Interested, but should i?

[Germane]

vor 18 Stunden schrieb Ala13_ManOWar:

No, he doesn't, a flight simulator is supposed to be used for flying, and it's great you enjoy reading manuals and just clicking buttons if you mistakenly think that's what it takes to fly an aeroplane. But, if it's like that, then FS98 could be fine and good enough for those people, which is fine with me if you like that, but then again… Why on Earth would those complain about "realism" in a Flight Simulator where you're supposed to actually fly the thing?? For me that realism is, not only of course, but more with the flying since I've known no other sim out there with the quality and features with regards to flight like DCS is. It does also recreate systems and they should and must be there, of course, but flying and realism in flight is the main and distinctive feature in DCS, let alone warbirds for instance, we haven't ever seen anything like the ones we have here, not even close. Realism is stepping out of a humble C172RG and jumping on a P-51 cockpit while seeing behaviours exactly the same, inertias, ground control and behaviour which is actually really mistreated anywhere else in the simming World, engine management down to a point where governor shows the exact same quirks and glitches as I was seeing some hours before in a real aeroplane, and don't get me started with torque… I wouldn't possibly know what a real MiG-21 is like aside from stories and books, but bearing in mind military aircraft also face the problem with classified things and all (which MiG-21 also faced with Croatian Air Force where the data for this module came from initially) I cannot complain at all about ASP behaving slightly or a lot different than the real one, but I can tell behaviour in the air and flight is just superb even as it is with it's alleged problems, thus enjoying the flight sim is quite easy for me without focussing in tiny details I don't need to focus on even though I'm perfectly aware they're there.

About your statement I marked above, so do I, it's really nice taking a real manual from a real aircraft and using it in everything while most things work as stated there. But since I cannot tell, and I believe very few can, what the real aircraft is regarding military jets from various and diverse eras, countries, designers, whatever, it is so unimportant if tiny details aren't exactly and perfectly modelled to an insane level. I'll tell you a secret, even an even humbler C152 has a 4 pages checklist just to start up the aircraft and take off, then again in a sim no matter how realistic it would be made you would use a few lines from that checklist, it makes no sense in a PC simulator unless training for the real thing to follow every step (check windows closed and locked? check all passengers buckled and seat adjusted? C'mon…) hence what is "a realistic simulation" if I have to drop 3/4 of the checklists due to being useless in front of my PC?? And that's a C152, and I would have to drop from a real MiG-21?? And above all, why would I complain about an alleged realism I know would be useless in a PC? Is it just a pose perhaps to show everyone I'm nerdier than the others? It's a nonsensical attitude mate, hence I just enjoy what I can enjoy and that's all, because what we have is really enjoyable no matter what some people might say, complain, cry, b/%ch about.

Dude, for you is the pure flying the fun and thats absolutly okay but for me, and I think also for others, is the study part in a study sim very important.

[-Rudel-]

On 8/31/2022 at 8:10 AM, VR Flight Guy in PJ Pants said:

Any comment on the current state of the module?

What should I expect from the flight model / handling?

Any air combat hints and tips?

Despite the lack of updates for the 21, we do have big plans currently in the works that will bring it up to today's standards.  Both graphically and coding.
https://leatherneck-sim.com/2022/06/01/2022-summer-update/

Towards the bottom


The gentleman in the video below recently learned the 21 and flew on Enigma's Cold War Server.  A few weeks later he seems to be having fun...  Give it a watch and make your decision. 

 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

2 hours ago, -Rudel- said:

Despite the lack of updates for the 21, we do have big plans currently in the works that will bring it up to today's standards.  Both graphically and coding.
https://leatherneck-sim.com/2022/06/01/2022-summer-update/

Towards the bottom


The gentleman in the video below recently learned the 21 and flew on Enigma's Cold War Server.  A few weeks later he seems to be having fun...  Give it a watch and make your decision. 

 

Quick question since the update reminded me:

As I understand, F-8s really required a hands-on approach by the deck crew to maneuver it around a carrier's flight deck. If this is the case, are you guys looking at ways to address that need or is it too early?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

On 9/3/2022 at 5:09 PM, Germane said:

Dude, for you is the pure flying the fun and thats absolutly okay but for me, and I think also for others, is the study part in a study sim very important.

