Jump to content

The new critical angle of attack might be too low!


Maverick Su-35S

Recommended Posts

I think there is a slight angle between the fuselage datum axis and the wing chord line. And so the "AOA" shown in the software is the angle between the fuselage datum and the air flow. The AOA between the chord line and air flow might have a small fixed offset (~1°?) by construction. It should not be totally assumed that "F2" info bar AOA is showing actual chord AOA.

 

Everything else makes sense.

 

Hello Frederf,

 

I know what you say and by documentation the Mig-21 has 0 wing incidence and yes the AoA shown in outside view is grossly taken as the angle between the undisturbed airflow upstream of the plane and the plane's X-axis. It's not correct giving the definition of the angle of attack, but anyways, the difference between what this wing should have as a maximum AoA and what it would be even if it would be 16 (as you'd suggest with that 1 degree of positive incidence) is unacceptably great.

 

I'll relate this on the bugs forum then;).

 

Kind regards!

When you can't prove something with words, let the maths do the talking.

I have an insatiable passion for helping simulated aircraft fly realistically!

Sincerely, your correct flight model simulation advisor!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

They honestly ought to finish this product first considering when it was released. They must understand why people are getting upset waiting for so long. If you want business to flourish you need to make sure you finish your first product before you begin on the next, otherwise you're doing nothing but leaving behind frustated customers and bad PR. It's just good business practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, good business practice is actually having a viable business.

Being pragmatic here, but what if they need to finish the CEII first to get some cash so they can then afford to put resource towards fixing up the Mig-21?

 

I want the -21 fixed as much as you, I'm just willing to give them the benefit of the doubt for a bit longer considering the split.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys please, keep this thread clean! Maverick has some true points to make in this thread and they are being shadowed by meaningless comments of hate and wish. Please you have the option to cry every place you need, just keep highly informative post like Mavericks clean! fcol

"These are not the bugs you are looking for..":pilotfly:

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

My YouTube channel

 

SPECS

-AMD FX8370 8 Core Processor 4.2 ghz

-GIGABYTE 970A-UD3P

-GTX 1050 TI Windforce 4g

-16 GB RAM

-Saitek X 52

-FaceNOIRtrack - 3 point clip Red Led

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and wait for the Mig 19 will be much more complete in early acces then 4-5 years of development for the fishbed.

RAZBAM has very similar problems, in that the Mirage still has quite a bit of missing features, and the PCI is basically just a place-holder (over 2 years after release). RAZBAM acknowledged the PCI logic in real life is completely different from what we have in DCS, and yet work on it still has to start. Instead, they released the Harrier...

 

Personally speaking, I'm loosing faith in most 3rd party devellopers. We'll see how well Heatblur does with the F-14, but otherwise I will ignore any modules that do not come from ED themselves, or Belsimtek.

 

I simply adore the MiG-21 and do hope that by some miracle we will at some point get to experience her full glory :thumbup:

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Personally speaking, I'm loosing faith in most 3rd party developers.

 

Ditto, it really is becoming beyond the pale. The disturbing thing is there doesn't appear to be any inducement from ED, kicking the 3rd parties up the behind to finish these things.

 

ED are the guardians at the gate and are ultimately responsible for the quality of DCS as a whole. The MIg-21 at four years old and not even remotely complete, accurate or substantially bug free smacks of a product that will NEVER be finished.


Edited by Dugong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say they need to release a second module to finance the finishing of the first one, both in money and experience terms. All 3rd parties do that apparently.

I'll buy :

МиГ-23МЛД & МЛА МиГ-27К МиГ-25 Mirage III F-4E any IJ plane 1950' Korea Dynamic campaign module

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then why are they simply not upfront with it? I bet that more people will buy the Christen Eagle II if that would mean their beloved MiG-21 gets the attention it deserves.

Eagle Dynamics did it very clearly with the Yak-52, and the WW2-modules.

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I bet that more people will buy the Christen Eagle II if that would mean their beloved MiG-21 gets the attention it deserves.

Well, that would literally mean I spend even more money for a product I've already paid for - just to get it finished. Because I don't GAF about the CE II.

Mancher zum Meister sich erklärt, dem nie das Handwerk ward gelehrt!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed, i'm not buying 2 to 3 modules just in the vague hope that the 1st one i paid for will get finished.

 

The whole experience has left a very sour taste that means i won't be buying any LN/M3/HB products.

 

ED have effectively given tacit approval that 3rd party devs can split up the company and walk away from their obligations scot free.


Edited by Dugong
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, then why are they simply not upfront with it? I bet that more people will buy the Christen Eagle II if that would mean their beloved MiG-21 gets the attention it deserves.

Eagle Dynamics did it very clearly with the Yak-52, and the WW2-modules.

 

That shouldn't be the case, to be honest. We've paid for it once and that, ideally, should be enough. Of course, buying their products helps, but those who lack interest in something as niche as the CE2 shouldn't feel the obligation to purchase it in the pursuit of QA.

 

That said, patience is a virtue to have and is in very short supply here and hyperbole is always on a constant going-out-of-business sale.

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This project is dead. The only reasonable courses of action are:

 

A: declare it dead and refund

 

B: ED takes it up and fixes it

Windows 10 - Intel i7 7700K 4.2 Ghz (no OC) - Asus Strix GTX 1080 8Gb - 16GB DDR4 (3000 MHz) - SSD 500GB + WD Black FZEX 1TB 6Gb/s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shouldn't be the case, to be honest. We've paid for it once and that, ideally, should be enough.

Oh I definitely agree. I have said in a previous post (in a Razbam subforum) that 3rd part devs shouldn't even start in that business if they can't afford (by monetary or other means) to finish a project they started. Yet here we are...

Spoiler

Ryzen 9 5900X | 64GB G.Skill TridentZ 3600 | Gigabyte RX6900XT | ASUS ROG Strix X570-E GAMING | Samsung 990Pro 2TB + 960Pro 1TB NMVe | HP Reverb G2
Pro Flight Trainer Puma | VIRPIL MT-50CM2+3 base / CM2 x2 grip with 200 mm S-curve extension + CM3 throttle + CP2/3 + FSSB R3L + VPC Rotor TCS Plus base with SharKa-50 grip mounted on Monstertech MFC-1 | TPR rudder pedals

OpenXR | PD 1.0 | 100% render resolution | DCS "HIGH" preset

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everything costs twice as much money and takes twice as long to complete than what a normal person expects.

 

I still enjoy the Mig-21, and I will never buy a trainer or something that doesn't do combat for DCS. If money is what's needed to move forward, then don't waste your time on an unarmed biplane.:music_whistling:

 

P.S. Do you have a link to a video or something that shows how the DCS Mig-21 isn't behaving correctly? Just playing around with it in single player with a clean configuration I can different max AoA results doing different things. What is the definitive test?


Edited by gavagai

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it matter? It's not like M3 are either;

 

A) reading it

 

B) Doing anything about it

 

Maverick could publish a 300 page thesis on the FM and still wouldn't make a difference!

 

A: Im pretty sure they read it. ED also doesn't comment their FM when WiP

 

B: Cant judge on it

 

If you followed his M2000, F-15 and SU-27 thesis you would know that it would be 300 pages of wasted time...

Funny how easy some of you guys are impressed by some formulas, basic physics and some tacviews of errors in some margin flight envelopes...

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...