Petition to Prioritize MiG-21 Update? Anyone?

[artao]

What do you think, could it be effective?
They kinda seem like they're doing what THEY want to do without considerating what the market wants. Prioritizing aircraft THEY would like to see rather than those with demonstrated commercial success. I would put big money on a bet that more people want the MiG-21 updated than want anything else they have in their pipeline.
Just a thought. Cuz otherwise we won't be seeing any MiG-21 updates for AT LEAST 4 yrs at the most optimisic, and that's simply unacceptable. They're a commercial entity, not simply "modders," and many many people have invested in their products. Support is expected; how long is a question, sure. THIS is egregious tho. Nothing to be expected for at least 4yrs as a kind estimate, considering the dev pace of the Corsair.

I mean, buy it new now and you pay 60usd. That's the price of a full AAA game. But then you buy it and find out it lacks in numerous areas. Then you get peeved; and rightfully so. .... I bought it on sale, so I'm not as peeved, but still. I expected moar realerer. If they're gonna sell it "as-is" the cost should be reduced to like 30 or 40usd. It's just THAT out of date and broken. (Tho still fun -- in part due to how broken it is)

Perhaps even a petition to release the current version to public domain as they work thru their personal list of "wanted aircraft" and then let them make a v2 we can pay for. (ahhh. dreams be dreams eh )
The lack of support for the MiG-21bis is egregiously unacceptable, especially considering how important an aircraft it is. It's basically the AK-47 of fighter aircraft. One can not talk about the Cold War air combat landscape without acknowledging its significant impact and widespread use. The MiG-21bis represents a crucial piece of military aviation history, and its inadequately updated status undermines the historical and technical integrity of simulations that aim to represent that era accurately. It's the most-produced fighter aircraft in history, with the longest run of usage.
And surely it's one of the most popular DCS modules, no? I have no stats, but it's gotta be top 5. And I'm curious how much money in totum it has made. Surely, again, in the top 5.

It should be priority number one.

It's one of the oldest modules but has CLEAR issues, from the flight model and its low-speed handling to the underpowered engine -- which SHOULD put out like 97k Newtons of thrust with 2nd stage burner. Which, in some configurations like A/A missiles without tanks, would give greater than 1:1 thrust:weight ratio. Which is to say, if light enuf it should be able to handle the vertical fight just fine.

Even just correct the flight model and engine performance and change the nav systems to what is now DCS-standard and perhaps deal with the radar, and we'd all be happy while they work on a V2. Which I'm sure we'll all happily pay for (as a discounted upgrade).

HELL!! Even a low-cost 1.5 update!! I'd pay 10 to 20usd for that.

Edited August 14 by artao

[Spirale]

+1

 

[Kobymaru]

Yeah sure. We know. They know. Everyone knows. But petitions don't change anything.

6 hours ago, artao said:

They're a commercial entity, not simply "modders,"

That's what I thought too, but no. That's wrong. They're like 1-3 people, part time, so pretty much just modders who are getting paid. Them being a "commercial entity" is only relevant legally, it has no other practical consequences.

They'll update it when they'll update it, which is probably never, so it's best to let it go. My Mig21 has been parked for a while, and if you want to get the full fidelity soviet cold war feels, I can highly recommend the Mi-24 Hind.

BTW I don't want to justify anything or placate you, I was just as frustrated as you once. But there comes a point where you have to accept that the module is pretty much dead and move on with your life.

[Tarres]

With all the problems that the module and the developers have been facing (2 company splits), the fact that the module started as a Lomac mod (the first one) and with all the old code from Lomac that is in the module, the only way to address it is make it again from scratch.

 

[Gladius]

Well, I've written off the MiG-21bis, it's even already uninstalled. It's such a shame about this great aircraft.
But yes, I'm holding back and letting the developers do their thing the way they want.
But I won't buy a module from the developer. Because it should be really clear what we want, but that will never happen.

