 12.9" of 256 GB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Against my better judgement, here I go and reply to thread.

First off, Magnitude does indeed probably have 2 coders, maybe more now not sure, but up until recently they had two. Where does this out them in overall 3rd party dev landscape? Puts them right in the standard level. Only 3rd parties I know with 3+ coders are Heatblur and Razbam, and Razbam if I recall correctly only became so in last couple-ish years.

Now that we've established what's the average coder count for 3rd party studios, let us take a look at how many of them are full time DCS developers. Another simple answer: zero. AFAIK just about all of them have one or two full timers, usually one being the owner. Most of the art and coding force, as well as research and community folks, tend to either do DCS dev as their evening job, or are working on a contractor kind of setup with the 3rd party.

So, we'll have to say that the following is a bit emotional and reactionary at this point:

2 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

What can I say, if you treat sim development as a hobby or a side hustle, maybe stick with releasing free mods and don't charge as much money for a module as other game studios charge for a whole game? Getting a bit annoyed about the dismissive comments saying we should just be happy with what we got.

By this definition, almost none of the 3rd party devs should exist, and I'm rather happy with them existing, than you very much.

2 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

But I have seen the love that ED or 3rd party developers poured into other modules and the results of it and what level of fidelity is possible. It's never perfect, but it's pretty damn good and often keeps improving. Whereas Mig 21 has been pretty much forgotten if judged by actual quality over time

To be fair, all modules, including ED developed ones have some problems, and (almost :p, I do have my pet hates too) all modules also show the love and effort poured into them. Aside from Belsimtek, who were not quite what we call a 3rd party, and now are back in ED, MiG-21Bis was the first ever truly 3rd party module. Many things it was bringing into table didn't exist in/supported by DCS by then. And they've came up with creative solutions for them, even if some may have been somewhat janky by standards of what's supported now. The module also got almost cancelled at 11th hour before the release. But but in features, graphics, and feeling of flight, it charted new grounds when it eventually came into our virtual hangars.

Does that mean it's perfect. Hell no. There are well known systems related issues, others here already listed them. NAV system being a total jank workaround that was ok for 2014, ASP sight being weird in having CCIP for one thing that shouldn't (bombs) while not having it for one thing that should (AG guns), iffy locking feature for fixed beam mode (which both gives ground stabilization to already IRL unsupported Kh-66, which it shouldn't, but it almost makes fixed beam a defacto dogfight quick locking mode, as opposed to just a ranging mode mainly for A/G), auto pilot being weird etc. I am hoping these will be reworked in upcoming MiG redux they talk about. We'll see.

But flight model is probably pretty much there where it needs to be. Maybe apart from edge of/post normal envelope stuff, but it probably wasn't even explored and reported back in Soviet days, and those regimes are just very hard to properly model in sims it seems like. Flight model, especially edge of AoA limit portion of it has probably seen 6-8ish drastically different versions in 8 years of module's existence. Which makes sentences like "I'll believe active MiG-21Bis pilot who programmed it" to hold a lot less water than I'd like to believe back then.

So... What am I saying then? Am I "for" or "against"? How about neither? Both sides seem to approach a bit partisanish, for lack of a better word. Do I know of MiG-21Bis flight model is fully right, honestly, I just don't know anymore, but then even the best modules sometimes leave one wondering. But it seems to be broadly in a good place now, it hits the numbers, it handles great both fast and slow in that fabled high AoA regimes, is hard but fun to fly. So FM really is probably the better face of the module 🙂

I too was thinking that "it got too hard to fly and I'm too out of practice, I'll probably not be good with my once favorite again' until recently. But with the release of Mirage F1 and flying it against F-5 and the MiG, I did find the drive in me to try and use it again, and with being patient and careful like in Mirage, I got pretty decent at least against AI again in a day. Come to think of it, in almost all versions of MiG's FM, one would do well when respecting limits and riding their edge juuuuusst. Only thing changed was how much you could go past it or where the limit was, as well as what happened/how severe the punishment was/is for overshooting it. I do get the frustration of not being able to so well in your favorite MiG, because I had it myself as well. But then, really persevere just a little with patience and it feels lovely again :).


Edited by WinterH
  • Like 6

Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V

DCS-Dismounts Script

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that the Mig urgend need a complete overhaul. Less in terms of the FM but, as others have said, in terms of the systems. I would also be willing to pay for it. 

We need a module that does justice to this very special aircraft. At the moment, this is not the case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
17 hours ago, Muddy17 said:

Ooh I love it when someone brings up the “lack of qualifications to complain point”.

m4t140 . if you bought a new car and drove it a while and after the first few oil changes it drove like crap your just gonna suck it up?..

and btw, I have several hundred hours in it.. it is my go to, but it’s in need of a rebuild or a new module. I’ve paid and more than put the time in. 