Of course, but then again, WHY the constant try from a few to tell every other person what they should like or not and how they should enjoy, or not? Specially the

"no, simming is this because I say so"

, like anything else could possibly exist or be enjoyed or wanted by others. Come on, cut the s@%$ out, enjoy whatever you enjoy but let others like and enjoy whatever they do for f&%$ sake.

By the way, don't get me wrong, I like systems and all, it's a part of my placebo as I already told, but slight differences in military classified aeroplanes won't stop me enjoying the experience, as I say constantly it's all about the previously unheard experience one can have here and funnily enough those tiny details don't prevent that experience from being enjoyed.

[Beirut]

17 hours ago, -Rudel- said:

Despite the lack of updates for the 21, we do have big plans currently in the works that will bring it up to today's standards.  Both graphically and coding.
https://leatherneck-sim.com/2022/06/01/2022-summer-update/

Towards the bottom
 

 

That's great news, unfortunately I get the feeling it won't be anytime soon. That said, I'm buying the 21 on the next sale. 

 

 

[Kobymaru]

On 9/4/2022 at 6:52 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Of course, but then again, WHY the constant try from a few to tell every other person what they should like or not and how they should enjoy, or not? Specially the

"no, simming is this because I say so"

, like anything else could possibly exist or be enjoyed or wanted by others. Come on, cut the s@%$ out, enjoy whatever you enjoy but let others like and enjoy whatever they do for f&%$ sake.

By the way, don't get me wrong, I like systems and all, it's a part of my placebo as I already told, but slight differences in military classified aeroplanes won't stop me enjoying the experience, as I say constantly it's all about the previously unheard experience one can have here and funnily enough those tiny details don't prevent that experience from being enjoyed.

On 9/2/2022 at 4:22 PM, Rudel_chw said:

I too purchased this aircraft on December 2014, during a sale for only US$ 25 ... and curiously in spite of so many defects that you have found on this module, my experience is very different .. I have got countless enjoyable flight hours on the type, edited many missions for it and had great fun overall ... for just 25 bucks ... think about it: where can you have so many hours of entertainment for this amount of money?

On 9/2/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

 yours is not the general position, not in this module, not in DCS in general, only a small bunch of guys like you shout a lot around these forums, but still people seem to enjoy this module and DCS, which make me wonder why that bunch of impossible to please people are here in the first place?? Go get your Air Force pilot's license, maybe you also find bugs and problems with RL not working as expected like some others do around here either…

On 9/2/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

it just is a great experience, and this module with its problems and all is quite enjoyable and as a matter of fact unique since we don't have any other relatively modern redfor full fidelity jet fighter (JF17 fidelity remains to be seen). If you can't find a reason to enjoy it maybe you can't find either a reason to enjoy anything in life, but that's on you, not on every forum member no matter how many times you bunch of grumpy people come to these forums shouting your grumpiness about everything.

OK, I do not understand all you peoples "fun" vs "realism" argument, I fundamentally don't.

Look: I know that unrealistic games can be fun. I know that bugs are normal and it's still possible to have fun, enjoy the game, have a great experiene, all the good words.

For example, compare the low fidelity FC3 modules vs high fidelity A-10C II, KA-50. Do I have fun playing low-fidelity FC3 modules? Yes, actually!  Do I have fun playing high-fidelity modules? Also yes, but it's different type of fun. You have casual-arcade style fun (Type I), vs deeply commited, study the manual, practice for hours, be really proud of mastering something difficult, type of fun (Type II). I like both, sometimes I want the former, but sometimes I want to have the latter, because it's a challange. Now I just don't understand why you people are saying I'm dumb for wanting Type II fun, I should just shut up, I shouldn't expect so much, I'm never happy, this stuff. Why are you people telling me that my way of having fun is wrong, or that I shouldn't expect realism at high level?

We are here not on War Thunder forum or Battlefield 4 forum, but on the DCS forum. Of course DCS is still a game, but DCS has commited themselves to providing a maximally realistic experience, prides itself with realism, and whose main selling point is its realism. This is why a lot of people are here, and this is why a lot of people spend so much money on DCS. Because they want that realism. So why is it so wrong of me to ask for realism, and why do you say I should just be happy with what I have and shut up? I don't understand.