[artao]

Yeah. ..... <sigh> Yeah.

Perhaps the best thing that could happen is another dev. decides to do a MiG-21. ... perhaps -21F even, or multiple variants.

I wish I was still new to the plane and didn't know about its faults. I still enjoy flying it, but get frustrated.

[Rudel_chw]

22 hours ago, artao said:

 Prioritizing aircraft THEY would like to see rather than those with demonstrated commercial success. I would put big money on a bet that more people want the MiG-21 updated than want anything else they have in their pipeline.

 

That's just a hunch of yours, not based on any hard data ... here is a poll result from a year ago, where only 32% of respondents owned the MiG-21:

 

 

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

... we won't be seeing any MiG-21 updates for AT LEAST 4 yrs at the most optimisic, and that's simply unacceptable.

 

Seems your definition of "update" is different than mine ... if the MiG-21 was not being updated you can be sure that today it wouldn't be able to fly on DCS, when in reality the aircraft is updated as needed in order to keep it operative on the latest DCS. 

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

Support is expected; how long is a question, sure.

 

Of course, I do expect support ... that does not mean that I expect an aircraft totally devoid of bugs. I purchased my Mig on December 2014, on a Sale at US$ 25, so to date I have had 10 years of service for US$ 25.

 

I'm happy with that enjoyment/cost ratio. In fact, I always felt that amount wasn't a good enough compensation to the developers, so I purchased the CE 2 a few years later (on January 2019, at US$ 24) ... I flew it a couple dozen hours only, just for fun, but dont regret the purchase as buying it was meant as a "thank you" to the developers.

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

I mean, buy it new now and you pay 60usd. That's the price of a full AAA game.

 

I'm not interested on playing so called AAA games, like battlefield, arma, and the like, and who purchases at list price nowadays? ... and the list price on 2014 was 50 us$, so having increased to 60 in 10 years do not seem excessive to me.

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

 If they're gonna sell it "as-is" the cost should be reduced to like 30 or 40usd. It's just THAT out of date and broken.

 

To me it is not broken, I can fly it reasonably well, can you elaborate in what way it does impede your use of this aircraft?

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

Perhaps even a petition to release the current version to public domain

 

How easy it is to demand other people to relinquish the rights to the software they have created ... have you gifted your own work so easily before?

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

And surely it's one of the most popular DCS modules, no? I have no stats, but it's gotta be top 5.

 

The poll I mentioned earlier (from Spudknocker) does not have it among the top 5:

 

 

 

22 hours ago, artao said:

 change the nav systems to what is now DCS-standard

 

it already has the navigation systems that the real aircraft of the period had, or do you want it to have INS?

 

I'd love to have the MiG improved, that's why I will purchase the Corsair when it is released: half to experience flying with it, and half to support Magnitude, but I wont attempt to tell them how they should run their business, as very likely they know how better than I ever could.

 

 

Eduardo

[Crash *]

I would also like to add my two cents.

The MiG-21 was a great module at the time and worth every penny. Don't get me wrong, the module WAS great, but nothing significant has been done with it in a long time. Meanwhile I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.

Maybe the team no longer has the capacity. It's a shame, but there will be reasons. I don't make suggestions. I have removed the module now, it is just too far behind the others. And unfortunately I no longer believe it will ever catch up.

However, I wish the team every success. I'm not leaving angry, but rather with melancholy.

 

[ESA_maligno]

The MiG21 was the module that paved the way, the first, and for that we will always be grateful to the community.
The 21 as an airplane is one of the most used and sold in reality and at the same time one of the few "from the bad side" that you can find at DCSW.
I think, from my point of view, that the company tries to keep it operational for DCSW but it is true that being so old it suffers more clearly from these problems.
A clear point is the navigation system, logically we do not want a modern system, but at least when there is a new map that we can use RSBN, ARK and that it is not the community that has to make its own assisted radio templates.
I had a great time with the MiG21, but those who still use this aircraft will almost certainly migrate to ED's MiG29 unless, as in reality, it undergoes an update to a modernized version and suddenly they release a Lancer or similar.
Then there is the company, whether or not it has the will to update it (at least keep it operational) or release another version of the MiG21, but looking at future projects I don't think it will happen.

