riojax

Hello, I finished my calcs and plotted them over the real MiG-21bis Cl table: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4302370&postcount=41

Hello, I finished my calcs and plotted them over the real MiG-21bis Cl table: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4302370&postcount=41

Current MiG-21 Cl comparision Hello, I finished my calcs and plotted them over the real MiG-21bis Cl table. The shaded area is the buffeting zone, and upper that the plane will stall, downwards, all must to be ok. [FIRST IMAGE] * Blue line: The Cl with 33º on the UUA-1 indicator * Orange line: The Cl with max possible pitch * Yellow line: The CL with 21º on the UUA-1 indicator [sECOND IMAGE] * Blue line: The Cl with max possible pitch using ARU-3V in manual (full left) * Orange line: The Cl with max possible pitch using ARU-3V in AUTO. * Yellow line: Simulated DCS AoA using current FM to match the real UUA-1 33º value. [1] EDIT: Possible DCS bug related to the atmospheric lift, compare the two attached images, one at 760mmHg and other at 900mmHg, also check the corrected rho value. For this maybe the current FM Cl is ok for < 0.6M [2] EDIT: Using the ARU-3V in manual forced at full left the FM seems a lot better! (attached img2) As you can see actually the M3 MiG-21 has three issues: 1) the UUA-1 indicator don't work as the real one. 2) the FM at max pull over-performs the pre-stall MiG-21 capabilities under 0.6M (check the possible DCS bug[1]) 3) the FM at max pull under-performs the MiG-21 capabilities over 0.6M[2] As conclusion, the FM is near to real on 0.6M and under[1], and the biggest issues are the under-perform over 0.6M using the ARU-3 in auto[2] that it's very noticeable and the UUA-1 issue that at this point makes this instrument totally useless and difficult to compare the exact non-buffeting values. Anyway, thank you a lot for this update, that did a better FM than before and set it on the right way! UPDATE1: The tables was updated with ARU-3V in manual and auto. UPDATE2: Maybe the ARU-3V uses the wrong UUA-1 values and for this the wrong behavior. UPDATE3: Added the simulated data for UUA-1 33º in the 2nd image. The chart and tables are attached as libre office calc and an image. AVIO_CL_MIG21.zip

Really nice finding, I will try to replicate it on DCS. Thank you a lot!

Please, review this tacview on the same conditions. F/A-18C -> 53º AoA Mig-21bis -> 28º AoA Regards. FA-18.zip Mig-21.zip

WAT. You're 90yo?!!! If you are saying that you "flew" it only in DCS and asked me for the same... PFFFFF... yes... I *used* this DCS module from the first day. Anyway, I did think that you ask for REAL flying, and now I understand a lot of your opinions. Ok, show us <<much as you want>> AoA. I only get 32º AoA on tacview with a very extreme maneuver that left our poor balalaika at less than 80km/h. Yes, it need to be reviewed, but don't worry if you don't know it, this is a WIP FM update probably from Dolphin, of course isn't a final FM version. And of course it needs improves. We aren't discussing this obviousness.

I've the same opinion, bullet per bullet, but this FM change gave me a really good hopes!

This post don't describe anything related to the new FM, it's talking only about the old one and its author don't said nothing about the new, please don't use fallacies to try to gain a better dialectical position. In other things, I prefer that you stop to "suggesting" me things.

This is how someone must report: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4253234&postcount=14 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4265567&postcount=16

No, and you? The AoA indicator in the plane don't uses degrees, are "units" and if you see it on tacview will have the current real degrees, usually they are near 25º at maximum pitch. I tested the Mig-21 complains in the F-5E and not only can do the same, also it can do a reversal no-power pitch at more than -100º AoA. Please, this FM is not perfect, but isn't broken. All developers are doing their best, and insult their work isn't the way to help us. Show the real tables for AoA, weight, speed, turn rate, etc. and compare it on DCS is the way, but say "oh, it's a UFO" or "this is broken" don't help anyone. Also probably all here are humans with feelings and when someone is working on something is good to make it feel that is rewarding in some manner, mate, be constructive. F-5E.zip

Congrats M3, this patch fixed a lot FM issues, now its feels like the correct TWR and the drag is more real. Some people simply don't understand that and thinks that limited or difficult means real, don't listen them you are doing a good work and clearly this is on a good way. Good job!

