Mateo

Hi there, I am in trouble with almost immediate crash at the very few seconds or minutes after mission start. I did the cleanup and repair successfully, unfortunately crash still exist. The 2.5.6 worked well, now updated 2.7 made this trouble. Log attached. dcs.log-20210415-194202.zip dcs.log-20210415-201939.zip

Vertical Scan Mode (keyboard 3) is recommended for dogfights with cannon. If you would rather to improve your skill with Helmet system, try to assign lock button and cannon activation button to your throttle/stick buttons and so you could use it as HOTAS instead of keyboard.

Welcome back After some days of testing and reading all the complains for pitch through over two houndred pages thread for Russian speaking players I have began to wonder about pitch instead of controls settings - I simply have little doubts that even with long precise stick the aircract behave as it is currently presented in DCS. I know that ED team have involved even CFD to have the correct figures for MiG, in general they made good job but... but anyway even CFD could give inaccurate result in some cases - aerodynamics of 17m plane with non-linear characteristics for speed range to Mach 2.5, having LERX wing... is hard to calculate even with best available hardware today. It's clear we cannot solve Navier-Stokes equation to achieve accurate result close to realism. The figures like coefficient of lift + drag + momentum are the basic and it could e achieved by CFD, it has been done right, ED proved it in Russian thread that I mention above. The MiG documentation have it clear what are the numbers of that basic coefficients characteristics and it has been done accurate. Let's talk about things which do not related to basic charateristics of DCS MiG-29, but might be essential to what we feel on stick: - Aerodynamic Stability and control derivatives (it does include damping). Proffessional flight simulators numbers are taken mostly from CFD, manufacturer calculations, and finally - flight data recording of real airplane. Of course there is no parameter to record like 'aerodynamic damping' or some stability derivative, it is made by calculation based on other parameters during specified manouver. The test flight consist of such specific manouvers in order to reveal parameters directly related to our 'stability and control derivatives'. Finally after plenty of records engineers make the simulator, they put the test pilot into it and test pilot says that many things are wrong - and it is normal, it is always like this. Engineers then change the figures and it is clear that the numbers in sim become a bit different that CFD and flight test calculations, but test pilots judgement are satisfactory and simulator might start certification process. To tell long story short - aerodynamic stability and control derivatives are the key numbers for what we feel on stick (disregarding SAU in this case) - SAU itself is a NOT Fly By Wire system, it is directly connected to control system in order to increase damping, change the forces on stick, etc, it has got huge effect on handling qualities and it is extremly difficult to create SAU model in simulator like DCS to let the sim handling be realistic - most of us have the short stick and equal forces disregarding what is happening to aircraft in simulator. DCS MiG-29 might be simply so accurate in numbers that it is impossible to feel it realistic - short stick and equal forces are not what SAU does. - one of polish retired MiG-29 pilot wrote on polish il2forum.pl that such DCS MiG-29 sensitivity is far from real, the real aircraft were very easy to handle, especially on low speed where controls response were much less sensitive then on high speed. So I came back to playing with control settings to involve axis scale and I read about file FMOptionsMiG29.lua which has got only few lines, but allows to increase damping. I've got interested in parameter fuselageMyDampK which is related to damping in pitch, it is problably one of corrective coefficient for Cm_q, which have effect only on aerodynamic short period oscillations. Default value is 0.3. I have played within range of 0.3-70.0. I recommend setting 9.0, also some values between 1-9 might be satisfying for you. It makes a different only in short period oscillations, so it is safe to change it, all characteristics, performance of MiG is intact after change. File is located here: \DCS World\Mods\aircraft\Flaming Cliffs\FM. I do also upload my pitch axis scaled settings, before someone ask about it. If some of you feel the difference after FMOptionsMiG29.lua change, please let me know, I hope it will help for some of pilots with standard joysticks.

