Dr_Arrow Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 Scaflight: what you are showing (even though it is from game manual) is not touchdown speed it is a speed at which you fly over the runway's threshold, the speed at which the wheels touch the runway after the flare should be in the range 260-280 km/h, never above 330 km/h.
scaflight Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 Scaflight: what you are showing (even though it is from game manual) is not touchdown speed it is a speed at which you fly over the runway's threshold, the speed at which the wheels touch the runway after the flare should be in the range 260-280 km/h, never above 330 km/h. I thought this reply might come, so I cunningly spared the last image. :smartass: As the LN Fishbed goes, this refutes the point somewhat completely. It'll have to be up to pedants to decide whether Leatherneck is stating anything about a magical 330 kmh limit. I'm inclined to say Leatherneck make no mention of such a limit, and are so vague about the touchdown speed that we can happily infer landing at 340 kmh is completely okay. Those who believe this is incredibly wrong would do me and a lot of others a favour by submitting this input to Leatherneck through the bug subforum, or in a dedicated thread about the manual. We'd all love to have correct procedures! I'm not being sarcastic either -- really, if someone has good documentation that states a touchdown of >320 kmh at <1000l fuel to be ridiculous, please let LN know! (Point being: if someone uses a game manual in a high-fidelity flight simulator, where every discrepancy between simulated FM and expected results as according to real life charts is pointed out by observant forum-goers, then they're not 'full of it'. They act in good faith and a lot of others might as well. :))
lunaticfringe Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 As the LN Fishbed goes, this refutes the point somewhat completely. It'll have to be up to pedants to decide whether Leatherneck is stating anything about a magical 330 kmh limit.[/b] Doesn't refute the point at all, if you review the factory documentation provided. I'm inclined to say Leatherneck make no mention of such a limit, and are so vague about the touchdown speed that we can happily infer landing at 340 kmh is completely okay. Which is negated by the burst speed as illustrated by numerous takeoff and landing rotations exhibited here. Those who believe this is incredibly wrong would do me and a lot of others a favour by submitting this input to Leatherneck through the bug subforum, or in a dedicated thread about the manual. We'd all love to have correct procedures! I'm not being sarcastic either -- really, if someone has good documentation that states a touchdown of >320 kmh at <1000l fuel to be ridiculous, please let LN know! Should you follow the instructions as provided in the manual pages attached across two posts, you'd have no problem finding this to be the case. But that's just pedantry expecting someone to RTFM. Which, I note, is interesting- Leatherneck, operating in a pedant's environment, is expected to uphold the opinions of non-pedants and the technically ignorant, lest they have their work be classified as "broken" or "science fiction". See: lack of good faith. (Point being: if someone uses a game manual in a high-fidelity flight simulator, where every discrepancy between simulated FM and expected results as according to real life charts is pointed out by observant forum-goers, then they're not 'full of it'. They act in good faith and a lot of others might as well. :)) Repeatedly stating a performance model that, as shown, complies properly with real world limitations, is broken- without any evidentiary proof to the contrary, is the very antithesis of "good faith". Someone acting in good faith with the supposed expectation of realism would present an actual case, using easily acquired facts as provided to end user nations by the party that constructed the aircraft. That is to say, they'd "put up". Instead, they dispute and insult rather than presenting evidence, because if they actually put forth some pedantic effort, they'd be forced to admit their disputes are invalid and they have chosen to look foolish in public. And we can't have that, so let's just excuse them as having acted in "good faith", as you call it- because it makes everybody feel better for being ignorant. ;)