Even M3 and Leatherneck Sim clearly know (or used to know) that people want realism. For example, if all that matter is "fun" and "experience" and "enjoyability", then why on earth would you spend time implementing RSBN/PRNG and NPP when you can just have simple HSI/ILS with waypoints like in russian FC3 modules? Why do you spend time implementing alcohol radar cooling when you can have just as much fun without it? Why would you implement pressurized air reserves and meter for wheel brakes? Why bother with Radar ground clutter at all? Why simulate hypoxia? What was the point of adding all this, if all that matters is "fun" and "great experience"? I can have an enjoyable experience without it. No, these systems are there and modelled because Leatherneck Sim knew what it means to make a good, challenging, captivating, immersive simulator that makes your heart pound in a dogfight because for a moment you get to forget for a moment that it's not real. Let me just quote you the official description of the 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 they advertise and pride themselves making an accurate and comprehensive simulation, but when people ask to fix issues of accuracy to make it a more authentic simulation, we are unpleasable people who like to shout around on forums, should just shut up and enjoy the experience, just because you don't mind the inaccuracies? I don't understand.

Again, I don't mind that devs make mistakes, because they're humans. But I do care if devs never admit or fix their mistakes.

 

On 9/2/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

If you are so unable to enjoy anything just quit everything mate but yours is not "average" players' experience in DCS at all and you're giving a wrong, wildly wrong, and negative impression to the OP writer who never said to be a hardcore impossible to please armchairpilot nerd. You realize that, right?

OP asked for personal opinions on whether they should buy the module. I gave my personal opinion of whether they should buy the module. I'm sorry my personal opinion does not correspond to your personal opinion, however, I see no reason why your personal opinion is worth so much more that my personal opinion shouldn't be allowed on here.

 

On 9/2/2022 at 6:27 PM, Ala13_ManOWar said:

I just tell you, I'm a grounded due to medical reasons PPL pilot and the DCS experience is just amazing, for me in particular a placebo maybe since there's no other way for me to fly any more, but no matter how unpleasable you bunch are,

I rather dislike your allegations, because I am quite pleasable. Here's how easy I am to please: if you call a module PFM and high fidelity, you have made a commitment. If there is an issue, look at the issue, respond in time, and fix it in a reasonable time frame. That's it. That's how easy it is to please me. I'd actually consider that basic respect towards your customers, but I guess not being treated like entitled naggers that only deserve to be ignored is too much to ask these days.

How not to please me: Call your module PFM/High fidelity, model systems incorrectly, ignore all bugs despite having evidence and documentation, never respond except to say "you're wrong, I don't care about documentation, all is well" or "we're looking into it" and then never look into it. Tell me, are you pleased by this way of handling feedback?

BTW, it's not about the money for me. I would actually pay the same money or more again for a better Mig21 module. But for a finished module, and not for promises of a better module, not for a early access, alpha or beta.

On 9/2/2022 at 9:14 PM, Beirut said:

Could I ask you what some of the bugs are that bother you? I don't know the plane well enough to know of any, other than the obvious need of some love for the cockpit textures.

Are the bugs like... the guns don't fire if you fly under 500KPH, or something more esoteric like the radios don't work on real life frequencies? I'm honestly curious since I might buy it when it comes on sale.

My two main gripes are ASP (useless for guns), and scripted stall departure. Not main, but also bothering me: bad performance (compare to ED modules), completely unrealistic ground targeting (hidden always-on laser range finder), enemy RWR not triggered by Mig21 radar in multiplayer. Most other stuff I can live with, or rather let's say tolerate. But then again, I also don't understand why I have to "tolerate" long-standing known bugs and inconsistencies for the better part of a decade. If it's broken, why not fix it?

A good list of inaccuracies can be found here:

• English: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/262635-realistic-asp-general-questions/?do=findComment&comment=4794177
• English: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/279897-mig-21-rear-view-mirror-remove-in-options/?do=findComment&comment=4781530, https://forum.dcs.world/topic/279897-mig-21-rear-view-mirror-remove-in-options/?do=findComment&comment=4782104
• Russian: there's a much more comprehensive post that I will edit in here if I find it. Generally you will find so, so many more well-sourced, documented and proven inaccuracies on the russian forum, ranging from small funny things like oxygen meter upside down to completely fictional functionality like ground mode.

