Sideburns

Reported as a bug, as I couldn't find a relevant previous bug. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4428923#post4428923

It was noted on the cold war server by Lazzyseal aka P61 that the Rb24j was over-performing, pulling 15g turns close to aim9l performance. Looking into the issue it appears the coefficient of lift values for the Rb24j are not correct, they are superior to the Aim9p and Aim9p5 whereas we believe they should be the same? Relevant files \Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\CoreMods\aircraft\AircraftWeaponPack\aim9_family.lua contains the variables for the aim9 missiles \Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\CoreMods\aircraft\AJS37\Entry\Weapons.lua contains the Viggen Rb24/Rb24j/Rb74 variable definitions If you look in these files the sensor, thrust, drag and Cl (Coefficient Lift) values (cy_k0, cy_k1) are defined, the Rb24j has some generous Cl values that put it above the aim9p5 (double the Cl) it should probably be the same as the aim9p series. Thrust, sensor and drag values otherwise seem sensible for the Rb series. Sensor is superior to aim9p but inferior to aim9p5. Thrust is about the same. Appears to have been an issue since at least 2018. Suggested fix: Amend the Rb24j cy_k0 and cy_k1 values to match the other aim9p missiles. (0.5 and 0.4 instead of 0.9 and 0.8 ) Edit: Might also be worth checking with Heatblur to see if this was a deliberate design choice, i.e. the Swedish air force had a special Aim9p3?

Not required, found the issue. \Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\CoreMods\aircraft\AircraftWeaponPack\aim9_family.lua contains the variables for the aim9 missiles \Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\CoreMods\aircraft\AJS37\Entry\Weapons.lua contains the Viggen Rb24/Rb24j/Rb74 variable definitions If you look in these files the sensor, thrust, drag and Cl (Coefficient Lift) values (cy_k0, cy_k1) are defined, the Rb24j has some generous Cl values that put it above the aim9p5 (double the Cl) but also below the Aim9l and aim9x. Regardless it probably shouldn't be this way, it should be the same as the aim9p series. Thrust, sensor and drag values otherwise seem sensible for the Rb series. Sensor is superior to aim9p but inferior to aim9p5. Thrust is about the same. If you have submitted a bug report to ED it should probably include this information. Appears to have been an issue since at least 2018. However I will maintain that many of the shots I have taken did not need the missile to manoeuvre hard or far to hit, so don't expect this to cure all redfors issues.

Clearly you care enough to respond, but just to be clear it doesn't mean that much to me to mean that much to you. Do you have a link to the bug report I assume you filed with ED for this? A quick search doesn't reveal anything.

I didn't call you a liar, and for what it is worth I don't feel like this is discussion is a waste of time. I said the evidence presented had some ambiguity in it due to the way weapons are represented in Tacview. I am also making my own tests and investigations, granted you do need an upgraded version of Tacview to get the graphs.

I have had the MiG21 quicker than 1250 sustained with no issues or tricks. And the need to manoeuvre will sometimes depend which way you're pointing when you decide to egress. The Viggen can be fragile at higher speeds and sustained "at the limit" G's, No "yeeting" required. Just a polite request for evidence of claimed thrust vectoring in your post. Assuming you are referring to #2739 and #2740 unfortunately the Rb24, Rb24j and Rb74 all report as ROBOT in tacview so this isn't as conclusive as it appears. Also the comparison appears to be an aim9p. You might also wish to read the thread before posting.

I have had an engine failure after a Mach 1.4 low level flight, but the engine did fail on the following sortie. Also over G is a real risk above Mach 0.9, wings can come off. So it is not without risks. On a similar note I trust all you MiG21 pilots are sticking to 7G limit with 4 missiles loaded or 4G with the 800l tank? Thrust vectoring, how did you come to that conclusion?

Thanks for this overview, my question was genuine and I appreciate a genuine answer. Was not aware this is how the flaps work on the MiG21. So there is no flaps overspeed and flaps can contribute, albeit minimally, to braking effect at higher speeds. I had observed a MiG21 loosing speed incredibly quickly while travelling in a straight line hence my original question. I will probably take out my MiG21 module to see if I can recreate. On the earlier points of missile effectiveness the stats posted earlier are interesting, but bear in mind these numbers are the combination of both the missiles base effectiveness and their employment. I still see MiG21's try to evade missiles in AB, presumably emergency AB and I know that within my group we do hold back shots until the aspect and/or target speed is favourable. We also co-ordinate together in dogfights to create these favourable conditions as wing pairs. When a missile is fired upon we practice an IR missile defence, maximum performance turn with engine to idle (often resulting in an overshoot of the enemy). Also in comparing the MiG21 and AJS-37 ability to dodge missiles don't forget that the AJS-37 also has a turbofan which helps reduce IR signature vs the MiG21 turbojet. On the comment that the AJS-37 do mach 1.2+, well that is what they are designed to do. The MiG21 can also go fast if you want to, but not as fast as the AJS-37 at low level, probably faster at high level. Once more if you are fighting the enemy at his advantage you are not doing it right. Having said all that I do still think the RB24j, aka aim9p3, is arguably the best heatseeker available in the cold war server at the moment. I would not be against the Aim9p5 and R60 (base model not R60M) making a return to the server to address balance concerns. But a return of the R60 for MiG21 should probably mean a removal of the R3-R and ideally, if feasible, denying the R60M to the MiG21 if it is present for other planes in the mission.

