Mig is still buggy

[Virun]

So, currently many things in MIG are still unrealistic:

 

1) Radar can lockon some point on the ground in beam regime and then track it. This is unrealistic! Sapfir can't do that.

2) In game instead of Kh-66 we have some pretty modern missile. Here Grom just can fly like high maneuverable, high precision missile without any restrictions. When it fly to the target it isn't even bothered by maneuvers of the mig-21! In cruel reality it was very hard to use kh-66. Grom can be used only in dive(Not just like it in game, where it can be used even in straight fly in extremely low altitude. It can fly only straight with very light changes to fly direction(not maneuvering like crazy after the radar beam). Any major maneuver of mig in real life caused lost of radar beam for kh-66. In game Kh-66 is better than even Kh-25.

3) From where ASP knows altitude of the target? It neither have radio rangefinder nor laser rangefinder, but it put the point of impact without any error even in the mountains :shocking:

4) How can it possible to fly with disabled fuel pumps? While I can believe that engine can work on the ground with disabled pumps on low RPM when fuel flows by it self I can't understand how can it possible to use afterburner with disabled pumps.

5) Why the engine can be started without use of ground power?

6) It's just annoying to see how mig lost R-60 and other rockets during 7.5G. Not realistic.

 

Sorry for my English.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Virun

[ttaylor0024]

So, currently many things in MIG are still unrealistic:

5) Why the engine can be started without use of ground power?

 

 

 

Many jets can be started with battery power. It's more common to have a separate jet engine (APU) to start, however battery starts are not uncommon. The Cessna CJ series of corporate jets is just one example that comes to mind.

[Cobra847]

So, currently many things in MIG are still unrealistic:

 

1) Radar can lockon some point on the ground in beam regime and then track it. This is unrealistic! Sapfir can't do that.

2) In game instead of Kh-66 we have some pretty modern missile. Here Grom just can fly like high maneuverable, high precision missile without any restrictions. When it fly to the target it isn't even bothered by maneuvers of the mig-21! In cruel reality it was very hard to use kh-66. Grom can be used only in dive(Not just like it in game, where it can be used even in straight fly in extremely low altitude. It can fly only straight with very light changes to fly direction(not maneuvering like crazy after the radar beam). Any major maneuver of mig in real life caused lost of radar beam for kh-66. In game Kh-66 is better than even Kh-25.

3) From where ASP knows altitude of the target? It neither have radio rangefinder nor laser rangefinder, but it put the point of impact without any error even in the mountains :shocking:

4) How can it possible to fly with disabled fuel pumps? While I can believe that engine can work on the ground with disabled pumps on low RPM when fuel flows by it self I can't understand how can it possible to use afterburner with disabled pumps.

5) Why the engine can be started without use of ground power?

6) It's just annoying to see how mig lost R-60 and other rockets during 7.5G. Not realistic.

 

Sorry for my English.

 

1 & 2) If we went for realistic implementation of the KH-66 Grom, we would simply remove it entirely from the aircraft. Why?

The MiG-21bis cannot carry or guide this missile. It is not a realistic implementation and was done for the sake of gameplay.

 

3) This is a cheat we implemented knowing full well what we are doing.

It is conductive to gameplay due to various cumbersone DCS features.

 

4) This might be a bug.

I will confirm; but I believe I heard something to the complete contrary.

 

5) You can start the MiG-21 on battery power.

 

6) I do not have the expertise to answer this one. If limitations are currently incorrect, they will be adjusted.

[mpdugas]

Hang in there, Leatherneck Simulations, and follow the mantra of your namesake: improvise, adapt, and overcome.

 

The struggle IS the message!

[Golo]

1 & 2) If we went for realistic implementation of the KH-66 Grom, we would simply remove it entirely from the aircraft. Why?

The MiG-21bis cannot carry or guide this missile. It is not a realistic implementation and was done for the sake of gameplay.

 

3) This is a cheat we implemented knowing full well what we are doing.

It is conductive to gameplay due to various cumbersone DCS features

 

 

Why didnt you go for realistic implementation of those systems?

In my opinion this is supposed to simulate as close as is technicly possible the MiG-21bis not some make belive plane.

Its is same as with the ground steering "feature" (which is still not fixed good enough imho)

Well maybe Im alone in this, but I would like it "fixed".

[Izgud]

1 & 2) If we went for realistic implementation of the KH-66 Grom, we would simply remove it entirely from the aircraft. Why?

The MiG-21bis cannot carry or guide this missile. It is not a realistic implementation and was done for the sake of gameplay.

 

3) This is a cheat we implemented knowing full well what we are doing.

It is conductive to gameplay due to various cumbersone DCS features.

:huh:

Well maybe Im alone in this

Certainly not! :)

[ff4life4]

Doesn't the radar provide ranging information to the Asp?

[xxJohnxx]

Why didnt you go for realistic implementation of those systems?

In my opinion this is supposed to simulate as close as is technicly possible the MiG-21bis not some make belive plane.

Its is same as with the ground steering "feature" (which is still not fixed good enough imho)

Well maybe Im alone in this, but I would like it "fixed".

 

So you want the Kh-66 removed?

