zerO_crash

Glad to hear that, and my pleasure! If you are deep into MiG-21, I suggest watching these interviews. It adds meat around the bone, to say the least. Fantastic material, you'll enjoy them both:

I have seen it in multiple cockpits of Kamovs and Mils. Last I saw it in a Mi-26. Haven't come across any videos showing its specific use or operation, though.

No, I stated that pitch angle has to find its way into that explanation. Pitch angle is essential, for considering whether an aircraft is actually capable of pulling a Pugachev's Cobra (90* - 120* AOA), or simply mimicking it (similar, but not attaining the metrics). That's what I corrected you on. It was however a linguistic correction (in message, if you will), as obviously I see that you understand it. Yeah I know, but then that TsAGI table shows a relationship between Cm and AOA. Naturally, it will only indicate pitch rate (really showing at what points the pitch rate (q) is highest - preferrable to perform the maneuver). Don't worry, it's all correct

The reason I'm mentioning changing the filter, rather than actual maps themselves, is the qualitative nature of the argument. Whether a change gets implemented or not, depends mainly on the credibility of our argument. What we have right now, is a point of view of a couple of individuals, which is definitely not enough to have ED/3rd parties change the underlying visuals of their maps. We will need something more specific, than simply a opinion-based comparison to IRL photos. In other words, it's all a matter of argument at this point. (It's easier to change a filter, less intrusive, than changing the underlying imagery of maps. That, especially without any specifics relating to color mixture. Consider that Barthek's mods have through the years been more photorealistic than default Caucasus, yet no replication was ever attempted from the official side. While it might seem strange, I do get why.)

I'll pass you on wiki, but in essence, there are far more factors to consider; wing (delta is the best wing for high speeds), engine (not only sheer power, but how well the engine retains its thrust with altitude), aerodynamic design, AOA at speed (distribution of weight & general design), and more. The Mirage 2000C has the Snecma M53-P2. This engine, is a late derivative of the Atar-series of engines, which were built for M2.0+ at high altitudes. In fact, the M53-P2, was initially designated Super Atar 9K50. It was built for M2.5+. This also explains why the engine will take you to the breaking point of the plane (structural strength), without any problems. French have built fantastic series of engines here. For reference, P&W are more balanced. They are tuned for good performance across altitudes and in different regimes, thus aren't exceptional at any particular altitude & speed (they are good overall though). Just to show you how little T/W matters - have a look at SR-71. At full fuel load, it has a T/W of 0.44. You'd think that is horrible, which it is, by any means. However, due to the design of the aircraft (notice how much lift it has with it's body), it manages to reach M3.4+. Another example, MiG-25. It has approximately 0.55 T/W (gross weight - there are variations between the different versions). Imagine that it's capable of M3.2+ (M2.83 limitation, is same as M3.3 for SR-71 - it's a continuous use limit for the airframe to last. (M3.4 on SR-71 was only permitted in one special case, otherwise M3.3 was max.)). Remember, that just because a engine "can" reach a high speed, if it's not built for it, its service life will be eaten through quickly. Same goes for the airframe. As such, aircraft like SR-71, MiG-25, MiG-21, Mirage F1 & 2000, will last longer in such conditions, because they are built for it. A F-15 or F-16 can manage to reach M2.0 (depending on which versions), but they do it with sheer power. The airframes, are not actually optimized aerodynamically for such flight, which means that there are inefficiencies in the form of drag (trade-offs). Drag -> heat and pressure -> stress on the airframe. Therefore, if you look at how many F-15/F-16 hours have cumulatively been spent at above M1.5+, you'd be surprised just how little it is (maybe a percentile of all hours ever flown, if even that much)). I seem to remember a interview with a F-15C pilot, who claimed that above M1.5 flights, is something, you as a pilot, do possibly once during your training, and that's it. You'll most likely never touch that speed again in your career.

How do you know?! The color palette is already there! Granted, the map is in warly access, whether the color comes off as a auto-generated overlay (from satellite imagery) or not, the colors are as they currently are. What makes me believe that it was intentional, is that the places which contain most lime-green, were indeed used for advertising. In other words, the devs. weren't shying away from these colors. Again, while some places will have a lime-green type of vegetation (summer), there definitely is too much of it on the map. There shouldn't be any lime-green on the hilly areas. The case point, however, is that other maps with green vegetation have slightly too much vibrancy as well. That goes for both ED and 3rd party ones. Instead, then, of changing each and every map, and additionally correcting every filter, they might as well simply correct the "realisric" filter. That's the one you will use for our neccessity anyways. Actually, if you take a look at what has happened with lightning in DCS the last couple of years, you'll notice that we cannot ask for anything definite just yet. The illumination has been changed gradually, and that is mostly visible in cockpit and in certain cases, had needed updating of modules in order to cope with the global lightning. ED is tweaking light, without mentioning it in the patches. That's why a filter is better now, and when the global illumination settles, have it corrected once and for all.

