spyro23

Does it mean that 3D model update mentioned some time ago by Rudel is going to introduced with the release or in patch as previously planned? Cobra, could you update us, please, what is the status with afterburner logic (ie. nozzle opening before afterburner is lit)?

Well, not necessarily. If DCS will get saturated witch WWII era aircraft the sales may not be that high, and it seems that saturation point may happen very fast (by DSC standards) Right now most of the iconic WWII fighters are already under development or soon will be*. How many people, do you think, would buy Fiat G.55 or P-51B? Or how many people will buy all 20-30 aircrafts (~50$ each) that will be available relatively soon especially when WWII era maps won't probably be for free. Easy money may not be as easy as they look. Deliberately I wrote WWII fighters since multi crew and multi engine bombers will not be so fast and easy to make as fighters. * my assumption based on current trends.

Well, I do understand your point of view, for me MiG-21 has similar nostalgia and magic as P-51 and others WWII aircrafts for you. If I were few years older I would have maintain 21s :cry:. My problem with WWII aircraft lies in the fact that DCS is literally last modern (or almost modern) sim out there and it is getting dissolved into … well I don’t know what. Sure we’ve got BMS which is great, but its growth potential is running out. On the other hand you have BoS, CLOD with its great mods, Accusim and 1946. One can argue that WWII aircraft development has no impact on modern aircraft development and that may be true for ED with their 1944. I really don’t care about it, as long as, ED’s Hornet is on track. Based on what is publically available this is not the case with LS. If they decided to make P-38 for example that would mean that Harrier/MiG-23/Mirage/F-5/any other combat jet won’t happen anytime soon. And that would be a big bummer. Considering business point of view: As LS stated they’ve got solid base technology on hand to make modern era jets, so the argument that WWII aircraft are faster or easier bucks seems not so valid in this case. Right now we do not know LS business strategy, whether MiG-21 was only inherited after Studio Beczl and they going to move towards WWII era, mix things up or stick to modern era jets (relatively modern era). Making WWII era plane by LS would be huge disappointment for me not to mention waste of potential.

Personally I do not get all the wishes and excitement for trainers (or WWII era planes). What could you possibly do with them except air shows/formation flying? There are better platforms to do that. Training value of such aircrafts is close to 0 in DCS. Their combat value is doubtful as well unless someone wants to act as a target. There is no proper ATC, carrier operations, procedures etc. to learn that would justify having such aircraft. Learning basics of flight, VFR, IFR, combat (you name it) can be as well done on combat plane since unlike RL crashing while learning does not mean End. Additionally you wont have to learn systems and flight characteristics again while transferring to combat plane. I'm glad that there are developers that making trainers because of passion for the type but most probably I wont buy them (and most flight simmers I know) simply to not mislead developers that I like having in DCS trainers (or WWII era planes). Pretty much everything * from sixties onward I'll buy. * - any combat aircraft

Smoke generator, I guess.

Nice Video! I've noticed that gunsight camera sometimes during video is present somtimes is not. Does it mean that we gonna have option to switch it on and off (like for example mirrors)?

Mayby some formation flying, low level flights and pls show us some shiny paint scheme. I almost forgot, some shots showing how good is BIS climbrate on 2nd afterburner would be also welcomed.

For me Mirage III or F-5 would be great. F-4 would be also great but as it was pointed out, double seater (RIO) would have probably cause too much trouble developing. Besides those mentioned having Harrier FRS1 (or FA2 or AV-8A) would be also neat, of course together with HMS Invincible/Hermes. Who knows, maybe video of MiG 21 VTOL FM tests was not coincidence...

I'm preety sure Devs have all manuals needed, which in this case would be Pilot's Flight operating instructions and R-25-300(изделие 25) manual. If anyone is interested in english Pilot's Flight operating instructions for BIS check this: http://books.google.pl/books?id=Hy6020COY1sC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Mikoyan-Gurevich+MiG-21+Pilot%27s+Flight+Operating+Instructions&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=6QmUU--xEszHPazagbAL&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Mikoyan-Gurevich%20MiG-21%20Pilot%27s%20Flight%20Operating%20Instructions&f=false

Having seen beautiful afterburner effects on recent Youtube video I’ve noticed that engine nozzle opens as (simultaneously) reheating /afterburner is engaged which seems to be wrong. According to my knowledge proper sequence for R25-300 engine afterburner engagement should be as follows: 1. Throttle set from MIL to Reheat 2. Nozzle opens which is accompanied with RPM increase (LP rotor up to 106.5%) and EGT drop (up to 20⁰C) and thrust drop (up to ~85-90% of MIL thrust) and this condition last for 1-2 sec. 3. Afterburner is lit and parameters go back to nominal for this setting So my question to Devs is whether such sequence will be simulated in DCS MiG-21 (and only visual effect is missing ATM) or this part of engine will be simplified for whatever purpose?

