rossmum

Whatever the cause is, it's in Kareli. Agara is fine, but as soon as you look towards the middle of Kareli (especially from the north) it chugs, even my new PC struggles with it but my old one would just lock up. I don't know what it is but it's only been noticeable to me for maybe 6-12 months. Before that, the mission ran fine even on the old PC, which was pretty close to the minimum for DCS.

Worth note that the flap auto-retraction happens in stages at a certain speed, but as currently modelled, the flaps are blown back up proportional to airspeed - so that also affects the margin of error a bit.

I've heard people report this (and other bizarre issues I've never been able to reproduce) for a while. I do wonder if there's some way the files can get a bit hokey without fully breaking the module, and without reaching the point where the repair tool spots the error. So far it's either this or the RSBN channels going skynet, and I've never experienced either.

Speaking of switching up CTLD units, is there any possibility of switching the red JTAC from the SKP to something drivable, like a UAZ or something? Occasionally the AI isn't very cooperative with regards to waypoints and it can be difficult to get it to go where you need it, while blue can just manually wrangle theirs over. Now, using SKP-11s to set up roadbases as their real-life function was... e/ There are a few missions where a section of B-52s attack if certain objectives are complete (Open Range is one, Catch Me If You Can is another, and that's often a night intercept - quite cool). I would like to see more like that, to be honest, along with more reasons to get off the deck beyond just the threat of a cheeky Avenger or Strela... but at the same time I feel like you'll still have people hugging the deck. The popular meta for the F-5 and MiG-21 is to fly radar-off and spot people above the horizon, and every now and then the F-5s who do go high get a cheeky reminder that the R-3R exists and they stop doing it. Likewise, flying the 21 up where it performs best is an invitation to get popped by a giraffe attack or an F-14. I guess the prevailing wisdom of "muh stealth" and common experience on GS has resulted in people being reluctant to turn on the bird cooker, that or they badly underestimate it (F-5 guys especially) or just don't know how to use it. Funnily enough even most F-14 and MiG-29 players hug the deck, despite the latter in particular being absolutely, unquestionably best-utilised by cruising up high in lookdown mode and raining R-27Rs on people or swooping anyone lower in contrails.

Fuel gauge may not have been calibrated as he said it hasn't been doing that automatically for him on mission start/rearm (I haven't checked if this is an intentional change since the patch or not - some people have been complaining of this issue for months or years but I've never seen it - I've spent the past month testing the MiG-19 and then getting to grips with it in combat so haven't really done any 21 turnarounds to check for myself). I seem to recall in at least one of his tracks, the gauge was indicating >1000L but the empty lights were all on except service and possibly #3. Really good way to get people to stop bothering to read your posts, for what it's worth. I wouldn't complain if the aircraft smashed the gear/blew its tyres/bent the wing spars/whatever off a hard landing versus bouncing like that, but the end result is more or less the same and I suspect the end result on the forums would be about the same, too, especially given the course of this thread. That or there'd be something else to lambast M3 about, I'm sure. e/ Alright, I'm going to waste more of my time by attempting to be diplomatic here: All you had to do was come into the thread, say something like "the suspension stiffness seems like it's producing an exaggerated bouncing behaviour, possibly unrealistically so, especially from heavy landings". That's it. Admittedly it looks like most of us missed the "deliberately hard" part of your post, but in any case, if you were the dev... which are you going to read, a post that is short and to the point, or a screed about how things are worse than ever, the MiG-21 is the only module that does this (it absolutely isn't, the MiG-29 has always done it, and far worse at that), coupled with a video claimed to show the plane doesn't bounce from a hard landing... which shows a very obvious, though less severe, bounce? As for your latest tracks, we get it, you can land. If you really want to see me land on a <1km "airstrip" I can provide clips, or on roads, or on a bridge (until DCS despawned it underneath me on rollout), whatever. It's not going to further this thread and it isn't going to change anyone's mind about the suspension behaviour. The biggest problem seems to be that the gear is perhaps more rigid than one would expect, so it doesn't collapse under crash force, or that the nose strut suspension is too springy, or both. The simple solution for those encountering this issue in the wild is just to work on landing technique, since not everyone can grease every landing like those of us with north of 1k hours on the module. If you come down hard enough to bounce fully back into the air you likely would've bent the airframe anyway, so take that as a "crash" until M3 can revise it (or indeed demonstrate it's intended behaviour, if it is.)

Ingame or in real life? Ingame you can lock the fixed beam on stuff and it'll track that, but as far as I'm aware the real thing on the earlier 21s required the nose (specifically one of the notches on the ASP net) to be kept on the target as the fixed beam couldn't be 'locked'/the radar had no capacity to point-track the ground.

