MiG-21 1.5.4 Major Upgrade & Changelog

I, for one, cetainly am not asking/proposing that it should lock things up from any angle as a 9M, 73 or Magic II. It shouldn't be capable for that.

But in my experience, it is just barely more than a rear aspect missile, and can only lock from rear quarter-ish and even then after hesitating quite a bit. Even vanilla R-60 should be able to do a bit more than that.

I remember a chart regarding R-60M seeker head from a RL manual was posted somewhere in forum like year ago or so, and at certain levels of heat, it was showing that it would lock even from roughly 11 or 1 o'clock positions. In sim, especially with MiG-21, I can't get it to lock a hot dual engine fighter jet even from 3-9 o'clock positions. Let alone anywhere front hemisphere-ish.

Seeing Spectrum Legacy's post above, I think I understand Cobra speaking about "IR missile feedback issues", may be seeker is acquiring but isn't reporting that to system model. From what I have seen so far with F-5E and AIM-9P5, it is roughly similar. Even though it has a seeker based on AIM-9L/M seekers, in sim it acts roughly similar to R-60M, but, often if I fire without lock tone, I see it actually tracking. R-60M on L-39ZA and Su-25 acts similarly too, even though in some older versions, ED R-60 would indeed lock from many angles on other jets. So it may seem that IR missile seeker code might be having problems reporting that it got a lock?

The roll behavior is quite a bit nippier than before and feels more right.

Just out of curiosity why was there such an odd change in aircraft FM from release to the previous FM to the one we have now. It doesn't seem like a natural progression, more like you made the original, decided it wasn't right, changed it to the second verson then said that wasn't either so you just rebuilt the whole thing from scratch and made what we have now.

Just a side note, I have only recently been flying the Mig but I have heard a lot of people "discussing" the change in FM and am going off the information that they have presented.

Roll behavior is now acceptable. But until now still have problems with angle of attack and acceleration.

It would be great if this chart in the FM was the same as in the flight manual

The time to reach the speed of the aircraft at full afterburner(not emergency afterburner) at different heights. Now these parameters are exceeded by 15-20%. Delphin867 promised something to clarify the situation, but until his employment was probably not allows to do it

I did a couple runs, 5km, level SAU engaged, one at 2000L initial the other 1500L initial fuel. Starting Mach was 0.6 by the cockpit gauge, time in seconds via cockpit stopwatch. A 9 second value for accelerations 0.5-0.6M is assumed but is not included in the table of results.

[table=head]Mach|Time (2000L)|Time (1500L)

0.6|0|0

0.7|12|9

0.8|19|16

0.9|27|23

1.0|33|31

1.1|61|52

1.2|77|70

1.3|98|88

1.4|120|111

1.5|140|130

1.55|Engine flameout|Engine flameout

[/table]

To sample a few data points for comparison, to 0.8M is 25s chart and 16+9=25s DCS. Good so far.

Mach 1.0 in 42 chart vs 31+9, 40 DCS. The higher fuel run was 42s.

1.3M in 100s, DCS in 88+9, 97s.

Initial limited analysis is that DCS level acceleration meets or possibly exceeds charted performance. Complete analysis suggests testing all chart lines (including 0.5M) at multiple fuel weights in order to correct each point to the 7500kg value by interpolation. The disagreement with charted values is within the range which is altered by various aircraft weights.

Changelog for 1.5.4 Update 22/7

 

The night lighting has been fixed and committed- and will be available at the next patch pull after this one.

• Corrected nosecone damage values
  
  
• Corrected roll-rate and roll-acceleration
  
  
• Fixed chat inputs
  
  
• Fixed Autostart issues
  
  
• Fixed view jumping during takeoff and landing
  
  

Enjoy fighting the F-5E!

You forgot to mention that the afterburner animation is fixed! :D

Its the best looking afterburner in DCS by a wide-margin, so nice to see it again!

I really have far too much fun with this delightful machine:

Things seem to be running quite well after the recent updates. :)

And not too much longer:

I bet this module will have a mighty fine looking afterburner too! :D

Have a good night.

-Nick

 

Initial limited analysis is that DCS level acceleration meets or possibly exceeds charted performance. Complete analysis suggests testing all chart lines (including 0.5M) at multiple fuel weights in order to correct each point to the 7500kg value by interpolation. The disagreement with charted values is within the range which is altered by various aircraft weights.

