sissypilot

Well I dont doubt that f-16 shows that on HUD, but for a precise HUD interpolation horizontal and vertical angle relative to seeker head is not enough. Just think about it! You have a torch 20 cm away from IR head and guess what behind that angle further that line (relative to torch) the target can be anywhere as far as the head is concerned, so only the head'sinput can not be enought. I tend to lean to tharos's version: the software somehow artificially generates an guesstimated exact position based on the usual engagement distances or something more exotic like heat strengh or I dunno. In fact for simple distance measurement you do not need a lock, i have limited knowledge on the working of the radar, but early radio distance measuring units for gun aiming (like in sabre or mig-17 or the UTI version of Mig-21 wirhout proper radar) did not need radar lock they simply relied on the echoed signal from the nearest object.

I have to agree as I have no knowledge on the workings of the f-15 or 16 HUD, I was just thinkink outloud, it is not the same if target is 500m or 5 km away, you might be right that between 0.8 and 3km which is probably the most comon engagement distance it means a minimal parallax. One thing sure as you sad the "software knows" on the US fighters and there is no software on the Mig to "know" :). The soviet designers simply did not think this feature is that important so it would be worth to take the effort to solve with an analogue system. However they did solve the rangefinding problem with the radar (even though there was not much to solve as this system was a couple of decades old by then) in A-A gun mode which is not implemented to remain ontopic.

I dunno about the workings of an f-15 (thouh I happen to know that a real mig-21 would not show IR lock on ASP), but simple geometric rules make it impossible to point out something in 2d knowing only one dimension which is direction you need distance too. If you rely only on the seekers input you see only a line on the ASP to make it a point you need distance too. My guess is that F-15 HUD communicates both ways to the seeker and to the radar or only the radar point out the target for the HUD based on the seekers input either way it must works with two variables. One thing is sure: a Mig does not do such thing in reality.

If it would be so IR seeker knows only relative to aircraft axis direction but no distance. To point out something on the HUD you need both. There is no such data exchange in MIG-21 you only hear the tone when IR head locks and have a lock light on. And think about it: our ASP does not know distance in AA gun mode radar locked when badly needed and happen to know distance during IR lock when showing target is really only a "cool" feature not really more, even with swiched off radar.. comeon leatherneck you are better than that :) Somehow I would like to believe that we do not belong to that market segment which welcomes "cool features" in a high fidelity simulation, but contrary demand the real ones :)

According to russian manuals the approach looks like this: You start at 1000m altitude 500kph and 18-20km away RPM 90-92% flaps half way out try to be at 7m/s vario descend, at 12km you are at 600m speed 450kph RPM 85-87% pull up a little to 5m/s vario, at 6km distance altitude is 300-350m full flaps still 85-87% RPM, final approach 400kph 250m altitude bleed off speed to 330-340 at 70-80m altitude and start flare at that speed do not play with throttle it is at 85-87%. That is what the book says. In reality I found a lot more manageable to approach at a lot higher angle and higher speed almost cut throttle and pull up fast and bleed off speed fast at the end of the approach with added thrust. I think it is quite unrealistic and very unsafe also. In real life you maintain glide path at all cost with a plane like this. In fact to assist with landing pilots always had ground assistance: This is called RSP радиолокационная система посадки which is short for radilocationing system for landing. During landing you always had a aircraft controller to help you allign and maintain perfect glide path. The pilots liked to joke that with the mig you dont land it is more like a controlled crash :)

Whaooo. I have checked on the game and something changed. It is still light years from the real one but certainly better: ballistics is definitely better, still when lock no distance indication I assume no impact calculation either, bombing CCIP still works as if in a tie fighter :) piper still locks on plane when IR missile lock (it is very annoying, with minimal reasoning it is easy to understand that there is no way ASP would know and indicate where our target is located in front of us, especially our ASP which is unable even with radar lock to calculate distance in AA gun mode let alone position).

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bis Latin word means something like second time.

Might be I am not familiar with western planes. I know the first such thing in a soviet plane appeared in the SU-22 but it was not able to take specific bomb into account it only worked with one type of bomb.

Slangt range unit is a simple analogue computer which triangulated distance from the altitude and pitch of the aircraft. Bombing was an art on this plane it was practiced by dive bombing or horizontal bombing. Both involved memorizing shitload of charts at what speed pitch altitude etc to release. The pilot never really saw the impact point just flew over it at a given altitude speed and pitch (taken from the chart) and when target passed the mark he pushed the release button after a given time (also taken from the chart). Even ground attack planes of that era did not have a fully functional CCIP (as implemented) I am not sure about western planes but I suspect that even western counterparts in the 70s lacked this feature. Think about it for a moment to constantly calculate impact you need very accurate altitude, speed (all vectors) and projectile ballistics (for each bomb it was different) information and most importandly a COMPUTER to put these together :)

Manual page 42 fuses and circuit brakers. It would not be difficoult to implement it. All you had to do before you use a certain system you have to switch the corresponding circuit breaker on.

Yes, sorry. I mean the so called AZS (Avtomat Zashiti Syety, automatic circuit protector) in the right console. A russian plane is unreal without it.

I rarely blast things just like to fly around :) I am suprized as my DCS Mi-8 has fully working fuses.

Look I dont mind that it has a CCIP. What I miss (or just missed somewhere) is stating that it is somewhat a "game mode" a cheat and is is up to you if you use it the real one does not have one. Memorizing a sh..load of charts to toss bombs is something you can not expect from casual gamers. Probably it is not a coincidence that to learn piloting these birds took years after all :) What I cant forgive for example is the lack of fuses which would be an integral part of startup procedure. The actual ASP gun mode is also a sin against the memory of this beauty :)

I dont exactly remeber but I managed to go down to very "unreal" altitudes before the patch. Now with the patch it is more realistic I guess. The plane is still suspicously agile at around 500IAS with afterburner on it turns on a dime. I have never flown a real mig but I doubt that it was that agile.

