Maverick Su-35S

So you're saying that there is a contradiction between what the TacView's AoA says and what the F2 view's AoA says? If that's the case, then I'm pretty sure the TacView is lying because if you take the MIG-21 and constantly (but slowly) decrease the airspeed while trying to maintain 1G at a vertical speed as close to zero as possible, you'll notice that the plane's pitch attitude angle is exactly +15 degrees when the AoA indexer in cockpit reaches 33 units (as you have zero vertical speed in horizontal flight, the pitch attitude angle and the AoA matches), so TacView is almost certainly not telling the truth and the F2 view tells the truth. This makes me lose some trust in TacView's data. Best wishes!

I got you now friend and sorry I misunderstood your first statement! You're right about the computational results which indeed emerge depending on formulas used and that there's a complex mechanism between many formulas which give a final result such as: lift, drag, moments, etc. But, the input to those formulas can be (and most certainly are momentarily) the key to control the output values that the aircraft presents in flight. That's what I'm trying to get to. The key to success is part inputs and part mathematical model used, so if one isn't too accurate enough, the other one has to compensate. Only ED who created the aerodynamic model may have control over it and rather suggest Leatherneck (and other 3rd parties) what must be changed in order to correct flight behavior and increase realism, otherwise it's up to the 3rd parties to adjust the input values in order to obtain the right result with the given model. I have done quite some research on the MIG-21's aerodynamic lift, drag and their functions to AoA alone and by comparing the results with the ones shown by the MIG-21 in DCS, I discovered great differences. For instance, the lift/AoA (one of the most important) slope for the MIG-21 in DCS is almost double (1.81 times higher) that of the real jet. In DCS, for subsonic flights, the lift/AoA (in radians) slope is approx. 3.7, when it should be 2.6. There also seems to be no difference in lift/AoA slope with Mach number either. In reality all the aerodynamic coefficients and their derivatives vary drastically with Mach and Reynolds number. Also the maximum lift coefficient (or maximum lift) is almost 60% higher (1.6 times) than that of a real MIG-21, which drastically affects the realism of turning performance, correct landing approach speeds or flight performance all in one. For instance, the real life experimental data shows that the maximum CL (lift coefficient) for MIG-21 is near 0.9 for a clean configuration (no ordnance, no flaps, no BL control). Only with BL and full flaps it rises to about +1.25. In DCS however, the maximum lift coefficient at currently 15 AoA is found to be around 1.43 just in clean configuration (no flaps, no BL)! I didn't even want to further test how high it gets with full flaps and BL activated. I don't know where to discuss it (maybe another thread regarding just this or still here), but I find it extremely important if we need to feel like flying the real MIG-21 and not some video game. ED was created with this in mind: realistic in-flight aircraft behavior. So..., that's what we're all looking for. All ED's aircraft have more than 95% realism proven (with the existence of AFM and PFM). The 3rd party members however vary drastically at this aspect. Belsimtek "somehow" proved to have aircraft modeled as realistic as ED! How is it that they could do it right the first time and Leatherneck still has to do some work to it? The MIG-21's FM still needs work so far. I didn't test the Viggen yet although I also bought it. It's almost obvious that it's up to each one's interpretation of DCS's flight model and thus, the input values to be used. Sorry for the long talk, but, it's important to address these aspects. Best wishes!

Please show me the paragraph that you refer to so we can discuss it. If I provided some aerodynamic data (some means nothing else than real world and reliable data) I did so with the purpose to help fix what is off course. Best wishes!

Although the changes weren't right, we must admit that Leatherneck at least tries to fix the flight model of their product and won't disappoint us on long term. I only wish they would take a look at the charts provided and try to re-model the lift and drag vs AoA curves to match the real ones. The chart called "MIG-21 aero" that I posted is as close as possible to the real MIG-21's aerodynamic performance. If I could only have access to the MIG-21's flight model code, I would patiently correct the default values with the ones in that chart and also calculate/determine the correct moments of inertia. Only then I will really feel that I'm flying the MIG-21.

They either exaggerated the aerodynamic moments (too high) or the moments of inertia (too low), but anyway, I believe they'll quickly fix this one. The harder part to fix is to re-arrange the lift to AoA functions in order to fly a realistic MIG-21. The SAU indeed is affected. I don't know if they modified the SAU also or simply does the aero/inertial moments ratio affects it's behavior, but now the plane finds an induced pitch oscillation form the SAU system. The track I provided shows that you can do the types of powerloops shown on your video (good video showing it) even in straight line, one after the other, so the aero to inertial moments ratio is very high.