For those who haven't watched it, a really interesting video on the testing of RAH-66 Comanche: There are many takeaways from the video. Granted, the main purpose of the project - making a low observable ("stealth") scout/attack helicopter, would arguably never work (at least with current technology). With that said, looking away from that, and rather considering this project at the face value, it had very interesting features/quirks. The agility, pilot comments and general performance can be extrapolated, esp. in comparison to the AH-64. As an example, the high-pitch noise from the fenestron, gives an example why such a configuration is not ideal on a attack helicopter. There is much more to extract, for the observant ones. Enjoy!

As to MiG-29, this is about the closest to Pugachev's Cobra that you will see it perform: (2:20 ->) MiG-29 is not as unstable as a Su-27, hence why it doesn't need FBW. For this particular maneuver, it won't likely reach 90* AOA, unless equipped with TV (MiG-29OVT).

Your extrapolations are correct, but you mess it up with the wording in certain cases (I see that English is not your native language). In some instances when you write "pitch rate", you actually mean "pitch angle". The whole definition of "Pugachev's Cobra", is that you have to have an aircraft, which with its aerodynamic and technical properties (thrust), allows to pull a pitch rate (rate of change) high enough to attain 90* - 120* pitch angle with minimal increase in altitude (hence why cm is important, not CL, in the equation). The specific maneuver was coined by Pugachev and Sukhoi. Any other aicraft mimicking this maneuver, has typically not been able to attain a pitch rate high enough (so as to reach at least 90* AOA), or enentered superstall resulting in severe gain in altitude throughout the maneuver. You are otherwise correct in your analysis. For the record, aircraft with thrust vectoring might replicate this maneuver, while not having the required aerodynamic properties, resulting in a impression of similar build (not aerodynamics - supermaneuverability assumes flight regimes outside of maximum lift). It occurs to me that you shouldn't be engaging in any deeper level of discussion, if you have a problem with verifying the authenticity and reliability of a document. It becomes even more clear that you are above your knowledge, if you don't understand why @DummyCatz mentioned the F-35. Obviously, he's making a comparison with multiple airframes that don't have a T-tail, which you stated are the exclusive empennage with regards to deep stall. Rightfully so, not only T-shaped tails enter deep stall. The sources that he lists to build his argument, are credible and relevant. I can attest to that. Here is a 101 for you to wonder who you are actually being skeptical to (F-35 document as example): No, Cobra does not exist since 60s. Read the specifics of Cobra-requirements, and check whether J35 was able to attain all the metrics (it was not!).

The only MiG-25 interview! Incredibly interesting details are given throughout the whole interview. As I've mentioned before, MiG-25 is capable of more than M3.0 without any damage to the airframe. For those who don't know; the highest speed the MiG-25 has ever been to, is M3.2! (Officially) No damage was reported to the aircraft. (The case of Soviet MiG-25 doing M3.2 over Sinai in 1971, overdriving its engines, was a case of operational fault - speed has to be built gradually and in a controlled manner, not by slamming full throttle (this engine has the ability to overdrive well above the specification)). Amazing airframe!

Don't worry about it. What matters is, that relevant parties aim for the same. In reality, the maps are built differently, as such, the question of individual map tuning becomes not only a hassle, but actually difficult, as the forms msking them, might have differing objectives. Knowing where the issue lies, I'm rather in for easy and elegant fixes. The thing with a community of any size, is that there will always be different wishes overall. Some prefer more vivid imagery, others will prefer more tone, third will have poorly adjusted screens and wish for something completely different. The current implementation of color filters, is not bad a bad idea in principle. The question is whether the "realistic" filter can be adjusted in terms of the ground-color palette, not touching the sky/water. @BIGNEWY @Wags @NineLine Based on the thread, is there any chance of having the "realistic"-filter adjusted further?

Don't worry, it's not that colors are off, but ultimately, one works towards photorealism, which is a natural evolution. On some really sunny days, lime-green is what you'll see too. Besides, these are aspects which you really won't notice when flying, especially in VR. Apply some salt to that wound, clean it up and bandage. There is fun to be had, 85% green or 86%

This shows that it's not a image tweak- or global- problem. Adjusting for more photorealistic ground, you give the sky a very unnatural grey tone, lack of color fidelity/depth. That also goes for water. Essentially, the sky and water of the upper image, mixed with ground representation of the lower, would yield the most correct results. The colors of the ground textures should be somewhat less intense, more toned down.

My pleasure!

