m4ti140

I just checked and it works in OB. I get permission from Nalchik tower and I can start the engine no problem. What exactly are you doing, step by step? Do you have easy comms on perhaps? (it shouldn't matter though, I checked and it works even with easy comms)

What are you talking about? How many years ago have you last flown the module? New RWR has been integrated into core module for something like a year now. The "Experimental Features" option is a dead option, it doesn't do anything anymore.

Dolphin is the MiG-21 pilot, not Rudel.

No, my point is that you're plain wrong about the FM. The new FM and new RWR are like the only two things that are perfectly fine about the module. Focus your attention on things that actually need work.

Old FM literally ended where the wing rock is now. It only simulated in-envelope behaviour, the moment you stepped out it turned into a literal brick.

Woooot.... of all the things to complain about in this module you chose the one that is pretty good... Also I like how after "reading some reviews" you think you know better than the actual MiG-21bis pilot who made the FM. The radar is all wrong. The gunsight is all wrong. The navigation system is all wrong. Weapons are all wrong. Nope, you choose the one thing that is pretty much on point and have no legitimate arguments to back it. Dolphin flew this aircraft for over a decade before he wrote the FM.

Doesn't spawning them uncontrolled and then activating them one by one 1-2 min before their take off time do the trick? The same way player's wingman is delayed until player does a radio check? Or does the taxi order get messed up compared to when they just spawn and spool up immediately?

Every single system needs work. Read RL documentation for the MiG-21bis and compare to game. The only system that is on point is the RWR, which has already been reworked relatively recently. Electrical system, navigation, radar, gunsight, everything needs the same treatment to be accurate.

Anyone who actually flies the MiG-21 and sees the state it is in. It was never "redone". It shouldn't be weird that more people are going to be passionate about a combat aircraft than an aerobatic aircraft in a combat flight sim.

What do you mean "lower discrepancy"? The discrepancy is by a factor of 2, just like in MiG-21bis! The zero point is just moved. It's not the same aircraft, the way it's mounted can be different even. And at this discrepancy you would still already be dangerously close to a tailstrike if you followed the real takeoff procedure. Please show me a piece of documentation showing the real critical AoA is higher. The flight characteristics book for the 21 refers to loss of conventional lift as a stall, because aircraft would tumble at this point, vortex lift regime is not even mentioned there. I don't know why the aircraft becomes uncontrollable by this point (and couldn't find anything in documentation), but it does. In DCS it doesn't actually even stall at all at this point, if you can keep wings level and pitch further keep flying like that. In fact you can keep flying way past reasonable angles of attack into region when the aircraft would surely tumble due to vortex shedding.

1. And the effect from a massive barrel going through the air is non existent? 2. I don't see how higher speeds make it better 3. The wing is not the problem with the 21 sensor 4. It's not. The error becomes 0 around 4 degrees, it's higher both below and above that value. Also the errors for a vane mounted the side of the forward fuselage will be completely different than in wing upwash region. 5. Follow the exact take-off procedure in the real flight manual and use info bar instead of UUA. Your tailpipe will hit the ground. 6. For the last time, it's a different mounting point. It was meant to illustrate the fact that the flow around the aircraft is completely different than free stream.

This too. If something's modelled wrong, it is that if you can get past that initial wing rock effect, it's possible to reach AoA as high as 50-60 degrees (according to "F2" obviously, because UUA doesn't even go there) and keep it there, even though at this point you should get vortex shedding. I'd look for errors there, not at 15 degrees.

It is a perfectly reasonable assumption, and the reason why in F-14 for instance they didn't bother and the AoA indicator is scaled in arbitrary units. Here's a NASA paper where they were evaluating a calibration method for AoA sensors. The AoA vane was installed on a boom, one chord length in front of the wing tip. The aircraft is Piper Saratoga, whose maximum speed is close to MiG-21s stall speed, so we don't even need to worry about mach number in this case. On page 10, Table 2, you get the final conversion formulas they obtained with various methods. The measurement errors were above 30%, with zero completely off. And if you look at the raw results, you can see the relationship isn't exactly linear. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20140002449/downloads/20140002449.pdf And for the last time - MiG-21 is 50s design. Why do you expect it to get even close to angles of attack modern deltas don't let you fly at?

He didn't say it's "true" AoA, he called it "local" AoA. That's exactly what it is. By "relative pitch angle" he means that the angle shown in F2 view is arbitrary based on how body axes are defined in DCS, with no direct correspondence to how they're defined in documentation for the real aircraft. I don't know how he coded the FM but from what he says, he isn't using that value as reference for calculations. Note the he's not a native English speaker. The documents for MiG-21 you're referring to use UUA indications as reference, not the real AoA. They explicitly say it's in reference to UUA. And you have all those critical angles marked on UUA-1 gauge itself. Just because delta wing aircraft can technically go to higher AoA doesn't mean one of the first delta wing designs will be able to go there. Mirage 2000 is limtted to ~30 IIRC despite having vortex generators to delay wing rock. 21 has other issues with it aerodynamics that limit usable AoA.

Go read an aerodynamics handbook, you'll see for yourself. Or learn Russian and read the original 21 manuals. I've explained to you how an AoA vane works and what the UUA-1 displays. That's what Dolphin referred to as "local angle of attack" - it's the angle of attack relative to airstream at the point it was measured, not in the free stream. If you think I'm lying, go read the original sources. You're saying "you're not advocating on anything" but your accusatory tone suggests otherwise.