blklobo Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I love MiG-21bis in DCS because it is just only Russian Fighter Study Simulator in DCS. and single engine, seat.. etc.. I love it so much. even Hornet has been released, I fly with MiG-21bis. but recently days no further fix bugs and improvement plans are not mentioned from Dev. Please let me know how progress in MiG? I have lot curious. 나의 SM-G930S 의 Tapatalk에서 보냄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harle Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 I hope ED will buy rights on this module and fix it. Or make another Mig-21 variant of ther own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zcrazyx Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 We need something, It's been years since the mig 21 was released and we still have no more redfor aircraft that are study level. I did a poll on if people would like a modernised Mig 21 and the results were 2 to 1 in favour of it. Problem is that which one would they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepin1234 Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 Do you have a list of bugs of the current Mig-21? What are the most important bugs to fix first for you? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zcrazyx Posted September 1, 2018 Share Posted September 1, 2018 (edited) Do you have a list of bugs of the current Mig-21? What are the most important bugs to fix first for you? I think the two most notable ones that being Missile performance as AOA limitation are already known and being looked into. That being said there are some minor ones like missing textures on the SPS box as well as the gun pods box and the nuclear delivery box. I also am going to look into the SPS pod because it seems the auto release mode doesn't work. edit: the missing labels occurs in beta versions for me, not sure about release. Edited September 1, 2018 by zcrazyx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blklobo Posted September 2, 2018 Author Share Posted September 2, 2018 Do you have a list of bugs of the current Mig-21? What are the most important bugs to fix first for you?I cant mention about Avionics or Flight Models. because I am not pilot and I never been control real MiG-21bis. My wish are about visual and operating in simulation. 1. Cockpit Lights 2. External Lights 3. Canopy Reflection 4. Sound 5. Track Recording Error I know Devs are very busy and they was issue Fishbed update few month ago. just my hope is give us about MiG-21bis progress. this module still in develop. but I cant feeling develop further since last major MiG-21bis Updates. 나의 SM-G930S 의 Tapatalk에서 보냄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 (edited) Do you have a list of bugs of the current Mig-21? What are the most important bugs to fix first for you? For me, one of the biggest issues would be addressing the incorrect behavior of the SPO-10 RWR. There was quite a bit of talk two years ago about this, and was addressed by Cobra back when he still was with Leatherneck. This was a hot concern back when the Mig-21 was still considered new. However, all of that seems to have died down with time and has been swept into the archives. All of it can be best summed up here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192916 and here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168915 Basically, the SPO-10 should be giving the direction of the lock. As well as increase in frequency/tone depending on the energy being received similar to the SPO-15. The only time all four lights should ever illuminate all at once is if the contact is right on top of the pilot. Close enough to give radar energy to all four antenna. I've already submitted what I've found about missile velocity/AoA, past that would be the ASO-2 fix and also the very needed upgrades to the Mig-21's cockpit lighting. If we're talking pipe dreams, I would still like the low-speed behavior of the fishbed to be addressed. Many people have gone through the mig-21's russian manual and have determined that low-speed behavior of the 21, as it is right now, is inaccurate. Particularly AOA at low speeds. But that's just my two cents. EDIT: oh yes! the sps pod. Do we even know if jamming works with it? I hope ED will buy rights on this module and fix it. Or make another Mig-21 variant of ther own. I would love if Deka Ironworks made a J-7 fishcan! Repainting the Bis with our current J-7 skin isn't really the same as having a J-7 of our own, the flight characteristics and armament are different. Later variant J-7's had look-down-shoot-down radar. The J-7E had a MFD and a HOTAS, the first of its kind to get that. But that's a topic of discussion for another board. Edited September 2, 2018 by Auditor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmidtfire Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 Maybe we should sum up the most important fixes first? There are already some ongoing artwork, so I wont mention Rudel stuff :p I start: SPO-10 Missile performance degraded since a few versions back (being looked into) ASP