Try to test the speed range from 0.7 to 1M, In my opinion there is a excess of 3-4 seconds.

You forgot to mention that the afterburner animation is fixed! :D

 

Its the best looking afterburner in DCS by a wide-margin, so nice to see it again!

 

 

I really have far too much fun with this delightful machine:

 

 

Things seem to be running quite well after the recent updates. :)

 

And not too much longer:

 

 

I bet this module will have a mighty fine looking afterburner too! :D

 

Have a good night.

 

-Nick

Well, untill the engine gets the proper animation (rotation) implemented , the MiG looks like a toy to me.

Well, untill the engine gets the proper animation (rotation) implemented , the MiG looks like a toy to me.

That would make sense as you're playing with a toy. :thumbup:

You forgot to mention that the afterburner animation is fixed! :D

 

Its the best looking afterburner in DCS by a wide-margin, so nice to see it again!

 

 

I really have far too much fun with this delightful machine:

 

 

Things seem to be running quite well after the recent updates. :)

 

And not too much longer:

 

 

I bet this module will have a mighty fine looking afterburner too! :D

 

Have a good night.

 

-Nick

Don't you prefer the F-110 afterburner than the TF-30 afterburner? :)

That would make sense as you're playing with a toy. :thumbup:

Exactly, but since this product is supposed recreate the real Mig-21 as closely as possible then you know what i mean.:D

Cheers

Exactly, but since this product is supposed recreate the real Mig-21 as closely as possible then you know what i mean.:D

 

Cheers

Do you mean the exhaust flame, though? I don't believe a turbojet afterburner flame is going go turn like it would for a turbofan afterburner.

I did notice the fanblade inside the engine doesn't turn, now, thanks to you.

Thanks for making me go OCD over that, now. :megalol:

Well, untill the engine gets the proper animation (rotation) implemented , the MiG looks like a toy to me.

All I see is FIRE! :D

Which is how it should be.

Here is a link of a J79 from pretty directly astern (you know - without cameraman death). I only see flameholders, no rotating fan section. :)

[ame]

-Nick

Running more seriously first an experiment was run to determine the TAS of Mach at the various altitudes. The speed sensing cockpit instrumentation was never used. Instead the sound by the external camera placed ahead the nose indicated the sonic speed. Values for 0.5,0.6,0.7,0.8,0.9 Mach were determined as fractions of these speeds. Speeds recorded were "TS" on the "F2" info bar.

A run was conducted in SAU leveling at 5000m in normal augmentation with all efforts made to achieve 760°C EGT before approaching 0.5M. Times were recorded at lower time acceleration making use of pause and later verified using Tacview to see when the precalculated TASs were met. The time when reaching 0.5M's TAS was subtracted. The AB engagement was made at a fuel load resulting in 7525-7550kg of the aircraft.

Underperforming deviations are noted for the 0km trial in the 0.9-1.0M range and 5km in the 0.8-1.1M range.

Over performing deviations include 1km trial in excess of 1.0M, 3km in excess of 1.075M, and 5km in excess of 1.1M. The 13km trial exceeded chart performance significantly at all speeds tested.

Excessive performance may be caused by gross weight of the aircraft under 7500kg at the latter stages of any trial. Trials were begun at 7500-7550kg GW and ended at significantly less especially for longer trial runs. The chart may have been constructed from several trials to produce idealized performance at a constant GW which is physically impossible in a single sortie.

The 13km trial should be repeated at an initial GW such that it will end no lighter than 7500kg. If the trial exceeds chart performance while never being lighter than 7500kg at any point then fuel burn during the trial can be eliminated as a cause of excess performance. If the charted line is bounded by the high and low GW runs then it is probable that the line represents constant GW performance.

Additional factors which may produce deviations are temperature, RH, and air density. It is not currently known for what atmosphere conditions the charted data is representative.

Overall the data is a satisfactory fit in the region 0.5-1.0M; the deviations being no more than 2s or 5%. The airplane may be slightly under performing in the high subsonic and transonic region and over performing in the supersonic region.

Don't you prefer the F-110 afterburner than the TF-30 afterburner? :)

Actually...no. :)

Part of it is nostalgia and part is the distinctive appearance of the TF30. No other aircraft has a similar convergent nozzle. Conversely, the F110 nozzle is shared with the F-16 and looks much more like other tactical aircraft.