 Thanks for the positive input Rossmum BTW.

like I ended my OP,, just my 2 cents.

 

No, my point is that you're plain wrong about the FM. The new FM and new RWR are like the only two things that are perfectly fine about the module. Focus your attention on things that actually need work.


Edited by m4ti140
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with the MiG-21bis' FM. That's the one thing that's very good and I don't understand your point of it not being agile and maneuverable. It very much is. It just takes a lot of skill to use.


Edited by Baltic Dude
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

No, my point is that you're plain wrong about the FM. The new FM and new RWR are like the only two things that are perfectly fine about the module. Focus your attention on things that actually need work.

 

Perfectly fine? 🙂 The RWR is an "Experimental Feature" that does not work properly in multiplayer. It sort of works in Singleplayer.

Anyways, my feeling is that this thread will soon derail. Im a big fan of this module, so it just makes me sad that there is little to no ongoing progress on fixing issues.
This module was released 8 years ago (with many issues known for years). Just to put this into perspective.


Edited by Schmidtfire
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, m4ti140 said:

No, my point is that you're plain wrong about the FM. The new FM and new RWR are like the only two things that are perfectly fine about the module. Focus your attention on things that actually need work.

12 hours ago, Baltic Dude said:

I'm pretty sure there's nothing wrong with the MiG-21bis' FM. That's the one thing that's very good and I don't understand your point of it not being agile and maneuverable. It very much is. It just takes a lot of skill to use.

It's fine if the FM is not "competitive" with newer planes, it's fine if it's hard to learn and use, it's not fine if it's completely scripted. Currently, the plane departs in an extremely consistent but strange manner at extremely consistent conditions. It feels not like a real stall (you barely lose g-forces), it feels more like someone is manipulating my control inputs.

 

On 8/7/2022 at 3:34 AM, rossmum said:

I finally started playing DCS in late 2018 and at that time and for most of the following year, the 21's FM would simply switch off and it'd start dropping towards the ground while still retaining whatever AoA you commanded. When the wing rock finally appeared (or reappeared? I've been led to believe the module had it at or near launch but it 'broke' at some point) it made the jet feel much more alive and forced me to improve my flying a bit

This ^ here explains a lot, which I didn't know because I had a long break.

19 hours ago, WinterH said:

Flight model, especially edge of AoA limit portion of it has probably seen 6-8ish drastically different versions in 8 years of module's existence. Which makes sentences like "I'll believe active MiG-21Bis pilot who programmed it" to hold a lot less water than I'd like to believe back then.

I agree. I think being able to pilot a plane and being able to correctly model a planes behaviour are very very different things, one requires a good "feeling", practice and coordination, the other one requires deep theoretical knowledge of aerodynamics, math and programming. I would not automatically assume that someone who flew the plane will be great at writing a simulation of the plane.

Also I don't know details about Rudels flight experience, but I can only assume that IRL these high AoA and stall regimes are really really scary and dangerous. I don't want any real pilot to endanger themselves and die without being able to respawn. But at the same time, this means that those regimes can not be explored with physical measurements and personal experience, but it needs to be simulated and calculated.

And if I'm wrong about my assumption, I would really love to see a video of this sort of consistent departures IRL: "oops, I went .1° over exactly 16° AoA and now it will roll right for .5 seconds, then yaw left for .5 seconds, then reverse roll/yaw".

 

11 hours ago, Schmidtfire said:

Anyways, my feeling is that this thread will soon derail. Im a big fan of this module, so it just makes me sad that there is little to no ongoing progress on fixing issues.
This module was released 8 years ago (with many issues known for years). Just to put this into perspective.

This is the main point here. OK, back in 2014 it was all new, first 3rd part developer, everything was difficult, it was groundbreaking, so we gave them the benefit of the doubt and some of us invested into the promises ("early access" is just promises, not more). It all made sense back then, but only under the assumption that it would improve. But now 8 years have passed, and many things are unchanged. And that's when some emotional people like me slowly but surely start to get salty. I like this plane a lot, and I wish the module would do it justice.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

This is the main point here. OK, back in 2014 it was all new, first 3rd part developer, everything was difficult, it was groundbreaking, so we gave them the benefit of the doubt and some of us invested into the promises ("early access" is just promises, not more). It all made sense back then, but only under the assumption that it would improve. But now 8 years have passed, and many things are unchanged. And that's when some emotional people like me slowly but surely start to get salty. I like this plane a lot, and I wish the module would do it justice.