scaflight Posted February 13, 2017 Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) @lunaticfringe: I won't pursue the point much further, but in my closing commentary should point out a neat symmetry of inaccuracies here. One person argued Fishbed pilots "cry" without their lament being due. The Kfir's "threshold speed" being reported as "330". The value they compared to was "250" for the Fishbed. It's not your job to single out every post's fault, but the original post was clearly ripe for the taking, had you wanted to. The Fishbed's threshold speed is certainly not 250. Even if you assume the very /best/ of faith and suppose the poster compared touchdown speeds, that's a downwards inaccuracy of 10-20 kmh. The second poster relied on good material -- I certainly would have posted the same assertion, for what that's worth -- and in addition to refuting the above poster's point, made (as you showed) an upwards inaccuracy of 20 kmh. Meaning that with... Instead, they dispute and insult rather than presenting evidence, because if they actually put forth some pedantic effort, they'd be forced to admit their disputes are invalid and they have chosen to look foolish in public. I believe you set unrealistic standards from your own convenience, starting a slippery-slope line of argument where no reported data is ever correct enough until it hits the fifth decimal place and is denoted in cyrillics. And you're choosing what numbers matter in a relatively arbitrary way (the upwards inaccuracy is bull, the downwards inaccuracy goes unremarked) that dodges the original problem (how hardcore kfir and fishbed pilots are, a very macho subject that no doubt we must go on with for a few more pages ;) I joke!) On the whole however, I think you and I are very much in agreement on the most important thing. Poor tone and insult is unnecessary (on the part of #2 here). I'm happy being ignorant if others can correct me and not make me out to be an ass in the process :) edit: the thing about Leatherneck upholding the ideas of the ignorant is a complete straw man that I think no one benefits from discussing further. Edited February 13, 2017 by scaflight
lunaticfringe Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 The Kfir's "threshold speed" being reported as "330". The value they compared to was "250" for the Fishbed. It's not your job to single out every post's fault, but the original post was clearly ripe for the taking, had you wanted to. The Fishbed's threshold speed is certainly not 250. If your argument is over threshold, pre-flare, you're welcome to stop right there, because that was never the contention being made by anyone. The post I was responding to wasn't speaking of threshold speed. "Landing speed" isn't "threshold speed", but the speed at which the wheels touch tarmac. Flying the numbers puts it down at 260-280. Heavy on IFE on takeoff? 280-300. Low fuel/empty deadstick IFE? 250 is eligible as witnessed by the data provided. But that's not what was being discussed. We're not talking the edge of the envelope in an emergency case- what was being discussed was the normal range- 260-280. Even if you assume the very /best/ of faith and suppose the poster compared touchdown speeds, that's a downwards inaccuracy of 10-20 kmh. "Suppose the poster compared touchdown speeds"? That's exactly what he did. Mig approach speed should be around 400 - 350 km/h and touch down around 300-350kmh. That's a proper touchdown inaccuracy of 40-70 kmh. I believe you set unrealistic standards from your own convenience, starting a slippery-slope line of argument where no reported data is ever correct enough until it hits the fifth decimal place and is denoted in cyrillics. Ludicrous. Individual presents an argument without factual basis, and is directed to provide evidence; this has been directed to both Foxbat and Johny in this very thread. Statements of opinion are not fact, and are not, as you say, "reported data"; they are simply opinion until substantiated. In opposition to this, I provide factual data provided by the manufacturer- the same data that the FM was built to model and represents. There are facts, and there are opinions. One is actual data; the other, not. There have been requests for facts from the detractors, and, as normal, none are provided- simply opinion. This process of exchange gets tired after a good long while, because there are individuals who refuse to present anything outside of supposition with a side of insult. And so you'll excuse me when I see no point in "good faith", when the same people over and over fail to operate under those same terms. If they expect facts in response, they can provide them with their contentions. Otherwise, they are indeed full of it. And you're choosing what numbers matter in a relatively arbitrary way (the upwards inaccuracy is bull, the downwards inaccuracy goes unremarked) I don't concern myself with exaggerations of the average attempting to defame, when flying the aircraft in normal conditions to the numbers presents the correct values. edit: the thing about Leatherneck upholding the ideas of the ignorant is a complete straw man that I think no one benefits from discussing further. It's not a straw man at all; it's the nature of the business. People will choose to make arguments without evidence, under the expectation of being placated. So either LN hits the correct numbers and have their work called fiction for it, or they pander to the ignorant and degrade the quality of the product to those who expect better.