Confirmed on my end. Also causes a very pixellated mask where clouds don't render, either offset from the aircraft (F2 view) or the cockpit frame (cockpit view). Seems the VR fix has broken things for 2D. Looks like the mask used to cull clouds behind geometry has somehow become displaced from its usual position.

I am not sure exactly where the engine starves, but I do know it's less than 4%. For reasons.

a) As noted, that wasn't just "a little hard". You came down with quite a thump. The ironic thing is that you probably would've been fine (since DCS doesn't model tyre bursts under excess pressure, as far as I can tell, only overspeed) if you'd held the nose off longer. The main gear can absorb quite a shock before it bounces, the nose gear not so much. And as also noted... the MiG-29 exhibits this same behaviour, but even less forgiving. I stopped playing kangaroo down the runway in the 29 when I realised I was flaring too little, too late. b) There is an incredibly obvious nosewheel bounce... c) The "former FM" (actually it was purely suspension modelling, the flight model itself hasn't changed) also caused your wheels to clip through the ground and grind the brake drums on the concrete while landing, and caused the aircraft to lean over so severely that the same thing would happen while steering on the ground, which in turn rendered differential braking ineffective. At best, the nosewheel bounce may be too strong in that maybe it shouldn't spring the aircraft back into the air quite so hard - but I don't know, I haven't exactly tested a real 21 to destruction to say that with authority and don't know what the damping force on the suspension is. From a landing like you've uploaded, you're still looking at some fairly serious structural damage from a landing that hard, regardless if it bounces or not. I hate to say it, but all I see going on here is bad landing habits catching up to people, just like when the "use AB to get out of a dangerous approach" avenue was finally fixed, and just like when the FM was fixed after the month and a half or so where the aircraft's stall behaviour broke and it was acting like it had fly-by-wire. Improve your landings and the problem will go away.

Your approach is kinda unstable, I'd suggest approaching closer to 400 IAS and then slowing to cross the fence at 350. You slammed down so hard the ventral tank came off in the first landing, going to F2 view right at touchdown probably didn't help with arresting the descent rate. With that said, it's hard to tell exactly what's going wrong... looks like not enough flare? I've had 'harder' landings in terms of descent rate, but only ever experienced a bounce like what you did there when I straight up crunched it into the ground due to battle damage. From the looks of it your problem is coming specifically from the nose gear slamming into the ground, maybe the suspension on it is a little too stiff, but again this is something I can't say I've ever encountered. I get slight nosewheel bounces (by slight I mean, barely noticeable), but maybe it's just down to flare timing. Either way, here's a pair of trackfiles, approaches are a little sloppier than I'd like and slower than I'd usually fly but the landings are pretty typical. Flew these in default DCS weather, ~40% internal fuel, 4 AAM (2 medium/2 light, since that's my usual). 21 landing 1.trk 21 landing 2.trk

I thought you meant in-mission, not ME. In that case, some conversion would have been necessary anyway (from kilograms to litres) even if you had it set to metric measure. I have yet to actually have this issue, perhaps just because I haven't had to run a rearm/refuel since last patch, but to be honest it isn't that big a deal and if anything might help reinforce in players' minds that the "fuel gauge" isn't a fuel gauge, but rather taking how much fuel it thinks was put into the aircraft and then subtracting from that based on fuel burn rate. Checking it is set correctly is good practice as I am losing count of the number of times I've seen people flame out from punching tanks before they were empty, without correcting the dial back to full internal, and then relying on it rather than the fuel tank empty lights.

Pros: you have more finesse in your controls, as the real aircraft also uses a substantial stick extension and is very sensitive in both pitch and roll Cons: uh, you need some more room for your setup, I guess. Curves should only really be needed without an extension (or with a very short one), IMO. Flying with an extension-less TM Warthog I have like 2 degrees of stick throw between documented AoA limit and THE WOBBLE ZONE and it makes it quite hard to ride the edge when I need to.

???? ?? Why would you need to convert anything? Nothing in the aircraft uses imperial measure.

I have no way of testing it, but I feel like there is some variation in airfields, if that makes sense. PG's Lar always feels really rough even in the F-5, to the point it stands out in my mind. I don't know if that'd be enough to explain it, though.