On 9/4/2022 at 2:43 AM, -Rudel- said:

Despite the lack of updates for the 21, we do have big plans currently in the works that will bring it up to today's standards.  Both graphically and coding.
https://leatherneck-sim.com/2022/06/01/2022-summer-update/

Thank you Rudel, I'm obviously happy to hear this (updates in coding were not mentioned prominently or explitly before). However I hope you understand that my recommendation will remain the same until those updates have been implemented.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

1 hour ago, Kobymaru said:

OK, I do not understand all you peoples "fun" vs "realism" argument, I fundamentally don't.

Ok, nice post by the way, and glad you kept it really civil and all. Thanks for that mate .

Actually I fully agree it's not s fun vs realism debate or the like, whatever one enjoys or have fun with is irrelevant to the realism or lack of of the module. I like realism by the way, just not only the systems realism buttonwise thing, for me the realism of the flying part is also very relevant, and DCS is the only platform allowing us to do so to this level, just that. Off the flight envelope modelling is tough for every developer, it's just a kind of an impossible task without so many data we'll hardly see it fully implemented ever, but it's still good enough as it works, and MiG-21 FM is not that bad at all. From my stand point it's really enjoyable. Systems and all, I know there's differences, hope dev can manage to enhance it with the new info they got from a different source, but I'm not complaining how it is, I haven't flown a real MiG-21 ever to complain about how it works, and either offline or online I think it still is enjoyable as is. Hope it gets better, sure I do, but since we don't know either when we would get those updates (and still it's a hell of a lot of a job to devs on a niche game to ask them) I can't tell anybody it's a bad module and not to buy it, it's quite enjoyable even as is. Just that. If it doesn't cut it for you preventing to enjoy the module it's Ok, but that's not everyone's position on that matter for sure, which is also what I tried to show there even though mine can also not be the main position here .

Edited September 6, 2022 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Beirut]

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

OK, I do not understand all you peoples "fun" vs "realism" argument, I fundamentally don't.

 

Simply saying "Fun vs. Realism" is too simplistic. Define fun, then define realism. We can go 100 pages on both. For my part I want a lot of fun and a lot of realism. I could define the terms but you don't want to read 10,000 words of my philosophical goop.  

 

So what do we do? In my case, I work with what is available, what is likely to be available, and balance expectations. The result is I get to fly my Ka-50 and have fun. And then when it comes on sale, my Mig-21.

 

4 hours ago, Kobymaru said:

Why are you people telling me that my way of having fun is wrong, or that I shouldn't expect realism at high level?

 

You may find your sense of fun in way in whatever way you choose. That's your business, my man. And you have as much right to state your case and others do theirs. Should the bugs be fixed? Yes. Will the bugs not being fixed stop me from enjoying my flight? No. 

 

I don't think either of us can say the other is wrong. The issue that may come into play, however, is the balance of money being put into DCS and the fun coming out of it for the flyer. That's also up to each persona to rationalize. For my part, I paid some bucks and I'm having some fun. 

[Cr33p3r]

I'm enjoying the challenge and quirks. Its like trying to fly a rocket, not an aircraft. But, once you fly it enough and learn the little things, it becomes more intuitive. Keep that throttle up or you'll drop like a rock. A/G bombs work well and the nuke is a fun challenge too. The A2A weapons are very short range (like sidewinders). But straight level flight the thing can haul. I have yet to land without burning up my tires. Probably the most challenging aircraft I've simmed in so far in DCS.

I enjoy the challenge. I'm a glutton for punishment so I have been crying through the Mi24 and Mi8 of late while the Mig21 gets added to the MP server map I play on.

[Iron Sights]

Just picked it up yesterday. It flew about the way I expected and I was able to take off and land without any hitches. It will be interesting to learn to fight in it. Right now, it’s just the basics until I improve, but I’m enjoying so far.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 9/25/2022 at 12:24 PM, Iron Sights said:

Just picked it up yesterday. It flew about the way I expected and I was able to take off and land without any hitches. It will be interesting to learn to fight in it. Right now, it’s just the basics until I improve, but I’m enjoying so far.

