MiG-21 used to be my favorite ride... can't stand it now

We do. Since MiG-21bis is considered to be in service in Serbia, even though they dont fly them atm, not every document is available. Military services are fairly restrictive in that regard unless aircraft is trully out of service, which is a case in my country making it far easier to pick those documents.

As for the latter question, knowledge of basic employment does not equal to memorizing technical documentation. Still, I'm trying my best in my free time to look for some rare documentation that could improve the systems.

Foxbat155 to the rescue. And still we have desired user experience described in pilot manual and pilot's handwritten notebook posted before:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/eyh14uxc89acs4j/AADjYqjE2tokjd7VrRQTaVQXa/Russian?dl=0&subfolder_nav_tracking=1

I'm already in touch with Foxbat for almost a month now.

Super! Pity Sarmatt has been banned, with his 10 years flying the 21.

Still, I'm trying my best in my free time to look for some rare documentation that could improve the systems.

Thank you for your efforts!

Super! Pity Sarmatt has been banned, with his 10 years flying the 21.

I think his posting rights are revoked, so he can still use PMs. My only issue is that I was born too late to learn Russian in Polish schools, but too early to get decent English education. So had to work on latter one myself, with no need for former. Seems like that Russian would be handy this days though. If I could talk to Sarmatt with decent translation maybe we could get something interesting.

And is there an SPO-10 fix anytime soon?

The MiG-21 remains stuck in limbo. In the absence of better documentation, the LCOS gunsight should work at least as well as the F-86 with either manual or auto range inputs influencing both the LCOS calculations and the size of the sight varying with both range and wingspan settings.

With all of the new aircraft, I almost never fly the MiG-21 any more. Almost every problem that it had years ago are still there plus some new problems created by the DCS 2.0/2.5 graphics update.

Much newer, more complex modules are in much better shape. The MiG-21 can still be fun to fly, but unless it gets fixed better, it is never going to be one of my primary rides as it once was and I always intended to be. I have always dreamed of having a study sim with max realistic modeling of both the MiG-21 and F-4. DCS World is on the verge of achieving this, but the F-4 was delayed for the ever popular F-16 and the MiG-21 remains in limbo. If the MiG-23 turns out well, it may become my primary USSR cold war ride to complement the F-4.

I think his posting rights are revoked, so he can still use PMs. My only issue is that I was born too late to learn Russian in Polish schools, but too early to get decent English education. So had to work on latter one myself, with no need for former. Seems like that Russian would be handy this days though. If I could talk to Sarmatt with decent translation maybe we could get something interesting.

I know someone who speaks both extremely well (Russian and English). If there is a specific section that needs translated from Russian into English it might be doable. Father wrenched MiG 15s and MiG 17s back in the day, so he might be able to help with specific vocabulary.

No promises, but if what you need is reasonable I might be able to get it done.

maybe we could get something interesting.

With all respect your team deserve. I don’t use to complain except for FC3 aircraft...

Brother Mig-21 need more attention. If the time to make this improvements for bis version does not fit the right revenue. Then I suggest you do a lower version like Mig-21MF and use the time of this project to improve the Bis. You will get revenue good enough. We get a second version plus improvements in the bis one.

What do you think about?

Thanks Hiromachi for your efforts! I really hope you guys will be able to make the Fishbed glorious again!

I'll say, regardless of the state of MiG-21 it's good to see posts from devs that show this module hasn't been forgotten.

I hope you guys get your hands on more codersthough. If it's just one guy we may have to wait aling time for those fixes.

Candid question: what about asking to Mikoyan Gurevich Design Bureau directly ?

Can't believe we still have no clear cockpit option checkbox.

I know these questions pop up all the time, and 99 out of a 100 times, its pure placebo. But did something change with the flight model? Im not flying the MiG that much, but I had a quick buzz around PG yesterday to check out the map updates, and it just felt different (better). Had more directional stability, nose wasnt floating so much, and it had more weight to it, compared to how I remember it.

I know these questions pop up all the time, and 99 out of a 100 times, its pure placebo. But did something change with the flight model? Im not flying the MiG that much, but I had a quick buzz around PG yesterday to check out the map updates, and it just felt different (better). Had more directional stability, nose wasnt floating so much, and it had more weight to it, compared to how I remember it.

I wish they finally worked on fixing and making the FM more realistic, but I still see that scripted stall behavior and all the other issues that have been there for years. Not only they have not been acknowledged, but they even said the FM is great and realistic. That's why I have 0 hope, and even if they fixed the avionics and all the rest, the FM will always be the n.1 reason why I don't touch the MiG-21 and won't trust future M3 modules. M3 really needs the help of some FM coders which I think they haven't had for several years now...