Oh yeah, the Su-24 is a dream! :pilotfly:

Mmm... and open the possibility to load our raster maps?

The MAP ALT font size (and maybe the number of strings) is not variable dependent the zoom level.

You can see that in the free flight Sujumi mission some buttons are barely visible, in both Russian and English cockpits (in the English cockpit the autopilot is difficult to see too) P.S. This is not gamma related, other planes/maps are in good condition at my current gamma value and on other time is working as desired. ka50_bug1.trk

Currently the only way to hide a unit from the SA page is mark it as hidden in the map, but sometime is interesting to have it in the F10 map. For example: think on fog of war enabled missions, or simply a F10 map only for allies. Is it possible to add this function to ME? P.S. I know that currently hiding it on SA is bugged, but when it will be fixed this behavior will be unchanged. Thank you on advance.

The IR fingerprint in DCS is according to thrust? Ok, but the current seeker values are too low, the Komar M seeker detection is almost the half than the AIM-9P5 in DCS, and in reality is only a bit worse than the AIM-9L. # TONE - REAR ASPECT F-5E MiG-21 --------------------------------- R-60M 2.41 nmi 3.46 nmi AIM-9P5 4.75 nmi 7.00 nmi Ok, replicating this chart in DCS it gave me these ground distances. 10km - 14.31km 5km - 10.50km 1km - 8.13km This is a bit less than the attached chart. I attached tracks. R60M_10km.trk R60M_5km.trk R60M_1km.trk

Ok, is it possible to ask to LN about the MiG-21 values? Also checking it, the Su-17 Lyulka AL-21F-3 engine is similar to the F-4 GE-J79 but using only one engine. Maybe this value is a bit high. The R-60 OGS-60TI "Komar" seeker, had a conventional single colour scanning detector with a ±12..±17° (more like to ±12°) off-boresight capability and 35°/sec tracking rate. The R-60M OGS-75 "Komar M" seeker increased the off-boresight capability to ±20° and improved tracking rate. With this the Komar M seeker is a bit better than the AIM-9L seeker and the Komar, like the AIM-9P-4. About the rocket solid fuel and engine, I don't have good sources, for this I will only estimate some data, knowing that the R-60 mass is 43.5kg with 3kg warhead, and for the R-60M the mass was increased to 45km and 42mm larger (probably all is fuel and fuselage) using the same fuel this can be a 106.15% burning time (the warhead and fuselage mass was already taken account), this also will increase the mid speed. With this we will suppose that the ISP is around to 120s, with a burning time of 4s and an a rate of 5kg/s this means an a thrust of 5.884kN, using a full mass of 43.5kg and a dry mass of 23kg (3 for the warhead, 2 for the seeker, 18 for the fuselage and engine) will gave us an a dV of 750m/s that plus 150m/s plane speed is the same that the alleged 2.5 mach speed for the rocket. With this is easy to say a peak speed of 750m/s plus the plane speed at 4s burn time for the R-60 and 790m/s plus the plane speed for the R-60M. IMHO, the current R-60 and R-60M implementation is very far from this estimated data, all is similar (burn time, mass rate, etc.) but the ISP is totally off with a peak speed at 4s of 460m/s plus plane speed.