functionality Launch / break lights in radar scope I don't know If they have any coders left, but it is close to being the awesome module it deserves :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepin1234 Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 I think having the GNS430 modeled into the cockpit would be a pretty nice upgrade. Agree. For me there are some minors bugs. NS430 will be a nice addon [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sajarov Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 GNS430 in MiG-21bis? this simulator is better for you guys. :megalol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 2, 2018 Share Posted September 2, 2018 (edited) GNS430 in MiG-21bis? this simulator is better for you guys. I understand where they are coming from. Every single retrofit of the Mig-21 I've ever seen to make it up to date with its 90's counterparts includes a GPS and a new radio stack of some sort. It's certainly not unprecedented. For instance, here is a bisD from Croatia. Same aircraft as what we have, but has some nice things bolted on: That said, can we stay on topic guys? I know people want new things added to the bis, and I do too. At the same time, I think some things are more important than wanting the GPS mounted, such as: The SPO-10 literally not working in any way like it ever did in real life Missiles turning toward the target but magically never seeking toward them because they rotate in mid-air but never change course Canopy reflection still not having updated mapping SPS pod being a very useful paperweight ASP being more of a helpful suggestion for the pilot than an instrument. In terms of severity, I rather have all of the above fixed before we start discussing where to mount new radios and the 430. Edited September 2, 2018 by Auditor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pikey Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 Which missiles are degraded in performance? R60M or earlier R3 or RS or something else? I haven't tested earlier missiles for many patches, they were always bad, and sometimes even couldnt hit anything, but which is it? As for the GPS, it's an addon in the pictures and an addon in the game, they modelled the BiS which didn't come with one off the factory line. It's like saying to the car dealership, "Does my car come with GPS as standard?" and being told "No you have to pay extra for that". Plenty of planes come with GPS as standard. But even if every Spitfire pilot flies with one today, it doesn't mean your 1944 Spitfire is modelled with a GPS mounting plate. ___________________________________________________________________________ SIMPLE SCENERY SAVING * SIMPLE GROUP SAVING * SIMPLE STATIC SAVING * Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) Which missiles are degraded in performance? R60M or earlier R3 or RS or something else? I haven't tested earlier missiles for many patches, they were always bad, and sometimes even couldnt hit anything, but which is it? As for the GPS, it's an addon in the pictures and an addon in the game, they modelled the BiS which didn't come with one off the factory line. It's like saying to the car dealership, "Does my car come with GPS as standard?" and being told "No you have to pay extra for that". Plenty of planes come with GPS as standard. But even if every Spitfire pilot flies with one today, it doesn't mean your 1944 Spitfire is modelled with a GPS mounting plate. The missile problem is actually a twofold issue with all missiles introduced by Leatherneck. This started several patches ago. For one, they do not accelerate to speeds fast enough to retain sufficient energy at effective range. I submitted a bug about it here and they say they're looking into it. Problem two is that they lack any angular authority past a certain acceleration speed. Basically it will turn toward an intercept, but will continue flying in a straight line on its trajectory; almost as if its control surfaces are not modeled. It only affects the missiles maintained by Magnitude 3. So the R-3R, the R-13/M1, the RS-2US are affected. The R-60/M works just fine, because that was introduced by ED and shared by their modules and ED updates them regularly. The R-3S is shared with the Mig-21 and the L-39, but doesn't appear to have this problem on the L-39. I hear "Well they were always garbage that's accurate" all the time, but that's not a good excuse. We have the AIM-9B in this simulator, and the R-3R/R-13 are objectively copies of that missile. That missile works just fine on the Sabre and the Tiger. This is clearly a problem unrelated to poor historical performance. Second part of your post: It's an addon in the game that has very real-world precedence for being mounted in the Mig-21 with other things like a new radio stack and a navigation radio. Comparing it to the Spitfire isn't a good comparison. The Mig-21 was the most used jet fighter in service all across the world. In fact, it's still in service to this day fifty years after its introduction. I can't think of an air force which is still fielding the Spitfire. so