KenobiOrder

The original main point was simply that the explanation given by the developer was not correct, as F2 view does not show pitch angle. It shows true AoA. The reason that the stalling AoA of 15-16 is wrong is because a delta of the Mig's type does not stall anywhere close to this. It simply does not. The issue with the landing AoA being off assumes either 1:1 or that the error relationship should be linear. The error of the wing mounted gauge in the test was not linear. Landing angles of attack vs read out on the UUA could be much smaller. Although it isnt obvious to me why one would land at critical angle of attack. In fact what might be wrong here is that the relationship in the game does in fact seem linear, as it appears to be two to one at all angles of attack.

Except its not by a factor of two. Not sure why you bothered pointing out that they are different planes, since I already stated that. But since you want to use the Mig-23 error equations as an example, I am simply continuing that example. And they do not show the AoA being off by a factor of two. Those error equations yield errors of about 40%. If you plug them into the Mig-21, you get stall angles of attack of around 20 degrees. And no, the planes stalls when it hits 33 degrees in game, except at very very very low speeds. The stall wing rock is clearly some kind of scripted behavior. It also doesn't make sense that the critical AoA changes based on speed, because that is not how wings work.

Except the issue at hand isn't whether there is an error. It's how big the error is. The current in game error is greater than twice the true aoa. None of the evidence provided suggests that this is accurate. Both the paper you linked and the comparison to the mig23 yield much lower discrepancies than we have in game. The mig23 isn't the same plane, but continuing your comparison, that error equation only suggests that the amount of error in the sim is excessive. Using the indicated stall of 33 degrees, it would give a true aoa of between 19-and 21.25. Which would be a much more reasonable stall aoa for a delta swept at 57 degrees.

Lol yes it does. It stalls in game at a true aoa of abiut 15-16.

It is a wild assumption that the discrepancy between the indicator and the true angle of attack is a factor of two. And it flies in the face of what is known about delta wings of the type fitted to the mig. And that is what it matters. Because as far as the flight model acccuracy is concerned, it does not matter at what reading the indicator is at when the jet stalls. What matters is what true angle of attack the indicator corresponds to when it reads "33 degrees"

This doesn't matter at all if that relationship is wrong. Which it is. The actual AoA of the wing is half what the UUA is showing. Let me put this very simply: Delta Wings of the Mig-21 type do not stall at 15 degrees. You can talk all day about what you think the developer meant by local AoA. It doesnt matter. The thing that matters is that the UUA's relationship with the real AoA is wrong, because it cannot be right if it is reaching the 33 degree position in tandem with the wing hitting the true AoA at 15 degrees.

This presumes that the UUA is off by a factor of two, and also that the game models this. I see no reason to make that assumption. The actual stall angle of attack should correspond to the AoA in the F2 view, and right now that is about 15 degrees. Delta wings do not stall at 15 degrees. 15 degrees critical AoA is what you would expect from a tapered straight wing, like on a P-51. Delta wings have a much lower slope of Cl/AoA, and they have lower max CL generally, but they dont critically stall at 15 degees. In any case, this is not what the developer stated is happening. They stated that the reason the UUA is different is because they claimed the F2 view is NOT the actual AoA, but is actually pitch angle. Which is why I posted the image at the beginning so everyone would at least theoretically be on the same page as to what that means. AoA is the angle between the flight path and the chord line, and the pitch angle is something else entirely that has nothing to do with fuselage airflow instrumentation errors.

Right except what Frederf said sort of made zero sense. The chart shows a Cl increase from 1-1.4 depending on Mach number. And the claims that there would be no CL increase also seems to assume the 28 degree line and not the 33 degree line, which shows a larger and sooner increase, and is incidentally the number we car about because 33 degrees is where the chart says wing rock starts. In any case its not just the Cl increase that is important here. Its the ability to maneuver generally. The current jet hits a wall at about half the AoA it should, and this means flying it is a very bad experience where you cannot pull AoA as needed to fight.

Right so you have no idea where I am coming from. I am pretty sure you think I have read that bull<profanity> paper regarding the supposed magical agility of the Mig-21 written by two guys whose names I cannot pronounce or remember. Except I am not. I don't think the jet should turn with modern planes, far from it. The 21 cannot even turn with the IRL F4, much less a F-16. Not sure where you got that from either aside from making wild irrational assumptions about my goal here. Making the jet stall at the correct critical AoA would not result in a magical turn fighter. It would only mean that we wouldn't get artificially stuck faffing about at 15 degrees of AoA when doing an unsustained turn. The Mig-21 doesnt have the thrust necessary, so while we would get to the proper AoA the sustained turn performance would still be worse than the current in game max sustained turn performance which is about 12-14 degrees a second. In game right now if you get below 400kph the wing rock magically goes away for some reason, and you can pull over 30 degrees of AoA as per the F2 view. But even with Emergency Burner, you are not going anywhere. Your stuck waffling about at 300kph, which is fine. The problem is we cannot generate reasonable levels of instantaneous turn performance due to the incorrect amount of AoA we pull. The mig-21 we have in game right now is stalling in a manner that is consistent with straight winged world war two prop planes, not a Delta wing.