For someone who is still keen on axis settings, @Svend_Dellepude noted here that: His solution were to have full virtual deflection when pushed about halfway. I have checked it out and I agree - there is some kind of conflict wih MiG-29 axis scaled 2:1 compared to joystic physical 1:1. You might try Svend method or try artifically move the center a bit in AFT direction and it will make great difference, it will also result in more intuitive take off and landing. One disadventage is trim center also will move AFT. Actually it all depends what price we will pay to be close to realism, someone would rather have more realistic feeling, and someone would rather have more realistic stick position, including trim center. I have tested setting which also include axis scale and I recommend you all to play with it, it will make good effect on feeling the aircraft. Best Regards, Mateo

I have checked it today and I agree. If usuall pilot have a short stick and equal deflection & forces for pushing and pulling from center it will be in conflict wih axis scaled 2:1. I tried to artifically move the center a bit AFT direction and it made great effect in feeling the aircraft, it will also result in more intuitive take off and landing. The only disadventage is trim reset. If we reset the trim, center position will be not at the real center but at the center which is artifically moved backward. It all depends what price we will pay to be close to realism.

Hello, I appreciate that my settings were helpful for some of you. Regarding the ROLL I prefer precision near center and less precision near defclection limit. Simple curvature wasn't so satisfying for me, but I think most of pilots would accept it (at the level about 25). Regarding general aerodynamics of MiG-29 in roll - ED took into account decreasing ailerons/elevons effectivity with increased angle of attack and SAU limitation, anyway if you want to increase roll rate during manouvers, you need to decrease angle of attack. If you are in combat turn at high AOA and want to roll the aircraft, two variants are considerable - lower AOA a bit or simply accept low roll rate. You might notice that if aircraft all trimmers are reset to center aircraft rolls well. Final result/advice: if you move stick on side in order to roll, you need to simultaniously push the stick forward, a little. My roll settings below:

I do use sun filter, anyway I thought there is possibility to change HUD symbology via some lua file. Tthank you for advice anyway.

Hello, Could someone maybe advise if there is a way to darken the HUD in MiG-29 or make it more readable ? I found out that at max brightness of HUD (Ctrl+Shift+H) it is still unreadable on FullHD screen 20". I have already downloaded ClearHUD mod for MiG-29 and it is better but anyway I want to make it darker. There is no any file like material.lua and I am unable to figure out how to change it.

Hi, So without 'slider' a very similar curve shape is available and some of you might try it, but there is one adventage if slider is set to on. I will attach picture what will happen with slider set to off. A more flat curve is something that increase precision, a more vertical curve is somthing that reduces its precision. We want to have hight precision within flight envelope deflection zones - it is range about 0 to 65. I can actually reduce saturation to 65 and it would be ok, but I couldn't reach maximum deflection. If I will use 'user curve' without slider I will achieve much shorter zone of flight envelope and still very ow precision near maximum deflection zone. So I'd rather to use slider and have longer zone with high precission within flight envelope. I still don't give up maximum deflection which is used very rarely and no precission is needed there. You will see difference if you will compare below pictures of slider to off with my previous picture.