You are perfectly right my friend. If someone would look into how the aerodynamic model (lift, drag, pitching moment vs AoA, Beta and Mach) is done will see that it's very simplistic, very few curved functions, mostly constant values (at least with Mach) or simple linear functions. I don't want to spark disputes by talking about other simulation names, but there are simulators which are highly advanced in flight mechanics and aerodynamics and DCS is kind of falling behind if not taking actions for improvement. The picture which shows how the aerodynamic values vary from +180 to -180 is one of those sims and was here long before DCS. Yeah, that's because the high sweep delta (with a 2.2 AR (aspect ratio)) generates some relatively strong vortexes (in comparison to a non-LERX lower sweep wing) near the wing's root which has the energy to smooth out or reduce the flow separation in areas closer and closer to the root. This way, beyond a stall angle of 20 AoA (as the MIG-21 should re-find in DCS, which it had when it first appeared), the lift should gradually drop in a curved pattern up to 30..32 AoA (bottom of stalled lift where the flow separation reaches 100% of the chords length as the vortex broke-up), then start rising again naturally (with about half of the non-stalled lift slope) up to 40..45 AoA and because the flow is separated already and the vortex is already dissipated as the lift increases towards 45 you'll get a smaller hump than that for stall. Here's how a LERX affects the lift/AoA slope: https://s23.postimg.org/jhiphb4h7/LERX.jpg The double hump lift curve to AoA is normal for all known airfoils (infinite span wings) and 3D wings, the only differences are indeed the points where the humps lie on the diagram and their curvatures from one wing/airfoil to another. The F-18 for example has a single big hump on the lift/AoA graph somewhere at 40..50 AoA (F/A-18's critical AoA). It's lift to AoA function becomes curved between 30 and 40..50 AoA (from 30 AoA the vortex near the root starts to brake down and the flow starts to separate, that's why the function becomes curved) and between 40 AoA to +70 AoA the lift to AoA function finds a moderate drop which is almost linear. Between 70 and 90 AoA the lift starts dropping rapidly to 0. The F-16 has 2 humps also, the one at the stall and vortex core breakdown (35AoA) is much greater than that at 40..45 AoA, so again you'll have a higher radius lift/AoA curve at stall than at 40..45 alpha. The Su-27 (although I haven't seen any aerodynamic charts anywhere yet) may also have a single bigger hump on the graph or anyway a quite large one before the 2nd and commonly rounded one at 40..45. Here's a crude example of lift to AoA function between +180 and -180 AoA: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/systems/cl-cn.gif Here's the F-18's lift/AoA graph: http://www.rollinghillsresearch.com/Water_Tunnels/F18%20tests.html Here's the F-16's lift/AoA slope: https://s16.postimg.org/eokb6b96t/F-16_Ao_A_CL.png The real MIG-21's lift/AoA diagram should be similar to what I posted. Best wishes.