No idle, to maintain high AOA you need thrust. Try start at 500 IAS bring the plane to high AOA horizontally (as if you started a violent turn let speed drop to 450-470) and just then start to roll over when at high AOA (maintain high AOA with fully back stick).

It has been discussed somwhere. It is not implemented just as aerial detonation.

Well these boys just want CCIP :) In fact you are right Mig pilots bombed by chart not by CCIP as ASP-PFD IS UNABLE TO COMPUTE IMPACT full stop here you go high fidelity simulation. However I think it is less annoying that you game can do something what the real thing can not as if you want realism you just dont use it. It is more annoying if your game does not do something what the real one does like radar ranging. I was playing around with our fictional mig-21 (yes a Mig-21 witha CCIP is not a simulator it is a fictional plane) and found an effective way to use it: Fly fast like more than 1000kph at low altitude like 75m and you will have the fictional CCIP appearing and you can toss a bomb and climb fast, I mean real fast to avoid blast. Surprizingly accurate. I start my bombing run at like 1500m at 1000kph fix my fixed net vertical line on the target and dive at full gas until I see the toy CCIP then I level out and wait until it is over the target and push.

Thanks Art that is really kind, but am I alone with the feeling that editing system files for a pricey software component to work is somehow not right...

All neccessary documentation has already been presented I am tired of starting over with everyone you must understand. I am a customer here paid for something and unhappy about it and will not sugar coat it. The ASP is a piece of messy cr..p, fuses dont work which is also far from highy fidelity, my tires are halfway sunk into the concrete, someone cant make up his mind of a flight controll sensitivity and the list goes on...

The rp-21 is a fully capable search radar not a radar gunsight, and as every search radar it could be used as rangefinder for the gunsight, as search radars replaced rangefinders. Ranging a gunsight is a postwar technology it was obvious in the 70's when bis entered service and multiple russian and polish and now czech sources prove that. This debate is like praying with a horse. LN implemented something totally faulty based on some alleged mig-21 pilots tales and now prove that it is wrong. Lets turn it around and prove that it is right not based on myths but documetnts (at least one please, as there are numerous to prove the opposite) and I will be in your team.

What is so odd about it? Some 11000 units were built. Do you think they flew themselves and fixed themselves? :) An aviation wing in russian system is some 40 planes and 600 people do the math thats 165000 people wordwilde who had something to do directly with this plane plus those who indirectly did something (manufacturing, deeper maintenance etc) could be another couple of hundred thousand. Thats a whole lot of people. In the part of the world where I live Mig-21 was the basic type of aircraft all aviation technicians and engineers were educated for. How many with a tomcat? 712 units all together which maxes around 30 000 people max. Whatever you come up with as "tomcat" there will be no annoying smarta...ses like me saying hey this is not a real one! :)

With the mig I bought: "Years in the making, our advanced flight modelling is the foundation upon which the DCS: MiG-21 is built. Comprised of over 100 simulation components and designed by an active duty MiG-21 pilot , it ensure the most authentic MiG-21 experience ever created." It seems that an active mig-21 pilot cannot decide after month of coding that the mig can or cannot stall, when the engine overruns or not (and this is a one engine tube vith a delta wing). The tomcat has variable geometry and double the engine :) "Accurately reconstructed systems and avionics" no word to describe the ASP for example how much inaccuratelly reconstructed, wich is a post war technology analogue computer. I am not familiar with the tomcats system but what I am sure is that it is far more comlicated than a mig ASP. It is obvious that whatever LN comes up with as "tomcat" it will be acepted a lot easier than the mig as practically nobody knows what a real tomcat is. The mig was a hard choice because this bird is something generations of aviation professionals and enthusiasts grew up with, and many know what a real mig is. I wont buy it, no matter how much I want it because if a plane I know is that far from the real one what will be be with a plane I have no idea about? I could be sold a tie fighter as an f-14 believing that I sit in a real one. Not to mention that I have a bad feeling that this products were never ment to be finished at all, it will be sold as beta something again and stays as beta until an other sexy beta plane comes about and will be forgotten... capitalism :( Just lamenting....

The devils advocate speking here :) Why should I buy a module from a firm who never ever finished a DCS module yet? The Mig-21 is the most simple supersonic jet ever built with the most primitive (easy to modell) avionics and systems and months after its release I am still beta testing it, expereiencing buggy systems, avionics, weapons. Violent changes in flight modelling ansoon. The tomcat is a trizillion times more complex bird. Just my 2c

You have it buddy. All my doubts were vanished if only one 100% accurate module was developed by LN at all, what we have is a sexy module full of bugs which gets further from perfect with each update. I have a feeling that purchasing a new beta module would just double my time hanging on the bugs and problems thread... The tomcat probably is a better choice as you say, because with a module like this you can sell anything you want to the masses -hereyougothisisatomcatsim 55dollars, thankyou, ifyouhaveaproblemwehavearealtomcatpilotshutup, thankyou- nobody will be able to check on it at an appropriate level.

Well the Phoenix did not have a fabulous combat record as far as I remember two were fired in real combat and both missed. So the effectiveness of this missile is a little over exaggerated. The tomcat topgun myth is also something needs to be put into context. I found only two downed poor old su-22 (by american pilots), which is not a great result as this plane was an interceptor its sole role was to down enemy planes, and it had the luck of serving in each and every cold war and post cold war conflicts up to 2004. Though this plane certainly looks very sexy I thing its marketing is better than its results.