pierrewind

I7-8700k, 32GB Ram, RX580 8GB FPS as measured on dense areas. Syria 45fps+ Nevada 70fps Caucasus 60fps+ Persian gulf 50fps+ Marianas 20fps- (in "standard" and low) My normal settings: As attached Pix 2: Left turn : On low preset 16FPS Pix 3: Right turn : With normal settings 14FPS

Hum... Perfomance is trash for me, no matter what. Syria 45fps+ Nevada 70fps Caucasus 60fps+ Persian gulf 50fps+ Marianas 20fps- (in "standard" and low) I am running a RX580 8gb, indeed very close to the recomended GTX1070. But as you can see marianas is unplayable even with an OK config ! I get anywhere between 50% to 30% of the performance of other maps... To me loosing that much performance to similar maps is more akeen to a bug than it is to a lack of optimisation ! "Despite being an island map, you can expect similar performance to the Syria map; this is due to the very dense object population of the islands that includes trees, buildings, rocky coastlines, and other objects. At the time of release, optimizations is still ongoing, and we expect performance to improve in later updates. That said, please review the system spec requirements." Syria is A Lot better!

Lets be serious for a second. You want something flashy and poppy? Well there are other simulators to go to. Now if you want a very deeply detailed eurofighter model with the very small detail that help to build a very true to life characterial airplane, then it does take time. Seeing experienced modders/codders join the project is to me showing how serious they are about it. This will in turn accelerate the development by avoiding some gotchas and shows how much investment is required for such a module. While the lack of update may be worrying I am confident this project is serious and updates will come out in due time. If not too bad. But keep in mind the team has 0 obligations towards any of us as of yet. So please, show them a bit of respect. It's been a pleasure to see some of their screenshots and I will look forward to their future updates. Blue skies!

Still a problem in 2.7.1.6430.

Thanks for the answer @near_blind, There are surely some errors induced from the carrier, actually even avionics can disturb the compass. But in the worst case scenario, once flying in slave mode, the compass should regain the correct heading. It will actually do the opposite hooking onto the wrong heading. That is making for extremely confusing tacan use for example (as if you were flying in 100kts+ crosswinds), and this is wrong.

Hello Heatblur, I have noticed an issue when spawning on the carrier in multiplayer, the heading can be offset by about20 degrees. (HDG324 instead of 342 observed). I have attached a track. Ps: Stby compass and Slaved appear as wrong, COMP seems ok. Though I am not sure how deep are these systems modelled! Aerobatics Europe Caucasus-20210511-141519.trk

Hey, thanks for the answer BAZZ. Saddly this solution doesn't work. Actually when I first found the issue, using unlimited munition and saving the mission didn't work. I had to do a game restart for the aircraft to be able to find the ressources. To me it seems like the aircrafts are unable to access the warehouse contents even if these are available and visible in the F10 inventory. Worse than that, even previously loaded mission content isn't uptdated as available even after a mission reload or a hop to a different airbase.

Hi, We have had a few issues since the new protected warehouse has been introduced, but nothing we couldn't solve. Though, yesterday, Something seemingly very basic didn't work. I wanted to see which item corresponds to the mig21 smoke pod. Here is how it went: -Create a mission and remove all items from the base. -Fly the mission, confirm I can't get anything -Add the corresponding items -Hum weird, it doesn't appear -Put the base back to unlimited -Hum, that is failed, we can't load anything -restart DCS -Ok, now it works So, today, I did more investigation and it seems that taking off with mig21 from an empty base to a full base does the same bug. I subsequently tried on the mirage, and I also got the same result. I am far from investigating all of the scenarios involving the warehouse (like using different bases, more airplanes...) But, for the very basic thing I am trying it appears to be broken. With in some case the requirement to restart DCS to be able to access the item. I attached the mission used for testing on the mig-21 and mirage 2000 as well as the track... though not sure that is very usefull! Warehouse Bug.trk Warehouse3.miz

It's been two years since this bug was filled. It has not been acknoweldged, nor has it been fixed. Is the yak 52 considered dead at this point?