Wow! So tweaking aircraft's reactions isn't the problem, the problem is getting the right values correctly. With the latest update: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147601&page=5, the MIG-21 has somewhat closer to real aerodynamic moments in relation to the moments of inertia which are responsible for the pitch, roll and yaw accelerations, but, now they're exaggerated. It's a step closer to real than what it was before, but now on the other extreme! Although I had started this topic about the critical AoA value being too low (and it still persists that way, because instead of about +20, we have 15) and the fact that the lift vs AoA slope is too steep and the null AoA lift is too high for MIG-21, I slide for a bit to also talk about the angular accelerations about the 3 main axis which are also a concern. About 2 months ago I posted 2 video links, where the first one shows exactly the time (can be calculated) needed for the MIG-21 to accelerate in roll from 0 to maximum roll rate when flying at about 500 km/h and weighing around 7500kg (50% fuel) within an air density of around 1.12, from where an initial roll acceleration can be derived. The calculated rolling acceleration can be used either to estimate the correct rolling moment of inertia or the output aerodynamic rolling moment. Now after the latest update the MIG-21 seems to accelerate in roll (although pitch and yaw are also affected) at about 200..250km/h with the same amount of rolling acceleration as the real aircraft at 500km/h. Keep in mind that all the aerodynamic forces and moments vary with the square of the airspeed, so you can estimate/calculate how great the accelerations about all 3 axis are at 500km/h if the required amount for that speed is already there at about just 230km/h. The good thing is that now the general aircraft motions or dynamics (especially in pitch and roll) are better (much closer to real) and we don't see those twitchy/sudden and very high pitch and roll moments/motions anymore above stall AoA, which makes the aircraft feel again like something real. So now the airplane's responses are as smoother as they should, but the accelerations are too great. Here are the good and bad that can be found after the latest update: The good: -Smoother dynamics/motions of the aircraft about the 3 axis between -180 and +180 AoA and beta angles. -G or lift above stall AoA is now higher than before (about 0.6 times that at stall AoA), but still not high enough to be realistic. Take for example the A-10 or Su-25 or F-15 and compare how much their lift drops well above stall in relation to that of the MIG-21. You'll find out that the MIG-21 still drops like a rock well above stall, so it still needs refine. I'd guess that the 21's wings should still produce about 80%..85% of the maximum lift some 10 degrees above stall AoA and not just 55%..60% as it is right now. -Other FM fixes. The wrong: -Although it's very good that the ratio of aerodynamic moments to inertial moments is higher for "X" airspeed, it now became exaggeratedly high and must be lowered by some amount to become realistic. -The lift drop above alpha stall is still sharp. Just 0.5 degrees of AoA above stall are needed to make the lift drop instantly from maximum to minimum. The lift above stall AoA should have a curved pattern that is generally spread between 5 (for low sweep & high aspect ratio wings) and 10 (for high sweep & low aspect ratio wings) to almost 50 degrees of AoA (for wings covered by high energy vortexes, such as those generated by LERX on various fighters like F-18/Su-27/F-16/MIG-29). The MIG-21's wings in reality are capable of allowing around 10..12 degrees of AoA (from my aerodynamics experience) over which the stall pattern should spread until the lift finally drops to 80% that of maximum. For short, as the MIG-21's wings should start stalling beyond 20 degrees AoA, the lift should gradually drop (with quite a smooth curved function) from 20 until 30..32 AoA is reached and above 30..32 AoA as the alpha continues to increase, the lift should again start to increase with an initial slope which is about half the normal (non-stalled) slope through a secondary curved lift to AoA function up to about 45 degrees AoA, from where the lift should finally start dropping with a cosine function of AoA until reaching zero at exactly 90 AoA. That is how a correct lift pattern versus AoA looks like for a real 3D wing. I provided a track showing how easily you can do power-loops (kulbits) one after another with MIG-21 or obtain some insane instant yaw rates and beta (sideslip) angles when jerking the rudder, either due to it's too low moments of inertia or due to too high aerodynamic moments: MIG-21's new aerodynamic moments too high or inertial moments too low.trk Here's an illustration of how the lift should generally vary with AoA from -180 to +180 for a high sweep delta like the 21's: Here are some real lifting performance info for the 21: I'm sorry I turned the topic regarding the abnormally low critical AoA alone into a more detailed subject, yet I hope I don't have to start 2 more topics for linked subjects regarding lift, AoA and moments of inertia. I wish that the devs will have a look at it and keep tweaking the values until they get right. I don't know how the mathematical model used by ED/Leatherneck works to get lift and drag vs AoA values, but if this aircraft is to become realistic, it's lift, drag and critical AoAs must get as close as possible to the values given by available charts. Although I may be a critic throughout all my forum discussions regarding how aircraft behave in DCS, I'm only doing it to help get them better in areas where they should normally get better, otherwise I could simply not care and leave all sorts of abnormal things neglected and lie to myself that I'm playing a realistic flight sim. That is simply not what I desire! Best wishes!

Good job!:thumbup: Long been waiting for those fixes!