Hello there! I would like to share my settings and a way of using it for all fans of MiG-29 who are in troubles due to pitch channel singularity and who are using a short stick like Saitek X52, Saitek Cyborg or Logitech etc. I have spent plenty of hours testing especially take offs and landings with different settings, I found out: during normal flight within envelope, pitch trim is set a bit for AFT ("pulling"), during special circumstances trim setting is FWD or for high AFT setting. when in flight envelope you are pulling the stick over 75% of range, the MiG enters the range over critical AOA, which is rarely used. during inverted flight and afterburner use, stick need to be pushed almost to the limit of FWD range. during landing or rather flare itself, stick need to be pulled in sophisticated manner to almost 'MAX AFT' which is simple to feel in real aircraft, but not so obvious in simulator. I have tested Saitek Cyborg Evo and Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, both gave me soft touchdown, so I share my way to let other's try. FIrst of all that procedure is based on document "Техника пилотирования МиГ-29". For not speaking russian I will translate most important part about landing: [...] At the height of 30...20 m check the speed and aiming point and continue visually glancing ahead and a bit left to judge descend rate visually. At height 10...8 m start flaring and let the aircraft fly horizontally at height 0.5...0.8 m. With following descend and speed drop reduce thrust to IDLE. Touchdown should occur at speed 260 ... 250 km/h and AOA should be 11 degrees. [...] Touchdown with AOA above 13 degrees is forbidden. So the first thing to do it correctly with short stick is to achieve more precision when pulling. I have achieved this by settings that I have uploaded here. Please note that all range of stick movement is available, the trick is that precision is increased within range used for normal flight. Making it with 'Curve' settings only is impossible and will result in much worse effect for short stick use. The second thing is to contribute the pulling with trim action, because it is precise. Below 30 m height, involve few trim up inputs in order to reduce descend rate just a bit. Then both pulling the stick and trimming up might be used to fly the aircraft almost horizontally at height of 0.5 m. The third thing and the last one is to avoid pushing the stick. It can be achieved by pulling the stick by fingertips few times or gently pull once and hold pulled. Never let it move in forward direction too much as it will result in lost of stability on flare, and it will for sure result in hard touchdown with bounce. Wish you soft landings. Best Regards, Mateo

Hello, Could someone advice if currently there are some DCS 1.5 servers online ? I have made clean installation with FC3 and I notice only 1 server online, while running DCS 2.5 I see plenty of it on server list. I've read about this issue and I don't know if this is common problem (with blank server list) or simply everybody went on upgraded version (2.5). I can additionally tell that: - port forwarding works fine - IPv6 turned ON - ipconfig/dnsflush done - autoexec.cfg added line net.force_ipv4_lan = true

I agree that my hardware is outdated, but I think the clue is somewhere else. Nowadays the development of new, more efficient hardware is very fast, people don't want to buy new kit every year. Let's consider something like water in two different DCS versions. Water at High in older DCS compared to water at High in new DCS looks very similar to me. Performance cost is huge. You can say that people have today more powerful kit and developers consider this as a base, but why developers don't improve really the graphics - they produce something new on new engine, and it looks even worse and need more powerful hardware, that is my point. Progress should not mean that new version demand more power but looks worse. I think nobody will complain and many people will appreciate a possibility to turn HDR off and reduce water FPS consumption. If DCS would be stable and work not only on rocket-PC but also eldery it would be the same successful as Grand Thieft Auto V, because it would be the same principle - the more PC handle it, the more people buy it. Best Regards, Mateo

I would like to say my thoughts about performance and I would appreciate if ED would utilize it and take advantage of all conclusions. First of all my hardware isn't new but also isn't so bad: Workstation Dell M6700 Precision, Intel Core i7-3740QM, @ 2.70GHz 2.70GHz, 16GB RAM, Video Card K3000M with 2GB memory. I use DCS 1.5.8 with HDR off, SSAA OFF, Lens effects off, water to low and rest settings to medium (in general), it gives me with good circumstances 50 FPS (medium altitude flying in cockpit) and with bad circumstances about 28-30 FPS (close to city, airports and with some models of aircraft using effects - shoot, flare etc.). When use DCS 2.5 it is like drama even at everything possible to LOW or OFF. I have finally 15-24 FPS, and all DCS looks like LOMAC.. DCS 1.5.8 in this case made everything look magnificent, while 2.5 makes me cry. All I can do is to forget about multiplayer or big single player mission and the beauty of the World. The most interesting thing is that if I play a mission with AI Su-17M4 model (which is the most performance friendly) flying at 10 000 km altitude precisely at the center of Black Sea I have 24 FPS - without terrain rendering, without shooting, just water. Low altitude gives same results. Over terrain I have only 3-6 FPS less so terrain consume just 3 FPS but engine itself and water consume 20+. Conclusion: new engine of DCS 2.5 has got low performace i.a. due to new FPS consuming water and HDR forced to be ON. User should have the possibility to turn it off. Water settings doesn't change anything visually in 2.5. As it is rendered even below terrain it is not surpricing that it should be treated as major factor for performace among various hardwares.