Maverick Su-35S

This was important, thanks! It is possibly important to have little difference in the size between the 2 models when transition occurs, so that as the target gets closer or further you should barely notice the difference, otherwise it would look ugly wouldn't it? Hence, the difference between the number of pixels at which the 3D model turns 2D and the number of pixels the 2D model should have (which turns to how big it would look like) should be minimal (0 difference if possible). So I don't know why, for example, a Maxsize of 20 and a Minsize of 8.0 would be a good idea if you see a big difference at the transition between the models.

To be more specific, the "maxsize" is the number of pixels a unit should get to have on a screen in order to transfer the model between the 2 shapes and "minsize" would be the size in pixels that the constant dimension 2D size would get or what is the reference for "size"? The text in the impostors.lua file doesn't tell what "size" actually means. Thanks!

Hi, Hope you guys test enough these values and if you believe they're wrong change them as you want, I'm only a player as you all are and I'm only looking towards realism. I'm no developer, but this is what I find optimum due to some limitations regarding the target's transparency with range. The file is a "virgin" to DCS if you use Windows 10 because Windows 10's notepad somehow corrupts it. Someone told me (about 3 posts ago) that it uses a BOM technique when it saves a file and it seems that it ruins this file and DCS no longer recognizes it when you play, but if you'd download the free Notepad++ and edit the impostors.lua with it instead you can make any changes to those values as many times as you want and the file will have no problems. Good day!

You guys want the best or most optimal values for model enlargement? You got it...! Try replacing the following either for SMALL, MEDIUM or LARGE and use it: maxSize = 8 minSize = 7 alphaExp = 0.58 Although the maxsize and minsize values might be appropriate for creating the transition between the 3D model and the enlargement shape in a way that you'd hardly notice (which is good), the alphaexp which affects the transparency of the model, which DOESN'T increase with range (it would be good if that would happen) but it's rather a constant and it's hard to find a value that allows for seeing both the air and ground units in a realistic manner, because if the transparency is higher in order to not let aircraft be visible from exaggerated distances, the ground units would suffer being too transparent on the ground thus making it more difficult to spot ground units even if it were no model enlargement active and so by trying to give the alphaexp a low enough value to allow ground units to be spotted from realistic ranges now the aircraft could be seen from as far as 70km away, so..., letting it to approx. 0.58 might be the best compromise!

Well, whatever it does it ruins the impostors.lua file on the other way, while notepad++ seems to not do that even if it might not use BOM!:thumbup:

Oh dear..., damn Windows 10:P! With notepad++ the file works and doesn't get corrupted anymore (getting from original 1020 bytes to 1023 bytes) and now I can play with these model enlargement values for a little "fun"! Realism is all we need/want!

Hi "Why485", Can you please confirm me that even with notepad++ if you try to open the impostors.lua file, not modify anything, then simply save it, you won't get a different file size than the original after saving it? The original file has exactly 1020 bytes, but after I save it (without touching anything) with Windows 10's default notepad, the file becomes 1023 bytes in size for no reason and the sim doesn't recognize it anymore..., strange why I'm the only one having this issue! Thanks;)!

On the 5th page here I've posted that if you'd try to modify the impostors.lua file the game won't recognize the model enlargement effect anymore...! Well guess what, I've tested to see what happens if I don't modify the file at all and simply open the original/ontouched one with notepad on Windows 10 and just save it (CTRL+S) without touching anything. After simply saving the file, without any kind of modifications I saw that the size of it had changed for no logical reason. The original file has 1020 bytes, but after you open it with notepad and save it with no modifications it will have 1023 bytes although it's content is exactly the original and apparently after this happens, the game no longer recognizes the file. Don't know why this happens..., if it's only me, then probably my Windows 10 notepad is doing something weird when it saves the file. I just want to play with those values in it a little bit until I can find the lowest possible values for the size of the enlarged model while still being able to spot the target from realistic distances for a naked eye, but I can't find a way around the file saving issue. Any clues? Thanks!