+1 Runways lights isn't turned on at times we would need them. That is also the case for some ILS in some situations... I also find the truck threshold lights to be very anoying. It would be nice to get rid of these trucks and maybe replace it with proper approach lights. ALSF2 type would be so nice at major airports. Though a bit overkill for smaller ones!

Thank you for the answer. Attitude indicators have been designed with system that keep it level. It usually is accomplished through small exhaust ports within the gyroscope. Then with precession it will bring the gyroscope level. This does introduce small errors with turning and accelerations. Other more advanced gyroscopes may use other systems. It also allows the gyroscope to maintain a constant reference in regard to the earth "plate" . At the moment, it seems the attitude indicators are not able to regain this reference. Not being able to regain/maintain the level reference if a delibarate choice is a wrong choice. (note: on the ground, it is able to regain reference) The earth rotation has influence but this instrument is designed to account for it In flight, you should never have to cage/uncage unless you run into some specific situations such as hitting the attitude indicator limits.

Here is the track applicable to the P51 Gyro Bug 2.trk

On some modules, once the artificial horizon developps an error it is unable to correct it. This has been observed on: -The F5E -P51 -FW190 -(problem likely on other airplanes as well) Picture taken on T/O, 30 minutes later the problem was still there (or maybe increased). There wasn't any significant maneuvering. Doing 90degree turns showed the gyroscope reference as being wrong (opposite bank at 180 degres, pitch up/down at the 90 degrees). Reference wasn't regained in flight. Once on the ground it seemed to be able to correct this error within 10 minutes with an expected 2 degrees per minute correction (spooled up). The fact that the gyroscope is unable to regain the reference in flight is a big problem. It for example will make uncaging the attitude indicator in flight quite impractical or render the attitude indicator information unusable after it developps errors. Ps: Similar to:

Same here

When close, the solar pannels just fade away within what appears to be some sort of sphere/circle

RX580 getting similar artifacts. Though, it seems less frequent/more random for me than what I see on the videos.

Same here; Happens on regular flights. Asside form impacting the interface, it also bugs the FLOLS and the LSO screens.

Thanks for the reply! Further tries did show the same result as you. My testing was a bit flawed as I used different missions. So it appears to be a choice of DCS to turn of the "inactive" ILS. To me it doesn't really sound like a good option now that bad wx is fun. But that ain't anything to do with razbam

EDIT: This is Due to DCS disabling "inactive" runway Hi Razbam, I could not get the ILS to work on these airports with the M2000: -Sochi -Senaki -Kobuleti -Tbilis RWY31 -Vazian RWY31 -Mineralyne RWY12 -Kutaisi may also have an ILS on 109.75 (not listed in f10 map, but shown on mission editor) Some limited testing with the A10 appear to be mostly working (Asside from vaziani Tbilis and mineralyne not working; some not tested). I seem to recall having this issue before 2.7 as well! Again, thanks for the great work. PS: failed to report it in bugs section

Well, in order to not mix up things, we should go back to the facts. -Testing showed an error between the actual UUA vs CL charts. This error could be attributed to a few factors. 1) Our testing or the charts provided are false. 2) UUA is wrong and does not correctly represent the correct expected behaviour. 3) Flight model performance is wrong for a given UUA number. These are my hypotesis. I'm sure we could find more. Now as to were the error lies... Let's start with point 1. 2 of us have tested the mig 21 model with similar results. We could run into similar errors, but if the data capture and the widely available informations are correct, this option is to be ruled out. Point 2... UUA is wrong. Well, my personal limited testing shows that the AOA and UUA numbers are correlated based on a mach number. The error produced is in accordance with NASA papers. As these papers do not specificaly apply to the mig-21 it doesn't really prove anything, but to me it makes the behaviour reasonable. Though not proven 100% accruate. Lastly riojax is of the strong opinion the UUA is wrong. However at this point other than from videos comparing the mig21 to the mig23 UUA behaviour on the ground which is not something comparable. No one has been able to come up with anything but opinions regarding this matter! Point 3... flight model performance. As you might understand this is were my heart falls. If we go back to the airshow video and the UUA at 32 UUA we yeld about 40% extra performance. Even if the UUA was wrong, given the charts available this 40% extra performance would put us right at the stall point. This should for obvious reasons not be safely and continuously manageable. Though it is to note the weights are unknown, the airframe could be modified and some avionic logic could be different. At the moment, I can not match the sim performance to the reality. To me it seems this mismatch is produced by slightly wrong performance tables leading to over-inflated simulated performance. I am very much open to receiving actual and proper information/testing to once and for all close this debate. I would love to be proven wrong!

