TurboHog

I am quite sure that the chart assumes non-afb use It is SOP to turn off the afb after reaching 600km/h Fuel consumption for the climb-out is ~425L in clean configuration. With use of the afterburner you will consume much more. I will try to find more evidence for this. I am quite sure - not sure.

I have consolidated all posts that contain tested data in the first post in this thread to make it easier for the devs to retrieve the information. I will update the first post if new test results are posted.

We're talking about climbing without afb. Based on Tango's climb test, I would say that the DCS Mig's performance is way outside any reasonable margin of error. Of course these charts are only guidelines and maybe some of them are calculated results instead of tested results. However, the results differ significantly from the charts and to such an extent that I can safely say that the flight performance is unrealistic. I may sound a little rough sometimes, arguing about what I think is wrong with the FM. But I really appreciate the work that got into this module and I hope that this is seen as help and not as my way of expressing frustrations about the FM.

According to the climb performance charts in the same manual that I have used earlier: Climb-out to 7000m in clean configuration and in ISA conditions takes 4 minutes and 10 seconds instead of 12 mins 20 sec Manual does not explicitly state that this is with or without the use of afterburner. However, since it is SOP that the afb is turned of at 600 km/h after takeoff, I would say that the chart is for non-afb use. @Tango - I agree that this indicates a serious lack of thrust, even at low altitudes.

Don't think you can ever reach Mach 2.05 in DCS at 13000m with the current FM even if you fly without stores and 1000L fuel. EDIT1: I was able to reach Mach 2.05. After 12 minutes (starting at 13km and already flying mach 1.2). Burnt almost all fuel. In other words: you will never be able to reach it in a mission that starts on the ground because you will run out of fuel during your 15 minute full afterburner effort to reach mach 2.05. 870 km/h IAS on climb? Let's see if that is possible while maintaining a reasonable vertical speed... EDIT2: Looks like a good climb rate at 870 km/h IAS. But you want to reach it with afterburner or it will take ages. EDIT3: oops. TAS, not IAS. Disregard the above. So far all reports indicate a serious thrust/drag issue.

From the 'Method' section in the 2nd post. Please read the 2nd post if you haven't done so already.

In my second more accurate experiment I flew with a weight of 18500lbs. Because the table assumes average weight I took 60% fuel. (Read the 'Method' section) On full military power I'm right at the boundry of being able to fly 530 km/h IAS or not on full throttle. This thing is supposed to be able to cruise at even higher altitudes, which is impossible without help of the afb. Try to cruise at 40K ft, two missiles. See what happens.

So apart from the fuel consumption differences, the current FM implies that the maximum economic cruise altitude is 10000m. Because above that altitude, any throttle setting with the exception of afterburner will make you lose speed and will let you stall eventually. Or are you supposed to cruise with the afb turned on above 10km altitude, thereby consuming all your fuel in less than an hour?

All info in 1st post now ^

I have experienced the same. Sometimes it 'bounces me into a roll of up to 15 degrees' right after my main wheels leave the runway.

I'd like to nominate: Cukier - Awesome Polish guy Dojo - Awesome American guy SHaDoW STeP BG - Awesome Bulgarian guy

Interesting result. I will try the same situation tomorrow and compare it to my test. So I think that with the two missiles in your experiment you were just able to cruise without afterburner. Flying with a loadout that causes a little more drag and/or is slightly heavier, you will be forced to use the afterburner in order to maintain the maximum range/endurance speed, thereby causing the large discrepancy between the chart and DCS (because the chart does not assume the use of afterburner during cruise). So maybe the inaccuracy of the flight model is not as large as I think it is, merely because of the sharp transition (in terms of fuel flow) between normal throttle and afterburner range. You just need to make sure that with a loadout that [as per the recommendations in the manual] allows cruising at a certain altitude, you do not need the afterburner to achieve a good cruise speed (like max range/endurance cruise speed) I have no idea how the FM works, but I would say that either: Thrust is too low at a given throttle setting or There is too much drag (entire airframe or due to certain attachments) Because you should be able to cruise at, let say, 40000 feet with two missiles and one 490L drop tank. Or am I overestimating the Mig-21's performance? At the moment, you will be forced to use the afterburner to prevent a stall if you are trying to cruise at 40000ft with said loadout.