Yes, in singleplayer...! I've loaded a mission of mine, I've re-saved it just in case it might need to be re-saved if the model enlargement has been modified and no matter what I try, the modification doesn't occur, instead the model enlargement no longer seems to function in game, although at options you can choose between different values, none have any more effect during gameplay. Only after I put the original file back, it works again and once I modify a value by a tiny bit, it behaves like it doesn't have any more effect. Don't know how you managed to modify the file (I guess you used notepad) and change a value as you desired and noticed the change during gameplay, but I'm glad at least it works for someone else!

Did any of you try to modify a value in the impostors.lua file and see what happens? Something's strange cause no matter what value you try to modify and no matter what amount, after saving the file and try seeing any difference in the game, all objects appear as if the model enlargement is set to NONE. I tried setting a different value at options then re-putting the value that I modified and still the objects appear like there's no more model enlargement or as if the file would be compromised. Even if you put back the original values back, it still doesn't want to work anymore! So the impostors.lua is like a virgin..., cause once touched, it's not recognizable anymore! Weird!

Something happened since 1.5.1 or 1.5.0, where with model enlargement set to SMALL and not more, you were able to spot any type of air or ground unit from more realistic distances (perhaps even greater than realistic), but something changed since 1.5.2 and made it almost impossible to spot aircraft (the ground units appear clearly visible though) once you reach the distance from where the visual model transfers from 3D to that 2D like shape, that's where things go weird and the aircraft disappears completely just to reappear into a big ugly dot, then to re-disappear and stuff like that. The SMALL value doesn't make any difference from NONE, the MEDIUM is kind of still not enough to help you spot the target although you look in it's direction and when it appears it's kind of exaggerated in dimensions, while the LARGE value is too exaggerated anyway. By knowing how it was made in 1.5.1, it should be brought back cause it was very good (almost perfect) in comparison to what it's now!

I don't know what more else you found wrong about the F-86F AI in terms of being overpowered, but the only thing that seems to go wrong is it's overpowered engine. If you're in a fight with it, you should see (with F2 key probably) how the F-86 AI accelerates forward. I didn't chronometer it's speed variation, but you'll see that it accelerates almost as an F-15 in afterburner with no loadout. How the AI turns in comparison to a player's F-86, I don't know, I haven't seen a very big difference, but probably the sensation that it turns on a die is only due to the fact that the engine outputs a lot of abnormal thrust, which combined with the angle of attack the AI aircraft has (because the engine's thrust force adds a force component to the lift force due to the angle of attack) and due to the higher airspeed it has when chasing you it will have a much greater turn rate. It all makes sense why it seems to turn so quick and tighter, but this has nothing to do with the aerodynamics of the F-86's AI alone which look authentic, but only with the higher thrust effects of the engine! It's probably on the fixing list!

I agree with taking more time to fix this rather than rushing for the tournament and encountering problems in midfight! Thanks for the info!

Yes, this is the MIG vs F-86 thread, for this we need to know! Thanks!

Can we be announced about the scheduled tournament within 3-5 days before it takes place? Thanks!

THANK YOU "Dolphin887"! It's so good to hear that! The pitching moment or pitching rate accelerations as behavior of the MIG-21 when passing through stall AoA (at least for positive stall AoA) with full negative elevator deflection (full aft stick) and pitching moment at or near 90 deg. AoA must be re-evaluated, because the tracks that I've provided in the first post already proves it! Best wishes! Keep up the good work!

Don't know if this question might've been asked before, sorry if it might've been answered already: Can we have model enlargement as SMALL instead of OFF? Although even "SMALL" value might be making an aircraft/vehicle visible from a distance slightly higher than in real life, it is more realistic than being "OFF". With OFF, it's very difficult (becomes almost invisible) to spot an aircraft in dogfight if it's further than 1,5 - 2km from your point of view. I didn't find any regulation taking this into account (at least not in the provided .pdf), yet I still hope we could use the "SMALL" model enlargement value. Best wishes!

