TurboHog

Did this really happen? :thumbup:

Wasn't expecting this after such a short line-up... :joystick:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2189192&postcount=1

Yes. Including vibrations. You will notice that you can gain altitude on translational lift instead of increasing collective.

I was about to report the HSI reversed pointer. Luckily I saw this post first :smartass: Thanks LN! Looking forward to your bigger updates.

I have had limited succes with the Mig-21 in multiplayer so far. I've been doing Air-to-ground mostly. I can at least find targets on the ground by looking outside. Air to air is a different story. I scored one lucky kill against another Mig-21 with an R-60M. In another mission I tracked down two Huey's with the help of GCI. They pretty much gave themselves away by firing the miniguns. I have intercepted a mig-21 with the radar + R3R once. I'm sure I saw a single dash after friend/foe check. It was a great teamkill.

Thanks LN! Looking forward to future patches.

I have added this info to the 1st post, along with my 10000m (2 missiles + tank) cruise test.

10000m is not an absolute boundry. Small differences in weight and atmosphere can move this boundry around this altitude. You are so focused on disproving everything. Instead, do some more interpretation of the data and try to understand what I'm trying to indicate. You completely disregard that in your own track you are cruising at full throttle already at 11000m. You are supposed to be able to do the same thing at higher altitudes. So you could think: 'hey, that's when it starts to become a questionable performance indeed'. Try cruising at 15km altitude, clean. Will it work? You can barely keep your speed with reheat at that altitude. Here is a track. I cruise at 10000m with two missiles and a center 490L fuel tank. I lose speed and eventually the SAU can't hold it anymore and allows the aircraft to descent. This is not supposed to be like this. Mig-21cruise10000m_with_stores.rar

Your track, Viper. We are testing climb-outs without reheat, let alone emergency reheat. So this track is pretty useless for climb-out comparison. As for cruise: - Clean configuration will indeed cruise at 10000m. Nothing new: From post #1 (5) No stores, average weight during measuring phase: 17000lbs --- 200L/7min -> 1714L/hr with added remark In (5) and (6), cruise speed was only maintainable at almost 100% throttle. This means that, even without external stores, cruise above 10000m is not possible without the use of afterburner. With this remark I'm saying that clean config, 10000m is really the boundry between cruising with or without afb, given a constant speed. In bold, which is apparently the only part you have read, it sais ABOVE and not AT 10000m. So we agree and you have not disproved anything. The point is: Go higher or go heavier (= ABOVE 10000m) and you will no longer maintain cruise speed without afb, while you should. Please read more careful to avoid misunderstandings and the endless discussions that follow such as these... ----- In post 1 I say that cruise speed is, indeed maintanable at 10000m. (You blame me of telling otherwise). Tango is talking about climb (not cruise) to 10000m, which is impossible (no reheat and within reasonable limits of the charts). Maybe that caused some confusion.

This discussion is not about one specific example. It is about unrealistic cruise performance in general. 10000m is, as you can tell from post#1, the boundry between afb and non-afb cruise (in order to maintain speed). So yes, you may cruise at 10000m no problem and some may not. The point is that you can't cruise at a much higher altitude or weight than that, while you should be able to. Please do some more interpretation of the results.

Cool. I will analyze your track. Is it within a reasonable margin of error from the climb chart? (~6 minute climb) Isn't it stange by the way that the SARPP reports 90% RPM, while we have almost 100% indicated (needle 1) at full power?

Please read carefully. Only with 2 x R3R and a 490L in the center. With this loadout 10000m is an allowed cruise altitude. Try cruising clean at, say, 45000ft. And please post your version of the SARPP record. I want to compare it to the one I got from the track. 10000m (5) No stores, average weight during measuring phase: 17000lbs --- 200L/7min -> 1714L/hr (6) 2 x R3R, average weight during measuring phase: 17500lbs --- 200L/6.8min -> 1765L/hr (7) 2 x R3R, 490L drop tank, average weight during measuring phase: 18500lbs --- Unable to maintain cruise speed w/o afterburner And you do not find it strange that it took you over 9 minutes to reach 9000m?

Part of the track may be broken as it stopped right before reaching 10000m. Some remarks: It took you 9.1 minutes while travelling 130km to reach 9000m It should take 5 minutes and 50 seconds while travelling 65km Your track confirms the other reports of underpower and bad performance at altitude. I have attached your SARPP track to this post. Could it be that you have an updated version of the FM, since you are a tester? Your description of the track did not quite match what I saw during the play back. You can check by comparing your SARPP with the one I have attached. Should be the same. SARPP_DATA_2014_08_21_21_42.txt

Could you try to reproduce that in DCS? We may also need a better confirmation of the source. I don't think the FM handles like this. Please set 15 degrees celsius and fly clean configuration to keep test conditions identical. Please post your SARPP record afterwards. I thought that you thought this is where EGT was measured. My bad for misunderstanding.

Me and Tango's tests (All in post # 1) were conducted under ISA conditions (International Standard Atmosphere). We only took loadouts that we could find in the cruise/climb charts. Would like to see feedback from the devs indeed.

Exhaust Gas Temperature. Does your mig-21 fly backward? ;)

90.5% is the closest to reheat you can get. Anything above 89% is about full throttle.

Check out the first post. It contains all info, including SARPP records. Were you able to cruise at 43000ft without the afterburner without losing speed?

I was flying the single player test, looked at my nose cone switch. And it was off while I certainly turned it on (but before rearm refuel) Turned it on mid-flight and had good climb performance Thanks for the stupidly simple solution. By the way: My generators stopped working from time to time. It shows how well made this sim is.

Haha you're right! :lol: Disregard first post!

I will discuss that with him. I thought exactly the same thing!

>NOT A BUG/PROBLEM< Solution: Sorry for wasting your time and thanks for the quick reply Philip... SARPP_DATA_2014_08_21_15_40.rar

After talking things over on TS while performing multiple tests, we came up with some new results that combine climb-out and cruise performance. I have added these results at the end of the first post, including the relevant SARPP tracks. Conclusion: There is something wrong with performance at altitudes above ~6000m. However, we can not really put our finger on it.

Wait a minute. We're making a real mess for the devs to make any sense out of this. Tango, can you share the track in which it took 12 mins 20 sec to reach 7200m? I just did my own climb-out test and I was pretty amazed. It took 3 mins 50 sec to reach 7000m (that's 20 seconds faster!), burning almost excatly the amount of fuel as in the chart. No burner except on take-off. Everything is within what I call 'the reasonable margin of error' See attached file. However, the high-altitude cruising issue remains. I think we should focus on that issue. SARPP_DATA_2014_08_21_00_14.txt