Although I agree with most of your points, this one I find somewhat naive. One has to be realistic - it's an 8-years old DLC way past its peak sale numbers, with troubled history and so many old issues that its code would probably have to be rewritten from scratch to fix them. The fact that it's maintained and gets occasional improvements at all is an exception rather than rule in DCS. Even younger ex-Belsimtek modules, which are in theory part of ED-responsibility now, are pretty much abandoned in comparison to MiG.

Based on info we've read/heard so far, I expect gfx updates and a handful of avionics updates to come for the MiG, but that's about it. Only new modules bring profit and keep the business alive, so just like ED leaves its own products in neverending "almost-completion" before jumping to the next project, M3 and other 3rd parties have to do the same.


Edited by Art-J
  • Like 3

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2022 at 9:34 PM, Art-J said:

Only new modules bring profit and keep the business alive, so just like ED leaves its own products in neverending "almost-completion" before jumping to the next project, M3 and other 3rd parties have to do the same.

 

And this is "acceptable" only because people keep buying these EA modules. The MiG-21 never left beta and is not complete, period. We paid for something that was never delivered in full and I can't think of any other situation where this would be acceptable (pay for 3 balls of icecream and get 2). But as you said, this is the business model that ED has established for themselves and others. 

I am curious to see what happens when (soon) there will be such an over-saturation of modules that people will stop buying. Almost all very famous aircraft are there, all of them bugged and unfinished, what else are they gonna come up with?

 

 

  • Like 4

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2022 at 11:23 AM, Schmidtfire said:

Perfectly fine? 🙂 The RWR is an "Experimental Feature" that does not work properly in multiplayer. It sort of works in Singleplayer.

Anyways, my feeling is that this thread will soon derail. Im a big fan of this module, so it just makes me sad that there is little to no ongoing progress on fixing issues.
This module was released 8 years ago (with many issues known for years). Just to put this into perspective.

The RWR has worked fine in multiplayer for a very long time for me, more than a year at this point - locks are directional unless someone is right up your backside. In MP, a lot of people often are before they lock you, which is why you might be getting the impression that the new behaviour isn't working. Powerful radars like the AWG-9 will also overwhelm all 4 sensors at quite long distances, too. I'm not sure the "experimental features" flag actually does anything currently - it just hasn't been removed yet.

Since the topic of the module's age and state of its code has come up: remember, this was a mod before third parties were a thing that existed, and it very nearly didn't happen. It is every bit as spaghetti as DCS itself, because (in an issue it shares with the Viggen) a lot of systems the module needed weren't officially supported, or didn't have proper APIs to keep things consistent, or there was a different perception of DCS as a game versus DCS as a high fidelity simulator. There are a lot of very old bugs/inaccuracies which have their root in this origin - the way the nav system piggybacks off of FC3 nav code and the 21's RSBN/ARK are fully self-contained (and not functionally correct), the way the ASP has perfect, always-on CCIP including for weapons/modes it shouldn't (like the Su-25T's air-to-ground mode), and probably most obviously, the fact the radar sets off the Ka-50's laser warning receiver, but does not set off lock warnings on any RWR in the game, and operates suspiciously like the Su-25T's Shkval, especially where the Grom missile is concerned. There is a lot of work to do, probably most of the module needs to be recoded from scratch. It's still a lot of fun to fly, even knowing what's wrong or having to manually work around the systems just to avoid training more bad habits that are specific to the way the module works/doesn't work. There are still periodic improvements or fixes even while M3 is trying to finish other projects and we're still waiting for a big rework. I reported a fairly small but significant issue with the hydraulic system's magical ability to stay pressurised regardless of engine RPM until the aircraft rolled to a stop on the ground, within a week or so it was fixed and now you have to be very careful any time the engine isn't windmilling fast enough, because you'll find your controls locked up and the AB nozzle actuators frozen. It brought a pretty sneaky and unpleasant bug with it, that was then fixed within another week or so. It makes sense that small but relatively simple fixes are a better cause to push for now than the full rework the devs know is needed anyway, but which would be a serious problem to take on now, before the Corsair is out.

My point is, we can start reporting some of those easy fix issues for now, rather than stating the obvious and doomposting about it every 4-6 weeks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
On 8/8/2022 at 3:23 AM, Schmidtfire said:

Perfectly fine? 🙂 The RWR is an "Experimental Feature" that does not work properly in multiplayer. It sort of works in Singleplayer.

Anyways, my feeling is that this thread will soon derail. Im a big fan of this module, so it just makes me sad that there is little to no ongoing progress on fixing issues.
This module was released 8 years ago (with many issues known for years). Just to put this into perspective.

 

What are you talking about? How many years ago have you last flown the module? New RWR has been integrated into core module for something like a year now. The "Experimental Features" option is a dead option, it doesn't do anything anymore.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...