Español:

Regarding the statistics, from Rudel_chw..., eso, amigo mío es indicativo, o debería serlo, para la compañía pues de ser los pioneros y haber tenido una gran ventaja competitivas han perdido su lugar y su módulo de bandera, el MiGuelito21 ha quedado como algo residual para algunos de nosotros que somos muy muy fanáticos de ese avión.

Edited August 15 by ESA_maligno

[skywalker22]

2 hours ago, ESA_maligno said:

A clear point is the navigation system, logically we do not want a modern system, but at least when there is a new map that we can use RSBN, ARK and that it is not the community that has to make its own assisted radio templates.

This is what I would like to have, and for the devs to at least keep up with these small updates. So that the plane can be used effectively on all the maps.

We have other topic about it, it has been promised lately they will do it. I have fingers crossed.

--

Oh and btw, besides mentioned, what else should be done to make the plane up-to-date exacty?

[PawlaczGMD]

On 8/14/2024 at 8:29 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

That's just a hunch of yours, not based on any hard data ... here is a poll result from a year ago, where only 32% of respondents owned the MiG-21:

 

 

 

 

Seems your definition of "update" is different than mine ... if the MiG-21 was not being updated you can be sure that today it wouldn't be able to fly on DCS, when in reality the aircraft is updated as needed in order to keep it operative on the latest DCS. 

 

 

Of course, I do expect support ... that does not mean that I expect an aircraft totally devoid of bugs. I purchased my Mig on December 2014, on a Sale at US$ 25, so to date I have had 10 years of service for US$ 25.

 

I'm happy with that enjoyment/cost ratio. In fact, I always felt that amount wasn't a good enough compensation to the developers, so I purchased the CE 2 a few years later (on January 2019, at US$ 24) ... I flew it a couple dozen hours only, just for fun, but dont regret the purchase as buying it was meant as a "thank you" to the developers.

 

 

I'm not interested on playing so called AAA games, like battlefield, arma, and the like, and who purchases at list price nowadays? ... and the list price on 2014 was 50 us$, so having increased to 60 in 10 years do not seem excessive to me.

 

 

To me it is not broken, I can fly it reasonably well, can you elaborate in what way it does impede your use of this aircraft?

 

 

How easy it is to demand other people to relinquish the rights to the software they have created ... have you gifted your own work so easily before?

 

 

The poll I mentioned earlier (from Spudknocker) does not have it among the top 5:

 

 

 

 

it already has the navigation systems that the real aircraft of the period had, or do you want it to have INS?

 

I'd love to have the MiG improved, that's why I will purchase the Corsair when it is released: half to experience flying with it, and half to support Magnitude, but I wont attempt to tell them how they should run their business, as very likely they know how better than I ever could.

 

 

Eduardo

I agree with your overall sentiment that the Mig-21 is a good buy on sale, and it's great that it exists in DCS. However, it also has issues that would not be acceptable in any other DCS module individually, let alone together. Of the top of my head, in order of severity:

- Flight model bugged at low speed. Turn rate increases as you approach stall, and according to some data I've seen, it is almost maximal near stall speed. This is quite severe, and is exploited/observed all the time in MP. Some low speed behavior is also too scripted/predictable.

- Gun sight is unrealistic, has fictional A2G modes that barely make sense.

- Radar is very outdated, ground clutter is barely simulated, or just painted on, behind in quality of most other planes, and overperforming strongly in comparison to a/c of the era. 21 can get a lock near the deck, but F-5 or F-4 couldn't dream of it? Doubtful.

- There are some extremely dated textures inside the cockpit, everything on the floor is a 2D sprite, below the stick, just bad.

