xxJohnxx

Just to clarify, the yellow needles in the center of the KPP? (They are the 'directional needles'.) Or the yellow bars in the outer ring of the KPP? (They are the 'auxiliary PRMG indicators', mirroring the needles on the NPP.) If we are talking about the auxiliary PRMG repeaters, yes the intercept is very slow, because they show the deviation in degrees. If we are talking about the 'directional needles' a intercept might be slow. I would have to test that myself though before making a justified answer ;)

Don't get me wrong, I don't want that either. I would like, as anyone else here, that every aircraft is modelled 100% like the original. However, just because we want something doesn't necessarily mean that we can have it. Or at least not without doing anything. I guess you could get any third party to model nearly anything at 100% realism if you transfer large 6-digits numbers of money to their respective bank accounts. However, as long as no one is doing that, the third parties have to rely on other sources of income. As I tried to illustrate with my example above, this income is very likely not generated by the hard-core simmer, but by less-than-hard-core users. The casual flight-sim guy (not arcarde guy, that still is a couple of steeps down) that wants to shoot some bandits while having a couple of beers. Anything that goes beyond that casual flight-sim guy's zone of interest is a gift from the devs to the hard-core community. Just to name a direct example: The Doppler-nav in the Mi-8. It has been fully implemented by BelsimTek and is working as it should. You can plot a route and enter the results into it and then use the Doppler-nav to navigate accordingly to that route. While being worth a couple of hours of entertainment (just by learning how to use it effectively), yet most of the people don't even know about it, leave alone have ever used it. If you look at it from an economical standpoint: What will your boss say if you spent days of work on a system that only a tiny minority of the users ever will operate? He probably won't be happy, I can tell you that. However, BelsimtTek have gone that far and have implemented it. The users that haver ever spent some time on learning it, have appreciated it. Same goes for LNS. A lot of systems in the MiG are simulated that we normally don't really even notice. Still, they are there, and once upon a time some of us stumble across them and gets enjoyment out of discovering them. Thanks for that to the team! But some things might just aren't justifiable from an ergonomic standpoint. Some of the stuff we might like to complain about, but which no considerable amount of players will ever stumble upon, neither really worry about. (I personally did not know about the maximum IAS limitation until reading this discussion). But just to provide some more statistical proof. 4 months ago I uploaded two videos. One about using the air-to-air missiles, one about using the RSBN navigation system. Both of the videos have been promoted and shared to the same extend, yet the air-to-air missiles tutorial has twice the views of the RSBN video. This shows, at least to me, that people prefer to shoot stuff (and know how to do so) than diving deeper into more advanced levels of simulation. Again, I personally would like a 100% simulation on any flying object out there. But aviation is a niche market and the hardcore-level simulation is a niche market within a niche market inside a bus stop out in nowhere. I respect any dev that takes on the challenge to produce something as close to 100% as possible, because there are sure easier ways to generate income within digital media.

I use the default profile (with some adjustments) within NVIDIA inspector. While I don't get flickering clouds, I get corrupted objects in the mirrors (you can sometimes see the terrain mesh). If I change the 'comparability bits' to anything else the flickering mirrors will be fixed, however the clouds will start to flicker as you mentioned. Just for reference I am running 344.11, because anything newer will give me flickering Windows-Aero surfaces, which is apparently a rare problem, for which I couldn't find any fixes.

