Dr_Arrow

Not wanting to go too far OT, but I agree Weta43, I was just trying to say it was not some implementation or coding error in MCAS but rather a fatal design flaw, which is always hard to correct. It is difficult to understand and swallow that Boeing knew about the expected loss of 1 aircraft and still pushed it out in a way it was. In my engineering experience it is also quite absurd, because in any design it is always the priorities - safety first, second, third and then long nothing and safety again long nothing and only then maybe some performance/costs. Even when re-designing an old system, the first question is, will it be considerably more safe? I thought that this principle today really applies to everyone dealing with civil aviation.

If you have empty amno for the GSH-23 cannon the Mig will roll slightly, because the amno box is off center, could this be the problem?

The same problem goes for the FAB family of bombs.

I absolutely agree, FM is very good inside envelope - outside it, well for example there aren't any RL pilots I personally know who went outside the envelope with 21 and lived to tell the tale so I am pretty happy with FM. To those I have spoken, all told me that they feared abusing limits of the aircraft a lot and falling into spin was a dreaded regime (among others). You can fly the 21 BIS according to the real flight manual and for me it is a testimony of a good FM.

Thanks for your answer Hiro, I appreciate all fuselage corrections and everything what will be done regarding the external shape of Mig-21. However I cannot understand contrary to very small discrepancy in external shape, which 99% of users won't notice that such a big error like 490L tanks being maybe 30% smaller than they should be still hasn't been fixed, I like your work and support it, but sorry - I sometimes feel like fighting with windmills to get something updated (new files for the tanks were supplied long ago), please see: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2757565&postcount=1

AeriaGloria: yes, the correct technique is shown in the video. I am amazed and you see it in many tutorials on YT, people are used to land on all three gears with eastern aircraft a lot (L-39, Mig-29, Su-27, Su-25, etc.), which is absolutely wrong. In flight training as per RL training manuals you are specifically taught to land on main landing gear only, aerobrake and gently put the nosewheel down as shown in the video. But anyway in training you got to fly familiarization flights (around 20) and 40-60 circuit flights in L-39, before you are allowed to go solo with L-39). So I also think it is a good practice to master MLG landings with low descent rate with L-39 (and of course other tasks) and then try to proceed to more complex aircraft.

There is currently no word from the developer about anything, we'll maybe see some update about a future update sometime in autumn/winter/spring or maybe summer, something to do with ducks...

yep, we rolled it out in just three months and it has been a huge success with only two crashes (*writing from jail*). But seriously no, the tragedy is that MCAS itself worked just as designed without a flaw (according to available data), the problem is much more complex from control (cybernetics), diagnosis, HMI (human machine interface) and air-frame integration points of view. I think I have a pretty good idea how complex technical systems are and how difficult is it to develop them, what I previously wrote was just my concern that in case of ED with modules and features growth, it is a problem of resource allocation and the major delays are caused by it. I have just a feeling that the company is trying to bite more than it can chew (whole WW2 thing, MAC agenda, core DCS, modern aircraft, new engine, old stuff deprecation, etc).

I am an aerospace engineer and develop flight control systems, everything that is put into practice is simulated at first, I work with dynamic aircraft models which will eat your PC alive, so please DO NOT tell me how long something can or cannot take...

I would gladly pay full price even for the updated graphics/cockpit model and bug fixes without any new systems if it just didn't take them two years to develop :(

How it is done in RL BIS and works very well in DCS also (Flight for maximum MACH or maximum ALT from RL BIS manual), it needs some training:

I am afraid we are approaching a state where the resources are too thin and basically any development is approaching a halt. MAC is on hold, A-10C cockpit upgrade with a very slow progress, KA-50 moved to sometime in 2020 (not really much confidence in it), P-47 more than five years in development, Mi-24 more than 5 years, ATC has been talked about for some 5+ years, Hornet some 10 years, older stuff deprecating and not being updated that much. Probably only F-16 is showing some progress. Hope I am mistaken ... but my feeling is not that good about the current progress of things, but I can understand it as it is very complex and with growing list it becomes impossible to maintain everything.