I agree that flare and design types as well as the target's thermal dynamics widely affect the probability of loosing seeker track on the target, yet now I learn that AB won't mean too much difference and by what you say modern IR missiles use target shape comparison and other techniques to not loose target tracking. I have to admit that I don't know much about modern Chapparal, Avenger and newer manpad missile seekers and their tracking capabilities against different types of countermeasures, so the truth may lie somewhere in the middle of what I've said/thought and what the sim shows or maybe I'm not correct at all and the sim is actually much closer than what I suspect, but there's always a sense of doubt that I have to deal with! Thank you for picturing/clarifying things better, I was looking only at one or tow aspects when in fact there are indeed dozens which affect the final result, yet we hope that at least what can be done (what the simulator is capable of computing) will be done giving the real life information.

Hi, It's a very well known fact that the higher the output power (for props) or thrust (jet engines) always produce higher exhaust temperatures and thus a more intense IR signal. Although in reality the function (curve) between developed thrust, fuel flow rate and exhaust shapes which affect the infra red signature depends in a non-linear mode, in our DCS even if a linear function (gross) of output engine thrust alone (the fuel flow rate and exhaust shape being neglected) would make it brilliant in comparison to what it is right at this moment. I've tested that no matter if my plane's engines are in full afterburner or completely shut down (well before an IR missile is fired, so the engines are cold enough), the enemy IR missile will only be confused by flares alone. The DIRCM seems to do nothing or I hardly see it being modeled, while the IR missile is fired at my plane and chases it while the engines are completely shut down like if they were in full afterburner. My conclusion is that the IR spectrum has been very simplified in DCS, or to say, it sees all air targets no matter their engine thrust in the same way as vehicles on ground and the IR missile can home in on anything as long as it's alive and will only lose signal on flares or when being pointed at the Sun and nothing else. Will we see IR missiles and/or IR homing capabilities depend on more than just flares and Sun into the near future? A simple linear function of the targets engines thrust (in pounds or whatever) versus output IR signature can be a strong enough key to successfully have DCS aircraft evade an IR missile easier by throttling engines to idle and very difficult to do so with afterburners lit. Is it so hard to program such a think? Best wishes, Mav.

Ok but you said "OR", which led to the conclusion that it's either the speed or the AoA which causes flameout: "I can't sustain flight with pegged AOA any longer (not for long that is), the aircraft bleeds off speed or the engine flames out." For a bit of moment I was confused and I forgot that I also couldn't make it flameout due to high AoA only, but sorry, I got mislead to think that the engine also stalls due to high AoA when I replied. Indeed it doesn't flameout in the sim for any other reason than just the IAS going below a given value, but there's still a problem though! Why would it flameout when the IAS goes below "X" value when in midair, no matter the AoA (be it high or close to zero), if on the ground it doesn't flameout even at 0 IAS? What's the difference? If you know the reason why this happens, we would appreciate to know! Even with coordinated rudder to control your AoA the way you like can't beat the crude relationship between inertia and the aerodynamic reactive forces which cause the problem I refer to. The plane is still too sluggish in roll response, period. Over 600km/h? Well yes, the faster you go the less the difference between reality and the sim will get, that's very logic as the aerodynamic rolling forces/moments would be much greater than the rolling inertia, but that's not the correct way to determine the difference, right? Or are you just turning away from the facts that make you see the truth. That Lancer you saw doing that takeoff roll was done at no more than 500 km/h, 450 I'd say if you'd take into account that at 400 it lifts off and the pilot didn't allow it to accelerate quite much as he immediately pulled some good AoA climbing just prior to the roll, so he wasn't even at 500 km/h yet, but the rolling inertia is clearly very low in comparison to the aerodynamic rolling moment generated with full aileron deflection. The Lancer reacted quite similar to an F-16 in roll response. But our MIG-21 in DCS at 450 or 500km/h is nowhere near that. It accelerates in roll very slowly which proves that it either has too high moments of inertia in roll or simply the simulated aerodynamic rolling moment isn't high enough to be realistic. Also the maximum roll rate of the MIG-21 in DCS isn't as high as it possibly should, but maybe let's say the aileron's deflection is limited on the BIS at higher speed if that would be the case, cause if not it would mean that the variation of aerodynamic lifting forces between the wings due to aileron deflection isn't within an acceptable margin of realism. Sadly, the DCS's recorded track replays tell a whole different story and don't match what you've actually done during gameplay, so I can't provide an authentic track file here where a correct roll response comparison can take place between DCS's MIG-21 and reality's MIG-21 to make it more clear that the difference is huge, but if someone tries to replicate in the sim what is in the video can see the difference for himself with no further arguments needed. All the best!