naturally, the bis has a wide range of upgrades and retrofits available to it, and some people would like to see it in the simulator. That said, I think all that should wait until any of the problems present in the thread are addressed. These are far more pressing issues. This post also reminded me of another major bug in the Mig-21 that has been open and in 'major' status for over a year: The Mig-21's FM locks at 2G in a sustained turn. https://leatherneck-sim.mantishub.io/view.php?id=689 I think I mentioned low-speed performance, but this is related to that. Basically when making a turn at lower speeds, you will find yourself locked at 2G sustained even with the ARU turned off. Edited September 3, 2018 by Auditor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmidtfire Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 Just to clarify a few things about the missiles. R-3S is a copy of the Aim-9B (previously called GAR 8 ). In DCS: R-3S, GAR-8 and Rb-24 should have similar performance. But there is a big difference between the missiles, so it is a bit hard to tell who of the developers got it right :huh: R-13M and R-13M1 are more advanced and not comparable to Aim-9B! They are closer to the Aim-9G Magnitude 3 missiles: R-3R R-13m R-13m1 R-60 (not M version) R-55 RS-2US Kh-66 "Grom" Im not sure if Magnitude 3 use their own version of R-3S or not... Sidenote. Missile lock-on capability is module dependent. For example: In the Hawk Aim-9M is only rear aspect and has a short lock-on range, but in other modules it is all-aspect missile with good range. Aim-9M on FC3 F-15C does not lock onto the sun. But same Aim-9M on F/A-18C does. R-60M is all aspect on the Mig21 and FC3 modules, but only rear aspect when mounted on L-39 (probably due to R-3S on L39 being rear-aspect) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) Just to clarify a few things about the missiles. R-3S is a copy of the Aim-9B (previously called GAR 8 ). In DCS: R-3S, GAR-8 and Rb-24 should have similar performance. But there is a big difference between the missiles, so it is a bit hard to tell who of the developers got it right :huh: R-13M and R-13M1 are more advanced and not comparable to Aim-9B! They are closer to the Aim-9G Magnitude 3 missiles: R-3R R-13m R-13m1 R-60 (not M version) R-55 RS-2US Kh-66 "Grom" Im not sure if Magnitude 3 use their own version of R-3S or not... Sidenote. Missile lock-on capability is module dependent. For example: In the Hawk Aim-9M is only rear aspect and has a short lock-on range, but in other modules it is all-aspect missile with good range. Aim-9M on FC3 F-15C does not lock onto the sun. But same Aim-9M on F/A-18C does. R-60M is all aspect on the Mig21 and FC3 modules, but only rear aspect when mounted on L-39 (probably due to R-3S on L39 being rear-aspect) I'm actually not sure if the R-3S is the same on the L-39 or not. Effective range on the L-39 is too short to determine if it's having the same gliding/angular attack problems as the one on the Mig-21. That said : so it is a bit hard to tell who of the developers got it rightI don't think there's any question about that. the Gar-8 by ED and BST accelerates to the listed max speed of the missile and correctly maneuver as their control surfaces move up until they reach a given stall speed. Leatherneck missiles fly out like a dart, don't reach listed top speeds, and then lose all angular authority shortly before their motors burn out even if they rotate toward a target well within speed parameters. I don't mean to disparage Magnitude 3, but we're talking M3 vs BST and ED. If given a side-by-side comparison of the Gar-8 and the R-3S/R and asked which one was behaving correctly, it would be the Gar-8 every time. Even before I was told that BST and ED were the ones who created it. Good catch on the R-13/M1 being closer to the AIM-9G, which is absolutely correct, but also makes its behavior even more baffling. Biggest inconsistency that I've seen with acquiring is with the R-3S on the L-39 and the Mig-21. The L-39 aspect for it is strictly rear (as it should be), in the Mig-21; it seems to behave more like a most-aspect missile for some reason. Regarding the R-60M: It is indeed most aspect instead of all-aspect. Nose-on engagements still show that it has trouble acquiring. However, that's a pretty minor nitpick compared to the bigger problems of the missiles not even gliding toward their targets. Edited September 3, 2018 by Auditor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmidtfire Posted September 3, 2018 Share Posted September 3, 2018 (edited) I have also always had the feeling that the GAR-8 is the most accurate of the older missiles! Thing is that R-3S is also used with L-39 and upcoming MiG-19 module, so it is vital that it functions correctly, and is a good counterpart to the Aim-9B / GAR-8. R-3S was more or less an exact clone - down to the part numbers, only difference from what I know is that Soviet put a heavier warhead in the R-3S. Have to test this a bit more... but R-3S and Rb-24 turns better off the rails than the GAR-8. They feel quite modern in