Jump to content

Hiromachi

Members
  • Posts

    1260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Hiromachi

  1. Yeah, we know. I tested it in the morning on test server. It was there (have proof, have pics! :) ), than a patch came in the early afternoon and it vanished, even though there were no changes submitted by us in it. Rudel was pulling his last hair from his head but we could do nothing about it at that stage and so entire package has arrived like that. Long story short YoYo, we're looking into it :)
  2. Tacview should be fine Lucas.
  3. I cant confirm that. I've made 3 consecutive trials landing that thing at Batumi (landing weight as specified 7200 kg (Manual indicates landing weight between 6800 kg to 7300 kg) which corresponds to 38 % of the fuel. I started some 10 km from the runway with initial speed around 550 km/h. Dropped to 450 km/h and started lowering my gear. I could keep 5 m/s descend at 350 -360 km/h (RPM at 85 - 88 %, did a bit play with it) with UUA indicating 9 - 10 deg (which is as in the manual). I overshot the runway entry a bit, might've started decelerating too late but landed at 1/3 of it and prior to touchdown flared it just a bit to touch at some 300 km/h.
  4. For one they have actual control column longer than your joystick and with greater deflection range which combined with actual stick forces allows for much finer control than any PC joystick.
  5. I had absolutely no issue landing with 85 - 87 % RPM with an aircraft clean with 2900 l of fuel on board (so even in some overweight condition). I even took off, made a circle around the field and landed again. More thrust however is desired to keep lower descent rate, but not necessary as I could land it at 300 - 290 km/h. The suspension definitely needs tuning and its being tuned however I could do aerobraking, it is just hard as requires VERY FINE stick movements and catching it just there so it keeps nose gear lifted but doesnt take-off again. I could keep it in that situation from touchdown to about 240 km/h. So its possible but just hard.
  6. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276555 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=268153&page=3
  7. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=274740 Template was provided in this very section in pinned thread.
  8. Dear Wadim, no because you haven't proven in any way that this is bug at all yet. You have stated that engine is excessively powerful at high altitudes since you were able to attain altitude of 22.000 meters. But you haven't provided any documents stating that it shouldn't, also how did you estimate that engine thrust is too high (i.e. if the cause is not aircraft drag, DCS environment at high altitudes or any other variables). I'm looking right now at following documents: Samolot MiG-21bis Charakterystyki Lotno - Techniczne printed in Poznań (Poland) in 1980. On page 8 it states that maximum Ma speed is 2.05 and maximum practical ceiling is 17.500 meters. Than on page 15 it is stated that MiG-21bis when armed with two R-3S / R-55 missiles should be capable of reaching practical ceiling of 17.500 m at Ma = 1.85. Finally, it is stated on page 19 that it is possible to attain dynamic ceiling - 20.000 to 22.000 meters when climbing from 15.500 - 16.000 meters with speed close to Ma 1.9 Piloting Instructions for the MiG-21bis give more information, advising to conduct climbs with clean aircraft or with two missiles only as added drag causes too high fuel consumption to accelerate the aircraft to desired Ma number in order to attain optimal climb speed. Yet it also says that its possible to achieve maximum practical ceiling with four missiles but with a use of external fuel tank which should be dropped as soon as it is empty (page 205). Piloting instructions: http://www.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/index.php/digitalizacja/katalog/2307 Now this is of course documents but I find the same information in pilots memoirs: http://aviateam.pl/historia/title;loty-na-rozpedzanie-i-pulap-w-34-plm-opk/ Here pilots achieved "only" 19.500 meters but author also exceeded recommended top speed, reaching Ma 2.3 and feeling comfortable that with more practice he could push it to Ma 2.5 So to summarize, I do not see either in documents or real life accounts that aircraft should not be able to climb as high or that it could do so only for record flights with "specially prepared aircraft" when actual piloting instructions for average pilots state it is possible to achieve such altitudes even with missiles attached. I am also sorry for nor writing in Russian but I do not speak it, although I'd really like to. Google translate would not give justice to the above text, so I felt its better to leave it in English. Please forgive me guys :)
  9. Check the link provided above. That will be fixed in next beta update as well ;)
  10. Lights in the cockpit were adjusted in the patch as we were informed about the upcoming changes in day / night lightning levels. They are not particularly visible during the day due to overall game brightness increase. We can do nothing about light levels in the game and if we tweak each light for the day, they will be impossibly bright at night (in fact at night its already required to switch to night mode, but now it makes sense). So they did not disappear, they are just barely visible as everything is lit by daylight. Wheels and suspension should be further adjusted. Transparency of the canopy is part of Phase I update of the cockpit. I dont know what is wrong with VR controllers. I dont use them myself.
  11. Aircraft practical service ceiling is actually lower, 17.500 m. However manual also describes so called dynamic service ceiling which is 20.000 - 22.000 m, achievable in climb with Ma even or greater than 1.9 It's entirely possible to achieve those altitudes and such altitudes were achieved in real life.
  12. Fix for it is scheduled for the next update: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4369156&postcount=22
  13. No worries, there is always possibility that something could be wrong. We're here to help ;)
  14. Start instant action, than quit game and upload log from that session. Maybe we can see something there.
  15. As I've explained yesterday on hoggit since someone started yesterday similar discussion, at low airspeeds (around M 0.4 and lower) and lower altitudes (around 5 km or so and less) prestall buffeting does not develop for this aircraft. It's stated in the very manual. And speed is not a point here but your (or what I've seen on hoggit) attempt to hold aircraft beyond safe AoA limits (I saw guys pulling that thing all the way to the end of the gauge limit) which obviously should lead to violent departure. The cue is AoA guage and reduction in aileron effectiveness. Rest is your experience, where you have to know when to relax the stick and when you can pull.
  16. Dolphin has explained the discrepancy between external view AoA and cockpit indicator: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3427147&postcount=136 And yes, wing rock is intended.
  17. Mine has shark mouth ?
  18. Sora, could you be so kind and provide pictures ? I cant reproduce it.
  19. Hello Shmal, I will forward your input to Dolphin :)
  20. To be specific I use 442.50 from 27.02.2020 and in VR I see little to no FPS discrepancies with radar on / off.
  21. For now recommendation is to revert to older Nvidia driver (I use one from January 2020). Permanent solution is being worked on, we're working on this with ED since issue seems to be of more general nature.
  22. Rudel is on it already guys.
  23. I've noticed that SAU displays oscillations at higher altitudes. If I engaged it at 1 - 5 km it managed to stabilize the flight but when I tried at 9 - 11 + km, it entered very heavy oscillations. In any event, we're looking into this. In any case guys please provide tracks. This is going to help us a lot.
  24. Alright Rob, will take a look into that suspension as well. Thank you for reporting.
  25. It's texture that needs to be programmed for animation to work correctly. WIP
×
×
  • Create New...