- Why do all missile hardpoints just simultaneously detach when taking damage sometimes? 

These are not just some minor bugs that any module has. $60 for the current state is not a good value proposition, I think the module is as popular as it is because of how iconic and critical to CW this a/c is, but it needs to be updated badly. I would be happy to pay for an upgrade like the Ka-50.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Given that Mag3 has several responsibilities and that ever-constant bugbear that is the F4U is their priority, I don't think a petition would change that.

[artao]

On 8/14/2024 at 7:29 PM, Rudel_chw said:

 

That's just a hunch of yours, not based on any hard data ... here is a poll result from a year ago, where only 32% of respondents owned the MiG-21:

Seems your definition of "update" is different than mine ... if the MiG-21 was not being updated you can be sure that today it wouldn't be able to fly on DCS, when in reality the aircraft is updated as needed in order to keep it operative on the latest DCS. 

Of course, I do expect support ... that does not mean that I expect an aircraft totally devoid of bugs. I purchased my Mig on December 2014, on a Sale at US$ 25, so to date I have had 10 years of service for US$ 25.

I'm happy with that enjoyment/cost ratio. In fact, I always felt that amount wasn't a good enough compensation to the developers, so I purchased the CE 2 a few years later (on January 2019, at US$ 24) ... I flew it a couple dozen hours only, just for fun, but dont regret the purchase as buying it was meant as a "thank you" to the developers.

I'm not interested on playing so called AAA games, like battlefield, arma, and the like, and who purchases at list price nowadays? ... and the list price on 2014 was 50 us$, so having increased to 60 in 10 years do not seem excessive to me.

To me it is not broken, I can fly it reasonably well, can you elaborate in what way it does impede your use of this aircraft?

How easy it is to demand other people to relinquish the rights to the software they have created ... have you gifted your own work so easily before?

The poll I mentioned earlier (from Spudknocker) does not have it among the top 5:

it already has the navigation systems that the real aircraft of the period had, or do you want it to have INS?

I'd love to have the MiG improved, that's why I will purchase the Corsair when it is released: half to experience flying with it, and half to support Magnitude, but I wont attempt to tell them how they should run their business, as very likely they know how better than I ever could.

Great for you you've had it 10 years. Woo freakin hoo. I bought it last year. I'm a new user. Thankfully I bought it on sale.

So what if YOU aren't interested in AAA games, that's 100% irrelevant to my point.

RE: "Of course, I do expect support ... that does not mean that I expect an aircraft totally devoid of bugs."
LMAO dude. Known bugs can be EXPECTED to be fixed. They have not been. Barely acknowledged even (AFAIK).

RE: "To me it is not broken, I can fly it reasonably well, can you elaborate in what way it does impede your use of this aircraft?"
Okay ... Go try to use RSBN/ARK on the Kola map, or Sinai map. NOPE! You have to hand edit files to manually add stuff, and it's still not the actual available nav beacons available to ALL aircraft now in DCS maps; the MiG-21bis can't access those. When the MiG-21bis came out, there wasn't a universal RSBN system. Try to accelerate vertically with a clean plane; NOPE! But with 2nd stage afterbuner of 97k newtons, it should have greater than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio. i.e. - It should be able to sustain vertical flight, even with 4xRadar and 2xIR missiles.

Good grief man!! Have you NOT read the freakin bug reports and complaints in this very forum?
The flight model is broken, it can't use the RSBN/ARK that exists in each map; it ONLY has the pre-programmed hard coded RSBN/ARK channels. Users have to make modified .lua files to add navigation stations. Even if the dev of the map adds them themselves, the MiG-21bis can not use them.

As to INS ... uhhhhh .... You've had it 10 years and don't realize it has pretty much that? It can fly itself back to base and take it in along the proper glide path, then give you control at the final moments to complete the landing. That's kinda better than INS really.
Except it doesn't work right. (Or at least I can't get it to work right. Could well be user-error, but I've tried very hard.)

