Auditor

Okay, answered my question. Looks good Zeus! You get used to it. Some people enjoy being unreasonable for the sport. No discussion would have been 'good enough' for them.

I've been enjoying the new changes this past week. You can actually engage targets in a hot-aspect encounter, now. Something which I don't think has been said of the R-3R in the past two years.

So there was an interesting post recently that I thought I should share here and get some thoughts on. It's in regards to the RP-5 simulated in the Mig-19P. Basically, it appears that the ground clutter is just a single image of ground terrain that is faded as the aircraft climbs and descends. It doesn't appear to even rotate as the plane banks. I understand this is WIP, but will this part be changed for more accurately modeled ground clutter in the future?

I think this is the part where we realize that every community has become this way.

You can barely see your pilot because they're covered in a flight suit anyway. You fly from the first person, and you're limited in zoom from the outside. For reference, this is our Mig-21 pilot. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/upload/iblock/e53/CU2.png_Thumbnail0.jpg This is a female Mig-21 pilot https://nationaldefence.in/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/flying-officer_bhawana_kant_flies_MiG21_bison.jpg This is an Egyptian Mig-21 pilot wearing the VKK-6M pressure suit https://i.redd.it/2l31zhvulo6z.png This is the most of your Mig-21 pilot that you can see in your aircraft https://www.gavox.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/IMG_5664-1.jpg And this is a woman wearing the famous VKK-6M Pressure suit. Included because this is one of the few flight suits where you can even see the pilot's face. https://assets.catawiki.nl/assets/2017/1/16/f/1/b/f1be3baa-dbff-11e6-8e9d-9fa368a5e4ad.jpg Do you see why people think this is a waste of time? I know this is a wishlist thread, but there's nothing stopping you from modding the current pilots to look any way you want. You can even change around the voice files. It wouldn't even be that hard to do considering most of your pilot is concealed by the flight suit anyway.

I'm having similar issues that did not exist previously. I'll try to record a tacview of it next time I'm flying.

Now this is some exciting news. I can't wait!

Hello, I'm going to bump this thread with a problem which I am not sure is related or not. It seems that, for RB-15s if you set Bx8 using the radar for automatic and then edit Bx7 and Bx6, the missiles will not launch. This only happens if you edit those two waypoints and try to move them. Furthermore, if you use map markers or input Bx7 and Bx6 manually, they will indeed launch but will have strange behavior as they follow that path. For instance, several times my RB-15s will ignore the parameters for Bx7 and not decrease altitude to skim the water for its attack run, resulting in them flying over the ship. Several other cases resulted in them simply disappearing, self-destructing in middair. Setting only Bx8 results in normal behavior from the missiles. Anyone else have these problems after manually editing Bx7 and Bx6? Keep in mind, this is taking into account that Bx6 has to be closer than Bx7, and putting them in a perfectly straight line on the radar scope.

Everyone's complaining about 'hype' and whatever, but I just ordered a T-shirt from HB. I think the way they handled things so far has been excellent.

The new screenshots look excellent! I'm glad to see work is progressing as far as it is.

Thank you again, Mortisrose. I really appreciate you putting in the time to test this for us.

Mmmmmm This.

Don't feel bad, this is everyone's first landing attempt. So there are a couple things you should know about: 1) The flaps are blown flaps. This means that it uses air from the compressor to blow over the flaps to increase lift. Because of this, cutting power at any point before touchdown is strictly prohibited. 2) If you look down at your throttle, you'll notice that the quadrant is labeled. In particular, you have the 'landing' part of your throttle labeled. This is, ideally, the lowest your throttle should ever go on a landing. If you place your throttle a little above here at an approach speed of 400 KPH at roughly 500 meters, then you will sink while your nose remains roughly level with the horizon. 3) Beginner trick: put your pipper past the end of the runway and try to keep it there. This keeps your plane roughly straight while also pitching the nose up slowly as you approach the touchdown marker on the runway. If you do this, your nose will be at the perfect height as you get around 350-360 KPH for a flare. 4) Use the flap stages. Flap stage 1 is for your approach and flap stage 2 should be used just as you're close to the last part of the landing, maybe just over the touchdown markers. Use stage 2 too soon, and you'll have problems 'settling' the aircraft. Use it too late and you'll have too much momentum and bounce. 5) Last, but not least PRACTICE YOUR LANDING FLARE! What I was doing wrong when I first stared flying this plane was listening to people who told me that I didn't need to flare; BUT YOU DO! The Mig-21 requires a very gentle, very precise landing flare of which you need to practice over and over. It has to be extremely subtle and gentle at the same time, which requires a very slow and deliberate movement. Landing it straight and level is correct up until the last part where you touch down which NEEDS a very fine-tuned flare to keep the aircraft from bouncing. Your goal should be to completely cancel out vertical momentum one or two meters off of the runway and allow the aircraft to settle on the merit of it losing speed and not because of any input on your own. Once the aircraft settles, keep the nose off the runway for as long as you can! If your nose bounces or comes down violently, then you fell too fast and your flare wasn't like it should be. Does that sound hard? It should. It takes practice, and I highly recommend making a custom mission where you're just a few hundred meters off of the runway and practicing your landing approach over and over again. It doesn't have the same 'feel' as other aircraft, and you have to unlearn a bunch of bad habits that more forgiving aircraft probably taught you. Finally, if you notice that you're running out of runway trying to do all of this at once: Don't panic! Remember, you have airbrakes and a drogue chute. You slow down very quickly when the chute deployed. Bouncing and having to settle again takes way more time than having to settle halfway down the runway. Best of luck.

