Corrigan

Ok, so I did some tests with our new realization about how to interpret the charts. I went for the 5000 and 7000 m climb, as we've done before, but now measuring both distance and time from a standing start, not as you did in the first post, from when the climb commences. We know this has to be the correct way to do it, since the charts are uninterpretable upon the other view. They simply must measure time and distance from a standing start, or they are geometrically not possible, as detailed earlier. My test: (Using a clean aircraft with 100% internal fuel, and 15 deg C base temp, starting from Batumi) I took off and stayed on reheat until 600 km/h IAS. I then come out of reheat and stay level (in Recovery mode) on full military until 870 km/h TAS. This took me 70 seconds and 11 km. I commence climb, maintaining 870 km/h TAS all the way to altitude. Total time and distance taken from start of takeoff roll to arrival at 5 000 m: 3 min 17 s and 40 km. Total time and distance taken from start of takeoff roll to arrival at 7 000 m: 4 min 40 s and 60 km. Fuel consumed: 420 L. The chart says: Total time and distance taken from start of takeoff roll to arrival at 5 000 m: 3 min and 25 km. Total time and distance taken from start of takeoff roll to arrival at 7 000 m: 4 min 10 s and 40 km. Fuel consumed: 425 L. Discussion: I wanted to keep this test going to 9 and 11 km, but the 870 km/h TAS regime became too hard to maintain, so I terminated the experiment. I ended up basically zoom climbing, because trying to keep 870 TAS means basically not climbing very much at 8 km, which seems very unrealistic for a MiG-21 without external stores. The time to reach 5000 was pretty good, but the distance was way off. I don't know why this is, but it's definitely physically possible; due to different characteristics in climbing and accelerating in even flight, the time and distance can vary independently. In the 7000 climb, distance is still off, and the time starts diverging with the chart. As we know from before, climbing characteristics are very poor at higher alt. Fuel consumption remains very accurate during the tested interval. Conclusions: Power/drag seems poor above ~5000. Previous results show that 10 000 m and 11 000 m climbs are not even possible with the method used in the charts, and a ceiling at not much higher than 15 000, so it's reasonable to conclude that the poor performance worsens with altitude. The reasonable climb time but poor climb distance to 5 and 7 km is difficult to interpret. It's possible that there's a lack of power even at low altitude, but the most serious problem by far still seems to be the lack of climbing ability above ~7000 m and the very low service ceiling. Track is attached. Note that T-O roll starts 10 seconds in. Also, I noticed that there are inconsistencies in the SARPP data from your climb tests in post one. You come out of burner at around 850 IAS in the first one, for example. Anyway, time taken from TO-roll to altitude is something like 6.3 mins, not the 4 min 40 s it should take according to the chart. I suspect it's VERY important to be absolutely sure of being in MIL power. I got very different results in my tests, when I thought I had the throttle at 100% but must have been a tiny bit off. 5km7kmclean.trk

Well, if someone ever dared to perform a cobra that close to the ground, I guess that's kinda what it'd look like.

I wouldn't hold my breath (hurr hurr) since only things fixed before the 19th will be making this patch, and probably not even all of those things.

Run the updater!

You could open your axis display (rctrl+enter) and make sure your brake pedals are reaching the ends of the axes properly, perhaps. Did you do that "brake fix" axis curve thing posted on the forum?

Nah, there's a bug. I think I read that if you make some turns the needle might become unstuck. You should search the forums.

Right, but it has to be more than exaggerated rudder authority since it doesn't care about wind.

I think he'll be sufficiently dazed by the brilliance of my interpretation of his work to not get hung up on details like that, thank you very much.

Read what I posted! It's the bunker. Try spawning outside and see it disappear.

That's BS dude, this is a drawing contest.

Ok, so the physics appears to suggest rudder input actually applies diff. braking on its own, since there's no airspeed dependence according to the above. Now, if this is the case, why doesn't the pressure meter show anything? Are these valves not monitored? Has it been mistakenly left out in the sim? Also, why hasn't the literature been clearer? As I said before, everything I've read on the subject suggests that you can turn only when you apply brakes. And that's including what Viper posted (and probably misunderstood...)

Yeah, DCS has a habit of binding weapons release keys etc to the same-numbered button on all devices. You might have a fire button on your throttle.

That's not wind, that's a bug with those fortified hangars. I think the door looks like it's open but isn't, or something. Spawn on an open parking and you'll see.

Video is broken, you forgot the important bit in the URL.

Could your joystick be giving inputs on its own?

Good idea, do it! Of course, the devs might have "cheated" and used actual rudder input as a proxy for rudder deflection and subsequent aerodynamic forces, if you see what I mean. But your test can still tell us something.

It's not even comparable. This is a bit like looking to upgrade from a pager to a smartphone. "When I try and research the main differences, all I get is the touchscreen. Is it a gimmick?" :P Often Advanced Systems Modelling (ASM) is used interchangably with "clickable cockpit", but that's misleading. Again in my analogy, the big touchscreen might be the first feature you notice, but the interface is obviously only an expression of the improvement. I hope you see what I'm trying to say.

Are those GBU-28s, or what? Normal JDAMs?

When I saw it happen to a 21 it was player controlled and alone, though. Just so you know.

Holy crap.

What do you mean? Which of the numbers?

There's something fishy here still. If rudder activates diff braking without us touching the brakes, why don't we see it on the manometer? Why doesn't the manual (or anything else I've ever read) explain this? If, when no brakes are manually applied, we are turning just by aerodynamics, why can we turn so sharply at unphysically low speeds? There has to be something amiss with the sim's behaviour, IMO.

Interesting that they went for the 22's for that type of mission. Can't have been the cheapest choice. Furthermore (and I hope this isn't too political a statement), I can think of few better uses of tax money than killing ISIS militants. 100% behind these missions.

Yep, easy to attain, but maybe too easy? It's not a matter of can we make it, rather, is it realistic that they allotted this much time to that phase in the chart. My first guess for that time was one minute, but as I say, I can't test it in the sim atm.

Yep, I agree too. Also, don't be stressed about coming in fast, or long landings; the chute will take care of that.