The engine is underpowered. The "tail wag" at certain speeds/attitudes isn't realistic. The radar is janky and not at all remotely a radar as most planes in DCS now have. The IFF is "faked." The "beam riding" missile is more like laser-guided. more .......

Are you being willfully ignorant of all these issues? There's others I haven't gone into.

They have made their money. As you said, it's been on sale at least 10 years. With over 10 yrs of sales, it must have significant profits for ED.

As to your polls, so what? A poll of a fraction of DCS users. Woo hoo. All the poll says is that 32% of the people that responded to the poll have the MiG-21bis. What if any bias is there in the poll? Are there other polls? What are the actual sales states? We won't know as they won't (rightfully so) release those figures, I'm sure.

So I base my assumption on how many users talk about the MiG-21bis. It seems quite popular, tho many people don't much fly it anymore cuz of its issues. Which are readily apparent.

And assuming that just because they have Magnitude 3 as a company means they know how to run their business ... Uhh, no. Most people who own businesses have no idea how to run them. They have very little income currently, because they're not releasing anything. If they "knew how to run their business" they'd have stable profit along with actual PR. They're essentially modders, being a company is most likely just for legal reasons.

And updating the MiG-21bis? Soooo .... They're secretly updating it in the background but not telling anyone about it in the release notes. Gotcha. ..... No. LMAO.

How many years has the Corsair been in development now? How often do they update the community on progress? .... Rarely at best. .... Great for you that you have such faith in Magnitude 3, but what have they release AS Magnitude 3, not as Leatherneck?

If they're not gonna do the MiG-21bis, they should say so and let it go. I know giving it to the community is a fantasy, I made that VERY apparent in my comment.

It is broken in many ways, and should not be sold at full price. I thought I was getting an accurate simulation, and in many ways it is. But many many ways not. I still fly it cuz I love the plane, but I hold a good amount of suspension of disbelief while doing so.

As to, "How easy it is to demand other people to relinquish the rights to the software they have created ... have you gifted your own work so easily before?"
Yes. I regularly release work (music, digital images) as CC0, as well as free to download by copyright protected.

Edited August 16 by artao

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, artao said:

Great for you you've had it 10 years. Woo freakin hoo.

 

 ... are we still in school?

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

So what if YOU aren't interested in AAA games, that's 100% irrelevant to my point.

 

comparing with AAA games was also irrelevant to the point

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

Okay ... Go try to use RSBN/ARK on the Kola map, or Sinai map. NOPE!

 

Good point ... you are still new here, so let me tell you that when the MiG-21 was being developed the Caucasus Map was the only one available and it had no RSBN stations built in. So, the developer did the best they could at that moment, and implemented the RSBN stations as a Lua table within their own Module, it is not part of the caucasus map.  I agree that the MiG-21 needs a large update of that table, to cover at least the maps where the MiG-21 is likely to be operated: Persian Gulf, Syria, Sinai and Kola.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

Try to accelerate vertically with a clean plane; NOPE! But with 2nd stage afterbuner of 97k newtons, it should have greater than 1:1 thrust-to-weight ratio. i.e. - It should be able to sustain vertical flight, even with 4xRadar and 2xIR missiles.

 

I have never read anywhere that the MiG-21 was capable of accelerating vertically, even clean, but it has a very high initial climb rate.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

As to INS ... uhhhhh ....

 

then what did you meant by "change the nav systems to what is now DCS-standard" ?

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

The radar is janky and not at all remotely a radar as most planes in DCS now have.

 

There is a 10-year technological gap, what did you expect?

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

The IFF is "faked."

 

DCS does not truly simulates IFF operation yet, so some developers have implemented their own take on the subject, like the JF-17.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

With over 10 yrs of sales, it must have significant profits for ED.

 

true, but you have 10 years of payroll to maintain it.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

As to your polls, so what? A poll of a fraction of DCS users. Woo hoo.