Yes, I started the topic in order to make clear the problem that the MIG-21 seems to have regarding the pitch accelerations (in aerodynamics/flight dynamics, this is directly reflected into Cm (pitching moment coef.)) variations between certain AoA. If needed, I'll provide a chart with the pitching moment (or Cm if wanted) variation with alpha on the MIG-21 for full aft stick (with an initial pitch trim position) in order to illustrate the way it looks "from outside". Now I don't want to look wise, but I really felt that I can't even begin to talk without telling what I know (and I'm not some dumb who just showed up sharing his basic knowledge about flight mechanics and mechanics in general) about how a statically stable aircraft (the MIG-21 is a strong example) would react in every condition. Thanks!

Thanks Grimes, Ok, so I should use the Do Script File! I was using Do script (as it was set for DCS 1.2.16) by initializing the "mistv3_7_48.lua" and only applying the needed command in the Do script box (if not group 'xxx', then mistrespawnGroup 'xxx'...end or something like that). I later found that although I get an error sound and message about the script when it activates, it still does the job like nothing happened, so I might leave it as it is even if the error shows up every time or I will try creating a ".lua" file in which to write the respawn command and run it using Do Script File as you suggest! Thanks again, good day!

Fixed...! Used the provided MIG-21 registry deletion file which forced it to not appear as existing anymore (yet lost one deactivation point because the error didn't even let it deactivate). Re-installed it, re-applied the key and now it works fine! Thanks you!

Hi there, Thanks for the links! Sorry I didn't find these topics before, but now I have part of my answers in them. Now I'm having trouble even with deactivating the MIG-21 (in order to re-install it as fresh), but hopefully I'll find what I need in the links that you provided! Cheers!

Hi, I've bought the MIG-21 shortly after it was on sales and now, after re-installing my OS and activating each module that I own, including the MIG-21, I tried going to multiplayer (single player also) and was asked again to re-activate the MIG-21...! Ok, I tried reactivating it (although I've already done it) and it used one more activation for granted (or for no logical reason) and told that it is successful (the same way as the first time) but still didn't want to continue because it asked to re-activate again...! I pressed retry again and again re-copied the code (tried from in game and also from site) and again it told the activation was successful and then again asked me to re-activate, yet this time it didn't use any more activation points, but again didn't want to continue and kept on asking me for the activation...! Don't know what to do, I've sent an error report so hopefully someone can take a look into it. What is the reason why would such a thing happen only for the Leatherneck MIG-21? Thanks!

Hello, Sorry for my noob questions: I've tried playing some missions from DCS 1.2.16 (which use "mistv3_7_48.lua") under DCS Open beta 1.51 and after I load the same mist file into the open beta on those missions, I get an error on desktop regarding the script. The first listed issue within the open beta is "27372 - Initialization Script File fails to run. Notes: The Do Script box should work, its just not running init script files." and might be regarding the problem that I experience. 1. Does the note tell that the mission should be working fine if everything's alright within the script box even if there is no script file being initialized and so because I try to initialize the mentioned script file I get the problem? 2. If I may need to initialize a newer version of MIST file in order to have the dead groups respawned (that's all I need the script for), will the MIST V55 work and how will I be able to download the MIST V55 from the link in the first post? Do I need to sign up on "Github.com" or what should I do in order to download this script file? Many thanks!