The situation I tried to replicate in my experiment is inside the red box.

It's the 130mb manual that was on Beczl's site. Don't you have it in your posession already? Because the limitation section in the DCS flight manual is nearly identical to the one found in this pilot's manual. I can upload it to dropbox tomorrow. For details about my experiment, follow the link I posted.

Talking about radio-related bugs: I don't receive RSBN morse codes in Radio mode. Only in Compass mode. Haven't tried ARK Antenna/Compass mode, but could be subject to the same bug. Or am I doing it wrong?

I posted in the bugs&problems section about this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=130722 I compared the cruise performance to the pilot's manual (from the real Mig-21bis) and found a major cruise performance discrepancy.

I first noticed the problem in the following situation: 2 x R3R and 2 x R3S and an empty 800L tank on the center pylon, weight around 21000lbs Impossible to cruise at 36000 feet at full throttle (no afterburner). Speed Cruise performance nowhere near the data found in the real pilot's manual (the one I got from Beczl's site two years ago) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I did some more testing today to give you a better idea of what is possibly wrong with the flight model. Please use the chart at the end of this post. I have compared all situations at 5000m and 10000m that are in this chart. Method Tests were conducted in an international standard atmosphere (ISA). In terms of temperature and pressure that is: 15 degrees Celsius at sea level and an air pressure of 1013.2 hPa (=QNH=QFF). Provided that the temperature and pressure lapse rates are correctly modelled in the DCSW atmosphere, this should give me the most neutral atmospheric conditions. Of course there was no wind either. I tried to give the aircraft an average weight by conducting the test phase at around 60% of internal fuel. IAS was kept constant at the given maximum range speed. I closely monitored IAS, fuel and elapsed time in order to measure the amount of time it takes for 200L fuel to be consumed. Color codes: < 10% error > 10% error Extremely large error Results 5000m (1) No stores, average weight during measuring phase: 17000lbs --- 200L/6min -> 2000L/hr (2) 2 x R3R, average weight during measuring phase: 17500lbs --- 200L/5.6min -> 2140L/hr (3) 2 x R3R, 490L drop tank, average weight during measuring phase: 18500lbs --- 200L/5.3min -> 2264L/hr (4) 8 x FAB-100, average weight during measuring phase: 19000lbs --- 200L/5.6min -> 2140L/hr 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 Remarks (1), (2) and (3) are within a reasonable margin of error, although all three show a consistent result that is slightly too high. (4) shows a large error compared to real world data. The drag caused by 8 FAB-100's is probably too low. 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. (7) shows that cruise @ maximum range IAS is not possible without afterburner, thereby causing almost a 100% error in fuel flow. CLIMB-OUT TESTS Me and Tango did some extra testing of various situations. Everything is recorded in the tracks (SARPP data). SEE CHART BELOW FOR REAL WORLD DATA. SARPP_DATA_Climbout2xR3R-1x490L.txt: Climb-out to 7000m. Performance spot-on SARPP_DATA_Climboutclean_10000m+cruise.txt: Climb-out to 10000m. Climb profile FULL REHEAT to 600 kph then FULL POWER at 870 kph TAS climb to 10,000 m then FULL POWER cruise in level flight. (unable to maintain good cruise speed at 10000m) SARPP_DATA_2xR3R-1x490L-Climbout+cruise.txt: 10,000 m climb with 2x R-3R missiles and 1x centerline 490L tank. Climb profile same as previous tests. Ends with zoom climb from 7800 m to 10000 m, stalling. Aircraft would not accelerate in level flight at 7800 m, making this the technical ceiling for this payload. 7800m in ~8 mins 12 secs. Should be about 6 mins 30 sec to this altitude (interpolating the table). Flight distance required was 140 km; ~78 km according to table Up to 7000m, flight performance seems to be spot-on. However, above 8000m performance starts to show a serious inconsistency with the charts in the manual. Performance already starts to degrade after passing 6000m. SECOND CLIMB-OUT TEST http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2185785&postcount=42 Result: only able to reach 9000m. No consistentcy with charts at all. CRUISE AT 10000M DCS TRACK http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2186075&postcount=97 Result: Cruise impossible with 2 missiles and a 490L drop tank. Should be possible. SARPP_DATA_Climbout2xR3R-1x490L.txt SARPP_DATA_Climboutclean_10000m+cruise.txt SARPP_DATA_2xR3R-1x490L-Climbout+cruise.txt