This might be true for the hard-core users that regularly discuss on this forum, however it is probably not representing the majority of the users. The users that are not on the forums, that don't really show themselves in the internet and that don't play any multiplayer. The same users the "simple" avionics mode is for. Just look at the numbers. Let's generously assume that this forum has 3000 active users (which it hasn't) of which all bought the MiG (which they didn't) at a price of 50$ (which they didn't (You see where this is going?)) and all of them want maximum realism (which they don't). If that assumption is true you can calculated that the amount of revenue is 150.000$ generated by the hard-core forum user base. This is ignoring that ED, DRM and other costs also take away from that revenue. Now that 150.000$ of revenue is split between 4 people that have been working on the MiG for up to 3 years. If we assume that it has been split evenly (to keep it easy), we would end up with 37.500$ per dev. After subtracting whatever amount of taxes gets applied, we end up with a very low per dev profit for effectively 3 years of work. It should become very apparent by now that the active amount of forum users is probably only making up a very small amount of the actual LNS customers. Orienting a business on the requests on a marginal amount out of the total customers is probably not a good idea. (There are some approaches to fix this problem though, like selling the AFM/PFM or higher realism versions at a higher price, separately, which have the disadvantage of splitting the community within multiplayer games and often also opinion wise.) However, to be fair, LNS is doing a fantastic job at keeping us happy and fulfilling our requests and suggestions. Kudos to them. This is just meant to remember that we are complaining at a very high level now. Often not justifying the harsh tone some apply occasionally (not meant to directly point at anyone. It can and does happen to anyone that a post is written a bit to temperamental). We have to be glad to have what we have now, and we can only look forward to get more. To eventually get more, we might have to consider to be not to needy. :smilewink:

Hi, Just a short question beside the actual discussion: Would there be any possibility we could actually have that? Given that you are in simulation mode and you got "simplified engine management" turned off, I would find it quit fair to get the punishment for taking the aircraft beyond it's structural and technical limit? Not sure how far this is possible within DCS though. I assume the engine will over speed at that high IAS, probably taking a toll on the service life. Kinda hard to simulate within DCS I guess? What about other possible failures of the engine? Or what would be likely structural failures? I assume some parts getting torn of first? Best regards, John

Yes indeed, that is exactly what a limit is. A maximum value after which it can get unsafe. In 99% there is a very big safety margin between the limit and the point where it gets dangerous. In aviation safety margins from 25 to anywhere up to 75% or even more are not uncommon. This still means (as said many times before in this thread) that if you exceed a limit by a relatively small amount, you won't actually get in danger. Not even close most of the times. Also wear and tear plays a big role. You have to account for the fact that for example a tire, that when being brand new can do 500km/h without any problem, might after getting worn down will actually fall apart when doing 450km/h. With a new tire you could easily exceed the limit of 370km/h and go down the runway with 480km/h, you wouldn't even notice, however with the worn down old tire, doing 480km/h might not be so good of an idea. With parts suffering wear and tear it is always a bit of guesswork too. Again with the tire, you don't really know the history of that thing. Did it hit anything or drive over something? Did it block during braking a couple of times? All stuff that engineers normally can't calculate very well. However what you can assume (and test) that if the tire is in a very bad condition it will still be able to do more than the limit of 370km/h. On the other hand, limits like temperatures and wind-speeds during take-off as an example, normally don't even come into play, because often these limits are based on deviation from a normal procedure. As an example would be a engine failure during take-off roll. If the engine fails at 270km/h, just before lift-off with 1000m of runway remaining you might be able to stop, while maybe with only 800m of runway remaining (because less wind, higher temperatures) you might not be able to stop. If the engine wouldn't fail you would just simply take-off, not even noticing that you exceeded a limited that could have had consequences in described emergency. I am not sure what exact results OP is expecting, but directly comparing limits with in-game performance is not going anywhere. You don't know what the guy placing that limit had in mind, as limits can have many many reasons.

Not sure what was to be expected? Do you think the aircraft will instantly implode when there is 2m/s less wind? Do you think the tires explode when you go 371km/h on take-off? Do you think everything will go wrong because a limit is exceeded?

I didn't use any curvature at all at the beginning, but upon reading Novak's post about the curvature being realistic for the MiG I added it as well. I am still confused though why they don't have a curvature normally in there if it is realistic. They thinker with the control inputs anyway (speed dependency on pitch for example) so why don't have the curvature programmed in, and keep the joystick setting on the default linear value?

This thread makes me udderly confused.

I still remember the waves being much more realistic in windy situations a long while back in some version of the standalone. Wondering if that is just my imagination or the water was really better then. Currently the water is quit unimpressive in this regard.

Great work! I will make sure to bring this video up every time is confused with the landing procedures!