 

man, how old are you?  ... I showed the polls just so that my opinions didn't came out of thin air, those polls that you so easily dismiss are about the only hard data that a DCS user can get.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

So I base my assumption on how many users talk about the MiG-21bis.

 

oh, and that is better than reading a 3,500 users poll?

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

And assuming that just because they have Magnitude 3 as a company means they know how to run their business ... Uhh, no. Most people who own businesses have no idea how to run them.

 

I see ... don't tell me, you are an expert on that subject too?

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

They're secretly updating it in the background but not telling anyone about it in the release notes. Gotcha. ..... No. LMAO.

 

Actually, its me the one smiling over your post  ... EVERY DCS module is being updated and tested at each DCS major release, but the release notes only mention the additions and major bug fixes, the small coding changes made to keep a module operative are not mentioned on those notes. If a Module were not updated it would very quickly stop being flyable, like it happened with the Hawk years ago .. it didn't last 6 months after the developer folded.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

How many years has the Corsair been in development now? How often do they update the community on progress? .... Rarely at best. .... Great for you that you have such faith in Magnitude 3, but what have they release AS Magnitude 3, not as Leatherneck?

 

Well, I'm grateful that there are still new users like yourself, that purchase the MiG-21 and give it a chance ... as it means support for the developers. Because if those people bad-mouthing the module were more widespread, it increases the chances of losing yet another DCS 3-rd party developer ... and we already lost the Hawk and then the F-15E, with the Harrier, Mirage 2000 and Mig-19 likely to follow. 

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

I know giving it to the community is a fantasy, I made that VERY apparent in my comment.

 

English is my 2nd language, sorry if I didn't catch the undertones of your post.

 

2 hours ago, artao said:

I regularly release work (music, digital images) as CC0, as well as free to download by copyright protected.

 

Good for you, but that doesn't give any right to demand others do the same.

Best regards,

 

Eduardo

[portman]

Rudel.... I don't know why you're defending the developers ... but wait... there was a Rudel guy im the MiG-21 development team back then... is that you? Nevermind...

If you have access to real world training material of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces, you quickly realize that you can't do real-world procedures with the DCS MiG-21. That is mainly because of the phantasy implementation of both of the nav systems, RSBN and ARK. Especially the ARK implementation is so far away from the real thing, it's just unbelievable. This alone is enough for someone like me and many others to say "no, thank you" to this module. And as long as this is not fixed, I would recommend the developers NOT to speak of their module as a simulation. An this is just one of the many problems the MiG-21 has.

For what it's worth, one module which does it perfectly is the L-39, and hopefully the MiG-29 will be just as good.

If you want to get airborne, ratatata some enemies, drop some bombs, and RTB, that's perfectly fine. But there are people that want to fly realistic missions and procedures, and those people just can't work with the current MiG, and that's why this module belongs to the junkyard and not in a game that calls itself a simulation. Period.

[Volator]

IDK, some of the critique is too harsh.

Sure, the MiG-21 is a very old module, some things are simulated in a wrong way, some bugs are there, and I sure as hell want a completely new MiG-21 2.0 that is done right to the DCS standard.

No, I cannot fly ARC approaches with it, which is a bummer. But RSBN works reasonably well on Caucasus (taking the bugs in the system into account), and I highly doubt that the Syrians or the Egyptians had RSBN and PRMG at all, correct me if I'm wrong though.

But: Of all the MiG-21s we have in DCS, this one is certainly the best.

Petitions certainly won't change anything. We're stuck with what we have, unless another developer with more manpower and expertise takes up MiGs. With the RB MiG-23 dead for good, I put my hopes on the ED MIG-29...

[Tarres]

I think that we forget the elephant in the room: the 21 never was intented to be a module. It was a mod from LOMAC 1.1, after that, it was intended to be a separate program with proprietary missiles, bombs, objects... When the 21 became a full module, the first split/legal problem affected the company, and the mod creator left the company (with the base code?).  After a few years the company was split again and now I think that only 2-3 persons in a part time job are involved. 

