ASP: flagrant inconsistencies with the manual

Let's try and follow the "optical sight checking sequence":

Instead of setting the powering switches in the required positions for a cold airplane, we'll just use a mig that is already up and running in the "take off" quick start mission.

Now having set the switches in front of the pilot as specified in the item (d), we can see the following:

1) Turning the wing span knob, the diameter of the reticle diamond ring starts changing only after the knob reaches 14-th notch (red scale). Accordingly, in responce to turning the throttle handle, the ring diameter changes only when the wing span knob is set over 14. <pic 1>

2) [FIXED] Instead of the mentioned change between LNCH and BREAKOFF lights, we can see only the BREAKOFF light that remains lit untill the throttle handle bumps in the minimum range limit. Thus both lights are off when the throttle handle is in the minimum range position. <pic 2a, 2b>

3) [FIXED]Setting the AIR-GND switch in GND position, according to the procedure, we can see similar behavior. Only now the BREAKOFF light never goes out when the throttle handle is in the minimum range position. <pic 3a, 3b>

3*) The LNCH light switches over to BREAKOFF after the range drops below 1200m in C-24 configuration. Supposed to do so below 1600m (underlined in blue).

4a) [FIXED] Setting the B-F switch in the B position, we can see that the ANGLES knob doesn't shift the reticle down/up.

4b) Setting the switches B-F and RKTS-GUN to F and GUN does not return the ANGLES knob to the zero position (unless we stray from the procedure by flipping the AUTO-MAN switch to AUTO) <pic 4a, 4b>

In the current revision of LN Mig-21, we've got 3 funny combinations (not mentioned in the manual) that return the ANGLES knob to zero (with the AIR-GND switch in GND position):

AUTO-MAN and B-F switches in AUTO and B

AUTO-MAN and RKTS-GUN switches in AUTO and GUN

AUTO-MAN switch and weapons selector in AUTO and C-24

5) The manual states that "in firing of the gun and lauching of rockets at ground targes, the optical sight can solve aiming problems in the GYRO and MSL modes". Meaning that the reticle moves according to the input from gyroscope and rangefinder. Despite that we can see that the reticle in A-G gun configuration is stuck in the center and won't budge. <pic 5>

6) The LOCK-ON light does not turn on no matter how long you keep the reticle on the target with the damping button pressed. <pic 6>

Indeed the modelling of the ASP is catastrophically bad, i think the only mode it works correctly in is Manual/Rockets.

The weapon selector is also wrong for all AA modes. For those who can't read Polish,In AA mode, every press of the release weapon button will fire a missile. The chart shows the release order of the missiles depending on the position of the SAR/IR selector (column 6, SS=IR, RNS=Radar, dowolne=any position), and the position of the weapon selector (column 5).

It can be seen that the release logic is not too complex; the IR/SAR switch is the selector with the primary priority, the weapon selector knob the second priority and missiles are always released in pylon pair order.

Note that the pylon numbering in the attached manual is from left to right, not the 3-1-2-4 convention

I thought I'd illustrate those suspicious combinations that return the ANGLES knob to zero. In the OP post, I mentioned those three that take place with the AIR-GND switch flipped down to GND.

When the AIR-GND switch is in AIR position, those combinations change. Now there are 2 of them and each requires at least 3 switch/selector positions.

I can't prove that the above combinations are a part of incorrect ASP system modelling, because the manual doesn't say anything about them.

However, the manual unambiguously says that the combination in the picture below DOES return the knob to the zero position.

The ASP is currently being worked on, as well as several other open bug threads.

The ASP is currently being worked on, as well as several other open bug threads.

Nice to hear :thumbup:

No offence meant with this Cobra, but i'll believe it when I see it.

I love the Mig-21 but with the test binary issue, plus alot of outstanding and awkward bugs(historically missiles, radar), its sitting in the hangar until these patches drop. Purely out of frustration.

I can appreciate you guys needed to get the Viggen out the door but it's out and successful now. Time for some TLC for the Russian bird with a solid focus on QA. Plenty of guys here who would offer to help QA fixes if you need a hand or additional eyes on.

My first thing to note would be: patch notes. Please provide proper patch notes for mig, or even note if there are no changes. It would help with transparency over this module and its maintenance.

The ASP is currently being worked on, as well as several other open bug threads.

I've been meaning to ask you:

What happened to your "active-duty" Mig-21 pilot?

How come it is us - players - who have to search for docs and figure out what's wrong with the equipment that Novak allegedly uses on a daily basis? He is supposed to be the one who knows for sure how the thing works. Right? Yet not even once he showed up to make a commentary amid our speculations about ASP to resolve our doubts. I, for example, would be happy to share my unique experience with unique equipment with people eager to get some. It's not like he can't communicate in English. What's wrong with the man? Does he even care?

No disrespect intended, but such situation doesn't seem normal to me.