The rolling inertia seems quite high in relation to the aerodynamic forces which generate rolling moments for a given AoA, IAS and ailerons deflection. From my perspective, the rolling response time seems like almost twice higher than the real one. Why do you find it feeling good? You maybe like it, but it's far from real. Just visually compare (it's roughly enough anyway) the rolling response and rolling acceleration due t inertia of the MIG-21 flown by a real pilot in similar conditions as in DCS, and you'll understand that either the rolling moment of inertia of the MIG-21 in DCS is too high or simply the variation of lifting forces between the wings as the ailerons are deflected, is too low, because in DCS the 21 is too sluggish in roll response even at low AoA for a comparably high airspeed. Next are some real life videos that can give you a clue of how long it takes for the MIG-21 to reach full roll rate from zero. It takes at least twice as much time for the MIG-21 in DCS to get from zero to maximum roll rate for the same flying conditions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-cEdwgYdAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgkfSefPAjE I believe that the relation/ratio between rolling moment of inertia and rolling aerodynamic moments at a given IAS still isn't correct and still needs improvement, next to other issues this plane has at the moment. I don't want to sound bad or full of criticism, but almost always the truth hurts and I simply won't feel satisfied until it's finally done well (at least 90-95% of the real jet, 5-10% error). About the engine stalls at high AoA, I find it exaggerated as well! The real aircraft which was secretly tested by the Americans at Nevada never had an engine stall and they tried the best they could to make the engine flame out like their fighters at the time were encountering, but the MIG's engine simply didn't..., and that was not the BIS but an older variant of MIG-21, so how can the BIS in DCS flame out such easily if it's not intended just to make it look interesting? I don't find it right, but exaggerated to make some people think it's realistic.

You're right, the real AoA isn't going beyond 15 deg. for the MIG-21 which is not realistic, as even straight winged aircraft like the A-10 or Su-25 or L-39 can reach between 16 to 18 deg of critical AoA (before stall). The mig-21 should get decently to around 20 deg AoA before aerodynamics stall, but the devs must re-tweak it for that to happen. The 28-30 AoA indicated in the cockpit now corresponds to only 15 real AoA, but should correspond to 20+.

I hope they won't forget about the MIG-21's flight model and let it go on like this, because there are very important things regarding the simulation of the real plane's performance (which for now is too high in terms of lifting forces alone) and the ability to simulate an authentic dogfight with another jet. There's another thread regarding the MIG-21 flying at quite negative AoA in supersonic. Not even the in-game tested F-15 or Su-27 can do such thing, planes which have a lower wing loading than the MIG-21. There's still quite a lot of work from LN to get the MIG-21's FM reach ED's standards, from my point of view and I can only wish them what is best in order to finally achieve it. I don't want to look impatient, but I suppose that what anyone else wouldn't like to see, is that unfinished stuff would remain unfinished or get forgotten!

Is the issue regarding the lift produced by the MIG-21 at all angles of attack resolved? That would be great, cause nothing was solved for at least 2 years!

Returning to the topic: Why had Leatherneck brought down the critical AoA from 20+ to about 15? The landing speed as well as the minimum speed at which the plane still has 1G at critical AoA (so called stall speed) isn't different, which proves that the lift/AoA slope is steeper now, so this needs to questioned and answered. I consider the older flight model's AoA more true than this. Although some aspects were made better within the flight model, some have been made worse, so it still needs tweaking to make it right!

Maybe the one that I heard to have 1 degree might be a different custom version, idk., cause I can't yet find an example either of a MIG-21 having a wing root incidence different than 0 on the internet right now, but possibly there might be one, yet I just didn't find it very important that the wing might have 1 degree of incidence or zero. That difference isn't of much importance. There are other issues that are important which concern the topic here and other things like the lift slope of the MIG-21 and zero lift angle of attack of it, which are strange. Good day, and sorry for being too quick on the LOL by thinking that you were wrong in fact, cause it seems that I can't find a different example about it either, so I can't contradict you about the wing root incidence.