Look guys, I apologize for my bad mood, but I just don't know how to explain (at least from what I learned, not something out of my own beliefs) that there are 3 types of system stability (in 2 separate categories), which have been defined as a convention which everyone agrees with. The two categories are: static stability and dynamic stability! Each of them (separate or together) can provide one of the three stability regimes: stable, neutral stability (known as relaxed stability) and unstable. So there's a total of 6 possible situations: a) statically stable, statically neutral/relaxed, statically unstable; b) dynamically stable, dynamically neutral/relaxed and dynamically unstable. The dynamic stability is defined through a series of conventional (known) modes of oscillation, and is almost always present next to the static stability of a system. Our concern only regards the static stability of an aircraft so we should not even think of the dynamic stability (which is more related to time and frequency) which indeed might superimpose with the static stability at some random situation or make a confusion between the two! As far as I know, an aircraft is told to be statically stable if it has the tendency towards decreasing the AoA, WHEN the pitch control (horizontal tail or canard) is at it's null position (a position of 0 deflection told by the manual) or the AoA would go to another equilibrium value according to a new elevator position. Hence, this is what we call a statically stable aircraft (longitudinal stability as our concern), or an aircraft which still has a tiny fraction of static stability still available. If the elevator/canard is at 0 deflection and the AoA remains at rest in any preset position, then the aircraft is told to be statically relaxed (neutral static stability), not having the tendency to vary any new AoA value when the elevator is brought to 0. The third situation, which everyone seems to share so rapidly/easily is about having the elevator at 0 deflection and the aircraft's AoA tends to increase by itself uncommanded towards the critical AoA and beyond..., is when the aircraft is told to be statically unstable and won't return to a controlled flight whatsoever..., and THIS IS NOT the case with the Flanker nor the F-16 eighter (even if you don't believe it at first). Someone here said that even the F-14 and MIG-29 are unstable aircraft too, so..., this leaves me out of any other word! Please remember this: "If the AoA will always find another equilibrium value according to a new elevator position and will return to the original value when the elevator is brought to it's original position, THAT AIRCRAFT IS STILL STATICALLY STABLE", it is not unstable, which is the case with our Flanker too and it's very easy to test this in game without telling a single word about it. It is still within a statically stable flight, what the heck...! If the AoA won't stop at a random equilibrium value when the elevator is brought to 0 deflection, which is the case for statically relaxed condition, and keeps on building up continuously even with the consequence of going past beyond 90 deg. AoA, that's the only condition for an aircraft to be called unstable, otherwise the word "unstable" is used by many as a pretext for the high pitch response of the aircraft for slight elevator deflections (which seems very unusual to them) and so they to call it unstable for that cause, while in reality it is still flying with some static stability left because the AoA stops at some point according to a new elevator position and the aircraft is fairly controllable and still flying more or less well (according to the new AoA due to elevator deflection), otherwise the AoA would continue building up until the plane would be flying tail forward. I don't know how to better explain this, but it is just as simple as it is defined. I don't know how would someone else (who has the knowledge) describe aircraft static instability if anything else than something that won't find an equilibrium on it's own unless there is a CONSTANT intervention (from an automated system or man) that would always and constantly try to "find" an elevator position for which the AoA would stay in a so called "equilibrium", yet that would require the elevator to constantly make quite noticeable adjustments in order to not let the AoA vary (as it tends to do) and in that kind of situation you'll ALWAYS see that aircraft flying in a pitch oscillatory trajectory, and no matter how small the amplitude might be, it will be exactly as in the case with the pendulum, the computer just CAN'T find an elevator position (cause there isn't any) for which the AoA wouldn't vary anymore..., the same way, a robot CAN'T find a constant position for which the pendulum would find equilibrium (unless there's friction of course). By definition, THAT'S INSTABILITY FOLKS...! Nothing of the latter is attributed to the Flanker's behavior with ASC ON, neither in real flight or in DCS. The only purpose of the flight control system that filters the pitch rates, AoA rates and AoA values is to give the pilot a lot less headache while flying the aircraft, because it's a fighter pilot in a fighter aircraft and wants to be more concerned on how to defeat the enemy and fly the plane to the edge of it's flight envelope carefree rather than fighting more with his own plane in order to have coordinated and well controlled manoeuvres even when the aircraft is still statically stable..., THAT'S the reason of the fly by wire electro-mechanical system in general, to help the pilot have more precise control, NOT because the plane would be unstable! Take for example the CAS on the F-15 or the SAS on the A-10, try them off and see the difference..., and they are all statically stable designs! It will lead you to the feeling that it's "unstable" in pitch or yaw with those stability systems off, but the planes would have the same static margin that they were born with...!

Application for Registration Nickname: Maverick Su-35S Your profile at ED forum: http://forums.eagle.ru/member.php?u=108689 Chosen plane type: MiG-15bis Country of residence: Romania Time: GMT+2 Language of communication: English Confirmation of familiarization with regulations of the tournament and the obligation to comply with them: Familiarized with regulations of this tournament, oblige myself to comply with them.