I've been meaning to ask you:

What happened to your "active-duty" Mig-21 pilot?

How come it is us - players - who have to search for docs and figure out what's wrong with the equipment that Novak allegedly uses on a daily basis? He is supposed to be the one who knows for sure how the thing works. Right? Yet not even once he showed up to make a commentary amid our speculations about ASP to resolve our doubts. I, for example, would be happy to share my unique experience with unique equipment with people eager to get some. It's not like he can't communicate in English. What's wrong with the man? Does he even care?

 

No disrespect intended, but such situation doesn't seem normal to me.

+1

I think that "active duty Mig-21 pilot"was just for marketing purposes. :P

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I've been thinking of this as the elephant in the room for a while.

A possible thing we can infer could be that these deviations from real thing may have been intentional for gameplay purposes. If true, this would be pretty sad.

Sent from my ASUS_Z00ED using Tapatalk

I think that "active duty Mig-21 pilot"was just for marketing purposes. :P

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, you are wrong! He is indeed a active Serbian Airforce Mig-21bis pilot. They use DCS MiG-21bis for Training purposes in Batajnica Air Base, near Belgrade. Here is the article from one Serbian Newsletter. Novak ist the one with moustache.

http://www.sk.rs/2015/01/skpr01.html

No, you are wrong! He is indeed a active Serbian Airforce Mig-21bis pilot. They use DCS MiG-21bis for Training purposes in Batajnica Air Base, near Belgrade. Here is the article from one Serbian Newsletter. Novak ist the one with moustache.

 

http://www.sk.rs/2015/01/skpr01.html

The article sure helps a lot.

Too bad the glorified pilot himself considers discussing the topic on the forum to be way too beneath his dignity.

Guys, slow down with the speculation please.

He's probably not aware of the controversy regarding the ASP, and even if he was, it's very possible he's tied up with other things (like being a fighter pilot).

He's probably not aware of the controversy regarding the ASP, and even if he was, it's very possible he's tied up with other things (like being a fighter pilot).

For over two years Cobra has been keeping this a secret from him :lol:

Just because a pilot was consulted, doen't mean he's on call all the time, and for ever more, unless he's a full time employee, but then he wouldn't be an active Mig-21 pilot would he.

unless he's a full time employee, but then he wouldn't be an active Mig-21 pilot would he.

You aren't gonna believe it, sir, but it appears he claims to be both.

http://www.leatherneck-sim.com/team/

Food for thought to the assembled masses and some speculation:

Mig-21 was LN's first module when there was only 3 of them. They've said before it's sort of cobbled together due to that.

Delphin is very skilled and intelligent, but the man is an active duty fighter pilot, not a full time software developer with a few years experience under his belt of full time dev.

It's entirely possible the ASP code was written in such a way that any changes break it, so the only way to make it function properly is to completely redo it.

Even though LN have expanded, they're still a small team. A small team with two modules in development (Viggen might be out, but it's still being worked on).

It could simply be they've not had the resources to get one of the other programmers to work with Delphin and redo it/bring it up to scratch.

I would like to see it work properly though.

Even though LN have expanded, they're still a small team. A small team with two modules in development (Viggen might be out, but it's still being worked on).

It could simply be they've not had the resources to get one of the other programmers to work with Delphin and redo it/bring it up to scratch.

It comes as no surprise that they prioritized making a new module over finishing the first one. I'm glad Belsimtek doesn't follow such trend.

It comes as no surprise that they prioritized making a new module over finishing the first one. I'm glad Belsimtek doesn't follow such trend.

The Huey and it's missing EGT/Torque damage model, or the missing multiplayer co-op would like a word with you...

Which actually just goes to show the point that not everything is perfect or as good as it could be from any of the teams.

not everything is perfect or as good as it could be from any of the teams.

Perhaps not perfect, but incomparably better.

And since you mentioned their possible reasons for such poor ASP implementation, I suppose you might also have an idea why Novak shows no interest whatsoever in the topic?

The user "finger" which has not been around for some time is very, very knowledgeable about this sight.

The user "finger"

I too was wondering where he's gone off to.

Do not worry,I am still here.

Do not worry,I am still here.

Hi Finger! :)

Do you know anything about the ANGLES knob being fixed in zero position as shown in the first five pictures here?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3053544&postcount=3

Does this behavior actually take place in the real thing?

Hi Harle,

IRL we must set: AIR-GROUND to GROUND pos.

F-B to F pos.

GUN-RKT as required

AUT-MAN to AUT poss.

MSL(SS)-GYRO to MSL(SS) poss.

Now ASP will be set proper value of auxiliary aiming angle,according to GUN-RKT possition and

of course according to balistic unit(box) which is inserted to analo.computer(early variant),or

balistic switch(later variant)

So,when we set AUTO-MAN to MAN poss.and we set any angle value,after switching to AUTO aux.aim.angle will be set to possition according to GUN-RKT awitch.