You mean above, not below. It makes sense that the hydro-mechanical system was built so that the ratio between stick deflection and elevator deflection drops as airspeed increases for the fact that the critical AoA also decreases as airspeed increases since the airflow becomes compressible (above 300km/h). So after +300km/h, the compressibility factor of the air starts increasing rapidly and so the critical AoA that can be achieved drops up to transonic airspeed where a shock stall effect also becomes present for all known airplanes, then the maximum AoA slightly increases back through supersonic up to some value when the Mach number gets 1.2-1.3, then again starts decreasing as airspeed continues to increase. This is the aerodynamic reason why the achievable AoA needs to be reduced as airspeed increases, as a means of making keeping you clear from the critical AoA first of all and secondly to not allow for too high G-loads that can result. Nothing's wrong with the simulation in this area so far.

LOL! 1 degree? 1 degree equals nothing compared to what happens with the real critical AoA. +/-1 isn't a big deal! 15 AoA instead of 20 is a big deal as it affects the whole lift/AoA derivative (slope). Don't want to contradict you now, but I later found out that it is indeed +1 degree though and "Frederf" was right. I've talked to a real MIG-21 pilot and he told me that the wing has 1 deg. of incidence at root. That guy knows the 21 by the book and also confirmed me that the real critical AoA is around 20 for no flaps and slightly increases with flaps using boundary layer control. Good day!

You couldn't be more right!:thumbup: This is the problem that the devs should re-look into, cause I've talked to real MIG-21 pilots and they also know that for the indicated 33 AoA in cockpit, the plane realistically reaches a plus 20 AoA on the wing AND even if passing beyond that the plane may get a roll-off (fast snap roll due to one wing stall) but then quickly recover (roll rate becomes null quite shortly) then continue to be very docile as the AoA continues to increase beyond stall with slight lift loss (didn't say how much). So, the lift loss should also be not as dramatic as it's in-game right now, where the G-load still drops below 50% of the value before the stall. I guess the lift (and of course, G-load alike) should remain somewhere between 80-90% the maximum achievable, not just 50%. For short, we should be looking for a higher critical AoA, lower G/lift drop beyond stall. Let's wish for the best!

I've got you now. Indeed the lift/AoA slope is higher than normal, at least from the way I see it. The way it's modeled right now seems more like an A-10's lift slope (it isn't necessarily that, but it looks like), just with the difference that at a 0 (zero) angle of attack the lift is close to null as it should. The FBW kind of response felling is more probably related to how the hydro-mechanical elevator deflection is being modeled in DCS in correlation with the flying indicated airspeed (related to dynamic pressure). Only experimental tests could reveal how the elevator deflection would be limited according to the dynamic pressure at which the plane flies. My biggest concern for now is the critical AoA level which seems way too low. All the best!

LOL! I didn't check to see how old that post is, but hey..., that means it's even worse the fact that this ugly feature still persists today! Cheers!

Sorry I forgot to quote you're message in mine, but you probably got notified! There's the track! Good day!

This is an unrealistic feature for the nose gear of this robustly thought and built aircraft. It can't have this kind of fragile nose gear, common! You can land this plane in a field (on grass) in real world as the Russians really wanted it to be able for such operations, but the devs. made the nose gear steering act like a thin wooden stick that snaps in a split. It's not the nose gear itself which seems realistically tough/robust, it's the steering that breaks up for no big reason! It breaks up too easily. It's like you'd just touch it with a finger and it breaks! Doesn't feel like a Su-25 steering mechanism toughness! No other aircraft in game has this kind of fragile steering feature, none of the other which could be more fragile otherwise! Please make the steering non-destructible unless the whole nose landing gear collapses first, cause it doesn't have any logic sense for the nose gear to fail that easy. Here's a track where, after making an off tarmac excursion at high speed you are happy to still be alive, just to turn around and at quite very low speed you try to get back on track, when this happens: Su-25's 1 milimeter steering mechanism.trk You get quite pissed off to see that happening. You managed to tumble and on the grass and survived even after landing on grass where the main wheels and gear are fine to just not be able to re-put the front tire on the asphalt anymore, cause when you do that you won't have any steering anymore. The main gear has no problem in the most tough conditions especially after the odd simulation of the tires jumping instantly on the tarmac, but the nose gear steering alone is what breaks off for good.

Same problem here. It's a random bug probably, cause it doesn't seem to be related to the type of mission, loadout or anything else. After some random respawn, the ENR becomes non-accessible and you can't follow waypoints anymore. You just have to keep on respawning until ENR shows up again. It's all random and frustrating!