[Art-J]

Thank You Nicholas for clarification.

 

ff4life4, I suppose Virun wanted to ask why ASP calculates impact point even when radar is off. The RL manual mentions "slant range unit" being used for that if the radar is not operational, without specifying, however, how this unit operates.

 

In other planes, similar devices work based on info from gyros and pressure/radio altimeter, maybe it was also the case in MiG-21. "Our" ASP though works OK even when pressure altimeter is set incorrectly (I tested it :) ) or when attacking target on the mountain slopes (so when radio altimeter is not quite "correct"). So algorythm of its operation seems to be a bit simplified. It's not a big deal for me, maybe it's the result of DCS limitations?

 

As for Kh-66, when I want to be "realistic", I pretend it's not there and don't use it :D.

 

Sometimes, however, If you want to imagine how it was to fly PFM version and employ this missile, take it and use it in direct control (unlocked) mode. Makes hitting anything small more challenging and fun.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I just tested claim 4.

 

Turned off the fuel pumps in flight and engine RPM just dropped like a rock. Tried it with tanks and engine still went kaput.

 

On a hunch, I took off, burned up some fuel, landed, then topped off. I remember a bug in which you could top off in an Eagle, A-10, or Su-33 in flight and receive infinite fuel. I figured this might be a bug with refueling, right? Topped off, scrambled, turned off fuel pumps and engine still spooled right down.

 

So, I'm not experiencing it. I've tried clean, with various drop tanks configurations, and after refueling and the engine performs as it should when starved of fuel. That is, to say, not at all.

[Nooch]

So you want the Kh-66 removed?

 

Now it's too late. Unrealistic implementations for the sake of "gameplay" shouldn't be there in the first place. It's DCS, not freakin Battlefield 4...

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

Now it's too late. Unrealistic implementations for the sake of "gameplay" shouldn't be there in the first place. It's DCS, not freakin Battlefield 4...

 

Chalk it up to a local mod if it's that vexing.

[IvanTehFennec]

Now it's too late. Unrealistic implementations for the sake of "gameplay" shouldn't be there in the first place. It's DCS, not freakin Battlefield 4...

 

Are you seriously equating adding a single weapon to an aircraft that isn't even that good for the sake of giving it something worth a poop to use to making DCS like BF4? Are you legitimately insane? God forbid they make a game even remotely 'fun'.

Edited December 8, 2014 by IvanTehFennec
GOTTA PROTECT THOSE SNOWFLAKE'S EYES FROM LANGUAGE

[Flagrum]

I am all for "do it realistic" if it is at all possible. But I do realize that sometimes "100% realistic" can be frustrating (reminds me to go on practicing landings in the 109 a bit more, lol) and that people rather want to enjoy their hobby than to become frustrated about it. Therefore I would always opt for having a choice.

 

Using the Grom with the MiG-21bis is not realistic? Then don't load it up - that is your choice.

The behaviour/guidance of the Grom is unrealistic? Make it a checkbox: "easy Grom vs. real Grom"

Ground steering with rudder is not realistic? Make it a slider "Taxi Rudder Assistance 0% - 100%" ... but not fixed to "25%" like we have now.

The ASP is supposed to be inaccurate without radar? (then turn the radar on!? :o) - again "easy ASP vs. real ASP" checkbox, please.

Heck, even "english cockpit is not realistic" ... but we have a choice!

 

My 2 cents on that matter in general ... not really complaining, but still something I wished it would be implemented: if in doubt, make it a choice. If that is not feasible, then make it realistic at least. No mish-mash that results in something nobody really knows anymore what is realistic and what is not.

Edited December 8, 2014 by Flagrum

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

100%" ... but not fixed to "25%" like we have now.

 

The issue here is that these old Soviet aircraft have taxiing methods that aren't lent very well to contemporary game hardware. To turn, you're giving a full rudder deflection in the direction you wish to go, then apply pressure to determine how tight the turn is. The more pressure, the tighter the turn.

 

Otherwise, agreed.

[Flagrum]

The issue here is that these old Soviet aircraft have taxiing methods that aren't lent very well to contemporary game hardware. To turn, you're giving a full rudder deflection in the direction you wish to go, then apply pressure to determine how tight the turn is. The more pressure, the tighter the turn.

 

Otherwise, agreed.

I don't see the problem here - the principle as such is well understood and not really that difficult to put into practice - as long as you have rudder pedals and an analogue axis for the brake handle. But this all was already discussed in that earlier thread that lead to at least the solution we now have.

 

The increased rudder authority might be really helping when taking off - as it makes it easier to keep the aircraft centered on the runway. But people take off even in BF109s these days ... so ... :o)

 

But everyone is different. One might want 0% assistance, the other 100% and then there are those who would prefer 33%, 76% or 59% - and how many of those will exactly be happy with the fixed setting of 25% (or whatever it is actually)?

 

But anyhow, tl;dr: if in doubt, let the users make their own decision. :o)

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

I don't see the problem here - the principle as such is well understood and not really that difficult to put into practice - as long as you have rudder pedals and an analogue axis for the brake handle. But this all was already discussed in that earlier thread that lead to at least the solution we now have.

