Mig-21 RSBN Implemetation

Hi! Sorry if this was already asked, but are you planning to apply ED's RSBN implementation to MiG-21? I understand that they are using different logic at this stage.

There is no RSBN/ARK implementation in the MiG-21. Only a "pseudo-navigation system" based on an external .lua file that have XYZ coordinates.

With this "pseudo-system" you could fly in any map, no matter if the map doesn´t have an NDB or RSBN/PRMG system.

I hope that they implement a real Soviet navigation like the one that we have in the L-39 in the medium term.

Regards.

So the plane will be incapable of instrument flying outside Russia? No thanks. Unless ED adds an option to add user defined navaids on the map through mission editor.

You could use ndb stations defined in te ME like the MiG-15.

17 presets AFAIK: 9 in the pushbottoms and the rest in the "zone selector". You can change between them with the "inner-outer" selector (not functional in the implementation that we have now.

The RSBN stations are defined in the ED files and maybe ED can considerer have them "available for the user" as you have said.

I too would rather have them implement the actual navigation system. But I'm of the belief that realism trumps all "gameplay" features

So the RSBN implementation in Mig-21 is based on a custom .lua file that defines RSBN stations for airfields that currently do not have RSBN stations? Have those airfields in question ever had RSBN stations? Are RSBN/PRMG stations field deployable?

If a Mig-21bis squadron was stationed or deployed to an airfield lacking RSBN/PRMG/ARK for an extended period of time, would they not also set up a navigational aid at that airfield?

Just because they use their own file to store the location of the beacons doesn't mean their implementation is inherently unrealistic. Similarly, if these sorts of beacons could be deployed to the field along with the aircraft, it's not unrealistic to put them at the airfield. In my opinion, accurate simulation of the technology and its functions is much more important than whether or not airfield A had the beacon at year X.

On the L-39C there appears to be separate PRMG/RSBN channels for an airfield, i.e. 24 for nav, 26 for landing. Is this how it is supposed to be on the Mig-21bis RSBN? I would like to see that added if that is the case.

if following the DCS beacons configuration, we may have fewer AFs with RSBN

Both RSBN and TACAN stations are field deployable. So actually it's the current ED approach with fixed navaids that is unrealistic. ;)

Anyway, the L39 is more realistic in that navigation and landing use different channels.

Both airplanes have the problem of poor in cockpit implementation which forces the user to click 30-40 times to set the correct channels if the channel number is high. They should allow the scroll on the knobs, preferably in both directions.

Yes Uboats, but you don't have ILS, VOR, TACAN and VORTACS in every airport in the world.

The perfect solution will be to have the ability to setup a RSBN and/or a PRMG mobile station in the ME like an option ("Deployment option")

Objects that are present in the core files of the program.

It's the implementation of the navigation systems the thing that is wrong.

In the ED implementation if a beacon is destroyed you can't navigate with their help, but having an XYZ point system wherever you want in the map (even in the middle of the sea) without anything associated and a strange ARK-10 (72 presets instead of 17 and the inability to use the inner-outer selector for an easier navigation) is something that I would like to be improved in the medium term. Navigation systems are one of the weakest points in this module.

I can navigate across Georgia with the L-39C and the MiG-15 using NDB stations and airports beacons.

And yes, there were others RSBN in the area along with PRMG in the former airbases. There were deactivated to setup standard VOR and ILS systems. As you said, if the systems are well simulated I don' mind to have the former beacons.

Sorry for my English.

Regards.

I'd say current ED approach is fine for "realism" point of view. Vast majority of the civil aircraft in ex-SU countries are of western origin anyway and do not have RSBN equipment. So as mentioned before VOR/DME is used instead. Military on the other hand still relies on the good old RSBN functionality, so that it makes sense to have it on military airfields.

Deployable RSBN would certainly be good, even without PRMG part as it would still allow semi-precision approaches in moderate visibility conditions. However the fact that with MiG-21 we have the system in so many airfields is a bit unrealistic. Well, that was "quick and dirty" solution I guess :)

well Tarres, to me, the current so-called pseudo-nav is OK for such a condition that only a few AFs are equipped with RSBN/PRMG, if the deployable RSBN/PRMG station does not come out at this moment.

it's not that difficult to implement the lua that requires MiG-21 to load the AF info from DCS platform not their own file. I have finished modifying the R_NAV_data.lua to load the RSBN info from DCS platform not the preset data in their file. Will share if no bug

Well Andrei, the question is in which date we are flying. If we fly a mission in the eighties...Almost all airfields have a RSBN beacon (but only military airfields had PRMG I think).

If we fly after 1991, the situation changes a bit. Before 2000 georgian airfields haven't RSBN stations, yeah, but it's not completely unrealistic. Also we should put our attention in the airfields, some airfields closed (Novorosiisk airfield was dismantled for example) othe is missing (Marneuli)...

So the plane will be incapable of instrument flying outside Russia? No thanks. Unless ED adds an option to add user defined navaids on the map through mission editor.

It still have ARK navigation that is very common in Russia (You can check the Supronov's Yak-40).

But there's no problem. With other maps like Nevada, I hope that ED can implement fixed RSBN Stations in order to use the advanced capabilties of the RSBN navigation meanwhile we can't add mobile beacons in the ME.

The point here is what Tarres said. ATM there's not a correct implementation of the RSBN/PRMG system in the Fishbed.:(

But there's no problem. With other maps like Nevada, I hope that ED can implement fixed RSBN Stations in order to use the advanced capabilties of the RSBN navigation meanwhile we can't add mobile beacons in the ME.

 

That's what I'm talking about. In the latest stream Wags said that Nevada map will have only tacan/ils. So without option to add custom navaids ourselves depending on a mission, I don't see a point in limiting the aircraft to vfr flying there just for the sake of "realism".

And if you want realistic avionics, I'd like to remind you that even contacting modern ATC shouldn't be possible from those old airplanes. Different frequencies.

That's what I'm talking about. In the latest stream Wags said that Nevada map will have only tacan/ils. So without option to add custom navaids ourselves depending on a mission, I don't see a point in limiting the aircraft to vfr flying there just for the sake of "realism".

 

And if you want realistic avionics, I'd like to remind you that even contacting modern ATC shouldn't be possible from those old airplanes. Different frequencies.

Oh sad news about Nevada.

Well, more unrealistic is operate an aircraft if you can't contact with him. We suppose that India's MATC (for example) is able to contact with his Fishbeds.

Well, if you are interested in how ka50 nav will work in nttr, you can check the ARK.lua under cockpit folder or sub sub folder of ka50 module. There you can find something interesting.