There you go, been carrying multirole all day today. Mavs, rockets, bombs, all good fun and progresses the mission. Can you confirm the damage modelling on the MiG21 extends to flap overspeed situations? Suspect we're seeing some MiG21 pilots using flaps and airbrakes to slow down rapidly from high speeds.

Reminder that the Aim9p and 24j are not frontal aspect, unlike the R60m and R3R :smilewink:

Unfortunately we have situations where MiG21s are entering the fight in Fight Island with R60m as they are flying across to Su25 base to collect them :(

Truth be told the missions are a lot more fun when you also do the A2G objectives, but there does appear to be some who only come for the A2A and then also some who only seem to play when reward Mirage/MiG29 aircraft are available :/

Any update on this?

The RB24j is also fairly susceptible to flares and I've seen some really good low level, high speed plays that make it difficult to get an acquisition and tracking by the missile. As you say the Viggen at high AOA has those compressor stalls... abrupt manoeuvres by a MiG should help create such compressors stalls.

I will be honest, recently got the Viggen and really enjoying it. Slow speed scissors and initial turn is great (didn't even think of the landing gear trick, but I don't like cheese like this, F18 pull breaker, F14 flaps >225knots and 2G etc). Lots of MiGs seems to be forgetting that they have access to the R3-R (shooting a Viggen in the face is a good tactic, especially as many don't carry chaff) and are fighting the merge on the Viggen's terms (trying to go slow). The Rb24j is arguably the best IR available generally speaking over most parameters, but there are still tactics that work for the MiG21 that red are ignoring (learn to R3-R!). The Rb24j is not practically a frontal aspect IR missile. Fight the fight on your terms, not the enemies! Also, you really should be keeping an eye for low Viggens. About 3/4 of my merges the MiG doesn't appear to be aware of the merge making it an easy chase down after the merge and slice. Hopefully helpful, albeit blunt, guidance for red.

Alpenwolf really enjoying the server with rear aspect IR heaters only again, good fun. Thank you as ever for the server. Don't recall the Devils ever winning. Try to be a little more humble.

Bumping, I also enjoy the F5e and would like to see it finished properly.

Not entirely sure why this priority change would cause crashes. I would suggest checking the stability of your overclock, prime95, memtest etc.

While it could be, and probably is, the player's inclination towards a challenge, it could also be the quality of monitor / display. Having an expensive IPS or VA display will give great black reproduction and contrast. A lot of cheaper TN monitors are probably not so good in this respect and it would make night mission less enjoyable. Not sure how VR fares in this regard, but I would hope give their cost they are good quality displays. Not that this should stop there being night missions, more challenge :) Spotting an afterburner in the darkness is something else.

If the ship is moving it doesn't work very well (Phoenix appears to fail to track the ship, though I have not tried this in Fox1 mode). Also it doesn't do too much damage to the ship.

Always wondered what the conversion was, cheers for this handy rule of thumb.

I still can't beleive the MiG21 has a roughfield capability, but it does Glad to see this is in the process of being added for our DCS MiG21 with the recent suspension tweaks.

DDCS also spawn you in with minimal fuel, so startups take even longer. But this is not a terrible thing, forces people to play more carefully rather than death match style repeated spawn ins*. I would personally prefer a more realistic style of play where losing an airframe has a tangible consequence, to discourage airquake style play. But appreciate there are technical glitches at times, as per Rossmum's comment, and this is not to everyone's taste. DDCS operate limited airframes and lives, but also have a stricter entry requirement for the server which is also heavily admin'ed. *Where it is quicker for the shot down pilot to respawn and get back to the same point on the map vs the victor return to base to re-arm and refuel this feels wrong from a realism perspective. Cue the eternal DCS holy war on game vs simulations duh you're not a real pilot etc.

Any chance of the A4 being added to the server, or would this cause too many issues for those that don't have it installed? (sorry if this has been asked/tried before) Edit: I see this was asked before in 2018 at least. Appreciate it is SFM and not mandatory mod therefore may be tricky to handle.

Heh, they were not so lucky in this engagement. It was all over in a minute.