He referred to it that way because he was making a distinction between the pitch angle and the AoA, as per the image in my first post. He also states that the UUA readout is the local AoA and that is what is implemented in the FM code. The discrepancy is that he thinks the F2 view and tacview arent showing AoA, but pitch angle, which is not correct. Whatever angle he has coded is erroneous and is resulting in us stalling at about half the approximate value we should be. Regardless of what the Mig-21 base their angle on, deltas do not stall out at 15-16 degrees angle of attack like it is in game right now. Deltas have a lower slope than say a straight wing like a ww2 plane, but they generate a slightly lower Cl Max at a much higher max AoA. Whatever the true value of the AoA, our current stall is far too shallow.

I think you are all missing the point. The developer has already stated that the AoA on the UUA is the true AoA and is what the flight model is using. The point is that they claimed the F2 view is the pitch angle, and not the AoA, which was supposed to be the reason we stall when the F2 view is about half what the UUA indicates. But clearly the F2 view is in fact the AoA, as the game sees it, and not the pitch angle. So the Mig-21 is using the wrong data point as its AoA measurement and that is resulting is us exceeding the critical aoa at a much lower actual AoA because the flight model of the Mig-21 is seeing a completely different number. As per actual documents, and the behavior of Delta wings in general, we should be stalling at about 28-33 degrees and not 15-16 like the flight model does right now.

I would think that all they would need to do to the FM to fix this would be to change the value that the model uses for AoA no?

The explanation given at few years ago as to why the Mig is showing a different angle of attack than in the F2 view is as follows: As per the above, the flight model is using the angle of attack shown by the cockpit instruments. But the angle shown in the cockpit is about double the actual angle of attack. Here is proof the angle of attack in F2 is correct and the AoA in Mig-21 is wrong, and therefore the stall/wingrock part of the flight model is wrong rather severely and causing the plane to be uncontrollable at about half the realistic angle of attack: First, so everyone is on the same page here is what Dolphin means by pitch angle and AoA The following screenshots show the F-18 angle of attack, and confirm that the long axis and the flight path indication are the same as the AoA readout. Which is also the F2 readout. This followed by mig-21 and tacview comparison. nullnull nullnullnullnull nullnull

I know you guys always want tracks but is that reliable? The tracks get corrupted very easily. They almost never replay what actually happened. Been that way for years, at least 8.

So a patch or two ago it was announced that PD STT would use range gates to improve the tracking of targets in clutter. I tested this after release and found that as expected, notching was much less useful against a STT lock due to this. But when I tested this patch, suddenly I lose targets immediately when they turn to the beam, as before. Did something break the new PD STT features?

Has anyone from ED looked at this?

You quoted what I said 3-4 months ago. I am also not certain what you mean by "just words no proof" since I was literally quoting someone else's proof.... You also somehow whittled my point down to claiming the missile is wrong when down low and slow. I did not qualify my statement that way, you just read that into it. I am not opposed to missiles potentially being notched under certain circumstances. I was referencing, when I said that, that the missiles in the game were being notched far too easily in general. All you had to do to have a virtually guaranteed defense was to make a lazy turn to the beam, no countermeasures needed, and the geometry of the engagement such as the look down angle and range to the ground, and range of missile to target were irrelevant. After they released the INS patch the missiles were just as susceptible to notching as they were before, as well as the absurd problems with tracking cold targets. I have not played recently so I dont know exactly how they are now, but I havent heard anything from anyone recently claiming its been substantially improved. I know ED has said they are going to implement range gates now (which is one of the main things we were asking for in this thread so I dont know what you are complaining about).

Did you see anyone qualify this otherwise? Curious ability you have to read things into comments.

Yeah no I didn't.

I have heard differently

Lots of missiles are guided via command. Active guidance adds launch and leave capability and a slew of other things.

Yes, thats also what I said. And my orginal post was just meant to affirm what you were saying since you said "may." So I dont think you understood my meaning. Based on? All of the information available states that if the missile loses track it reverts to the link. Where is are sources that says that link cant guide the missile to the target if the missile never recovers track?

I didnt say the datalink had a overrides the homing, but the missile continues to receive updates via link in case it loses track or needs to sort a bandit. This is stated unambiguously. why exactly? STT locks guide missiles all the time.

It states that it does, listen that is, even after pit bull for the purpose of maintaining track or reacquiring. And in STT I would think the tracking would be more than adequate to guide the missile to impact if necessary.

The real question is how ED manages to do this every patch. I mean how was this feature released without anyone noticing it was not working correctly? It is incredibly obvious, and would have taken only the most cursory of tests. So just like 2.6, it means they probably did not test it.