Hiromachi

Having tested it in VR I'd recommend start with lighter mission to take into account WIP state of the map. I've had some noticeable performance issues in Damascus area.

I advise that you make suggestion on this matter in our Mantis since its a feature not exactly related to Syria map developments.

Damascus is definitely toughest test. I had dips below 30 FPS when flying at 100 m and lower. Huge city with a lot of unique and textured at higher res buildings take their toll.

I can forward that suggestion to our artist. For sure its nice idea to consider.

No.

Hey guys, just so you know, as of today navigation of MiG-21 over Syria map is possible only with ingame map, watch and Mk. I eyeballs. We have prepared couple days before complete RSBN and ARK station list for the 21 for Syria as well as few Instant Action missions (I'm working on 2 more) but they were submitted too late to make it into this update. However, as far as I'm aware, next patch is scheduled to be delivered very soon so they should be included than. If you have any questions, just let me know. In the meantime you are free to try missions. I've uploaded them to my drive so you can play with them even today :) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S1Tk21PEvUQSz81OaF1ZOd_6urFZlIG5/view?usp=sharing

F5 brother :)

I'm expecting that there will be more than one Syria mission :) I know that Alpen is excited for this map and so are many other users. It's good that it's coming finally.

All customers are paid up customers :) We treat everyone equally. We've had a few months of MiG-21 updates and fixes (including FM ones, read this thread in detail please), but we also have to work on other projects to be delivered (so we have to balance one with the other as a small team) and most importantly there are already verified issues with 21 pending. Namely, the problem that concerns many users which is radar performance decrease. This one was and is priority, especially since new GPU generation from Nvidia is going to arrive in the upcoming months. Second, you're post assumes there is a correction needed. But when you quoted me, its said in the post specifically that we dont know if there is issue or not since there are no data (at least available to me) to verify it prima facie.

Not yet.

Well, I have entire tacview of the remaining hour of the mission last night which basically boiled down to waves of Blue Viggens, F-5s and Harriers coming to Mozdok over and over. It wasn't such a problem from surviving point of view since air defense there can handle that, but I think huge number of missiles was expended. So I dont think anyone was particularly sticking to the objective.

Are you patting yourself on the back or shaming intentionally another user who simply might not be as experienced as you think you are ? Anyway, regarding Phone Booth mission, whats the idea behind it ? Because I haven't seen in the briefing (might have missed however) anything permitting attacks on main bases and yet got people coming at Mozdok and blasting the airfield / respawning people. Now if that's a mission design, than thats fine, but if its not than perhaps it's something that deserves attention.

Hey guys, we've looked into this and as it seems, this isn't a MiG-21 issue but a Harrier one due to overlapped inputs. I'm going to send a PM to whoever is responsible for coding Harrier to take a look at that. Thanks :)

We're waiting on ED to provide solution here, so I cant give you any better response than fix will be available as soon as possible.

Use bug tracker. I check and forward bugs reported on forums because its not a big issue for me, part of my work anyway, but preferred manner is our bug tracker.

Yeah, I understand. We have reached as high as we could to get this sorted and hope to have some solution as soon as possible.

We have also brought improvements to CE2, including FM and landing gear, though I admit that latter one needs further adjustments as its too soft: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4366643&postcount=98 But its not as if there were no improvements related to CE2. The reason we've been quiet about CE2 sound update is that person assigned to produce sound samples for it has mysteriously vanished few months ago, without notifying us prior nor informing post the fact. As such, we're looking for a new person who could produce such samples to be used for the module. Unfortunately, not all things went the way we wanted.

He meant 1350 km/h I think, just a typo :) Thats the speed limit. Going to 1400+ km/h causes flameout.

