Auditor

yeah, it used to work just fine, but since 2.5 it's not been functioning as it should. I wouldn't rely on them anyway because the scope is making the assumption that the missiles are performing as they should, but this is not the case. I would not use the current missiles as they are outside of 1 or 2 kilometers no matter what the tone or the light say.

I'm really not trying to be rude, honest. I may have came off as a bit harsh because I really, really have reservations on all my researched numbers with sources being called wrong.. because of information that I can't see and is considered secret. Especially when you say things like this And that's just not true. I put missile stats for the showcased armaments in the first post in the thread from wikipedia. Which, I admit, wasn't the best source, but we have the information that wikipedia used in the sources. If my post came off as harsh, I apologize. However, I'm not going to give up my reservations with those weapons based on information that I can't see. If it's conflicting, then I would like that information to be given to Leatherneck so they can improve the weapons. My posts about the flight models still stand. That's kind of my point, so we're in agreement there. The problem with magic numbers is that it's not how the plane actually flies. It's an approximation at that point. The Hornet, I would say, is very close to an organic flight model for certain regions of flight. It doesn't have things like 2G hard coded limits or AoA maximums in its flight model. The Mig-29 PFM model is close to an organic flight model. It doesn't have the aforementioned problems and no one has found a region of its flight envelope where the suspension of disbelief breaks down because of a very obvious use of hard-coded limits. The Mig-21, does. While, true, their solution is to call it an EFM instead of a PFM. Which I can't argue with because that is how it's called on the store page. I still think that's not the best way to address that problem in the long term. It IS affecting you, as I said, but you'll never know in what way because, simply put, we can only see the results of the edge case of its flight modeling. However, if you want my opinion on where they should focus their efforts if this is the path they wish to go down: This, right here. This should be front and center for the aircraft because it's ridiculous how often basic stuff inside of it like the lighting breaks. It looked GREAT just a patch or two ago. I don't even care about the missiles as much as I care about the texturing not breaking and the lighting functioning as it should. It's kind of silly how we've been on-off with that for the past few years.

Hit the afterburner. I'm serious. Just do laps around the airfield if you need to dump fuel before a landing. It burns fuel at a rate where you only need to do one or two passes before you're below 2000kg anyway.

I think you're understanding this wrong. We're both looking at the same information, but I think your interpretation of it is incorrect. Sustained maximum speed is the max speed it should be able to reach on its own power. The number you provided was including the airframe's speed. For instance, in your test, you accelerated to over mach 1 to fire the missile, and then reported that the missile successfully reached mach 2. However, this doesn't account for the fact that you fired it at mach 1, and therefore imparted most of its energy to it. Compare this to the GAR-8, which has no problem whatsoever accelerating to Mach 2 even when the aircraft is below Mach 1. The GAR-8 is functioning exactly as it should and within the parameters we know. As per this article: And as we can see from the test data that it's easily reaching that velocity over its launch speed. As the missile loses fuel, it speeds up accordingly as it becomes lighter until it eventually burns out. That point at burn-out is the maximum speed. (It's actually a tad bit slower in-game than it should be if these numbers are accurate). Hence, the R-3R, R-3S, and R-13M. None of these missiles have this kind of energy to them in-game. Two of them are copies of the AIM-9B (and I've been arguing with someone who claims to have information that they aren't straight copies but instead increased range variants. This person also hasn't posted any new information pertaining to it) and the other is a modified variant. And the information I can look up on it shows that all three should be matching the AIM-9B at least in energy expenditure. So what gives? That would be an excellent start. Not to mention fixing the AoA problems that it has. Also: I would very much like to know if the R-13's max speed is really 1.6 mach, because many of my sources conflict with this number. According to them; R-13M speeds are about the same as the GAR-8 (http://www.astronautix.com/k/k-13r-13m.html) (https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/aa-2.htm) (https://web.archive.org/web/20160304041942/http://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-2.htm) Are we reading it wrong and 550 m/s is its total speed? That might explain why the numbers are different.

Don't discount it just yet. It has an excellent CCRP capability. I've gotten good enough at it to land MK82s on tanks from a shallow dive. It just requires practice. I think the Mirage is a great bomb truck, all things considered. Just takes patience and a little practice.

That's interesting, so anything in the 200-299Mhz band is off-limits?

Hey CoBlue, I just went and tested and I could get PRMG to work at Kobuleti, Kutatsi, and Senaki. Which airport did you try it on, and which direction did you start your approach from?