I was able to produce a fairly aggressive nosewheel bounce by conducting an extremely (as in, full fuel, full drop tank, 4 missiles) overweight landing and letting the nose drop as soon as the wheels touched, but even on subsequent overweight landings avoided any bounce at all by holding the nosewheel off a little longer and then letting the stick out gently. Aerobraking is possible, it can just be difficult to get the right stick deflection unless you have a substantial stick extension (I don't, I have none and it sits on a desktop), as you need more precision to do it. Despite that, the bounces I produced weren't enough to make me airborne again unless I already had the stick pulled right back as though trying to aerobrake, and I had enough flying speed to waste a few seconds fumbling for my flaps to bring them back up to T/O so I could plug in burner and go around. I don't know how you guys are regularly encountering bounces. My first theory would be landing overweight, my second would be touching down too slowly so descent rate is allowed to build out of control. The only advice I can give sounds really jerky but in all honesty: just work on your landings, because this is not a problem I've encountered outside of intentionally causing it just now. The fact you're qualifying "gently" like that tells me that your descent rate is too high because you're too heavy, too slow, or both, because there should be no need to qualify it. There is absolutely no reason the DCS 21 can't be greased in so gently you barely notice the wheels touch, it just needs practice. Do some landings as you normally would, and keep an eye on both airspeed at time of touchdown, and vertical speed in m/s. I'm curious now.

Sadly doesn't seem it - not the first time I've heard of CTLD units spawning as something else, mostly artillery turning into ammo trucks. IIRC Seal had an "Msta" turn into an M818 the other week.

Have yet to experience a bounce personally, and in any case I'm glad to be able to make sharp turns on the ground without slowing to a glacial pace to avoid the suspension bottoming out, even with a light load.

Any news on this one guys? Just had a Viggen on fire in 3 places and with one canard (as in, that's all he had) effortlessly slot in behind me despite evasive manoeuvres and nearly kill me. Needless to say it wasn't a good feeling. I know there's a lot to bring up to speed after years of engine updates breaking things or offering new possibilities, but this has to be the absolute worst, most game-breaking bug this module has right now, and I'd really be glad to finally see it put to bed.

The suspension has been fixed (finally), so it offers more resistance now. You came down hard and bounced, before it probably would've just bottomed out without resistance. This was the same fix as the problem with the wheels clipping through the ground and the aircraft riding the brake drums in hard turns on the ground. Simplest answer is not to touch down slower than 280km/h, and if you bounce slower than that, immedately apply mil thrust and initiate a go-around.

As noted in the other thread, don't use the telemetry bar - it seems for the 21 that it's calibrated wrong and reads full emergency AB as 100% and mil thrust as ~88%. If both rotors are indicating 98-100% on the RPM gauge, you're at mil power.

It is going to mil thrust. The gauges show it going to mil thrust. It is delivering its mil thrust rated power. If you're seeing 88% you're either using the ctrl+Y telemetry bar, not the gauges in the aircraft, which are the best reference for what the aircraft is actually doing... or if you are reading that off the actual RPM gauge it's because you tripped the AB detent and the nozzle opened without the AB lighting off. If your flaps are stuck fully extended, you either land normally with the boundary layer control system, or if that's INOP you modify your approach. Simple. The 21 at or below mil thrust will be able to land at full flap even with the boundary layer control system disabled, you'll just have to land faster and have less margin for error. I don't know how your flaps would get stuck in the first place, though, as they automatically retract as speed builds and so aren't sensitive to overspeeding like certain other aircraft (in fact there is no limiting speed for flaps listed anywhere in the POH).

It's possible the documentation the devs had access to didn't mention that detail - the English translation of the POH does not, which is odd. It may be in a separate technical manual but I only have the POH, so not sure. If that's the case, that's probably why it took them 6+ years to implement it, because as far as I know Skyrider was the first one to notice and point it out.

Same here. Aircraft can contribute in my experience, but it requires a higher server population. In the early runs of the mission it was great... last few I've flown were sheer boredom when the other team was shorthanded, or sheer frustration when we were. I really enjoy the mission and like the map, but if it doesn't populate, it isn't nearly as fun.

Not a bug or problem. The engine will spool to military power with full flaps. Your problem is that you tried to enter afterburner with the SPS system engaged and flaps in landing position, which opened the nozzle but inhibited the AB lightoff, as is realistic for this aircraft. The 88% RPM is because the combination of open nozzle and lack of AB is affecting the engine - be glad it only does that and doesn't cause a comp stall, flameout, or worse. The afterburner cannot engage with SPS active (flaps extended beyond 30 degrees - takeoff setting is 25, landing is 44.5). This is a realistic limitation of the aircraft which has finally been modelled. If you find yourself ever needing AB on landing, then your landing technique needs serious work.

Pg. 43, "Handling Instructions" section, hyd/pneumatic systems part: Also observable ingame. If you forget to neutralise the gear handle, you'll have no regular brakes or chute on landing, and only the emergency brakes will work.