I did a exhaustive investigation about some typical weapons used on both platforms. The first topic is about the seeker tone distance on rear and front aspect. # TONE - REAR ASPECT F-5E MiG-21 --------------------------------- R-55 1.53 nmi 2.21 nmi R-60 1.78 nmi 2.56 nmi R-3S 1.90 nmi 2.73 nmi R-60M 2.41 nmi 3.46 nmi R-13 3.56 nmi 5.18 nmi R-13M1 3.58 nmi 5.19 nmi R-3R 5.34 nmi 5.34 nmi (RADAR GUIED) RS-2US 5.34 nmi 5.34 nmi (RADAR GUIED) GAR-8 5800 ft 1.38 nmi AIM-9P 2.35 nmi 3.42 nmi AIM-9P5 4.75 nmi 7.00 nmi As you can see seems that the MiG-21 IR signature is almost the double than the F-5E, later will discuss a bit about this topic. Also the seeker distance seems a bit strange, look at R-13s, R-60M and AIM-9P5, something seems broken there. # TONE - FRONT ASPECT F-5E MiG-21 --------------------------------- R-55 4200 ft 4200 ft R-60 4400 ft 4400 ft R-13M 4400 ft 4400 ft (NOT GUIDING) R-13M1 4500 ft 4500 ft (NOT GUIDING) R-3S 4800 ft 4800 ft (NOT GUIDING) R-60M 1.34 nmi 1.34 nmi R-3R 5.15 nmi 5.15 nmi (NOT GUIDING??) RS-2US 5.15 nmi 5.15 nmi (RADAR GUIED) GAR-8 0.00 nmi 0.00 nmi (NO TONE) AIM-9P 0.00 nmi 0.00 nmi (NO TONE) AIM-9P5 1.68 nmi 2.35 nmi Ok, this is really strange. The R-3R seems to be "rear aspect" and from front it's unguided, like a rocket but the fuse works, the R-13M, R-13M1 and R-3S works the same (but on IR). Now this is the effective current lethal range: # RANGE - LETHAL R-55 1.25 nmi RS-2US 1.42 nmi R-60 1.78 nmi R-3S 1.86 nmi R-60M 1.88 nmi R-3R 2.02 nmi R-13 2.10 nmi R-13M1 2.33 nmi GAR-8 1.38 nmi AIM-9P 2.60 nmi AIM-9P5 2.75 nmi The ranges, also seems to be bad, the R-60 and R-60M range is too small. Also I tried to know the maximum range on a pure heads-on, but I was unable to launch the soviet missiles without tone, and with tone, is always into the maximum range. # RANGE MAXIMUM RS-2US 3.26 nmi R-3R 5.15 nmi AIM-9P5 8.95 nmi (NO TONE IMPACT!!!) Yes, the AIM-9P5 will impact a hot contact on front aspect at 9nmi WITHOUT TONE. Now we will return to the IR signature. I don't have any IR image to confirm that, but the F-5E engine exhaust temperature at 100% RPM (without AB) is 550ºC for each engine (two engines) and the MiG-21Bis at same parameters is on 630ºC I doubt a lot that this can make a huge difference in favor of F-5E. TL;TR Maybe the Mig-21 IR signature is too high, the R-60 and R-60M seeker too bad, the R-13s too good on rear aspect and the AIM-9P5 can hit from a god-alike distance without tone. F-5E_AIM9P5_WLOCK.trk F-5E_AIM9P5_LOCK_F5.trk F-5E_AIM9P5_LOCK_MIG21.trk

The MAP ALT font is always at the maximum zoom size regardless the selected distance/zoom.

Yep, is this possible via DTC or something?

Is it possible to share the spanish version too? Thank you!

For me this works like a charm: [14] = {--default view - VR viewAngle = 114.165154,--FOV hAngle = 0.000000, vAngle = -9.363433, x_trans = 0.1, y_trans = -0.032, z_trans = -0.003428, rollAngle = 0.000000, },

If that is is true, ED is lobbying a 3rd party to meet unreal standards based on complains from random people, not in facts or data. This is a real bad news for past, present and future business partners. I clearly wouldn't invest my money on companies that lobby their partners for some dark objectives. By that i really want a official ED explain about this and data that support the new missile behavior.

Still present in 2.5.5.33552