That's great to hear! :thumbup:

I would recommend to first make it stop destroying the plane that deployed it

We have the Mig-21's actual flight manual plus all of the charts. Unfortunately we don't have a real dev kit to test these conditions out in. So us trying to provide this as scientifically as possible is always going to have a few people saying "There's no way you can test this objectively.", and they're right. Even if we meet all of the curves perfectly; those curves are windtunnel predictions. Furthermore I'm not sure what a statement from ED would mean. They're not going to go re-simulate the Mig-21 just for our benefit. So what are they going to say? "Uh, yeah, sure. It's fine."

Hello, You can go into the thread where I reported the R-13's behavior and see the discrepancy from the Tacview files that mortisrose posted from its long-range behavior. Furthermore, your response that "R-13 information could be secret" is laughable. It's almost comical in nature that you would make such a claim and then proclaim that it's working as intended based on these secret documents of which you do not wish to share at this time of said 60-year-old missile. Furthermore, your claims that the flight model is A-OK are directly contradicted by Leatherneck's old claim on their bugtracker and testing from players that show that there is indeed a problem with the flight model. We're now to the stage where people aren't even denying it exists, but instead making excuses for why it's okay. The fact that you would claim to be 'skeptical' because of top secret documents of which you refuse to show anyone else is ridiculous. I hope you understand that I'm not trying to be rude here; but I would say your post is the least meaningful in this entire thread and in my weapons performance thread. Sure: The reason people bring up the hard coded 2G behavior is because that's an edge case where you can see it affecting the flight model the most. It's proof that magic numbers went into the flight model to some extent, and this behavior does very much so affect all low-speed behavior, not just during a stall. Unfortunately, because we cannot actually see the game code or see the magic numbers or variables or flight modeling, we can't fly along at low-speed, simulating a dogfight, and just point to an instance where we hit max angular authority and say "SEE? SEE? THIS IS BECAUSE OF THAT 2G LIMIT" because during normal flight conditions; so many other variables play into the flight modeling as to make what contribution it has iffy. That's why the edge case is brought up: Because that's the point where it becomes extremely clear that this is not an organic flight model. But, it does exist and it is affecting your low-speed performance. Whether you want to acknowledge it or not. If that's fine with you; sure, but that's on you isn't it? I think the earlier posts in this thread sort of sums up my thoughts on it perfectly. It's not PFM, never was intended to be PFM, in fact it's not even called PFM on the store page. I'm still not giving up, because they have committed to contributing to the Mig-21. So who knows? Maybe we'll get that SAU stabilize feature we've been sorely needing.

"I also have real R-13M data I'm serious guys! I'm skeptical. Two things 1) The top speed of the R-13M has been known for literally 40 years.. In fact, I linked some sources pertaining to this in the OP. 2) You can see that it's not accurate missile data from just looking at the Tacview data. We're looking at sustained performance, and the 'top speed' listed is true for the GAR-8, but not the R-13 or the R-3S. You can see that from the tacview files that Mortisrose posted and even your own that you posted. It drops off way too fast and 2.25 was its sustained maximum speed, you seem to be confusing sustained maximum speed with top possible speed, which is a misunderstanding on your part, and furthermore you don't seem to be acknowledging that the faster you go; the faster the initial missile's launch will be. You can test this yourself, and your picture shows a misunderstanding of the topic (furthermore, you appear to be firing the R-13M in a frontal aspect, which this is a rear-most aspect missile. Try getting a lock first) I'm not going to say you're wrong, but I am going to say that you're confusing our real, comparative evidence with other missiles in the game with a misunderstanding of some numbers. These missiles; the R-13, as well as the R-3S, are grossly falling behind the very missiles that these two were based on. If you do indeed have the sensitive R-13 documents. Answer a few questions for us: How come the R-13M1, a far more advanced missile than the R-3S, has a lower sustained travel distance. How come this Vietnam-era missile has worst performance characteristics than the GAR-8 Despite the fact that the R-3S is based on the GAR-8 and the R-13M/1 is a far upgraded missile from the R-3S. AND neither of them, in any instance, match up to the GAR-8 in-game (Try it, fly a Tiger II, accelerate to the same speed you were at in your test, and shoot a GAR-8. You'll see performance curves like what Mortisrose posted) Pardon me if I'm extremely skeptical of this claim by someone who just happens to have "sikrit documents". I don't mean to be confrontational, but you come in and demand "Don't change anything" when you're yet to post any proof this is working as intended when we can see from other, similar missiles that this is not working as intended. Frankly, it's unhelpful.