We have to be a bit careful though and not draw assumptions too early. Belsimtek is not a 3rd party. While some places might suggest that they are a 3rd party, they are to my current awareness officially an ED Partner, which seems not to be exactly the same (the reason why the MiG-21 was the first 3rd party release. Sauce: click). This might (or might not) mean that Belsimtek has better tools available and that they maybe (or maybe not) have more influence on ED with implementing new stuff necessary for their products, maybe (or maybe not) increasing their development speed over other 3rd parties. Probably a lot to do with legal stuff. We have to be considerate and even if we are all eager to get our hands on new stuff within a reasonable time frame, let's not be too disappointed if it takes longer than we hope to expect. Let's just hope that it doesn't really affect the development of the LNS guys and let's look forward to the new aircraft they hopefully will announce some day. :D Note: This post is not meant to cause any discussion about 3rd party vs. partner. We don't even really know what it exactly means. The message of this post just is that while we can only hope that all the 3rd parties and partners and whoever else is out there working on DCS related stuff can do their work as efficiently as possible, without being hindered by legal stuff, the quick success development rate of one company might not directly relate to the development rate of another company. Just hope for the best though!

The user interface is just fine as is the refuelling and rearming. Go to the 'Advanced Editor' and look for the button "manage attachments" and click on it. A new window opens with three boxes where you can select files. Select the track you want to upload (it has to be either in .trk format). After you selected the file click on the button labeled "Upload". Wait a few seconds and after that you are done.

Yeah, Mach 2.0+ is possible without a problem.

Can you please provide a track? It definitely should work.

Might be that the airport has to be the same side (blue or red). Try to place a fuel truck of the same side (blue or red) on the airfield you intend to land on and try again. Also try to open your canopy before speaking to ground crew.

The nose cone moves to establish optimum airflow to the engine. Also it is there to pre-compress and pre-heat the air before it enters the first stage of the compressor. It will move based on a couple of factors: - Speed: The nose-cone will move it's position depended on speed. If you accelerate from say 300km/h IAS to 1.5 Mach you will see the nose cone extend and retract several times depending on the current speed. This is done that air-intake diameter is optimal and that shock-waves form that allow best airflow. - Angle of Attack: The nose cone will retract and extend depending on the current angle of attack. Again, this is done to allow the engine from stalling / surging. There are also a couple of flaps on the side of the fuselage (just a meter or so behind the nose) that open and close to optimize air-flow and prevent engine surges. Other aircraft (the F-15 for example) have similar systems, where the shape of the intake is changed throughout the flight.

You can refuel and repair anywhere on an airfield, given it is friendly (or neutral?). Press the . (period) key to bring up the rearm menu. Repairing is done by switching off the engine and calling ground crew within the coms menu.

But if you switch of the engine nozzle control you can loose lots of thrust in less than 100% throttle settings. I am not sure why you would want to do it this way. Would be much easier to just set up a custom control curve where you have a short flat zone just before you go into afterburner.

There is always some room for error in such limits. Try taking off in 30°C in same conditions, would be very interesting to hear if it also works out well in such conditions. Also you have to consider that the engine might not be in the same condition as we have it in the simulator. An older engine will definitely produce less power than a brand new one. Fuel quality and other factors can also can come into play here.

This is the RP-21 installation aboard a MiG-21M/MF. The RP-21 is the predecessor of the RP-22 which is aboard the MiG-21Bis.

You also have to consider that such limits often include emergency procedures and failures. Would you still be able to stop if the engine failed just before liftoff? Would you be able to lift off if the afterburner got disabled just before rotation? What about a hydraulik failure or an air pressure discharge midway? These limits, normally ignored by virtual pilots, often have a big role in the real world, even if the aircraft would be able to do it if everything goes right. Remeber, there is no re-spawn.

The R-3R, the RS-2US and the Kh-66 are radar guided, all the others are not. EDIT: Only the R-3R is SARH, both the RS-2US and the Kh-66 are beam riders that actually can't be used on the real Bis. The red numbers show the stations according to the station selector:

Can you provide a track to see what happens during your flight?

*cough cough* What are we trying to do here?