foxbat155 Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 Ludicrous. Individual presents an argument without factual basis, and is directed to provide evidence; this has been directed to both Foxbat and Johny in this very thread. Statements of opinion are not fact, and are not, as you say, "reported data"; they are simply opinion until substantiated. In opposition to this, I provide factual data provided by the manufacturer- the same data that the FM was built to model and represents. There are facts, and there are opinions. One is actual data; the other, not. There have been requests for facts from the detractors, and, as normal, none are provided- simply opinion. This process of exchange gets tired after a good long while, because there are individuals who refuse to present anything outside of supposition with a side of insult. Need facts,proofs, not opinions?. Just read carefully manuals. All facts are there..., lot of them floating around...., in english, russian, polish. Read them and fly LN module and then you will see difference. I can bet that after "manual lesson" your "opinion" will similar to my. People who criticize LN are on "side of insult" ?, do you ever have read how works real RSBN or ARK and compared this to module systems?. I didn't know that rewriting data from manual is now treated like a insult. P.S. After last changes ( 1.5.6 ) FM is not bad at all, need bigger real AOA ( should be around 20 deg, now is around 15 deg.). In my "opinion" of course.
lunaticfringe Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 If you were paying attention, you'd note I'd positioned pages from the English manual on this forum in two posts. I've read it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Stating "read the manual" when challenged for data for a contention you make doesn't fly when everyone else has.
BlackLion213 Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 After last changes ( 1.5.6 ) FM is not bad at all, need bigger real AOA ( should be around 20 deg, now is around 15 deg.). In my "opinion" of course. I agree with you here, the 1.5.6 FM seems quite good to me. :) It's also worth mentioning that LNS themselves stated that the nav systems on the MiG-21 required work arounds since the implementation in DCS was not as complete as it is today (IIRC it was improved to support the L-39). Also, the MiG-21 was the first ASM Russian module for DCS, so not all of the supporting infrastructure was present and they were not in a position to create those components. For this 4 man team, creating the first EFM/ASM supersonic aircraft was ambitious enough. :) If they were to create the MiG-21 now (or a MiG-23 for that matter :music_whistling:), those systems would likely be more complete and accurate. The quality and completeness of the Viggen speaks to their capability, but the first project inevitably has more limitations than subsequent works (how else can you learn?). LNS still has a lot that they would like to do with the MiG-21 and there are lots of fixes and additions still planned (I have not heard anything about ARK or RSBN). Perhaps if they created another Russian module these improved functions would be back-ported? Maybe I'm lucky that I don't know as much about the systems as you do, but the MiG-21 is still one of my favorite aircraft to fly (even if I'm spending nearly all of my time in the Viggen these days) and these issues do not diminish my enjoyment of the aircraft. Still, I'm glad that fixes are still steadily flowing in. The only part I notice every flight is the ASP...but I don't doubt that a fix will come eventually. -Nick
foxbat155 Posted February 14, 2017 Posted February 14, 2017 BlackLion I realize that I bought early beta, with many shortcomings and temporary solutions, but 2 years are already passed and I think it's time to fix all this. Workload and lack of time due other themes (modules) is not excuse for me. That's my point of view - client's point of view, I just wanna use what I paid for. If you were paying attention, you'd note I'd positioned pages from the English manual on this forum in two posts. I've read it. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Stating "read the manual" when challenged for data for a contention you make doesn't fly when everyone else has. I know you posted pages from manual, please remember that I didn't questioned anything what you wrote about landing speed. I'm complaining about aircraft's systems, how those should work. No point in posting almost all pages from manual here on forum, everybody can read original, and honestly that's my purpose. Why?. Because now most people reads only forum posts or LN's manual and they have only tiny knowledge how should be. I'm sure, that LN precisely realize where module weaknesses are, they just don't have time for work over it or they don't wanna do this. More complaining people on the clients side means bigger LN motivation to change situation.
BlackLion213 Posted February 15, 2017 Posted February 15, 2017 BlackLion I realize that I bought early beta, with many shortcomings and temporary solutions, but 2 years are already passed and I think it's time to fix all this. Workload and lack of time due other themes (modules) is not excuse for me. That's my point of view - client's point of view, I just wanna use what I paid for. I can understand your perspective. I prefer my glass half full approach, but I hope that the MiG-21 evolves into what you need. :) -Nick
MAD-MM Posted February 15, 2017 Posted February 15, 2017 I am realy enjoying the MIG-21 from quality it self was one of the best after release, they still update the MIG-21 can assume thats not easy sometime to hold all together with different Version and DCS Patch day. Think Cobra stated sometime ago they have to rework at certain Point the ARK and RSBN, and was not possible at release Time. Would like to see a MIG 23 from LN Quality, dont think this would be less good FM Quality then ED or Belsimtek as example. Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] 9./JG27
foxbat155 Posted February 15, 2017 Posted February 15, 2017 I can understand your perspective. I prefer my glass half full approach, but I hope that the MiG-21 evolves into what you need. :) -Nick You are just more optimistic like me. Beside some sour words from my side, I'm believe too that soon I don't will have reason to complain.