comparison to GAR8 that takes more time to adjust it's flightpath. From what I could see. R-3S overall is slower than both the GAR-8 and Rb-24. It barely hit 2000km/h and lost speed very very quickly. So a performance issue is present. A good solution would be to copy the GAR-8 code over to current R-3S missile. But maybe do a slight adjustment to payload and weight... One other thing I found when testing Rb-24 is that they are currently smokeless in DCS, so I have to send a bug report about that :book: Regarding R-60M, it is - according to manuals and other sources a "limited" all aspect missile. It should have more trouble locking on to the front, a bit better at the sides and really good at the back. It would probably suffer other issues when fired head-on with the optical fuze. An upgraded version, R-6MK had a radar fuze instead. So it is pretty well implemented atm. Earlier versions of DCS MiG21 you could only get lock in the rear and sides, but it was expanded to a short range lock for head on engagements. On FC3 modules the R-60M missile can get a head on locks at 4km+ and that is not what I call a "limited" all-aspect missile :p Edited September 3, 2018 by Schmidtfire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lixma 06 Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 Just higher resolution canopy dust/dirt will do for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 5, 2018 Share Posted September 5, 2018 Just higher resolution canopy dust/dirt will do for me. I think we should ask for a little bit more than that when there are still bugs open from two years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederf Posted September 6, 2018 Share Posted September 6, 2018 The SAU stabilize mode would dramatically transform how the airplane is flown. Then the sight should be made to work. Beyond that I could live with everything else begrudgingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 working SAU Stabilize mode seems like a pipe dream at this point. That's been an open issue since the aircraft went into early access. That's not to say that I wouldn't absolutely love to have it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 Speaking of open issues; Could we get an update from Magnitude 3 about where the module is headed and what is considered critical from them? It's been rather silent for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDontLikeBigbrother Posted September 9, 2018 Share Posted September 9, 2018 Two things 1 performance: it is the worst of all. the fps is the lowest among all modules, on the same condition(same time same weather same runway) 2 FM : this plane in the past and the plane we current have are just two things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bogey Jammer Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Hello newbies :bye_2: Everything here has been debated for years on this forum. Sorry I'm to lazy to beat the horse again… I'll buy : МиГ-23МЛД & МЛА МиГ-27К МиГ-25 Mirage III F-4E any IJ plane 1950' Korea Dynamic campaign module Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Dioxin Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 Very arrogant - especially looking at your join date. Perhaps you should take your own sarcasm and apply it to yourself? The thread is asking for an update and trying to get a list of the requested fixes together, so it's easier for the dev to answer (not that I expect one, but you never know). Maybe you should read it before slating it? Congrats to the posters who put paid to the other dissers. Unfortunately, I can't remember the last time I flew the MiG-21, despite being an indigogo backer and very excited about it then. I've given up on it, but if it got sorted I'd be in it most of the time. Kneeboard Guides Rig: Asus B650-GAMING PLUS; Ryzen 7800X3D ; 64GB DDR5 5600; RTX 4080; VPC T50 CM2 HOTAS; SN-1 Pedals; VR = Pico 4 over VD Wireless + Index; Point Control v2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auditor Posted September 10, 2018 Share Posted September 10, 2018 (edited) Hello newbies :bye_2: Everything here has been debated for years on this forum. Sorry I'm to lazy to beat the horse again… Shouldn't you be really, really angry then? All of these problems are known issues, and seemingly no progress has been made on any of them for months without any word if they're being worked on or not. Why aren't you here keeping these threads bumped so people will acknowledge these problems? My join date was really when I decided to start posting on the forum, not play DCS. Which is why I keep posting in this thread; I've been flying the fishbed long enough to know that I would like to see change in it. (Snip) Unfortunately, I can't remember the last time I flew the MiG-21, despite being an indigogo backer and very excited about it then. I've given up on it, but if it got sorted I'd be in it most of the time. Like this, yeah. I would imagine the original backers of the project must be platinum-level mad by now. Edited September 10, 2018 by Auditor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts