DCS Flight Modelling - Is it Really that much Better? | Leatherneck MiG-21 - Groom Lake
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 гру 2022
- Become a Channel Member: / @intothebluesimulations
Become a Patron: / intothebluesim
Donate Via Paypal: paypal.me/IntotheBlueSim?loca...
"Buy me a coffee" www.buymeacoffee.com/IntotheBlue
Channel Discord: / discord
In this video, we take to the skies in the Leatherneck Simulations MiG-21 Bis, within Digital Combat Simulator (DCS).
We'll be looking to recreate some of the testing that took place at Groom Lake (Area 51), as part of project "Have Doughnut". A former Iraqi MiG was flown under evaluation by both the US Navy and Airforce, to better understand the aircraft's strengths / weaknesses and how these could be exploited by US fighter pilots.
We previously carried out the same testing with the GKS MiG in Microsoft Flight Simulator, let's see how the DCS MiG compares. . .
Please note this video and all its contents / materials, is for entertainment / simulation purposes only.
PC Specs
MSI B550M
AMD Ryzen 7 5800x 4.7GHz
NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080
32GB DDR4 3600MHz
Hardware
Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog
Saitek Pro Flight rudder pedals
HP Reverb WMR headset
TrackIR5
Earthquake Shell Shoxx transducer
Enjoy the flight! - Ігри
"With the DCS Mig during take off, it feels to me as though you are one poorly placed piece of gravel away from having an absolute catastrophe. " 😂😂😂
and landing, and... flying it in general, lol
i knew mig 21 pilots, thats how you're supposed to feel :D
that's the general feeling of MiG-21 pilots that I talked to too
That’s why I love flying it. The mig was a challenge to get my head around but now it’s like flying a skyrocket, with control.
@@julianmorrisco you should check out the starfighter if thats in dcs
that ones basically the mig but in western, so very controlled chaos.
except its very uncontrolled, especially in ehavy weather.
Love to see DCS here - keep the DCS coming please!!! Great video. I think many don't realise how good DCS is as a simulator, you can enjoy it without shooting or blowing anything up.
Cheers Oistk, I’m glad you enjoyed the video!
It’s great to see that DCS was pretty warmly revived on the channel and I’ll happily oblige in making some more content with the sim going forward. As you say, DCS is a brilliant sim, whether or not one wants to blow something up haha.
Thanks again and all the best! : )
Nice to see you in DCS. Would be happy to see more.
I've been buzzed by a Croatian Mig 21, Yugoslavia 1993. DCS is my fav! Great video.
This was the first full DCS module I bought as I’ve always just loved the idea of an engine strapped to some triangles and calling it a fighter. I agree that it’s a handful to fly, but you get used to that when flying it long enough. As it’s such a death trap, I find doing well in some of the online multiplayer servers feels more rewarding than flying out in an F-14 or something else superior to it. I just love the old Cold War era aircraft. It’s all analogue and no fly by wire making it so much more difficult to be able to truly control smoothly. It’s such a raw aircraft, I love it.
The MiG-21 in DCS is remarkably capable despite its obvious flaws. No doubt you're going to be the first one to be shot down but also the first to get back in the saddle at the runway after respawning. I've gotten the startup to taxiing down to about 2 or so minutes. Perhaps there is some wisdom in its super-swift interceptor design. However, against modern aircraft you're really just a deliciously hot signature to be gifted an AIM-120 for your troubles. Playing dirty is just about the only way you could possibly gain advantage in the little guy.
It doesn’t matter which aircraft I’m in Joesph, I’m always the first to get shot down! XD
Hi FattyMcGee,
Oh, I very much enjoy the chaotic nature of the MiG-21 haha! Sadly, my fighting skills aren’t up to much, but I can certainly imagine that it’s very satisfying to best your opponent in the MiG ; )
I completely agree about the Cold War era addons also - definitely my favourite sub-set of DCS addons (the F5 is one of my preferred modules). It’s so much more entertaining / satisfying, trying to get bombs on target etc, without the help of automation.
Cheers! All the best : )
I think the only reason it’s called a “death trap” or “flying coffin” is because after 30+ years the airframes are weak and when India crashed 400 of em and 200 people died, it got that name, if it was brand new it probably wouldn’t be a death trap, and would perform very nice.
Thanks for the nice video once again. Had to look twice when i saw DCS haha. The 21 is quite a fun plane in DCS. Will note that the DCS verion also very much reacts to stores on the plane. As soon as you pop some of the bulkier ordnance on there like rocket pods or bombs, she becomes a real pig (as expected). Oh and when you carry bombs and pull over 5G, watch the bombs fall off as the locks won't be able to hold them.
btw if you want a fun challenge, try and use those big Grom missiles, that you steer using radarbeam, basically you have to keep the pipper on target until that sucker hits.
Haha! Indeed, something a little bit different - I’m glad you enjoyed it though ; )
I haven’t even begun to figure out the MiG-21’s weapon systems yet, but the Grom does sound like fun - a little bit like the RB-05A of the Viggen. I shall have to give it a go!
Cheers Coenraad, hope you had a great Christmas : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Thank you and likewise, it was a great X-mas so far
DCS planes are usually worked on for *years*, which does make them pretty good value in that light. I'm a little worried about some of the newer 3rd party stuff, unfortunately.
IndiaFoxEcho are making hte MB339 for both sims, that will be a good thing to compare.
I have the 339 in both sims. The DCS rendition is a lot better, but it still somehow leaves a lot to be desired, the FM is pretty uninspiring.
What exactly is wrong with the newer 3rd party modules? The newer 3rd party modules just keep getting better and better, the Mirage F1 is a fantastic early access release. The modeling and flight model feel great. It's lacking a bit of the radar features but its combat capable.
Heatblur is about to drop their F-4 phantom, which will most likely be incredible even on release day, the Razbam F-15e is about to drop any day now and it looks incredible, there's so many amazing planes coming out soon its a very good time to be a DCS player.
I had thought that the MB-339 might make for a good comparison RD, given that it’s the only aircraft between the two sims, made by the same developer. Oistk’s statement doesn’t surprise me though; I’d expect the DCS version of the jet to be superior, but I’ve yet to be blown away by an IFE flight model (the MB-339 is good fun in MSFS, but the T-45 is pretty unpleasant to fly and the F-35 has some strange behaviours).
Cheers!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations The M346 is also not amazing - it works a bit better if you turn the hud off(!) because the FPM ( pipper ) seems to lie but it's still strange.
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Completely agree. If you are looking for flight model, take a look at Heatblur's Tomcat! It does not disappoint.
Just one single hint: MiG-21bis is the oldest DCS module, released in 2014, nearly a decade ago, according to it's developer it lacks sompared to more recent DCS modules and it will be updated.
Great video though!
Haha, indeed Krzysztof; that was unbeknownst to me at the time of recording, but was subsequently pointed out. To be fair, other than the visuals, the DCS MiG-21 pretty much walks all over the MSFS version (and comparing the two aircraft / sims, was really the point of this video). I very much enjoyed the module (it’s such a handful haha!) but, it would be great to see it updated, of course.
I’m really glad you enjoyed the video! Thanks very much for watching and all the best : )
Oh a DCS vid, do more of these 🥹
agreed!!
Haha, glad you enjoyed it MahQueen. I’ll be more than happy to oblige in due course : )
Cheers!
Aaaaahhh, always happy to see Mig-21 being a star of a video! Apart of all other qualities mentioned in the video, Mig-21 comes with amazing range of skins from all around the world [ around 50 ] so it feels fresh and ,,new,, every time I fly it. And yes, Mig-21 in DCS can reach Mach 2.2, however it takes some time as could be expected, hehe. With this early Mach 2 jets, one has to work the way up to that speed and to be above certain altitude as the engine would otherwise flame out. Thank you for nice video!
Cheers Benny, I’m glad you enjoyed the video!
I’ve had the MiG for ages and always thought I ought to learn to fly it. I’m glad I finally got around to that task, as the aircraft is great fun to fly and a nice challenge to operate. Definitely quite a few nuances and quirks to the jet, as you point out haha.
Thanks very much once again and all the best! : )
It's a great pleasure when you review DCS products because you approach them from a flight simmer's perspective, and you give the review those aircraft truly deserve.
I've come to specialize on one aircraft and it's the Mi-24P, I know it's a helicopter but it's the best helicopter, and it's capable of doing everything one would expect of a helicopter, from close air support to search and rescue to cargo sling loading, and since it's made by Eagle Dynamics it's (nearly) fully simulated to the point where you can play with the A/C system, pressurization system, sand filters and their drop in performance, engine and blade icing and it's de-icing system, and their drop in performance, and so on.
I hope you'll review the Mi-24P eventually, it really is a beautiful helicopter, and surprisingly maneuverable for an 8.5 tonne aircraft.
Mi24 is an amazingly awesome and simple aircraft to learn
Thanks very much MS, I’m really glad you enjoyed the video!
I was eying up the Mi-24 during the current sales haha, but I think I ought to try the Mi-8 first, given that I’ve owned the module for years and have yet to get around to flying it ha. I seem to recall there’s a nice civilian campaign with the Mi-8 also, which might suit the channel quite well. The only issue with any Russian aircraft; they always take me quite a lot longer to learn (not being as familiar with their systems logic and the Cyrillic alphabet), which means any time I do a video with an eastern bloc aircraft, it requires a lot more prep beforehand (which I then have to find the time for).
I’ll keep the Hind in mind though. Cheers and all the best! : )
DCS 21 roll rate is very high without curves - to the point you can black yourself out from it. Note that the autopilot stabilise mode affects roll significantly, as in DCS it acts as a severe damper on control inputs (this is so far removed from what it does in real life it's not funny - the DCS 21 has a lot of systems modelling issues). As for the pitch at high speeds... once again, not a MSFS issue, a dev issue. It's a handful of values in the flight model config file - usual suspects are control surface elasticity, pitch MOI, and a few other values. Just perousing the configs it becomes immediately apparent that most third party devs, and Asobo's less polished native aircraft, take from an example file and make few or no changes to those values, producing the "typical MSFS behaviour" that more meticulously-made FMs do not display at all.
Other people have likely already brought up the difference between a MiG-21F-13 and a MiG-21bis, but just remember, it's more than systems and extra weight - it's a completely different engine as well, going from the R-11, through R-13, now to R-25 in this one. Overall US reports are useful for getting an idea of how the aircraft "felt" to pilots with a background in western aircraft but the Americans had a very poor technical understanding of the aircraft beyond how to keep them flying, and it shows in a lot of the old wives' tales that test pilots repeat to this day (I remember hearing one about how the Soviets "must not have trusted the engine" because of the amounts of detents - when the engine was considered extremely dependable, and the detents in question existed for doctrinal/curbing bad habits reasons). Overall I would strongly recommend anyone with an interest in the 21 dig up as much of the original documentation as possible as it is not an aircraft you can adequately intuit, especially for a westerner, and a lot of the English-language documentation from the period is lousy with errors and assumptions. Something to be said about "study sims" and going in with actual study, probably. I learnt the thing backwards because I came into it the same way - on the basis of western pop history, US reports, and "well surely this feels about right", only to find just how much is very, very wrong... with the DCS MiG it's largely systems and some FM stuff, with the GKS one it's pretty much everything.
Oh Im pretty sure the Mig-21 pilot developer knew what he was doing for the most part...
@@utley I've heard that one many times before, and usually only after someone opens up the official documentation for the aircraft and begins finding things that clearly don't match. In this case, the systems issues are more a product of the time the module was made than any lack of knowledge. DCS didn't natively support features the 21 needed, and the project itself was started by someone else as a Flaming Cliffs mod, then changed hands, and after a very touch-and-go development that nearly ended in the project being scrapped a few times, it was added to the game as the first third party module and the first full fidelity supersonic aircraft and fighter. The FM is mostly solid as could be expected, with a few little questions around the edges of the envelope, but there are aspects of the systems (its autopilot being a big one) that don't work properly which impinge on how it flies.
Its nav system is not fully functional (it uses prebaked RSBN beacon locations rather than the ones on maps, which the L-39 can use, and in real life the system is radio-corrected dead reckoning, not just TACAN but Soviet), and this is because of its Flaming Cliffs heritage. Its radar is plagued by issues, most of which are caused by the fact it piggybacks off the Su-25's laser designator - it doesn't give lock warnings, only search and launch (the latter of which it *shouldn't* give due to the radar's design); it can 'lock' a point on the ground in locked beam mode or use that mode as a kind of boresight lock in air combat (it should not be able to enter the acquisition mode from locked beam, at all); it has magical CCIP that's active whether the radar is turned on or not, let alone in locked beam (it should only have CCIP for guns and rockets, not bombs, and it uses a slant ranging unit based on QFE like the Viggen); the radar itself can be confirmed to function as a laser because it sets off the laser warning receiver in the Ka-50; the gunsight is messed up in most modes, not least due to the magic CCIP. The autopilot stabilisation mode currently puts a horrible damping filter on all control inputs which makes the aircraft handle like a bus, rather than what it should *actually* do, which is act as an always-on attitude hold that briefly disconnects when pressure is exerted on the stick, very much like the Soviet helicopter autopilots and in essence giving you a basic form of autotrim (this is one thing the MSFS 21 gets right). I could go on all day. There's been some work to fix things or add missing features recently (burner failing to ignite when blown flaps working, hyd system pressure loss on flameout actually having consequences as the pump needs a certain amount of RPM to run) but it is a very long and slow process and the devs have said themselves that there needs to be a major overhaul of the module. It has not aged well.
@@rossmum yeah, but you leave out one thing...Im firly sure Dolphin is aware of all the shortcomings in his module. The part where Beszl departed was for unknown reasons. But for all that, Im fairly sure when M3 or leatherneck finally gets time on their hands they'll update it like the rest of the legacy models circa UH-1H.
Thanks for another set of interesting points Rossmum.
Perhaps calling it “typical MSFS behaviour”, is slightly unfair towards the core sim then, but it seems as though the vast majority of high-speed jets have the same issues in pitch - so it is a behaviour I typically see in MSFS (and it would certainly be nice to see more developers address this!). I’m not bashing MSFS flight modelling in general though. Much like DCS, the sim has its strengths and weaknesses, but I enjoy a lot about the MSFS flight modelling.
The difference between the MiG-21F and the BIS, has certainly been pointed out a number of times. I used Project Have Donut as an interesting story arc as much as anything - the video wasn’t intended to be an in-depth testing regime per se. Most of the points that I did cover, shouldn’t have been significantly affected by the different MiG variants, since the BIS should have performed more favourably overall (and with the GKS MiG, it did not).
I know the DCS MiG has its detractors and I’m sure the module has its faults. Personally I haven’t spent much time with the addon, but I thought it would be interesting to compare the two aircraft and the DCS MiG-21 is the clear winner overall.
Cheers : )
@@utley Unfortunately M3 is a very small team and there's a lot that needs doing, so not sure when it'll happen or to what degree. The recent improvements to the blown flap and hydraulic systems was nice though, and the comedy of DCS players with bad landing habits learning that the former doesn't play nice with afterburner was very much worthwhile.
simply luv these old aircraft , buttons for buttons just to get it started and of course another good video as usual.
Haha, indeed Mike, especially on the old eastern bloc jets - there really is a switch for everything (and I often find myself thinking “why on Earth would I even want to turn that off??) XD
I’m glad you enjoyed the vid! Hope you had a great Christmas : )
I wish they would revisit the su-27 flight model, there is videos of a su-30 accelerating faster than a su-27; and that is supposed to be a heavier airplane.
So, in the intro and outro of the video it looks like someone took off again without getting the drag chute reloaded. :) Secondly, I love the Lightning inspired livery. With the earlier Cold War era seeing a huge increase in interest and demand in DCS, I would love to see a Lightning model in DCS amd Im not even a Brit. :) There is something about the two vertically mounted engines that fascinates me. Lastly, I frequently just fly around in DCS and enjoy the level of detail and systems that most DCS modules have and will always prefer DCS over MSFS for combat aircraft. Cheers and thanks for another quality video.
RAZBAM is working on the Lightning F.6, but it's still in an extremely early development phase. They only showed a bunch of 3d model pics so far. Can't wait for that thing, but I'd also love having some earlier models, especially those with either the possibility to have 4 ADENs or the internal rocket racks. Loved flying them in Strike Fighters 2 (late 2000s) and Jet Pilot (1996, Amiga).
problem with the Lightning is it was an interceptor, not a fighter, so it wouldn't have many advantages in most DCS scenarios
@@jasbails9857 Well, it's up to content creators to change that... but we need a better AI for GCI as well in DCS.
It is looks like Lightning Lite. You can actually imagine the RAF fielding something.
Haha, I knew someone would spot that (I only spotted it when watching the video back) XD
Yes, the MiG looks pretty awesome in its faux Lightning livery! The Cold War era jets are the most interesting to operate and make for the most interesting fights in my opinion - I’d love to see a Lightning also : )
As and when I fly in DCS, it is generally just to cruise around, refuel, land on a carrier etc. There’s no doubt that the overall experience is much more satisfying than MSFS, but the DCS maps sadly just feel so dated / restrictive these days.
My pleasure on the video. Thanks for watching!
Thanks for another great video! Would love to see more DCS content. Harrier perhaps?
Honestly, I'd watch this kind of video on any DCS module and I'd even do that if he'd go to Il-2 Great Battles as well.
Cheers Benjamin, my pleasure! I really enjoyed my outing in DCS, so I’m sure I’ll take a look at some other modules in due course and it just so happens the Harrier is one of my favourites ; )
All the best!
Cheers RD! I’m actually forever meaning to give the modern IL2 a go also haha : )
Nice to see you in DCS! Great vid.
Cheers Lead! I’m glad you enjoyed it : )
Very much enjoyed this comparison video Capt! I look at both simulations having their strengths. MSFS for civilian aircraft and DSC for military aircraft. I used to fly to for myself I want the planes/helos that are the most accurate. Others i'm sure have other requirements. Cheers and Merry Christmas.
Thanks very much Cade, I’m really glad you enjoyed the video!
I 100% agree; both sims have their strengths and weaknesses and I very much enjoy them both for different reasons : )
I hope you had a great Christmas. Cheers and all the best!
Thanks -
Flying both - but no doubt most msfs.
The immersion in a fighter is much higher in DCS. Even just flying A to B as I do. Sound - startup procedures - navigation system to mention a few.
Immersion is best watching from outside. The vapor from wingtip at high AOA. - F16 tight turn in full AB with vapor chock wave over wing.
Flyby over mach 1. Silence until passing in an explosion of sound. Watching takeoff from ground, The roar of AB turns deeper as it fades away, and finally the puff of black smoke when going out of AB.
Cheers Øystein. Like yourself, I spend the vast majority of my time in MSFS, but undoubtedly DCS is better for this sort of thing.
I hope you had a great Christmas! All the best : )
Would be great to see more from DCS.
I'd love it if you did DCS Videos. I hope you're on the edge of your seat waiting with bated breath like the rest of us for the F4-E and the Strike Eagle
Cheers Braden,
DCS seems to have been received pretty well on the channel, so I definitely plan on creating further videos within the sim : )
Haha, the F-15E doesn’t do a whole lot for me (though I may still pick it up ha), but the F-4 is my favourite aircraft of all time, so I’m eagerly awaiting that one for sure!!
All the best : )
Very pleased to see you in DCS. Overall I feel DCS offers better flight modelling but there are some MSFS devs who are offering very good flight models of late, FlyingIrons and IndiaFoxtEcho as examples.
The British livery looks good on the Mig
Doesn’t it just! : )
Canadian ones look even better, best historic livery ;)
wonderful. A joy to watch listen and learn. and without any 'um's or 'err's
Thanks very much for the kind words Russell. I’m really glad you enjoyed the video and perhaps even more so that you enjoyed the commentary (for which I often get very mixed feedback haha)!
Cheers and all the best : )
Very detailed module performance evaluation indeed. Great job. Regarding max speed, there's a catch 22 - engine flameout, so get ready to execute subsonic air start above mach 0.5. Tricky thing is also manual management of nose cone extension limit in finding a sweet spot just to be sure engine wont die in high mach. Stall recovery is next big thing, not an easy job too. Landing approach is a little bit too high from my perspective as safe flameout landing is a big thing too and its better to get used to that then follow the PAPI all the way. Besides that. its actually my favorite DCS underdog module cos it requires lot of work and tactical positioning. Its booth dangerous to pilot as to opponent but being in the right hands and on right track makes it stealthy killer.
Thanks very much ACU, I’m really glad you enjoyed the video!
Haha, I’m still getting to grips with the MiG, but I definitely found out the hard way, about the aircraft’s tendency for a high-speed flameout XD
That’s an interesting point regarding the PAPI: I’m used to following it fairly religiously in the commercial world, but have often disregarded it in the GA world. I’ve no idea whether or not a 3 degree profile is flown in the military - not necessarily by the sounds of it?
Sadly, my fighting skills don’t come anywhere near my flying skills, so I don’t think I’d last 5 minutes in the MiG, with any competition in the vicinity haha. It’s still a very enjoyable module though.
Cheers and all the best! : )
I enjoyed that. More DCS please.
Thanks very much Nukles, I’m really glad you enjoyed it! I’m forever meaning to make more DCS content haha. I have just installed DCS on my new PC, so I’ll have to “take it for a spin” when I can find the time to do so (I always find it enjoyable jumping into another sim and DCS certainly makes for a nice change of pace).
Cheers for watching and all the best! : )
That livery though! Can't wait for RAZBAM's Lightning F.6 :)
And ofc the MiG is able to crack M 2, and it also will flame out exceeding either 1300kph IAS or M 2.15, and it will easily pass that with joy at altitude if you don't pull your throttle back. At low altitudes (I think below 2km) you can also use the emergency afterburner to increase thrust even more for a short period of time.
This module is a beast, and it was the first fast jet module in DCS that wasn't modelled in "simple mode only" like all the Flaming Cliffs assets which even had a rather horrible flight model back then still which felt very scripted in some regards (anything with gears touching ground or the whole usage of rudders and any kind of stall were the best examples). I'm so glad they updated their FMs and also added proper 6DoF cockpits at some point.
Haha, indeed RD! When I found the livery, I couldn’t resist ; )
I had no idea there was an F6 in the works - can’t wait for that then!
My point regarding Mach 2, was that the MSFS GKS MiG seemed reticent to reach such speeds. I didn’t test the Leatherneck MiG in this regard, but being a DCS module, I was pretty confident the aircraft’s behaviour would be broadly correct. I found out about the high-speed flameouts the hard way XD
Either way, the Leatherneck MiG is great fun - as indeed are most modules in DCS ; )
Cheers and all the best!
Good video. Never used DCS but found it quite informative. I'm curious to see more. The Mig seems a handful though, what with being all over the place on take off & landing plus vibrations at low speed. If it really is an accurate representation of the real Mig, it must have made for an interesting day in 'the office'. Certainly enough to keep your attention focused.
To give an idea of some of the engineering involved:
* The radar was cooled by vodka - once you'd run out, no more radar. Cooling by spirits was a fairly common Soviet practice.
* You steer on the ground using compressed air brakes, but there's no way of recharging the compressed air, so when the tank runs out that's it. Never mind that honking compressor you're carting around :D
* Landing speed is absolutely nuts by even airliner standards ( even fast jet standards tbh ) but if you slow down any more it'll just plummet.
Those are things modelled - I'm reasonably sure they actually left a bunch of quirks out, and by DCS standards it's also quite an old product now.
Most of the aircraft DCS offers have some edgy behaviour if you really try pushing them, it's interesting. Some more than others...
@DownloadPizza Does the Leatherneck one still float if you land it upsideown on water?
Cheers AS! I enjoyed my outing in DCS, so I’m sure I’ll feature more of the sim in due course (and with the current Steam / DCS sale, I’m sure I’ll have plenty of addons to showcase haha).
The MiG is indeed a bit of a handful and that’s just flying the aircraft, never mind fighting with it also! I feel the takeoff behaviour is perhaps a touch overdone, or perhaps it’s supposed to be modelling the behaviour on a poorly prepared surface etc - you can see the aircraft bumping / bouncing over essentially nothing. Either way though, I believe the MiG-21 was notorious for being an aircraft that will “bite”, if mishandled by its pilot.
Cheers : )
I can only imagine how many radars were rendered inoperative, by the “coolant” supply suspiciously going AWOL ha.
The pneumatic system gave me a chuckle when I first read about it; that you also lose the drag chute when you lose the brakes, is just a superb piece of design haha. Not to mention, there’s quite a bit of air getting compressed down the back (as you say) ha!
All very Soviet I have to say XD
Great review/comparison, and nice job keeping it about the Flight Models rather than the addons themselves. Definitely would like to see more DCS on the channel, especially in the Flight Test format as you normally do (i.e., no need for combat, IMO - just Pilot Stuff is fine as it's so rarely covered in DCS vids).
In fairness to MSFS, even X-Plane isn't great at Edge of Envelope flight, especially with high performance Mil jets. Though I will say v12 has considerably improved in that aspect, and the reasons why are documented in X-Plane blog & videos.
MSFS is making great progress so far, esp with CFD, but there is quite a ways to go yet (not least of which is Developers becoming proficient with CFD FMs...
p.s.: Very cheeky with the livery - didn't notice it until take-off replay. Nicely done :)
Thanks very much Urgent! It seems a few people would like to see more of DCS on the channel and since it is a sim that I very much enjoy, I would certainly be more than happy to oblige. I'll probably stay more focused on the actual flying, not least of all because my combat skills aren't up to much haha, but I might throw in the odd trip to the range, perhaps a play-through of one of the more chilled campaigns etc.
No sim is perfect of course and each does tend to have its own strengths. MSFS feels best in the cruise at this point (I tend to think), but does tend to fall apart a bit at the extremes (though Asobo have made some big improvements in this regard). I really haven't had a chance to spend much time with X-Plane 12 yet; I very much like X-Plane, but I had a bumpy ride with their new sim during its beta phase (I shall have to give it another go).
I'm glad you enjoyed the livery; as soon as I saw it, I couldn't resist haha!
I hope you had a great Christmas / New years! All the best for 2023 : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Sounds like a great plan! Looking forward to seeing your take on the various sims - always great to have an IRL Pro pilot show us the ropes :)
Holidays all good, many thanks! Hope the same for you!
That lightning livery made me do a double take
Haha me too, would love to see an EE lightning in DCS
Haha, I couldn’t resist flying a “pint-sized Lightning” Mark XD
Likewise James - wouldn’t that be great!
Bally Marvulous on how far flight simming has come
Haha! Isn’t it just Mike - quite amazing! and that’s not even taking into account VR : D
Haha, the faux EE Lightning. Also, my livery of choice.
Haha, when I saw the livery, I couldn’t resist! I’d love a Lightning in DCS, but the pint-sized faux Lightning looks great also ; )
Cheers!
Sweet baby Jesus I thought that was an English Electric Lightning in the thumbnail for a second. I went full Michael Scott for. 3 seconds
Haha! XD
Sorry to get your hopes up Zach, but when I saw the faux Lightning livery, I just couldn’t resist ; )
Cheers, all the best!
Nice flight!
Although the DCS World Mig21Bis is lagging now regarding updates. It still bests the MFS one in some areas. Not mentioning the weapons systems and damage model it has better engine model with compressor stalls with its procedures for alleviating the problem, nose cone failures and procedures, Also possibility for inflight relight of engine after accidentally stalling it. ETC.
The flight model subsequently is a little more complex although after some updates some aspects of it are a bit off... like that takeoff roll that looks it took place rather through in field of potatoes... Either the runway there is buggy or the Mig got porked a bit more since I flew it last time some time ago.
Also, I am not sure you have mentioned but the "Have Doughnut" used a first variant of Mig21... E and Bis is basically the second one which is very different. So different that many call it a different plane altogether. It's rather lucky it still fits some of the findings for that experiment. Of course... looking back from today to 1960... something they look much more similar.
Oh and the Mig21bis has a second stage of afterburner, in DCS I think it gives more power but I can't remember the regime. The switch is in front of the throttle iirc.
Cheers!
Cheers Zaelu!
Yes, many people have mentioned that the DCS MiG-21 is not one of the sim’s best modules (and indeed I wasn’t aware of that ahead of time), but either way, the addon still holds up more than favourably vs the GKS MiG.
The MiG-21 E vs the BIS has also been pointed out, but I used the Project Have Donut findings as an interesting story arc, as much as anything. Most of the tests I ran, also shouldn’t have been affected too much by the difference in variants (eg, the GKS MiG held on the brakes in full afterburner - if the E can’t do that, the BIS presumably shouldn’t be able to - with more thrust etc).
I did wonder about the takeoff behaviour haha: I thought perhaps the aircraft was attempting to simulate a relative unprepared surface, but I guess the addon should just read the conditions of the sim’s runway. Certainly far too bouncy during the takeoff anyway - bumping up and down over nothing (made for an entertaining takeoff though haha). A potato field, as you say XD
Thanks very much for the points and all the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations :)
Cheers and happy holidays!
I very much enjoyed that flight. The external take off and landing views are the best animations I have seen in a sim. And where else would you test fly a MIG on US soil = Area 51. I thought I saw an Alien tracking you when you were at max altitude???
Cheers Mark! I’m glad you enjoyed it, I very much did also actually haha. Nice to try something a bit different and DCS is undoubtedly a brilliant sim. Maybe I’ll have to have a word with my little green friends and see if I can borrow their flying saucer for the next video ; )
I hope you had a great Christmas! All the best : )
Maybe more than any other plane the MiG-21 really does highlight the fact that a modern fighter is little more than a chair welded to a huge engine with some trimmings.
Haha, indeed Geoff; I always think of the Lightning, when I think of a jet engine(s) with wings strapped to it, but I suppose the MiG-21 is more rudimentary yet still ha.
Cheers, all the best! : )
DCS is pretty much king currently :)
BMS is better if comparing their F-16C to any aircraft in DCS, but they are also "inspired" by restricted data so it's not an entirely fair comparison. The model also has literally decades of dev put into it.
Certainly, for this sort of flying, MSFS still doesn’t come close at the moment (hopefully that will change at some point going forward).
Cheers Scott! All the best : )
More DCS!
Good video. Is that a later model? The dorsal looks as though it swelled-up from added avionics. As I recall (old), the spine was narrow...
It's the Mig-21 BiS model
Thanks SB, I’m glad you enjoyed it! As Nuraalek points out, it is the BIS variant of the MiG-21 (so indeed, a later variant I believe : )
All the best!
ITBS always great seeing an upload from you, specially on a friday! It's fun to see you on something different here, but never tried DCS myself. (is it any worth it?)
sidenote: i am 16 and currently in flight training with 5 hours in. Great fun! It has always been my dream to fly because it runs in my family. Unfortunately, i got "diagnosed" with colorblindness and cannot become an airline pilot. It's a no big deal because i always just wanted to get my PPL for the fun. I'm currently training on the good da20 and man what a great bird. Flies like a glider.
You are a pilot yourself and i was wondering...... which bird did you train on and what was the biggest challange you had to face during PPL training.
Thanks for reading and hope you have a great rest of your weekend and merry christmas.
It's definitely worth it. If you want to take a look and see what its like you can trial most of the modules for 2 weeks every six months.
it is so worth it
Hi Gus,
Thanks very much, I’m glad you enjoyed the video! It was also good fun for me to be doing something a little different haha.
DCS is absolutely worth giving a try! It’s a brilliant sim. The base game is free (and includes a civilian P-51 + an SU-25), I believe most modules can be trialled for free and there’s currently a 50% discount / sale on most modules. The flight modelling is generally better in DCS vs MSFS, but of course both sims have their strengths.
That’s great to hear, that you’re on your way towards making your flying dreams a reality! Certainly one can have plenty of fun with a PPL and I’m sure you will. I did my initial PPL with a bit of a mix of aircraft; I first started learning to fly with the Air Cadets, on both the Tutor and the Vigilant, thereafter I did about 12 hours training with a family friend on the C152 (an ex-RAF instructor - some of the best flight training I’ve ever had!) and my PPL was split between the C152 and the PA28. My biggest challenge? That’s a good question haha. I think in terms of the PPL itself, the trickiest stage was transitioning through to the first navigation exercises. My first flight school wasn’t particularly great, so I think I went into the whole exercise somewhat unprepared, but certainly the complexity ramps up quite a bit (with navigation, radio calls, airspace awareness etc) and it’s quite easy to get behind the aircraft at that point. As with most things though, it did become easier with practice. Without a doubt though, the PPL also provided me with my most memorable flying moment - there is absolutely no feeling like completing your first solo! ; )
Best of luck with it all and let me know how you get on! Cheers : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Sure will and thanks for the response!
Love me some ITBS videos too.
It's good to see people chase their dreams, keep at that flight training! Maybe it will lead to something cool and rewarding like education for the aerospace industry?
Now off my old guy soapbox and on to my DCS soapbox. Definitely get into DCS, it's a different sim experience than MSFS. DCS has plenty of warts - it's an old codebase and it's complicated for developers to work with. But the aircraft are modelled with obsessive attention to detail and in my opinion as some nerd that's never flown a plane, the feeling of flight is incomparable.
DCS is free (with 2 not so useful planes and 2 maps) and while I am not a fan of the non-clickable Si-25T that comes with it, the TF-51 will blow your mind if your only experience with a warbird is MSFS. If you enjoy it, hop on the Hoggit discord and ask some questions. Generally it's a really friendly and helpful community. Go slowly, pick a plane you're interested in, plus the Syria map, dig in. A big part of DCS is "the fun is in the learning" and you will spend lots of time learning. Learning procedures. Learning history. Learning tactics. Learning about the aircraft and its systems. It's a real deep rabbit hole.
There's also the incredible community A-4 mod, the UH-60 mod, the OV-10 mod, and now a brand new SK-60 mod! So while you won't find tons of online opportunities to use those, they're great to have and show how dedicated the community is.
As a note......The "Have Donut" Fishbed was a MiG-21F-13...not a Bis
Indeed Shisa: My intent was just to use the Project Have Donut findings as an interesting background story though, rather than the video being an in-depth technical analysis.
I hope that clarifies things. All the best : )
For Military jets only DCS - you should give the F16 a spin ;-)
Hi Joni,
The DCS experience is certainly a cut above for these sorts of jets. It’s a bit of an old vid now, but I did actually fly the F-16 previously on the channel: ua-cam.com/video/eDmJM1TxXlE/v-deo.html
I’m sure I’ll take the Viper out for an updated flight at some point though ; )
Cheers!
Yep!
Haha! Very concise, but I largely agree ; )
glanced at the thumbnail and thought it was a lightning for a second 😂
Thats a DCS module I'd love to see.
Haha, I saw the fake Lightning paint scheme and couldn’t resist! ; )
Likewise Biker Guy - very much so!
Sorry, but I need to set my MSFS up to get better results... I guess I saw part of a chapter in your channel where you recommend some settings you personally use. I tried them and I liked them, however the simulator went misconfigured and now I don-t remember what chapter was it. Can you refresh my mind, please?
Hello Paul,
I don't have any dedicated video on the topic (so it may be someone else's video that you're thinking of), but if it's of any use, my settings are as follows:
- “High End” preset
- Pre-Cache = Ultra
- Terrain and Object visibility sliders set at 125% (sorry, I forget the actual names of them)
- Motion Blur = Off
- Glass Cockpit Refresh = Medium
- AI Traffic = Off
- VSync = On / 60fps
That gives a nice balance between graphics and performance. I only run at 1080p. The things I’ve turned off / down are known to be famerate hogs.
I hope that helps a little. All the best! : )
I’m working with a developer in DCS, and I’d be curious to get you involved with one of our products. What’s the best way to get ahold of you?
@@IntotheBlueSimulations thank you. I’ve copied the message and you may delete it now if you’d like.
Edit: I’ve fired you off an email. :)
How did an 'Area 51 context' ended up for this video? 😮
Haha! My channel is clearly under surveillance by the MiB XD
I think the content banner is there because, I dared to mention “Groom Lake” in the video title (UA-cam / Google, getting a bit overly sensitive!).
All the best : )
mate what are your specs the graphics are gorgeous
Hi Flashbang,
My PC specs are in the video description. As far as my graphical settings go, a little bit tricky to list everything here, but I have most settings on "High", with MSAA set at 2X, SSAA at 1.5, SSLR and SSAO both on and Anisotropic filtering at 8X. I only run the sim at 1080p, hence the fairly decent framerates / smoothness.
I hope that helps a little. All the best! : )
Keep the DCS stuff coming. BMS too, maybe?
Cheers GB, I shall look to do exactly that! BMS would be an interesting one, but sadly I simply don't have the time to study the sim to the sort of depth that would be required.
All the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations thanks happy new year!
Cheers! and the same to you : )
Flight dynamics modelling has to be evaluated on certain aircraft types. I dunno what Mig is available for MSFS. And as in DCS you can use the sim model, or you can program your high fidelity one and exclude use of the sim's generic flight dynamics modelling pattern (which is astonishingly precise). Also the generic helicopter model of MSFS in my view has become more realistic than that of DCS Huey. What DCS offers is the systems modelling, in particular the tactical use of weaponry, which is irrelevant to MSFS up to now - or as long as vr simulations has not migrated their tacpack of P3D to MSFS.
DCS' Huey is pretty inaccurate, and the Gazelle is horrible, not correlating at any point in anything. If they put any real effort into the MSFS model it should be better.
Nothing beats a correlated semi-empiric model, but those too are only as good as the inputs put into them. The models in DCS content might be fine in terms of fundamental physics modeling (some small inaccuracies/exclusions there too), but their parameters are not going to be as good as something like BMS or a professional sim. Sometimes the systems modeling is very simplified too although it's getting better and better and is relatively fair in most models.
From the perspective of a (car) sim developer, DCS took the path of relatively higher output accuracy, making models more geared for professional hardware, which ends up with them feeling a bit twitchy and difficult with consumer gear. I have the same issue with my car models. Part of it is just modeling issues, but a lot of it is hardware inadequacies. These planes have typically 10* more stick force and many times longer throws and levers on the stick than sim hardware does. This factor is not trivial when evaluating pilot-in-the-loop outputs.
The MSFS heli FM is missing so much that makes a helicopter - the actual competition there is going to be XP12 which is rough aa hell but still already way ahead. The Huey is kinda rough now but still does a better job than MFS, unfortunately - had some hope it was goung to be ok, but its bardly there.
Hi Hangar4,
Indeed; obviously you want to be comparing apples with apples, as best as possible (it’s likely never going to be a perfect comparison). There is a MiG-21 BIS available for MSFS also and that’s what I was using for comparison (ideally you’d want the same addon, done by the same developer, so the IFE MB-339 could be interesting in that regard). I just wanted to compare the two MiGs for the sake of interest though, the video wasn’t intended to be anything too serious.
That’s interesting regarding the rotary physics in both sim’s; I have no real-world helicopter experience, but I would have guessed that DCS was closer to reality. It definitely surprises me that you feel otherwise, but that’s certainly not to say that that you’re wrong. . .
Cheers, all the best! : )
I’m not at all surprised by the Gazelle Arch haha, but I am surprised by people’s comments on the Huey. I don’t have any rotary experience, but I’d always imagined that the Huey did a pretty good job of simulating a rotary aircraft - interesting. . .
I’ve heard very mixed opinions regarding MSFS’ helicopter physics; they “feel” a little bit lacklustre to me (again, an uneducated opinion mind you haha) but I’m sure 3rd party devs will build on the default modelling and that we’ll see helicopters with higher fidelity in due course.
Cheers, all the best! : )
You review the hawk t1 I flew the Mig15 17 irl.. I can tell you the FS2020 t1 FM is horrible..
Hello GOZR,
Well, thanks for the feedback. As I mentioned during my review of the T1, I can only make guesses regarding the flight model of the aircraft, not having flown anything similar myself. I did point out some weaknesses during my review and Just Flight themselves stated that the flight model was lacking in some areas (due to limitations of the sim). MSFS flight modelling has come a pretty long way since the T1 was released though, so perhaps it’s time for another update to the Hawk.
Cheers, all the best : )
Will you try the new longitude beta?
Hi Jens,
I do intend to record a video with the Longitude (it looks great), however I’m not part of the MSFS beta branch, so I’ll be waiting until the updates make it into the core sim : )
Cheers!
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Great! Looking forward to that!
One day we will get great in depth aircraft, great flight models, great weather, and fantastic detailed scenery in one flight sim 🤔
Haha, hopefully one day Peter! I think we are edging closer towards that “perfect” sim; DCS just needs to up the quality of its maps, whilst MSFS needs to work on its flight modelling - more likely that we’ll see bigger gains in the latter I would have thought.
Cheers and Merry Christmas (once again)!
So for me the question is are the dynamic and other advantages of the DCS plane due to the model in DCS or the extra homework performed by the plane developer… or is Microsoft inherently not able to carry across those dynamic differences. It’s one thing to manually write a quirk into the flight behavior but ideally you want the simulation to replicate the quirk on its own with physics
Not really. You won't replicate exact performance that way, you need to do everything manually to get close to real life. It's a better method only if no real life performance data is available. MiG-21 has plenty.
Home computers can't run real time CFD. So no.
@@mro9466 ok. Thanks. Plus the atmospheric variables are not as chaotic and granular
@@mro9466 they can and they do right now in MSFS. What they can’t do is complex CFD, but the complexity of CFD simulation is massively variable, the CFD in MSFD is just very, very simple.
@@delayed_control An aircraft-reference force based aeromap is superior to scripting things like turn rates or whatever. I'm fairly sure all serious sims are like that.
if you want combat and HIGHLY detailed fighter aircraft, DCS is your sim, if you want a relaxing flight experience and a whole world to fly around, MSFS is your sim.
Exactly Jake! Each sim has its own strengths and enjoy both of them for the reasons you’ve just mentioned : )
Cheers, all the best!
There was a long-standing error in the flight model of this aircraft. I don't know if it still exists because I decided only to trial it after what I found about a year ago, but I highly doubt it.
If you push your AoA too far at high speed, the first response is an immediate change of yaw rate. Yes, yaw rate, not yaw moment due to separation. It results in a motion that is completely unrealistic, like a kick in the nose, one that would realistically destroy the aircraft in an instant. If uncertain and want to see how it's a mistake more clearly, it has to be done while the sim is in very slow motion to really see it. When I see people hit this threshold in multiplayer, the result is hilarious. They spaz across the sky like a teleporting dead fish.
Regardless of the rest of the module's quality, I couldn't bring myself to buy something with such glaring and easy to fix error resting for so long. I'm ok with a few inaccuracies here and there, but missing fundamental flight modeling concepts is no good. It's like missing the backward shifting center of lift at low speeds. FC3 aircraft like the Flanker have this issue, and for a while, so did the F16. Fly anything deemed "unstable" too slow and they would just tail slide their way to the ground. Again, easy fix but never attempted. Well, cept for the f16 like I said.
Have you ever developed a dynamic sim model? It's not necessarily as easy as you think. If you start messing with the parameters you will invariably cause an inaccuracy in other areas. Just look how much trouble ED is having with the F-16C.
@@ArchOfficial Yes I have, and not just "simulated" models. I remember the first one I ever worked on took me over 8 months to complete for a project pitched as an A-10 replacement. After building up quite a toolset of my own, it's very much as easy as I think it is. It's especially easy to fix when someone who knows exactly what's wrong tells you exactly what's wrong. It's how I make my living.
@@leggomypotato1484 Cool, I guess the models are easy to work with. I'm more of a ground vehicle guy and aero is not the least bit simple, although mainly due to having also an effect on kinetics. In a plane sim that's kind of only relevant for takeoff/touchdown. Maybe things like CoP changes are completely trivial in a free-flow state.
I'm not sure what you mean with "simulated" in quotation marks. Does such a thing as a "real" model exist?
The problem I could easily see happening is when you change a steady-state output and it ends up affecting transient outputs. If you're only looking at steady-state outputs in a narrow envelope then sure, parametrized aeromaps are fairly non-volatile to work with. However I would not look down on the demands of a quality correlation job.
Your superior(s) seem to know what's up, though, so good for you. I know what you mean, I have a few very good engineers on a first name basis who basically do my work for me lol.
@@ArchOfficial "simulated" as opposed to something employed on a physical prototype that actually flies. In those cases, it can be almost triple the mess building observer logic.
The transient output is exactly where I suggest the DCS Mig21 has an error. In a simplified model, I expect a lift separation on a wing to produce a yaw moment impulse (among other transients). That impulse then gets integrated into yaw rate. Normally that rate wouldn't take any impulse at all in a 2nd order system. Somehow, that doesn't appear to be the case and impulse is being sent straight to yaw rate because it can instantly go from 0 degrees per second to like 50, then gets immediately damped. It kicks, but only occurs due to that one condition. It's like they either put a component the wrong equation or scaled it with a ridiculously large number. I don't suspect the latter.
@@leggomypotato1484 If they're using an entirely proprietary model they developed themselves (likely) then what you're saying might not be too off. I don't mean custom parameters, rather custom code for the physics logic.
It's not terribly difficult to have, in hindsight, glaring mistakes in your modeling but just not realize them because you never compared correctly.
A bunch of consumer car simulations have straight up wrong equations in the code, so it's not like this stuff doesn't happen regularly.
oh 1 more thing i wish msfs would use is fly by like in dcs.
Yes, agreed Sam - that would be a really nice feature to have!
Very, very interesting. I flew a real MKIX Spitfire a while back ( within strict limits as to what maneuvers I could perform ) and I found that the DCS Spit was really quite OK. The IL2 version was a little better, and the IL2 Blitz model was better in some ways but a little worse in others. I can't remember which developers MKIX I have in MSFS, but that was a pretty poor attempt - it looked fantastic, but it didn't really behave like a Spit.
The elephant in the room for me - and one of the reasons I've finally given up with DCS - is that the AI Mig-21 can turn at 6G or 7G all day long, or at least until it runs out of fuel. It's a UFO.
Don't forget that vertical looping AI F-5E!
@@whatsup448 You haven't tried the brand new updated AI then. It's just the same as the old AI, except now the endless loops are in the horizontal plane. They rotated the loops 90 degrees and told everyone what a great step forward in realism they'd made :-))
Well lucky you Colder War!! That must have been amazing, I’m sure (jumping into the back of a T9, is on my “bucket list” undoubtedly). Very interesting to hear your findings, so thanks for sharing them. The A2A Spit is still my favourite, because it has so much character, but I’ve no idea how accurate the flight model is. It’s always a little tricky to judge these things, as hardware, control curves etc all come into play. I am planning on doing something with the DCS Spit at some point and I’m forever meaning to get back into IL2 haha (I’m looking forward to the full Cliffs of Dover update).
The AI is definitely a huge weakness of DCS. I love the sim, but got fed up with the UFO dogfights, the sniper-like accuracy of ground-fire etc. . . A shame to hear that not much has improved with the beta haha.
Cheers and all the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I've got no idea how accurate these flight models are either. I'm just going on 'feel' - I know that I had to torture the bejaysus out of the DCS control throws to get anywhere near something that flew like an aeroplane and that was before I'd ever flown the real thing.
You should fly a T9 - life's short ;)
Have a very good Xmas
Haha, well my wife did offer a T9 flight as my wedding gift (proof if ever I needed it, that I married the right woman! ; )
it’s just a question of actually organising the whole thing (we had a baby not all that long ago, so life is a bit hectic at the moment haha). As you say though, life is short!
Thanks very much. I hope you had a brilliant Christmas / New Years also! All the best for 2023 : )
One day you should share the secret to remembering full checklists and all of the switches precision from memory for us mere mortals. The first times I start a new plane I have to spend like 10 minutes trying to figure out where "gen2 switch" is at hah
Honestly it's just repetition. DCS was always really intimidating for me, but I eventually decided to try in earnest. Used a tablet with "Chucks guides" has really detailed guides for each aircraft with full labeled pictures of all procedures. Just follow the steps in the pictures, and the more you do it you suddenly realize you don't have to look anymore and it just clicks. Really recommend trying it out. If it wasn't for the guides it would have been allot harder for me, as some of the in game training missions get broken with updates or even have wrong information because of changes.
The trick is to not really worry about memorizing and instead keep the manual and (but not or) Chuck's guide handy so you have all the checklists you need, when you need them. Eventually certain procedures will be burned into your memory via repetition but going from checklists is generally better, more consistent, and more realistic (since pilots are expected to do the same thing because memory isn't always perfect).
@@startrekmike Exactly. That’s why they’re called checklists. They are actual lists you read so you DON’T rely on memory.
Chuck’s guides are indeed invaluable Zevin! A brilliant resource : )
Hi Oval,
Haha, that could potentially make for quite an interesting video I suppose.
There’s no secret per se; as the other chaps allude to, its largely just a case of repetition / practice. Most aircraft categories have similar systems architecture, so it’s generally just a question of learning where each system panel resides (and then refining things from there). I’ve always enjoyed learning new aircraft in the sim, so I’ve gotten pretty good at sitting down with an addon and instinctively figuring out how things work, but I’ll generally do a bit of a “dry run” before I record - just to make sure. Checklists are also important; in the civilian world, it’s pretty typical to run through the procedures from memory and then confirm the correct actions have been taken via the checklist, but for less familiar addons, I tend to run the checklist in parallel (as an aide memoir).
I hope that helps a little. All the best! : )
This mig is supposed to be a handful. You'd hold on to the ejection handle every time you do any sort of slightly-higher-than-average AOA maneuver, on the off chance a tailwind gust would throw you into a non-consensual, unrecoverable cobra maneuver. No christmas tree, so if something was wrong, all you'd get was the red "problem" light. The engine gets really hot and the cockpit gets well over 40C, because of that. Due to the high position of the fuel tank, you can starve the engine and flame out if you roll hard enough. On landing, you lost sight of the runway if you come in at the recommended angles, which was avoidable by coming in off-azimuth so you could see the runway through the side of the forward canopy segment. The radar was cooled by alcohol. A proper vatnik setup, and an absolute death trap in all stages of flight.
So, the jet had just one or two vices then. . . XD
To be fair, Leatherneck did a really nice job of conveying MiG-21’s “tetchy-ness”. I’m glad I don’t have to put up with a 40C cockpit though!
Cheers for the info. All the best : )
Gigachad: yes, it's that much better.
Just fly the p51 in both DCS and MSFS.
Haha, indeed I would say so M RO.
The P-51 is far from one of MSFS’ best modules to be fair, but there are certainly a number of comparisons that could be interesting. I think the IFE MB-339 would probably make for a good comparison, since it’s the same aircraft, same dev etc (though I gather the flight model of the addon isn’t that great in DCS).
Cheers : )
i find engine sounds are so much better in dcs
Indeed Sam; the entire DCS sound engine is much better than MSFS’. I don’t know whether that’s a weakness of 3rd party devs in MSFS - I’m starting to expect it’s more of a weakness of the sim in general. DCS’ sounds are good enough to occasionally give you goosebumps haha.
All the best!
i guess the answer to the title is yes
Haha, pretty much Sesgow. I actually put “yes” in the title originally, but that rather spoils the rest of the video, doesn’t it : P
All the best!
I'm going to guess you to took into consideration the fact that the MiG-21 tested was a MiG-21F-13, literally the first mass produced version.
Hi Miguel,
It has been pointed out, but I used Project Have Donut as more of an interesting story arc, as opposed to any sort of highly detailed testing schedule. Most of the tests I ran, should have been broadly applicable between one variant and the other and certainly in comparing the MSFS vs DCS MiG, an inaccurate variant becomes somewhat irrelevant.
Cheers for the info though. All the best : )
Wow, that cockpit looks soooo much better than anything I've seen in MSFS.
Do you think MrMisterno? Do you mean in terms of systems, or in terms of graphical fidelity? Certainly the systems fidelity is a cut above most MSFS addons, but graphically I actually prefer the GKS MiG personally (though, not everyone seems to agree with me haha).
All the best : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations I just think the cockpits in DCS have more depth and the shadows look sharper with more realistic looking lighting. The aircraft in DCS just feels like they're built with much more attention to detail whereas in MSFS it's all about quick money.
It was one of the most controversial model to pick up for the testing. You should know, and it’s really sad truth, that for having the very best experience of flight modeling in DCS you should go for models from Eagle Dynamics itself., but not a 3rd parties. I suggest you to check out P-47 or Mosquito, or let’s say F-5 or F-18 and all helicopters besides an awful Gazelle from 3rdParties. Being myself a pilot with backgrounds of a lot of types of airplanes and few helicopters, I really enjoying flying DCS in VR with powerful custom made FFB joysticks (up to 30 lbs of force). DCS is not 100% true live accurate but it’s far more advanced than any other sim out there. I can’t even force myself to be flying in this modern fancy MSFS2020 you’re spending so much time in)!
Hi JFI,
Indeed, I wasn’t aware ahead of time, that the MiG has so many detractors. Obviously the point was to compare like for like, so there wasn’t any other choice to be made really, but I may well make some similar comparison videos going forward (certainly I’ll be making some more content with DCS). The Leatherneck MiG may not be the best DCS module, but it still clearly performed more accurately than the GKS MiG. I’ve spent quite a bit of time in DCS over the years, in a number of modules (the F-5 being one of my favourite), but had yet to try the MiG-21 up until this video. No sim is 100% accurate of course, but I agree that DCS gets it closest for the most part - I disagree about the enjoyment factor of MSFS though haha ; )
Thanks for your thoughts! All the best : )
I was just discussing this a few days ago, all but maybe a few of the MSFS fast jets really have a bad/mediocre flight model, which is a shame. I think I'd be prepared to pay 50/60€ for a MSFS fast jet with a DCS-like flight model. I'm not a pilot so I might say something stupid, but the airplanes in DCS feel much more "natural" in the way they handle, while MSFS feels more "artificial".
I really wish you could do this same comparison with the DCS Harrier vs the DCD MSFS Harrier.
Hi Federico,
Yes, MSFS still has its flight modelling deficiencies and the fast jets tend to suffer the most from the sim’s shortcomings. Certainly DCS is still the much better choice for these sorts of aircraft (if the limitations of the sim’s maps, doesn’t bother the user). I’d love to see this sort of fidelity in MSFS but to be fair, DCS has had a lot of time to refine its flight model - hopefully MSFS will do so in due course also.
I’ll almost certainly take a look at the DCS Harrier at some point; I may or may not compare it with the MSFS version : )
Cheers and all the best!
The MiG 21 is an old module and it's not a good comparison - check out the F-14, 16, 18 for a modern DCS experience
Hi BTR,
Well, the addon was a good comparison, given that I was comparing it with another MiG-21 haha, but sure, there are certainly better modules available in the sim ; )
I really enjoy DCS and since there seems to be some appetite for the sim on the channel, I’m sure I’ll take a look at other modules in due course (I have covered the F-16 previously).
Cheers and all the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations Cheers and happy holidays!!
MiG-21 is really not a good example, the module is 3rd party has really troubled development, try some of the in house ED modules.
Hi SV,
Well, the point was to compare the aircraft with the MSFS MiG-21, so there wasn’t really any other option haha (and the Leatherneck MiG still compared favourably overall). I very much enjoyed my outing in DCS though and there seems to be some appetite for more DCS content on the channel, so I’m sure I’ll cover other modules in due course : )
Cheers!