Yes Falcon_120, its clear that there is nothing that warns about actual missile warning and STT does not mean neccesary that missile has ben fired. Same goes to AMRAAM if fired in STT radar mode - you cant be sure until Pitbull. My doubts concern Miech and Rubin radars and Bimbac statement that "a target shouldn't get any Launch warning, because, as I stated already before, there is no change in waveform, what-so-ever, from the launching aircraft, only STT lock" As far as I know (quick google search) Rubin SARH Illumination and main channels use different frequencies within the X band, and are multiplexed in time so even assuming that R-27 can be fired in TWS mode or in STT painting occurs when missile reaches interception point ( unlikely ??) this should give clear indication on targets RWR that its being painted. This is moment when I'm lost - is target data aquisition done only every few seconds because pulses emmited are same like during search?? Is STT same in principle like TWS but limited to 1 target? Bimbac wrote "There is a reply from one of the developers on this forum that Russian SARH missiles produce a Launch warning (in contrast with reality) to make it easier for the players" - that is new to me as I do not recall having such thing like launch warning but I do recall lock warning on my RWR which seems reasonable.

I must admit that I know wery little about radars and missile guidance but it seems strange to me that target should not get any warning. This would be true for PESA/AESA radar working with SARH missile like on MiG-31/Zaslon/R-33 for sure. I'm finding it hard to believe that STT lock from MiG 29/ Su-27 with mechanically scanned arrays would not give any warning because (as far as I know) in search mode target is painted every few seconds while in STT mode is painted continously, so in theory this would give clear lock indication on targets RWR. Unless you can fire R-27 in TWS mode ?

Clear now but: Super Sonic Cd being < Sub Sonic Cd does not automatically mean that it is wrong ergo is not valid. It seems that we are about to circle around discussion about Cd so I'll now shut up.

Excuse me dragging this subject further but you lost me you last post. Are we still talking about Cd or about Fd? Why?

I might have drifted a bit but again: I can't see any problem here. It is nothing unusual to have Cd at supersonic speed lover than at subsonic speed. When talking about science common sense approach is not always a good approach. This Do Not mean that Fd at supersonic will be lower then at subsonic speed because of V squared. You can make another graph Fd/V based on your Cd/V graph (you can omit A and rho) and this should show that Fd (actual drag force) at supersonic is bigger than at subsonic. If you can proove that Fd gets smaller with speed then there is something wrong with Cd.

OK, this explains a bit your point of view. If you talk about cars giving only Cx (Cd) makes sense for comparision of "aerodynamic slickness" or Fd at given speed because at speeds that cars are going Cx is pretty much constant (same as A and rho). Applying such conduct in aeronautics aerodynamics is simply impossible because: 1. Cd is not a constant throughout flight speeds envelope 2. rho is not constant (different altitudes, different temperatures) 3. even A can't be considered as a constant because of alfa and beta (angles of attack and slip) - simplistic approach and last but not least velocity range is much much greater EDIT: @ IASGATG Didin't you mix a bit AIM-9 versions Cd graphs? Aren't AIM-9L and M versions the same aerodynamically speaking? To me it seems that AIM 9 L graph may be in fact for AIM-9P

Just out of my curiosity what is your line of work? Cd (or Cx) is proportional to drag if you fix all other values but then what is the point of using it ? Its like saying that AMRAAM max range is 15 km - it says not much about missile kinematics performance but is truth in certain launch parameters. Kinda like Cd~=Fd And yes, in aerodynamics you use Cd but only because if you have it you are good to calculate Fd at any given parameters - you have one chart instead of tens or hundrets dhowing Fd

Cd is not drag force but drag coefficient. Drag force, as you can see below on the equation, depends of velocity squared. Going further: drag force at supersonic speeds is always (or almost always) bigger than at subsonic speeds because velocity is squared.

Nice

Poland, Viper City:smilewink:

It's a reactive armor, basically the boxes contains explosive material which destroys anti-tank missile warheads.

Yep This is pure delta wing jet. It has no flaps at all. Those surfaces are not flaps but elevons - pitch sterring surfaces. If you have extend it like in LOMAC you would be few meters below groung level very fast:)

:thumbup: Agree, I don't want to make conspiracy teories, this is only my 2 cents. Personally I don't see big difference between Israeli and Arabic claims. Arabs have lost all wars aginst Israel so they need at least some succes. On the other hand Israel propably didn't reveal all info about past wars. They don't like to talk about things that went bad and I don't wonder why. Just try to find how the hell (Syrian I believe) Mig-23 landed on the Israeli AFB without being detected? It will be secret for a long time. The additional reason why Israel wouldn't admit loss is because Eagle was shot down by so inferior jet and ocsolete missile (R-3). Why I belive this is propable? When F-117 was shot down USAF tried to convince world that it was destroed by SAM & Kolczuga or SAM & Tamara, then after some time by Mig-29 or (edited) Mig-21. Desinformation, propaganda (no matter how you call it) always been importand factor that helps win battles and ot only bad guys use it. :doh: Excuse me my language. I'm not english native speaker. I ment that the better opponent is the better chances he has to survive when is engaged by F-22(but still to small:)) Yep, me to, but its better then nothing. If those systems are not effective why so many countries spend bilions in its development? Edited: That Mig was has been a defector.

Could you give me reference to this number (107:0)? Is this number apply only to USAF F-15's ?? If no - something is wrong because I'm preety sure that one Israeli F-15 was shoot down by the arabic Mig-21 (don't remember which country) Basicaly I agree but.. in fact there is a difference, F-22 use AIM-120's in BVR combat so when it shoot at the other airctaft the missile can be detected. So the better airctaft the F-22 fight aginst the more is the chance that the opponent will avoid being shoot down. Not only RCS or radar decide who will win but also RWR & countermeasures systems. I don't think that F-22 can keep this number fighting aginst for example Eurofighter Typhoon despite it is still better then opponent.