As you know, at higher mach-speeds, the MiG-21Bis (as well as any of the heavier modifications retaining the larger spine) had a issue with directional stability. That's to say, the aircraft introduced adverse yaw characteristics. There are many ways to solve such a deficiency, one being spoilers. At the same time, you don't want to have a speed brake (spoiler) constantly introduce drag. The idea, was then to have a solution where the collective total, would retain the planes original directional stability properties. One of the additions, was the SAU (AFCS - AP) - specifically the "Stability" mode. All pilots flying the later MiG-21 iterations, chief amongst "Bis", considered it a standard to fly with the "Stability" engaged. The other addition, were these spoilers, which due to their size, barely affected the aircraft subsonic. However in supersonic, where the airflow is greater, they did their job of counteracting some of the unwanted yaw instability. If you look up ealier MiG-21s, going back to the former layout (among them, spine size), you'll notice that these spoilers are not there. That's because the earlier variants didn't have as much problem with directional stability. For one, consider the bigger air-intake on the later versions (Tumansky R-25-300). At supersonic speed, the spike would have to move the shockwave further away from the centerline, resulting in the airstream hitting a smaller part of the vertical stabilizer. That, along with more weight around the centre (spine), is what ultimately caused the later MiG-21s to need the aerodynamic modifications. (There are more, less obvious, changes as well).

There is absolutely no chance that P-series of R-27 (ГСН 9Б-1102) will be simulated at any capacity. The whole thing is so hush-hush, that Vympel claims that they've never tested them, yet pictures and expositions (export) of them exist. Let me put it this way; be happy that we are getting a MiG-29 9.12A at all Many Russian forums and websites talking about these things have already been wiped btw...

Это три МиГа. Там также есть немецкий МиГ-29G.

Hi, I'd like to recommend Orbx to take a closer look at the bug tracker that you have, and reconsider whether not to use the forums instead. Point is, reporting of bugs, is a two-street road. While you care about your logistics and streamline in handling requests, there is also the practical customer-side. For a customer, it is not only more work to enter information into your dedicated tracker, but there is also the problem of how it works. Consider the following: On your bug-tracker, you lack a multitude of functions which these forums already have have (searching specific bugs, a clear layout on the page which is user-friendly, no form of notification linked to these forums - you have to check the tracker to keep know whether you have any comments/requests on additional information, +++). The point being, it not only becomes an additional site to keep track of, but also, somewhat less functional/intuitive one. Whilst the map is new, users will visit it, but over time, users will lose interest out of pure lack of comfort. Additionally, count in all the cases where a user believes something might be off, because it's not mentioned on forums, and ends up making double-posts. We had a firm here that tried a similar proprietary bug-tracker (Leatherneck), but one can honestly notice that it didn't go too well. Few people have the inclanation to visit it, let alone report bugs in it. A quick look at the MiG-21Bis forum, shows that people prefer to use these forums as a common, instead of a hypothetical where each and every company has their own solution, with their own website, for their own convenience. I personally, have not bothered to log in more than two bugs in Learherneck's Mantis hub since its release. Besides an occasional bug being mentioned, the huh is as dead as it gets. My point being, in initial stages of release, everything is popular. However, with time, you'll notice the interest to report bugs through it, is subpar optimal. I therefore ask you to consider to move over to these forums, as here is the place where all bugs will eventually be reported. Thanks for your a splendid map so far, and your consideration!

Not sure what you have a problem with understanding, or inventing new workings for?! Going off Russian manuals, those translations are more or less 1-1. There is nothing to be surprised about that the manuals have low levels of "ease of use", "accessibility" and "structured formatting". Thse concepts are relatively modern for manuals all around, and are often still lagging behind on subjects which are complex in nature. If you'd read any original older manual, you'd see that it is common to have to skim through the document, as information will be spread across the document. That is also why pilots had to make notes during classes, otherwise it would be a job worth of a lawyer to collect everything in convenient places. Everything you need to know, is precisely stated in the manual: the radar is horizon-stabilized, unless you operated it in "beam mode". With the given references for pitch and roll tollerancies, if you exceed them, you lose the target. Plain and simple. As to the "low altitude"-mode; that applies a filter to the radar which blocks out ground return. A different, but similar filter, is the one concerning filtering out cloud returns. They are simply filters, no more, no less. That's all there is to it.

As it stands right now, there are functions which you cannot bind to e.g. a mouse (F-10 map, +++). I see no reason why this would be blocked to begin with. If one has a multi-button mouse, it's logical to want to put some of the "basic" functions on the mouse. I ask for a possibility to bind all bindings to any unit (possibly except axes - makes no practical sense). Thanks!

As always, the process of defining issues, finding them, and ultimately solving, is a lengthy one. That is particularly true, in the event where some get it, whilst others don't. Statements in the sense of "they don't care", are literally made by kids who haven't learned the word "patience" yet. If "they didn't care", DCS would not be where it is today! That is particularly true with us who have been here for 20+ years! The process of bringing DCS to modern standards, is a lengthy one. There is no easy way of acquisition. Then there is the question of priorities. Lastly, Kola being a new map - it will take time for it to mature! Besides pressing issues, the next update is expected around June. Until then, if performance suffers, simply lower your settings. It's that simple! (Consider how much more demanding Marianas is to e.g. Caucasus. Marianas, barely has any land, compared to Kola.)

Большое спасибо, братишка! Не знал двигатели моделируются с разными свойствами – это фантастика! Теперь все понятно. Отличных выходных команде

Going to be interesting, for sure!

@PilotMi8?