 

The increased rudder authority might be really helping when taking off - as it makes it easier to keep the aircraft centered on the runway. But people take off even in BF109s these days ... so ... :o)

 

But everyone is different. One might want 0% assistance, the other 100% and then there are those who would prefer 33%, 76% or 59% - and how many of those will exactly be happy with the fixed setting of 25% (or whatever it is actually)?

 

But anyhow, tl;dr: if in doubt, let the users make their own decision. :o)

 

The issue I speak of isn't so much the assistance, it's just there's not a good way to simulate the old brake-turning system of these Soviet birds. I do suppose you could just bind the braking to a pedal on a pedal set, though.

[ff4life4]

For me, i use right toe brake to control the brakes. Its a little awkward at first but it works well

[xxJohnxx]

For me, i use right toe brake to control the brakes. Its a little awkward at first but it works well

 

+1

[Flagrum]

The issue I speak of isn't so much the assistance, it's just there's not a good way to simulate the old brake-turning system of these Soviet birds. I do suppose you could just bind the braking to a pedal on a pedal set, though.

I still do not understand what the difficulty should be there.

 

I mapped the rudder axis to my pedals, obviously. Then I mapped the brake lever to the analogue vertical axis of the 4-way hat on my G940 stick (the top one) to resemble the brake handle. I configured it as a slider and adjusted the curve a bit to take into account that the hat is always centered because it's spring loaded (so it does not constantly apply 50% brake). But I could ofc have mapped it to one of the rotaries of the throttle, too.

 

This way I apply rudder with the feet and brake gradually with the "handle". Like in the real aircraft - and it works great. :o)

 

edit:

just recorded a track ... my first attempt on doing this and without having used the MiG on the ground lately too much. So ... it's not really nice or elegant (and my sincere condolences to that one guy's family ... :o)

mig slalom.trk

Edited December 9, 2014 by Flagrum

[Nooch]

Are you seriously equating adding a single weapon to an aircraft that isn't even that good for the sake of giving it something worth a poop to use to making DCS like BF4? Are you legitimately insane? God forbid they make a game even remotely 'fun'.

 

The reason I said this is because they do the same thing in BF4. They add unrealistic elements to make the gameplay more "fun". They did it on a lot smaller scale here in DCS, but still, it's not a reason to accept it in my opinion. So I'm not insane, what I said totally made sense. If your goal is to spend your time criticizing people who strive for more realism, please uninstall DCS and go grab a PS4 and a copy of COD instead.

[FSKRipper]

Sorry but I don't get it. As already seen 2 "bugs" mentioned in the op are crap as a result of missing knowledge. 20 minutes of reading the forum and this thread had not been here.

I like realistic sims but at what costs? *irony on*

Delete the Grom? Ok than you can delete the nuclear weapons too. There is no damage modeling for it. Maybe we should simply delete the complete A/G part because DCS uses a hit point system for damage modeling. Thats so BF4...You can even respawn... *irony off*

I think we should take a look on real problems. You will never get it 100%. If you can live with it, enjoy DCS. Otherwise I suggest you enlist in your countries airforce. There you get everything, including the only one life mod :)

Edited December 9, 2014 by FSKRipper

[NeilWillis]

+1

 

You can strive for realism, you can strive for total accuracy, but if what results is so severely limited that it is thrown into the corner of the nursery and never played with, you have wasted your time and money.

 

My slant on this is that there should be options. Tell us how it is, and then it is up to the individual to decide just how realistically they want to use the module. We know that there are some aspects that are not 100% accurate, and we simply have to decide if we like them or not. We all know for example that the A-10C has some classified aspects redacted in the DCS simulation, and obviously that is for a hell of a good reason. Why is making a module more versatile in a reasonable way any less valid a way to go?

 

I hardly see any of the decisions made by Leatherneck as being deal breakers. After all, my computer lacks wings, I actually sit in my study, and I'm never travelling at Mach 1, nor am I at 20,000 feet, more like 15 feet, sitting upstairs in a detached house in the UK.

 

First, get real, then take a step back and think about how realistic any of this would ever be without any commercial value. If the additions mean an extra thousand sales, then bring it on damn it! Just tell me what has been done, so I have the choice of using, or not using these minor tweaks. Oh and guess what, we know!!!

[lmp]

My $0.02:

 

I don't mind there being unrealistic features as long as I don't have to use them. So gunpods, Grom missiles, RS-2US, fixed beam locking to the ground are ok as far as I'm concerned. I'll just ignore them.

 

But I would really, really love the ASP to work as it should. You can turn off the radar and the radar altimeter and you'll still get proper range to target even if it's on top of the Elbrus. Come on, if the Su-25's gunsight can be inaccurate without the laser rangefinder, so can the MiG's.

[Golo]

I would say make some optional settings for simplified systems in options menu for those who want to use them and leave by default as realistic setings as possible for rest.

 

I realy overaly love the MiG you guys presented, just yesterday I was testing low speed handling and automatic recovery systems by the manual (real) and it felt solid right down to the numbers in manual as far as I could tell.

 

I realy dont like for such awesome work to be draged down by few simplified systems and unnecessary cheats from my point of view.