bkthunder

I agree, but I think they should be held accountable for selling a product that was never finished. In most industries this is a breach of contract. We should start to take these things more seriously if we want to encourage more quality in 3rd party offerings. These are actual registered companies, and should be held accountable for what they sell, just as anybody else does. Voting with our wallets is one thing, but if you're advertising something as "the most realistic etc..." and then produce a beta that never gets finished, a refund is in order. We have not bought into a kickstarter campaign, where you bet on a project knowing that your money could be lost / wasted. We bought an early access product that by all means should have been finalized. This kind of business practice really stinks.

Great info! Thanks! And the model looks fantastic, if you ever make a fully fledged DCS module out of it, I'll definitely buy it. The best aerobatic team deserves a DCS representation :thumbup:

Thanks for confirming this, CptSmiley! :thumbup::thumbup:

What does the rotary on the throttle do? Is it for the gunsight distance control?

+1.000.000.000

Well, that's not true. SAS on or off makes no difference, and if the SAS was really compensating, the ailerons would move when applying rudder, to counteract the roll, which is not the case. P.S. I am not criticizing, I am simply reporting things in case Razbam aren't aware of them. I love this module and want to see it rendered properly in the FM department. I know Razbam can do a good job here, and I hope they will simulate the nuances of this awesome aircraft!

I have the manual. Again, it speaks about stability, not roll rate vs. pitch rate The closest I found to my question is in 11.8.18.2. RCS and 11.9.1.1 BLEED USAGE. To sum it up: the RCS controls use bleed air. Using more than one axis at a time (e.g. pitch and roll), will use up more bleed air, making all axles less responsive. Only when the aircaft is at low gross weight (and especially Radar Harriers and double-seaters), the CG is so far forward that the nose RCS nozzle has to stay open constantly to keep the nose up, thus reducing bleed air avilability for the other axles. However this is mainly evident on Radar versions and in hot weather. Again, no word (so far) about differences in pitch rate compared to roll rate.

With the current FM, rudder usage (and subsequent side-slip) doesn't produce any roll moment. This is not correct, according to the Natops Manual A1-AV8BB-NFM000 11.4.5.1 [...]

A module whose glaring bugs are left untouched for years is, in my view, unsupported. Don't forget this is still a beta, and it's currently their only product, so no excuse for having no development and bug fixing for such a long time on a product that should've been finalised and polished long ago. This is borderline abandonware and the devs have gone AWOL (except Rudel).

Thanks, but nope, it doesn't. All I am saying is the roll is much faster and sensitive than the pitch, never talked about yaw. WHat you quoted doesn't say anything about a difference in sensitivity and roll rate, compared to pitch rate.

Agree, but in this case it is unrealistic. Yawing always generates a roll in the end, and if you have FBW/CAS etc, you should see the ailerons move to keep the aircraft straight (supposing the FBW logic wants that). In the case of the Harrier, no roll is generated at all, with CAS on or not. Anyways let's stay OT please, we can open a new thread regarding the rudder. EDIT: thread about rudder opened here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=202958

I also noticed the unrealistic behavior of the rudder, but to be fair the Mirage has come a long way in the FM department, so I hope the same happens for the Harrier. At least Razbam has been very open and receptive of feedback in the past, hopefulyl they'll keep the same attitude with the Harrier :music_whistling:

I wonder if there is actually anybody left at M3 except Rudel...

See screenshot taken during a crosswind approach. The engine smoke trails also have the same issue, making it look like the aircraft is in a constant side-slip.

So can we call this a bug then?

The average GPU load in every other situation hardly exceeds 60%, so no, DCS is not filling my GPU all the time. I did some more testing, and with terrain shadows set to FLAT, in the middle of the forest, there is hardly any noticeable performance drop. In fact the GPU load is ~75% with shadows on flat. Some people were indicating MSAA as being the culprit for the low performance in highly dense forest areas, but in my case MSAA on or off didn't make much difference, while the shadows seems to have a tremendous impact. Since I have a fairly modern PC (and also a common configuration i7 7700K + GTX 1080), I doubt it is a matter of bottlenecks or low specs. DCS runs brilliantly considering the incredible gfx quality of 2.5, it would be great if performance regarding shadows and trees were improved to have a fully consistent experience :thumbup:

Wish I could get my money back, haven't used the MiG-21 in ages because of the subpar modeling of pretty much everything except the 3d model and textures.

I just did a test by placing a free camera (F-11 view) in the middle of a forest, and couldn't get past 45-46 FPS (no units moving, single player, no AI). The GPU load was 99% all the time, CPU load about 15%. This is with the following settings: Visibility Ultra MSAA 2x Deferred shading ON Shadows Default everything else maxed out. GTX1080 and i7 7700K at stock speed, 16 Gb DDR4. It seems there is something with the highest LOD of the trees that really brings the system to its knees, and no amount of overclocking makes a difference. Moving a few dozens feet higher, FPS go back to 60 (locked)

In my case, I tested with 0 wind on a stationary pad. According to Natops, Hover stop is 82 +/- 1 degree. It also says, the hover stop is made so the jet hovers with the nose wheel slightly higher than the main gear. In my testing, at 82 degrees and witch hat on the horizon, the aircraft goes backwards. From external view, witch hat on the horizon, the nose gear is slightly higher than the main gear, which seems accurate. I think the witch hat is more or less ok, but the nozzles are not (meaning they are pointing forward, instead of being perfectly vertical) EDIT: just done some more testing: I can maintain a perfect hover with nozzles at 80 degrees. Something seems a bit off, in that at 82 degrees and hat on the horizon, the nozzles are pointing slightly backwards, yet the plane fly backwards.... at 80 degrees, the nozzles are even more backwards, and the plane shoudl fly forward, but it stands still. Maybe the actual thrust vector doesn't match the visuals of the 3d model and the gauges??

Hi, I have a question which I couldn't find a straight answer for, in any manual: I gather the Hover stop is 82 degrees. However, at 82 degrees, if I keep the witches hat on the horizon (as prescribed on the Natops, and a seen in some YT videos), the aircraft starts to fly backwards. The question is, should I keep the withces hat lower than the horizon, or rotate the nozzles forward a bit?

when hovering, the roll axis is very sensitive, but the pitch axis is quite the opposite, it takes a big deflection of the stick to obtain a reaction. If this is realistic, then be it, but it seems a bit suspect.

I hope that whine will be included in the final version :thumbup:

The ailerons seem pivoted on a slightly wrong axis, when fully extened (up or down) they intersect the wing

After further testing, the rolling forward seems to depend, to a certain extent, on the landing attitude (keeping witch hat on the horizon is the ideal landing attitude), but there is no doubt in my testing, that unless I wait 3-5 seconds, the aircraft tends to roll fwd when I set nozzles to 0. On top of that, you can listen to the sound of the harrier in DCS compared to the real one, and see that the real one reaches idle more quickly. I don't think it's there's a dramatic discrepancy, but IMO it's definitely there.

Thanks for the clarification, if blast damage is modeled I guess, as you say, it's the lack of visual representation that tricks people (or me at least). In any case, I still find it hard to believe that a Mk-82 exploding so close to a tank causes no damage at all (see screenshots, I tested several distances, health bar at 100% all the time).