Oh lordy, I hope you haven’t opened up a big can of worms for yourself comparing flight models/planes/sims! 😉
For what it’s worth I’m convinced that most (not all) of the ‘which has the best flight model’ arguments you see are made by simmers with 1- no real world flying experience and therefore 2- no idea how a particular type would feel to fly. It’s an easy trap for people to fall into of course to get 200 hrs in your MSFS logbook on 15 different types and think they could just jump in a real plane and fly it. Nope, most of us are not ‘Winkle’ Brown.
Anyone who’s flown RW knows that unlike in desktop simming, flying is a visceral thing where all of your senses are brought into play, you are somewhat ‘connected’ to whatever you are flying. specific aeroplane flight models, especially historic ones, must be a nightmare to refine for the developers. They can only be based on raw data, plus, if you’re lucky, some input from a pilot who’s flown the type, and even then individual experiences may vary.
As well as the technical aspects, you always refer to that ‘feel’ of an aeroplane in your reviews and you are spot on, that’s what really matters, not half a knot difference here or there.
All the best, keep the great reviews coming, and in the words of another popular UA-cam’er… ‘keep the blue side up’.
Haha, it’s all good fun Peter, poking the hornets nest from time to time ; )
I’ve long ago realised, that it doesn’t matter what I say / do, I’ll always end up upsetting someone haha. It’s all just healthy debate at the end of the day though and it was interesting to demonstrate something a little different.
I think you make a lot of good points in your post. Flying and simming are of course two different things and whilst having an addon perform to the numbers is quite a “black and white’ undertaking, “feel” is much more subjective. Piloting a real aircraft can indeed be an assault on the senses, even the mighty C152 took be by surprise when I first flew it haha; the noise, vibration, heat / cold and restricted view, were all things the sim would not have prepared one for, never mind throwing some g forces into the equation. Not to say that all of the above can’t be dealt with of course, it just take some getting used to. . .
I always feel that there are 2 types of simmers - the “pilots” and the “engineers” haha. Some people want an addon to “feel” right (I very much fall into that category) and others are much more interested in the numbers. Both are valid areas of concern of course, but feel is much more open to debate and expectations will vary wildly. Even from one pilot to the next, you’d most likely get two different opinions (and indeed I’ve come across that many times haha). I actually think a big part of “feel” in the sim, comes down to the product’s sound package (I don’t think it’s any accident that A2A uses a lot of sound-based feedback). I wouldn’t pretend that I’m Winkle Brown either haha and there are certain types of aircraft that I have no frame of reference for (the MiG-21 being a prime example), so often all I can do, is make some educated guesses etc. Again though, it’s all good fun! ; )
I hope you had a great Christmas! Thanks very much and all the best : )
Let’s be honest here… MSFS caters more towards the Arcady crowd, where as DCS caters to those who crave absolutely realism. Where perfect means to literally have to train yourself in the cockpit. Why I am in love with DCS. 😎
Hi Erik,
Well, personally I don’t feel the difference between the two sims is quite that “black and white” these days, since the likes of the Fenix A320, Leonardo Maddog etc, are every bit as detailed as a typical DCS module. MSFS does cater to *an* arcade-y crowd, but there are plenty of users who enjoy the sim quite “seriously” also. DCS’ flight modelling is significantly better in many aspects though, as is the sim’s sound engine. DCS is the more “realistic” sim, but has its limitations for any sorts of civilian flying. I very much enjoy both sims, hence the video : )
Cheers and all the best!
the MiG21 is probably the worst FM of DCS
Haha, I’ll take your MiG-21 and raise you the Gazelle? : P
everybody uwu just play dcs. war thunder damage models suck just look at bombers.
bomber’s damage models in dcs: 💀
"Some of the best flight modelling"..... no, at least not when the AI is flying it.
Haha! Well, that’s certainly fair, Leo. The AI kills a lot of the fun in DCS. . .
All the best!
Nop I don’t agree.
Try to proper stall it, you will get only a pre programmed stall behavior. The DCS world flight dynamics are maybe well tuned performance wise, however aerodynamics are not realistic at all.
Hi Meru,
Fair enough; personally I think it very much depends on the aircraft / situation. Both sims have their strengths and weaknesses for sure, but the Leatherneck MiG is said to be one of the weaker DCS flight models and it still significantly outclassed the GKS MiG overall. I don’t have a “dog in the fight” per se though, I very much enjoy both sims for different reasons.
Cheers and all the best : )
I remember back in the MSFS alpha days, a large crowd of DCS folks were hating the MSFS's flight model because it wasn't neutrally stable but instead had actual stability. You know, like real planes. They posted videos from DCS showing them slapping their joysticks instantaneously up or down to produce pitch attitudes of +/- 10^ and the plane would just go there and stay there until they slapped the stick back or forward again. They claimed this was "stable" when it's not, nor realistic, and said MSFS wasn't realistic because an instantaneous perturbation of pitch resulted in the plane returning to its prior state instead of sticking with the transient pitch angle. I myself have never flown DCS but after seeing these videos and hearing these uninformed arguments, I've lost all desire to try it.
What exact plane was being compared? That is a pretty important parameter in this case.
@@ArchOfficial Not really. The DCS fanboys posted videos of P51s and compared these to all planes then in the MSFS alpha, which was FAR from the whole set of even the basic version back then. The important thing here is that the DCS fanboys truly believed that the neutral stability of their P51 was more realistic than the actual stability of MSFS planes, and no amount of evidence to the contrary would convince them otherwise.
Me, with no dog in either fight at that early date, I didn't really care what the DCS fanboys thought. I was turned off by the fact that DCS had neutral stability in its flight model. And that's what made me decide never to fly DCS.
@@TheBullethead P-51D IS neutrally stable in pitch up.
@@ArchOfficial And it, nor any plane, should be. Ever. Aerodynamics just don't work that way. Period. End. Of. Story.
@@TheBullethead What should be and what can be in reality are often a bit different. Do you have experimental data, hands on-experience or a 3rd person account to substantiate your claims? In the car sim world I've run into a lot of cars that break the rules of what "should" be done.
Curious you choose the oldest 3rd party DCS module to criticize the flight modelling. Paid FS2020 shill? DCS blows everything else away.
Haha, you got me, PC! Microsoft has been funneling hush money into my Swiss bank account XD
Genuine question; did you actually watch the video? I agree, DCS trounces MSFS, when it comes to flight modelling etc (I'm pretty sure I said as much). The reason I went with the MiG-21 specifically, is because (as stated during the video) I was drawing a direct comparison with the MiG-21 in MSFS.
I hope that clarifies things. All the best
The GKS mig 21 is just a horrible module with an outrageous price. Do not buy it.
Did I give you an idea? ;)
Haha, well I did actually record this video right after the GKS MiG review Affe, but suggestions are certainly always welcome ; )
I cannot stand anymore DCS .. I flew it since lockon day 1 .. the FM of the aircraft as performances are good.. as for flight all aircraft feels suspended in mid air with absolutely no atmospheric physics .. in FS2020 we feel teh flight .. in DCS it's a sterile world. Il2 is even better then DCS on that matter
On the airspeed indicator, shouldn't there not be two hands? as opposed to the single hand?
I don’t believe so, Rusty. I’m not all that familiar with the MiG-21 specifically, but most aircraft just have the single needle on the airspeed indicator (perhaps you’re thinking of the max Mach limit indicator? I’m not sure whether the MiG has one of those).
Sorry I can’t be of more help on that one. All the best! : )
@@IntotheBlueSimulations No thats' fine, I thought it would work the same way as the Alt meter, in that the thousands are read off the smaller hand and the hundreds on the larger hand, but I don't know much about the gauges to begin with, hence the silly question lol
Haha, well not a silly question but yes, the airspeed indicator (generally) reads somewhat differently ; )
Cheers!
Some chill flying in DCS will be great :)
Compared to what?
Hi Jon,
The intent of the video, was to compare the Leatherneck MiG with the MSFS GKS MiG. I recorded a review of the GKS MiG-21 a short while back and a lot of people pointed out how much better DCS is for these sorts of addons. So, I thought why not compare the 2 aircraft a little. . .
I hope that clarifies things. All the best : )