Any upgrade requires a whole rebuild from scratch.

P.D. as @portman said, the L-39 can fly RSBN in manual mode in every map without RSBN stations.

 

Edited August 17 by Tarres

[Rudel_chw]

20 hours ago, portman said:

Rudel.... I don't know why you're defending the developers ...

 

I was defending? ... didn't realize it if I did .. I was merely attempting to expose a different opinion regarding the MiG-21, so that future readers of this thread do not get biased by it.

 

20 hours ago, portman said:

but wait... there was a Rudel guy im the MiG-21 development team back then... is that you?

 

My nick is rudel_chw ... so, not the same.

 

20 hours ago, portman said:

If you have access to real world training material of the Warsaw Pact Air Forces,

 

I'm not a military pilot, so no access to such material ... but I do have gathered a few MiG-21 manuals here and there:

 

 

If you do have such access, it would be wonderful if you could share, as I love to study these aircraft

 

20 hours ago, portman said:

you quickly realize that you can't do real-world procedures with the DCS MiG-21.

 

That's simply not true, perhaps you meant that you can't do "some" procedures.  Here is a longish video where I attempted to follow the full cold start procedure of the real MiG-21, and while there are most definitely some steps that can't be simulated, for the most part it can give a pretty detailed experience:

 

 

 

I know that on DCS no one would take 40 minutes to start a plane .. but I was curious about following the real aircraft procedure as closely as possible, and I used this time to explain most of the Systems of the MiG-21. It is remarkable how good the simulation is, that only a few steps couldn't be performed. Small accident at the end, sorry about that ... I've since removed the truck from the Mission.

 

20 hours ago, portman said:

That is mainly because of the phantasy implementation of both of the nav systems, RSBN and ARK.

 

Its been several years since the last time I flew the -21, and I don't have a video to rebate your point.

 

20 hours ago, portman said:

Especially the ARK implementation is so far away from the real thing, it's just unbelievable. This alone is enough for someone like me and many others to say "no, thank you" to this module. And as long as this is not fixed, I would recommend the developers NOT to speak of their module as a simulation.

 

Well, that is certainly a bit rash ... most DCS modules have some aspects that are either not finished or buggy, but on my case I can still appreciate them in spite of their limitations.

 

20 hours ago, portman said:

If you want to get airborne, ratatata some enemies, drop some bombs, and RTB, that's perfectly fine. But there are people that want to fly realistic missions and procedures, and those people just can't work with the current MiG, and that's why this module belongs to the junkyard and not in a game that calls itself a simulation. Period.

 

OK, that's your opinion ... which I certainly do not share .. and as you placed a period on the subject, I will not argue further.

 

Eduardo

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I'm still waiting for the passive aggressive posting booster to kick in, since I'd really love a MiG-21 update.

[BJ55]

On 8/14/2024 at 3:07 AM, artao said:

Even just correct the flight model

This!

[HWasp]

On 8/14/2024 at 3:07 AM, artao said:

What do you think, could it be effective?
They kinda seem like they're doing what THEY want to do without considerating what the market wants. Prioritizing aircraft THEY would like to see rather than those with demonstrated commercial success. I would put big money on a bet that more people want the MiG-21 updated than want anything else they have in their pipeline.
Just a thought. Cuz otherwise we won't be seeing any MiG-21 updates for AT LEAST 4 yrs at the most optimisic, and that's simply unacceptable. They're a commercial entity, not simply "modders," and many many people have invested in their products. Support is expected; how long is a question, sure. THIS is egregious tho. Nothing to be expected for at least 4yrs as a kind estimate, considering the dev pace of the Corsair.