You have to enable mouse clicking with Lalt + C (named: 'Clickable Mouse Cockpit Mode On/Off' in controls). It will let you move your mouse like the other modules without moving the camera. Keep in mind this doesn't let you click anything inside of the cockpit aside from the NS430 overlay.

Thank you so much Mortisrose. I haven't had time recently to do this and I really appreciate your analysis.

If you drop a tank before a dogfight, just adjust the gauge to 3000 liters after you do, and it's accurate again.

Okay, great. This I can agree with, both of us need to do testing at this point. When I get some time this week, I'll start testing with the upgraded version of Tacview along with video, hopefully. Also: The reason 2016 is so significant is because this was when the first wave of missile changes were made. You can go look this up in the patch notes when seeker logic for some of these missiles were changed. Which is what the Mortisrose tacview files are saying: after this change, that's when the missiles started having such a deficit in energy. No, you're thinking the R-3S, the R-60 is a completely different missile focused on maneuverability. The R-3S is an almost 1:1 recreation of the AIM-9B, the same missile that is mounted on the Saber and the Tiger ii. Which is why I'm baffled that they don't share the same performance characteristics in-game. The R-13 has even less of an excuse, because it is a version of the R-3S that came much later with increased range and better aerodynamics.

And I'm getting tired of repeating the same thing,too. I'm going to re-quote mortisrose's Tacviews. Look at the speed it starts at, and look at the speed it finishes at. These are at the same height, same speed, pre-and-post 2016 patch. Compare this to yours. I'm trying not to talk past you here, But can you really not see the difference between these tacview files and yours? I'm getting really tired of this conversation because you've just gone back to the first argument we were having on page 2. PS: I hope you're aware that mach changes depending on altitude. It's based on the sound barrier. So going higher didn't change the results of these tacviews, it just changed the goalpost it had to meet. This is like the argument we were having on page 2 where the starting speed affects the top speed, only now it's altitude.

Okay? what does it say about the missile, though. You didn't mention this in your post. that's a good place to start testing, but as you can see: Mortisrose's tacview was in the 900-2200 kph range at an altitude up to 20KM, and the testing for that is all over the place. Plus: The AIM-9B STILL shows superior characteristics at that range. Why would that be? What should I do, then? Should I submit this to the bugtracker instead? The missiles are not accelerating to correct velocities, as seen in the Mortisrose tacview, and they have no angular authority at certain speeds. After burnout, they turn toward the target but do not track toward them. In particular the R-3S family of missiles. You can see this by placing yourself behind a cold enemy that is flanking slightly, fire either of these weapons and watch them as they track toward the target. This isn't an endemic problem, because the R-60 works great. I'm not saying M3 broke the missiles, but can you see if maybe something with the weapons changed in this time period? I find it strange that the GAR-8 and the R-60 show none of these problems, but the R-3S, R-13M, and R-3R continue to show these issues (I don't know if the R-55 still shows it). So what else must be done, and can Magnitude 3 fix it if it's an ED problem with missile dynamics? Most importantly: Can you tell me if this issue is still being investigated? EDIT: Furthermore, weren't the seeker rules changed around 2016? I can go back in the patch notes and confirm this, but I'm certain the seeker head used to be different for the R-3R.

Oh, thank you. Any opinions on the conversation we're having?

Okay, great! I'm glad to hear that these problems are still being worked on. That's really all I want to hear, that these are indeed recognized and are being resolved in due time. I don't think anyone blames you for problems not being fixed instantly. Especially with how often DCS can change from patch to patch.

I would be VERY interested if this development eventually lead into the Mig-27. ;)

The R-60 is a toss-up when you fire it because it has a 3KG warhead. So different hits will damage things very unevenly. However, I have gotten F-15C kills with just one R-60 in the past.

Well my sources have one piece of credibility which I think puts them above the documents: We can see them. I can actually link and show them to other people as well as the information contained within. Also I dispute your claim that these are just random websites. The one that has the Mach 2.5 number is the Federation of American Scientists. Which is a literal academic organization. I suppose it's easily missed if you don't know who that group is. This is exactly the problem with your test, do you not understand? You place the speed of the missile at 2.5M, but you're going at Mach 1 when you launch it. What's the total energy expended on the missile? You can't just subtract one from the other, because if you're going different speeds: The missile dynamics change. You can see that in Mortisrose's tacview track as it crosses the sound barrier. I think you're misinterpreting it and then assuming other people are misinterpreting it because of that. Any luck on seeing if those R-13 documents can be posted? I'm very interested, now. We can assume that it's at least AIM-9B speed. Why? Because the missile is based on the AIM-9B, objectively so, even. That's not even a question on 'if' its based on it. That's actual historical fact. So if it doesn't expend the same energy as the Aim-9B, what gives? Same with the R-3S and R-3R. These missiles should match the AIM-9B in the game, and the AIM-9B specifications, but they don't. We can also do a COMPARATIVE look at the three missiles. The R-13M is an extended range version of the R-3S, but in-game it has the same performance characteristics than the R-3S. Ideally, it should have about three times the range. Which is why I'm very skeptical of your claims. You claim the missiles are behaving *correctly*, but they don't behave like the missile they were copied from and don't show the same performance values of the R-3S. Is that not cause for concern that maybe the missile is not behaving as intended? We could solve this very quickly if we could get performance values on this rocket motor: Every site I can find on this motor, including the ones I posted earlier, claims excess of Mach 2. I did, I used the federation of american scientists and their academic research papers. Why don't you disprove this number? EDIT: I see you linked Л.Н.Белов, В.С.Вельгорский, С.Н.Ельцин "Устройство и функционирование авиационной ракеты Р-3С", СПб 2005г. ". Okay, that's a good start, and I found This page I can't read this, however. Can you find where said relevant information would be in this document?

The solution I've found to pitch authority: Trim more