This bug will soon celebrate it's fifth birthday, good job ED in keeping it well fed and healthy :D

basically it should be similar to C* in Airbus aircraft, where it is specifically written in the manual that in pitch the control inputs are made to alter the flight path NOT to hold it.

Sorry, orbit does not work. Aerobatics does the trick, just order them in waypoint actions to do an aileron roll and they will switch off the lights. I hope that I am mistaken about development of the Mig-21 as I love the aircraft and I backed it up as soon as its development was announced ages ago, but I remain pessimistic given its development in the last years.

It is possible to give them orbit with zero duration command in waypoint actions and they used to switch those fracking lights off. For wingmen it is possible to give them pincer command and they will retract those lights. This indicates for me that there has to be a simple code-wise solution to this problem. I do not fly the Mig-21 anymore, there has not been a single change in the last 4 months and the module seems to be progressively degrading so I am not keeping my hopes up high for any future fixes.

m4ti140: nice analysis, thank you, you're right. If SPS operates from 50% N1 for R-25 engine then it indeed corresponds to around 20-25% of throttle travel dependent on approach speed. I was under false assumption that it operates above 80% N2 as previously written by others in the thread, sorry.

It is an old engine, where LPC is NOT controlled by the throttle! - I did not write anything about LPC revs as they will be dependent on N2 and outer conditions (temperature, velocity, pressure, humidity, etc). At ground they and zero velocity N1 will be at around 75% with N2 at 80%. SPS detent is NOT at 20%, there is the are of "Maly Gaz" - idle, it is in the range around 40-50%, and this is how it is correctly modeled in DCS.

I was referring to a speed around 80% of the N2 (hi pressure turbo-compressor) rotational speed of the engine, this is where the SPS detent is (at 50% throttle travel). SPS system needs 2.5 kg/s of air to operate.

The shaking is probably realistic, what is not realistic in Su-25A and T is that the whole camera shakes even with little vibrations, this creates an exaggerated unrealistic effect. The solution would be to have only the cockpit shake and leave the eye positioned camera stable and shake the camera only when vibrations are very strong. I believe this is how it is modeled in newer aircraft. However I highly doubt anything will be done about it for Su-25, there are bugs which were reported and acknowledged five years ago and were not addressed. Like cockpit frame bug, reversed engines, CCRP mode problems, Su-25T autopilot, etc. There is even a rumor that the whole 3D model of the Su-25A has been lost, so no changes possible... it is really sad...

+1

Ironhand: a great landing with Mig-29, should be put as tutorial thumbup::thumbup::thumbup: Hyundae: As has already been said, Russian school prescribes certain landing weight, heights above inner and outer markers and speeds above them, as well as rates of descent. You really do not work the throttle that much especially in older aircraft as the engines are quite unresponsive/sluggish (L-39 is a prime example of that). Flare level out 1 meter above runway is also quite important in order to land on the main wheels. In DCS most people smash Russian aircraft on the runway on all three wheels like there is not tomorrow :) Most people believe that Russian aircraft are very resilient in landings, this might be true for a single use, but not for standard aircraft operations where the number of landings for each air-frame is counted and landings over maximum weight can only present a certain percentage of total landings (and aircraft need to be thoroughly checked after every hard landing). I have access to a Mig-21MA, which was landed hard, although standard landing in DCS as seen in youtube videos :) and its fuselage is bent in a way that the aircraft had to be scrapped as it was impossible to trim it at higher speeds after this landing.

Oh no, I did not know that, I used his AAA pack in nearly all my missions for older scenarios, what a loss :cry::cry::cry:

unfortunately the MOD does not work in 2.5.5, can anyone please update it, if possible at all...

Yep Holton, this is what I am suggesting. It is probably a classical Russian system and I only extrapolate that it works similarly like in L-39ZA or other Russian aircraft. If you have malfunction and cannot fire missiles/rockets (S-8,S-13,KH-25ML,etc.), you will use the emergency launch button. If you have bombs or you want to drop the rocket container (S-8, S-13, etc.) then you use emergency drop and you can do this in armed mode or unarmed for the bombs.