Hey, no worries, I can always answer any other MiG-21 related questions if you want. I dont know how many MiGs try to evade missiles in AB but its possible that they havent seen missile launch (I often dont even see due to how limited view from the cockpit is) what is happening behind me. The other explanation that for the MiG-21 might be the case is that without afterburner there really is no maneuverability. No afterburner turns, especially if prior to launch 21 was maneuvering, just dont happen since available G is extremely low. And of course, R-25 spool down takes time. You can retard throttle but engine RPM goes low in delay. As for the Viggen top speed. Well, not according to available sources: We've seen Viggen during the Blue Flag Ramble even go with four / six pylons and missiles attached up to 840 - 860 kts down low. That's Ma=1.3 and I have pictures of Viggen going even faster on CW. Which makes it at least 0.2 M faster than according to the above graph. Now, this graph clearly shows that there is some artificial speed restriction as aircraft itself has enough thrust to go even faster. That restriction (Vne) could be because of engine structural limitations or other reasons. I don't know what is the reason, but we know for certain that there had to be something as otherwise such top speed limit would not be imposed. To give an example, although not exactly game related, I can bring the case of MiG-21PF / PFM with R-11F2-300 or R-11F2S-300 engines. MiG-21 PF / PFM were restricted to speeds of 1100 km/h or 1200 km/h Indicated at altitudes up to 11.000 meters. Above that top speed limit was Ma 2.05 Aircraft had enough thrust to overcome drag and clearly could go faster but wasnt allowed. Why ? Because of structural limitations of the air-frame. Or more specifically the engine, due to maximum speed pressure - dynamic pressure of the airflow affecting the engine unit during the flight. In normal conditions MiG-21 PF up to 2000 m was restricted to 1100 km/h (except with some modernized engine, if so than limit was lifted to 1200 km/h) and 1200 km/h above 2000 m, but not more than Ma 2.05 at all altitudes. Above those speeds pressure built on first stage of compressor and heat created in afterburner chamber were too great and could cause permanent damage. The restriction could be lifted only for preselected engines with improved compressor blades and improved thermal treatment of the afterburner chamber or later engine versions (incorporating improvements) like R-11F2SK-300, permitting top speed up to 1300 km/h. Alternatively, manual indicates that 21 PF / PFM could be equipped with R13-300 engine, which allowed for the same top speed. Ma 2.05 speed limit up high was imposed due to directional instability that appeared beyond that speed (although there are recorded events of pilots going up to 2.1, 2.15, etc.). So whatever reason is there, limiting Viggens top speed down low, it was likely due to engine structural limitations. Which might not be present. But that is something Heatblur would have to be asked about. Rb-24J on launch has maneuverability similar to AIM-9X according to Lazzyseal test, so I guess he used metaphor here :)

I have checked manuals but cant see any airspeed restrictions for the flaps being mentioned. Technical description of the aircraft construction indicates that jocks (hoists) design allows to adjust the angle of flap deflection depending on aerodynamic forces working on flaps during change of airspeed. As such, for example during landing approach with flaps in "Landing" position (switch), flaps will not deflect to full 45 degrees, but only when airspeed of the aircraft will drop below 400 km/h. In case of a go around, increase of airspeed causes flap retraction. So as much as I find it silly to lower flaps for that one turn, since you literally dump all your energy which MiG-21 does tremendously fast on its own, I dont find any construction reason that flaps should be damaged in that way. At high speeds they just wont lower at all. All my ducks are in a row, thank you very much for your concern. The idea that you can just split missiles to all aspect vs rear aspect ones, shows that you don't seem to know the difference between available missiles at all. AIM-9P / Rb-24J are far more than just "rear aspect" missiles and you have pretty solid chance to hit a maneuvering target perpendicular to you. Thats only a bit less than R-60. Now the purpose of the R-60Ms remains the question about as much as the purpose of Viggens. But R-3R more recently lost a lot of its value due to Alpens mission design. 2/3rds of the time we fly in storm / rain, with heavy overcast at 2 - 3 km. Locking anything in such conditions is rather hard if not impossible. So we're back to R-13 and R-3S :) Yes, I've missed that. Every tacview I watch, I see a bunch of Viggens flying at Mach 1.2+ around Queshm or other area rich in targets and engaging into turnfights (or not) with MiGs. Viggen became the primary air to air platform of the server, whether its because of its performance, fun or amount of meme stuff that can be done with it. But the sight of Viggens performing air to ground is so rare that I do miss that :megalol:

Certain blue pilots complaining about RED pilots, said something about sucking it up by RED and stop complaining. And here we are, with more complains from the same guys. I think yesterday event has shown perfectly what massive difference does make R-60M for 21. R-3S represents in reality and should in DCS a level of improved AIM-9B (which no F-5E ever carries), R-13M is nothing more than AIM-9D, which is far less than AIM-9P / Rb-24J but is not present in DCS at all. So we have to make do. And Alpen stretches his hands as much as he can :) We will see what can be done about R-3S and R-13M performance, since they are mixed right now (one performs the way the other should and vice versa) and I have reported it to Devs. But I have yet to see those Viggens do air to ground. I mean, how could they when they load themselves with Rb-24 exclusively :megalol:

I will ask about that :)

Alright Shmal, I looked through your report and to be completely fair the speed at which you try to compare things is way below normal flying curve. At speeds you push that aircraft I land :) But in all seriousness, I took a look through my documentation and most of graphs for sustained turn, turn radius and turn time end at Ma 0.5. So in order to get something for a speed around 0.31 - 0.32 such data would need to be extrapolated (and even that would not be precise enough, we're basically moving from what is known and described to what is unknown and undescribed in documents). Since that is beyond my skills, Im going to forward your report to Dolphin over the weekend for him to review it. Thank you for the input !

Once I get home Shmal, I will take a look ;)

It doesnt if you revert to older driver. Again, thats temporary but the best advice for now. As for status. The issue is being worked with Lead ED programmer now. I have nothing more to bring as of this time.