I am very sorry, I must be too dumb to understand your amazing reasoning. Let's just consider for a second, the UUA was accruate, wouldn't this issue possibly come from a different place? Like airplane overperforming? Or let's just consider the mig 23 and mig 21 are two different airplanes. Oups... there are... :doh: Two different airframes in two different configurations (in your photo, the mig 23 rotation has started; right before it the instrument shows about 5 units... very close in fact to what the mig 21 shows). Plus both are on the ground and subject to factors such as ground attitude even down to struts that could have different pressures but since it is two different airplanes, I'm going way to deep for something irrelevant... I am very sorry, I am unable to see something that seem so obvious to you. :cry: But I would love to learn more from your great knowledge as to why the UUA is wrong.

Riojax, I very much appreciate your constructive statements and your amazing testing skills. However, I disagree with some of your findings. :thumbup: I won't go through everything again as I have done it previously. However, If you look at the Mig-21 airshow demo, you will find the pilot puling 32UUA at 515 km/h giving out 3.2G. If you do the same in DCS you will pull 4.5G. That is just about 40% extra performance. So something is obviously wrong. We can't seem to agree on the exact error. To me, there is a discrepancy in the tables between UUA and CL. But frankly, I don't care if this issue is from a bad UUA coding or inacruate CL. Though, my testing agrees with NASA papers and the AOA/UUA relation is coherent with mach numbers meaning the UUA is behaving as I expect it to. Whatever the source of the problem is, my issue is that there is a problem with the mig 21 still overperforming.:pilotfly:

Guys and girls... How to say it nicely... I didn't want to give out my opinion before I actually went through my testing... :music_whistling: I was biased, I did see the welcome improvements on the departures and so on... Like most I thought this is it, the mig performs as it should. :pilotfly: So I went through the same testing as before, And my disapointement was noticeable when I realised we still are able to pull a lot more than we should without consequences... In fact the CL VS UUA plot is still as wrong as it was before :cry: ... I can consider the charts identical... as you can see attached. So as good as the departure is, we are still able to extract too much performance out of the mig without consequences... (The "safe g" pull should be significantly reduced by more than 40% in most cases...) :music_whistling: I am disapointed by these finidings. I hope it is improved in the future... :book: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4304015&postcount=61 Ps: Max CL is from previous testing Pps: additional testing shows 4.5G at UUA 32 and 515km/h instead of expected 3.2g... With an airshow weight likely below the one I used...

Thank you hiromachi for this clarification. I did see some tweaks to the flight model. As welcome as these are, I would like to see your team going down to the roots of the problems... For exemple, the engine model... as of now, the engine acts more or less like a fixed pitch propeller. I can very easily tell it lacks proper engine physics. You can tweak the engine as much as you want to make it more belivable, but it will not fix the fundamental issues with the dynamics. The CEII isn't that complex in terms of engine. It is just a very common atmospheric piston coupled to a constant speed propeller. Yet, right now, the simulation is off... I think similar stuff is going on in terms of aerodynamics. So...I will allways encourage the improvements to your models. However, if magnitude is unable to master the physics of a relatively simple engine, What should I expect with an airplane more complex? I wished the CEII was an airplane I could enjoy, but as much as I like it... I just don't. I fly into flaws anytime I touch it. :/ I wish some improvements will be able to make it behave corectly someday. Best of luck to your team! Ps: I'm sorry to hear one of your team members went ballistic! I hope you'll be able to bounce back from it.

Well Magnitude has brought some welcome improvements to the mig21 recently. However looking at the quality of their only module (CEII) and the promisses of fixes for the sound for example running back more than 1 year ago, I have concerns. The CEII was developped as a test bed for the Corsair. But, in terms of flight model and engine model, the CEII is a fail to me. So let's hope for the best, but I have my doubts... Magnitude hasn't achieved much so far. I would not like to see them fail, but so far I don't see them succeding.