I mean, buy it new now and you pay 60usd. That's the price of a full AAA game. But then you buy it and find out it lacks in numerous areas. Then you get peeved; and rightfully so. .... I bought it on sale, so I'm not as peeved, but still. I expected moar realerer. If they're gonna sell it "as-is" the cost should be reduced to like 30 or 40usd. It's just THAT out of date and broken. (Tho still fun -- in part due to how broken it is)

Perhaps even a petition to release the current version to public domain as they work thru their personal list of "wanted aircraft" and then let them make a v2 we can pay for. (ahhh. dreams be dreams eh )
The lack of support for the MiG-21bis is egregiously unacceptable, especially considering how important an aircraft it is. It's basically the AK-47 of fighter aircraft. One can not talk about the Cold War air combat landscape without acknowledging its significant impact and widespread use. The MiG-21bis represents a crucial piece of military aviation history, and its inadequately updated status undermines the historical and technical integrity of simulations that aim to represent that era accurately. It's the most-produced fighter aircraft in history, with the longest run of usage.
And surely it's one of the most popular DCS modules, no? I have no stats, but it's gotta be top 5. And I'm curious how much money in totum it has made. Surely, again, in the top 5.

It should be priority number one.

It's one of the oldest modules but has CLEAR issues, from the flight model and its low-speed handling to the underpowered engine -- which SHOULD put out like 97k Newtons of thrust with 2nd stage burner. Which, in some configurations like A/A missiles without tanks, would give greater than 1:1 thrust:weight ratio. Which is to say, if light enuf it should be able to handle the vertical fight just fine.

Even just correct the flight model and engine performance and change the nav systems to what is now DCS-standard and perhaps deal with the radar, and we'd all be happy while they work on a V2. Which I'm sure we'll all happily pay for (as a discounted upgrade).

HELL!! Even a low-cost 1.5 update!! I'd pay 10 to 20usd for that.

 

The core issue was/is the split between HB and Mag3, they were one company at the time of the 21s initial release.

Mag3 never really got traction and fell behind without any serious releases, it just looks like that they never had proper resources since then.

I think the only way forward for them is to finally release the Corsair in an acceptable state, and finally earn some serious money to be able to move forward.

I also want a MiG-21 update ASAP, and I'm willing to pay for it. I hope, that once they get some new cash flow, they can finally expand their team and start working at a better rate.

That all being said, I'm still a happy customer, I can have fun with the plane as is, but the MiG-21 really deserves a proper overhaul.

[Gunfreak]

I'm glad Ma3 had the 21. Or at best we'd have a 21 that looks as terrible as the 23 and 25. Or no 21 at all.

I own the 21. But rarely fly it. So I mostly use it as an AI. Which is fine if you're in a 4th Gen aircraft. But gets decidedly less fun when you fly a 2nd or 3rd generation fighter and the AI overpreform something awful. Now this is partly an ED thing. But I think mag3 could have done something to the AI logic. While we quietly wait for that new general flight model ED showed 3 years, that apparently will fix all AI related problems.

 

[PawlaczGMD]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

I'm glad Ma3 had the 21. Or at best we'd have a 21 that looks as terrible as the 23 and 25. Or no 21 at all.

I own the 21. But rarely fly it. So I mostly use it as an AI. Which is fine if you're in a 4th Gen aircraft. But gets decidedly less fun when you fly a 2nd or 3rd generation fighter and the AI overpreform something awful. Now this is partly an ED thing. But I think mag3 could have done something to the AI logic. While we quietly wait for that new general flight model ED showed 3 years, that apparently will fix all AI related problems.

 

yes, you need to add extra weight to the 21 AI to make it closer to realistic.

[Gunfreak]

5 minutes ago, PawlaczGMD said:

yes, you need to add extra weight to the 21 AI to make it closer to realistic.

How do you do that? And how much weight?

[diego999]

25 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

How do you do that? And how much weight?

 

With this:

 https://wiki.hoggitworld.com/view/DCS_func_setUnitInternalCargo

In my totally subjective experience, it seems to perform in a more realistic way if you add around a full external tank worth of weight.