shab249 Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 75% sci fi is very much an exaggeration. This is a english translation. http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/ussr/mikoyangurevitch/mig-21/mig-21bis-pilot-s-flight-operating-instructions.html Please tell me there is a way to download manuals from there without paying Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
foxbat155 Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 Link for download: http://www.filedropper.com/mig-21bispilotsflightoperatinginstruction
shab249 Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 Link for download: http://www.filedropper.com/mig-21bispilotsflightoperatinginstruction THANK YOU! It will be rude to ask you for more links? (F-4E F-104 F-105 F-106) i want to read it on my phone but the website is annoying in mobile chrome Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Kev2go Posted February 16, 2017 Posted February 16, 2017 (edited) Please tell me there is a way to download manuals from there without paying Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk you dont need to download it when you can just read it online. # put link in favourites in your given Internet browser. Its not hard. THANK YOU! It will be rude to ask you for more links? (F-4E F-104 F-105 F-106) i want to read it on my phone but the website is annoying in mobile chrome Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk might want to browse that site some more. there are indeed manuals for all those given aircraft you listed. Edited February 16, 2017 by Kev2go Build: Windows 10 64 bit Pro Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD, WD 1TB HDD
shab249 Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 you dont need to download it when you can just read it online. # put link in favourites in your given Internet browser. Its not hard. might want to browse that site some more. there are indeed manuals for all those given aircraft you listed. i know that, but i want to read it in my phone but i cant. try it
foxbat155 Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 THANK YOU! It will be rude to ask you for more links? (F-4E F-104 F-105 F-106) i want to read it on my phone but the website is annoying in mobile chrome From blue side I have only F-8, A-4, F-14, F-16.
shab249 Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 From blue side I have only F-8, A-4, F-14, F-16. so F-14 and A-4 will be nice from where you get those links anyway?
tzetz Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 If it would be a MiG-23 then it should be a ML/MLA or MLD. The MF version is just a step backwards compared to the F14A. In my opinion to create a more balanced combat environment the types that i named would be very welcome. MiG-23 is an instant buy for me. For me too. I definitely go for the MLD my favorite fighter ever - operated by the Bulgarian Air force until the end of 20th century, and scrapped at 10% of their useful life due to our corrupt and greedy politicians...:cry: I will instantly buy one as soon as it is on presale!!:thumbup: Please do not abandon such a project...
foxbat155 Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 so F-14 and A-4 will be nice from where you get those links anyway? Straight from my HDD :music_whistling: : http://www.megafileupload.com/2M3jj/Flight.Manual.-.F-14D.Tomcat.zip
shab249 Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 Straight from my HDD :music_whistling: : http://www.megafileupload.com/2M3jj/Flight.Manual.-.F-14D.Tomcat.zip Thank you ill read it later it's 12:36 AM here Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
al531246 Posted February 17, 2017 Posted February 17, 2017 There's a whole host of manuals available for free out there, see here; https://publicintelligence.net/?s=natops https://publicintelligence.net/?s=flight+manual Intel i5-8600k | EVGA RTX 3070 | Windows 10 | 32GB RAM @3600 MHz | 500 GB Samsung 850 SSD
Trueno Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 I was told that Russia doesn´t allowed simulations of their planes anymore. Have anyone hear about it...?
shab249 Posted February 19, 2017 Posted February 19, 2017 I was told that Russia doesn´t allowed simulations of their planes anymore. Have anyone hear about it...? russia cant speak for the soviet union :) if it's true we can still see anything that russia didnt developed but the soviet union did so we cant do the su-24 mig 25 and above because russia upgraded them i just checked about the mig-23 and the last upgrade was less than 5 years before they splited:music_whistling:
Recommended Posts