It has some quirks, some little 'rules' to keep in mind, but it's a fun whip once you get that down.

Just don't go slow, keep your AoA loading mild, stay fast, and you're golden. And, the slow part is debatable. Some like to slowdown, pop flaps, and let enemies sail past. I'm not generally a fan of that, I'm an addict for velocity.

Edited October 4, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[grant977]

You be surprised how well she can fly slow. Just be judicious on the rudder and keep it at or below 30 units. When I mean slow I mean like down to 130kts or so. Try it will also surprise your buddies in air to air. 

[Fleur79]

Far from being a master on this bird I´d promote her any day nonetheless. The systems are very intuitive and easy to use and most important for me, the behaviour in flight and on the ground feels kinda right. Excessive inputs on the controls cause excessive ractions of the airplane, unlike in different sims or models nothing is "on rails" here. She prefers a gentle hand. Even if things might appear a bit weird when reaching her limits, e.g. at very low or stall speed, it still feels kind of correct. And in all earnest: That is already a lot of an achievement for a flight-sim!  Conclusion: until a real MiG21 pilot proves that the flight-model is utter garbage - as some people in the forum tend to write - this airplane will be my joy in DCS.

[Fleur79]

Am 2.9.2022 um 16:28 schrieb Kobymaru:

I'm glad you had fun playing, good for you. In terms of fun I could play games like War Thunder or Ace Combat, but I want to play a realistic module with as few bugs as possible. I have been watching this forum for 8 years now and have come back to check out the module every year or so, every time leaving again because it hasn't changed fundamentally. I'm ok flying with some bugs or unrealism for a while because you know, people make mistakes. But flying with the same bugs for 8 years is quite frustrating and seriously ruins my fun and immersion.

All I can say is that DCS in general and M3 in particular have all the incentive to create buggy alpha-version modules and no incentive to finish a module. Don't add more incentive to developers to create unfinished modules.

 

I´d suggest you rather get a real MiG21bis then.

[Lurker]

First third party plane I bought for DCS World. No regrets. 

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

On 10/11/2022 at 4:11 AM, Fleur79 said:

 Conclusion: until a real MiG21 pilot proves that the flight-model is utter garbage - as some people in the forum tend to write - this airplane will be my joy in DCS.

We do know some portions of it are incorrect, but honestly? Far from garbage. And there's a limit of what we can ask of Dolphin887, who did the code and flew 21s. It's a matter of some underperformance and overperformance in certain regimes. What's more pressing are avionics issues. NavAIDs, etc. and the ASP especially.

Edited October 16, 2022 by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Frederf]

MiG-21bis is probably my favorite module despite the moderate list of annoyances and the few bigger areas that aren't up to par. Minor things like the fuel gauge and SARC light bugs are tiny but constantly irritating. ASP and SAU are the two biggest areas of major improvement. The RSBN/PRMG/ARK could really stand to be brought up to L-39 standards although it's an annoyance of realism since it's rare that you can't actually complete the mission properly due to the radio-nav situation.

There's much love in the airplane. It's so well crafted visually. It's one of the few modules that you can fry a circuit by carelessly flipping switches. It's impressive for its release date. But the holes and niggles are a drag. This airplane would be so much more enjoyable with an expert pass on the ASP, SAU, POLYOT-OI, and maybe a few more radar touches, SPO, etc. People will rediscover the airplane.

[Spirale]

1 hour ago, Frederf said:

MiG-21bis is probably my favorite module despite the moderate list of annoyances and the few bigger areas that aren't up to par. Minor things like the fuel gauge and SARC light bugs are tiny but constantly irritating. ASP and SAU are the two biggest areas of major improvement. The RSBN/PRMG/ARK could really stand to be brought up to L-39 standards although it's an annoyance of realism since it's rare that you can't actually complete the mission properly due to the radio-nav situation.

There's much love in the airplane. It's so well crafted visually. It's one of the few modules that you can fry a circuit by carelessly flipping switches. It's impressive for its release date. But the holes and niggles are a drag. This airplane would be so much more enjoyable with an expert pass on the ASP, SAU, POLYOT-OI, and maybe a few more radar touches, SPO, etc. People will rediscover the airplane.

+1000