Did see some improvement I think. But FPS is not nearly as good as that of the Mi-8, let alone a less complex cockpit such as in the Huey...

Thank you guys. I have been following the development of the Mig-21 from the very beginning back in early 2012. Backed the project as soon as indiegogo campaign started. My patience has been rewarded. After all you have been through, you have released a flight simmers' dream. :thumbup:

Glad to see that LN is working on it! In the meanwhile I can read the manual ;)

Thrusmaster T16000 Hall's sensors but not on the twist. ever since I started using it two years ago it has been performing flawlessly. No jittering - never. I'm only using the throttle in the Huey as throttle (so basicly I leave it untouched) or for wheel brakes in planes. So can't comment on that. I have been using the twist handle for a year and never had problems. Now I've got rudder pedals. It is perfect for helicopter control (and AAR :D) due to the long throw and slightly weak spring. This makes for very accurate control around the center (small adjustments). In regards to your last point, this somewhat weak spring fits just that requirement. It moves away from center in a fluid motion. Funny thing is that I came from a 3D Pro. Never want to go back. If this one breaks, I will buy another one. [*]No potentiometer sensors for pitch and roll axis - check [*]Inclusion of a yaw/rudder twist axis on the stick, also known as the Z axis - see edit below - check [*]Preferably no potentiometers on the yaw/rudder Z (stick twist) axis - see edit below - nope [*]Hall Effect magnetic sensors are a good alternative to potentiometer sensors - Indeed [*]Preferably no potentiometers for the throttle - nope [*]HOTAS joystick arrangement - Not really [*]Minimal deadzone or no deadzone at all or deadzone adjustment software included - check [*]Upon release of stick, it pretty much returns to the exact same position - check [*]Comfortable grip. I had to sand down some sharp edges on my joystick. - matter of taste. I like the feel [*]Easy access to useful buttons - to some degree. there are not too many buttons on the stick itself [*]At least one 8-way hat switch on top of flight stick (for quick 3rd person view changes) - check [*]Long lasting durability - check [*]Base of flight stick is very heavy and is hard to move around, stays in one place - moves around a bit. Better surface may solve problem [*]Highly accurate pitch/roll/yaw sensors. I heard the Thrustmaster T-16000M has very good accuracy. - very accurate indeed [*]There is little "play" when the stick is in the resting position - by this I mean if you push the stick (when it is in the resting upright position) with very little effort and it doesn't move around. If you continue to apply a very small amount of force to the stick in the same direction and then all of a sudden you hit a "wall" - to continue moving the stick in the same direction you would need a much much greater increase in force. The more you can push the stick around with very very little force before you hit "the wall" the more there is "play" to the joystick. One way to test this is if you hold just the base of the flight stick and you tilt it and the flight stick moves with respect to the base (when I want it NOT to move with respect to the base). - T16000 perfectly fits this requirement

Shame it is forbidden in the Netherlands. Think they sometimes do it over the North Sea.

Welcome to your country :music_whistling: (and mine :noexpression:)

I was there on saturday only. Maybe we took the same bus back to the car park :P.