Also, the F110 powered Tomcats don't take cat-shots with afterburner, so there much fewer pictures of the F110 in afterburner.

I think it looks great:

But so does this :thumbup::

The TF30 in zone 5 is the classic Tomcat look, even if the F110 was a vastly better engine. We can care about aesthetics around here. :)

Those who flew the real Tomcat had higher priorities!

-Nick

Do you mean the exhaust flame, though? I don't believe a turbojet afterburner flame is going go turn like it would for a turbofan afterburner.

 

I did notice the fanblade inside the engine doesn't turn, now, thanks to you.

 

Thanks for making me go OCD over that, now. :megalol:

The exhaust flame is perfect the way it is, the best in dcs all around. It's the fan blades inside the engine that i'm talking about, they shouldn't be static when the engine is running (that's why the plane looks like a toy). Just look at the recently released F-5 from behind and tell me the difference.:thumbup:

Sorry for my english.

The exhaust flame is perfect the way it is, the best in dcs all around. It's the fan blades inside the engine that i'm talking about, they shouldn't be static when the engine is running (that's why the plane looks like a toy). Just look at the recently released F-5 from behind and tell me the difference.:thumbup:

 

Sorry for my english.

You're seriously worried about a rotating fan deep within the engine nacelles when there are far more important things to deal with to complete the MiG-21?

I think some people need to get out more!

Thats the one thing i loved about the TF-30, aside from its horrible reliability and stalls in the F-14 its takeoff's looked phenomenal

Not a good engine above 10,000 feet, for sure. Plus, the Tomcat - TF30 match was judged (by Secretary Lehman I think) as the worst airframe-engine mismatch in US Navy history.

But it certainly was photogenic. :D

-Nick

You're seriously worried about a rotating fan deep within the engine nacelles when there are far more important things to deal with to complete the MiG-21?

 

I think some people need to get out more!

Yes I am, do you have any problem with that? You seem to go around these boards telling people what they should and what they shouldnt post in a very arrogant manner. Why are you so full of yourself?

I didn't ask for your advice, so please, if you are not going to add something constructive keep your thoughts to yourself.

Thank you

Not a good engine above 10,000 feet, for sure. Plus, the Tomcat - TF30 match was judged (by Secretary Lehman I think) as the worst airframe-engine mismatch in US Navy history.

 

But it certainly was photogenic. :D

 

 

-Nick

The TF-30 afterburner is amazing, I have to agree. :)

However, the engine nozzle is really ugly.

I really prefer the F110 nozzle.

Back on topic, for sure LNS will give us good afterburner effects, no matter what engine. :)

I'm not really bummed about the rotor blades being static too much - it's been a while like this. Not every plane in dcs has them animated...it is nice little touch though and knowing LNS are striving for perfection and attention to details, it might be remedied at some point. However there are more important things right now I reckon.

About the update, does anyone experience cockpit shaking in the 21 when you make a full stop during/after taxi? I didn't have that takeoff shaking some users reported earlier, but after this last patch, introduced this "so veeery cold" frantic micro-shake (with trackir off).

Yes I am, do you have any problem with that? You seem to go around these boards telling people what they should and what they shouldnt post in a very arrogant manner. Why are you so full of yourself?

 

I didn't ask for your advice, so please, if you are not going to add something constructive keep your thoughts to yourself.

Thank you

While it is an issue that must be corrected, the chaff bug and kneeboard are issues I think you may agree are more pressing.

Excessive performance may be caused by gross weight of the aircraft under 7500kg at the latter stages of any trial. Trials were begun at 7500-7550kg GW and ended at significantly less especially for longer trial runs. The chart may have been constructed from several trials to produce idealized performance at a constant GW which is physically impossible in a single sortie.

You can use the unlimited fuel option. :)

I'm not really bummed about the rotor blades being static too much - it's been a while like this. Not every plane in dcs has them animated...it is nice little touch though and knowing LNS are striving for perfection and attention to details, it might be remedied at some point. However there are more important things right now I reckon.

 

About the update, does anyone experience cockpit shaking in the 21 when you make a full stop during/after taxi? I didn't have that takeoff shaking some users reported earlier, but after this last patch, introduced this "so veeery cold" frantic micro-shake (with trackir off).

Yes I get the "cold shiver" sometimes when I am on the ground even though I have cockpit shake off. I think it may be related to "G causes pilot head to move" option I will try with it off.