He looks as happy as I am when I get more Mig news.

Whoo! Finally has its own sub-forum now. That must mean it's getting pretty close, right? :smilewink:

My comment on this: Co-altitude is notoriously hell for monopulse radars (the radar that you're using). So if you can 'see' him and he's at your altitude; your radar is actually looking through every mountain and tree on the horizon before it can get to him. You need to be below him to have any effect on contacting him, even if it's just a few hundred meters. If you're below 10K feet, flip on the low altitude compensation for a terrain filter, and flip it a second time to physically tilt the antenna up a degree and a half. If you still can't find radar contacts, you need to engage low-speed target acquisition. Basically the radar filters out things it considers to be moving at 'low speed' to reject false positives, but that doesn't help if you are moving at a low relative speed compared to him (IE: you're chasing him), so flipping that on results in more targets being picked up. Finally, always remember that fixed beam was traditionally used as a gunsight radar. Turn it on, put the sky behind him and him into your pipper, and press the target lock. If there isn't any interference, it should lock him like a very finicky boresight mode. Be sure the thing you're aiming at is an enemy before you do this because you cannot IFF while he's locked! That's what I'm going to do from here on out, because here I was trying to map it to my HOTAS.

I'm in the same boat. Like I've said before; I want to be optimistic. So I'm very curious where this seemingly renewed interest in the fishbed takes us.

I haven't had problems landing, but I'm really happy for this video. If we have contact with real fulcrum pilots: I'd like to know what they think about the flight model in general. Have you tried it with and without autopilot dampening? It makes quite a difference.

I love the new FM. I also love the new autopilot modes. I'm going to be flying this one for a while.

Try turning off autopilot damper beforehand. But be SURE to turn it back on before you land, otherwise the plane will yell at you.

Check if its been fixed. Afterburner detent was changed to 11% RPM.

Ah, didn't know.

Also, one other thing I will add that I'm not sure is intended behavior: If you nose down and enter negative G's anywhere near the trans-sonic region while your nose is high; you will continue to nose down until you are in an inverted spin, no inputs after the initial nose-down seem to correct or change anything and you can only escape this by entering the spin, waiting, and then exiting it. This does not affect the SU-33 as much as it does the default flanker (I encounter this far more with the SU-27 and J-11A than I do in the SU-33), however; it can still happen. It requires almost intentional input to do that in the SU-33 as it is heavier, but it can happen in the SU-27 from mere accidental correction. I think this has been a problem reported in the SU-27 PFM models in the past, but I don't think anything was ever done about it. The two issues you're referring to may be related. First picture is -0.1 G at .6Mach, and exactly the point where I lost control of the aircraft. No inputs past that would affect the aircraft in any significant way as it started to pitch over. Second picture is -3.5G at .5 Mach, and is the highest G experienced and the only point where I came close to redding out (However, my pilot remained conscious through this exercise.), and finally the point where I went inverted and my inputs would function once more; allowing me to regain control of the aircraft. Again, this is the J-11A, but I think the SU-33 suffers similar problems. If anyone has any hints as to what happened, let me know. EDIT: this was NOT with the FBW turned off. FBW was enabled through the entirety of the next few images. The S button was never touched, and is in fact wasn't on my HOTAS when this tacview was made.

I actually experience this once in a blue moon. Basically I will be flying along like normal and then suddenly, and I think it's because of an overcorrection that induces negative Gs, it will nose down and start tumbling. All control is lost and unless I'm >10,000 AGL it's basically a death. I don't know if it's a FBW bug or a network code bug, either ways it's frustrating when it happens. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to happen all that much. I've had this happen while completely unloaded and when fully loaded, so I can't say that it's a loading thing. It just appears to be a negative G thing.

For the first one, Press R. All flankers have the ability to dump fuel in this game. For the second one, no, but that would be interesting. Technically several aircraft; including the Hornet, have the option to Buddy Refuel but lack that capability in DCS.

Now, do you say that knowing that it has a hard coded 2G limit at low speeds that the devs acknowleged is unrealistic that you can check in the bugtracker or do you say that because it "feels right" and that's good enough for you? Whether you like it is separate to if its accurate