Just had a quick sniff trough the autoupdate_log to see if something stood out, and the F-14 and MiG-21 are the only two models with updated FlightModel.dll's, and we know the F-14 received some updates.

I wish they finally worked on fixing and making the FM more realistic, but I still see that scripted stall behavior and all the other issues that have been there for years. Not only they have not been acknowledged, but they even said the FM is great and realistic. That's why I have 0 hope, and even if they fixed the avionics and all the rest, the FM will always be the n.1 reason why I don't touch the MiG-21 and won't trust future M3 modules. M3 really needs the help of some FM coders which I think they haven't had for several years now...

What other issues than the stall behavior are there with the FM?

I know these questions pop up all the time, and 99 out of a 100 times, its pure placebo. But did something change with the flight model? Im not flying the MiG that much, but I had a quick buzz around PG yesterday to check out the map updates, and it just felt different (better). Had more directional stability, nose wasnt floating so much, and it had more weight to it, compared to how I remember it.

Mnah, after some further flying tonight, I'll put that down as placebo.

I wish they finally worked on fixing and making the FM more realistic, but I still see that scripted stall behavior and all the other issues that have been there for years. Not only they have not been acknowledged, but they even said the FM is great and realistic. That's why I have 0 hope, and even if they fixed the avionics and all the rest, the FM will always be the n.1 reason why I don't touch the MiG-21 and won't trust future M3 modules. M3 really needs the help of some FM coders which I think they haven't had for several years now...

ED signed off on the FM as being fine, only issues are with the outside of envelope flight, etc.

It has been said many times.

And I trust a real life pilot over an armchair one. @bkthunder, stop whining and start flying it.

When i first flew the Mig 21 i thought it was perfect then it came some problems with company who made it...i wish that the jet could be just like before.

Real life pilot experience is certainly useful. But PC simulators need extensive flight data recorded accurately over a wide range of conditions in order to build an accurate flight model. Linear equations are useful approximations, but never close to the accuracy of extensive tables of real world data. Pilots cannot possibly provide the volume or accuracy of data needed for flight modeling. Pilots' ability to judge the "feel" of a PC flight model is limited by the fact that the PC provides few of the cues beyond instrument indications and the graphic representation of the view outside the cockpit. For all of their flaws, I trust flight manuals and other sources of performance numbers or aerodynamic data over pilot anecdotes any day of the week. But if the pilot's memory is correct and the flight model is both detailed and accurate enough, the two should overlap nearly 100%.

Real life pilot experience is certainly useful. But PC simulators need extensive flight data recorded accurately over a wide range of conditions in order to build an accurate flight model. Linear equations are useful approximations, but never close to the accuracy of extensive tables of real world data. Pilots cannot possibly provide the volume or accuracy of data needed for flight modeling. Pilots' ability to judge the "feel" of a PC flight model is limited by the fact that the PC provides few of the cues beyond instrument indications and the graphic representation of the view outside the cockpit. For all of their flaws, I trust flight manuals and other sources of performance numbers or aerodynamic data over pilot anecdotes any day of the week. But if the pilot's memory is correct and the flight model is both detailed and accurate enough, the two should overlap nearly 100%.

This :thumbup:

Even a low fidelity "on rails" FM can simulate the correct numbers, FS98 replicated accurate cruise performance when the airplane was flying straight and level...The F-15 and Su-27 in Lock-On met the numbers, and I don't doubt the MiG-21 does the same when it's well within the envelope.

But, the point of a PFM is to have a dynamic and realistic flight model that feels organic and not like it's on rails, something the DCS MiG-21 simply doesn't achieve.

Btw, practicing stalls is one of the very first things you'll do as a student pilot. A stall is by definition outside the flight envelope, but don't tell me this is some sort of outlandish maneuver that is normally never attempted or experienced, especially in a combat aircraft.

My first flight instructor pulled a stall on my very first flight.

Stalling characteristics are a basic part of any airplanes training syllabus, and if you can't have an FM that simulates that properly, I don't see how the rest of the FM can be considered to be at "DCS level".

P.S. Did anyone come up with an explanation why I can steer by using the rudder (no brakes) on the ground with no wind, with as little as 3kts forward speed? Very effective rudder on this MiG-21!

Do not try to compare flying a Cessna with a MiG. While it may be perfectly safe and easy to stall a GA prop, you would not do it in a Fighter or even Airliner on purpose, as they are a lot less predictable.