Corrigan

Thanks for the help btw, Viper.

You have different-weighing aircraft, surely.

Referring to me?

I think maybe we should talk about this table. First of all, does anyone have an alternate flight manual? I think this is a good time to try to look at a second trustworthy source. Also, doesn't anyone else see a problem with this chart? http://i.imgur.com/WsJ8TBf.jpg Take the 7000 m clean climb as an example. I'll quote myself:

Well, whatever scale SARPP uses I don't think we can read too much into it.

When we talked about that earlier I just assumed that the SARPP uses another scale, not "physical" RPM but rather power output normalized to unity. Then again, is it reasonable that reheat adds ~10% power on top of military? I dunno.

Looks really pretty! Well done.

OK, do you have a source for this? Which version 21 did he fly?

Could we maybe get some developer feedback? Some pointers? I don't mind doing tests myself but if Dolphin maybe could tell us if he has any suspicions we could test more efficiently. I have another suggestion: I think we should make a standardized .miz for testing high-alt. cruising. Maybe starting at 6000 m at 800 km/h TAS or something, with the correct atmospheric conditions and aircraft load etc, since it seems we should focus only on what happens above this altitude anyway. Just so that it's easier to standardize, people who want to do tests can download it. I'll do this when I get home unless someone does it before.

So if I understand you correctly you turned the heating on a long time before it happened? The manual says it can take up to 2 mins for the heating system to work. I dunno if what you saw is intended; some dev feedback would be nice perhaps. EDIT: You weren't transonic, were you?

I didn't mean it was -- just a (somewhat) related observation, instead of making a new thread.

Oh, then it might be a bug! I dunno. :lol:

Cool, just wanted to make sure. Is it worth exploring the difference the last percent makes? Maybe performance is different in an important way between 89.5% and 90.5%. Did you check, by any chance?

When you move out of reheat, your RPM in that .txt goes down to about "90%" -- is that normal MIL power? Worth double-checking perhaps. We have to be careful to have the throttle as close to reheat as possible. I usually start at reheat and then inch it back until the AB stops.

I think we should try to brainstorm aircraft configurations which would lead to the observed loss of power at altitude. Maybe the nose cone logic isn't working, for example. Could we try checking that it opens properly even when the automatic system is on? Do we have charts regarding what it should do? If so, we could set it manually during the climb. I'm not sure at all that the nose cone could produce the observed loss of thrust, but it's just a first example. What other things would lead to degraded performance while still showing 100% thrust?

I've also noticed that the animation lags behind my control input much more than in other aircraft. If you were to rapidly move the throttle back and forward, for example, after a short while the animated throttle will be several cycles behind. Obviously that's something you don't do while flying, but I still think it could be more visually responsive.

^That's the correct response, yes. There should never, ever be gameplay balancing in DCS.

Personally, I'm gonna upgrade my video card right now, since I have zero patience, and, I figure, it's probably very unlikely that EDGE won't run well with something that runs everything else well.

I don't think this is MiG-21-related. I dunno if DCS supports metric pressures, but you can switch the units used in the options from imperial to metric and see.

^

^That's it. The scale is labelled on the actual instrument too.

Right, but the problem this thread was about has been resolved. I suggest we keep discussing in the other one! Yep! I have Cobra on skype and he's staying up to crazy hours working on stuff, and I'm sure the rest of the team have similar workloads.

I don't think that's an actual APU, probably a slight mistranslation. I think it helps start the engine, but it's not a little power-providing engine like we're used to. I could be wrong.

Which finding? I think we all concluded that performance below 7000 m was fine during the climbs as regards fuel consumption and power, but the high alt. cruising problem can't be related to this (since I've started all my small tests, which corroborate yours, with a fresh aircraft at altitude). It is perhaps wise to carefully consider the configuration of the aircraft before we do more tests. Even starting the mission hot at altitude might need further configuration of systems to get the full performance.

I just follow this check list. BRAIN COMPARE MODE....................................................SET COMPARISON OBJ. 1..........................................DCS MODULE COMPARISON OBJ. 2..................................MONEY FOR FOOD PAYPAL.........................................................................LOG IN