2021 (and earlier) DCS Newsletter Discussion Thread

[CommandT]

I don't understand how anyone can argue with the fact that the MiG-29's FM in DCS has some super obvious flaws, regardless of whether you know how the real thing flies or not. Or perhaps more specifically the way the FCS behaves, especially at near full deflections of the stick. Ask a simple question - if it flew in real life the way it does in DCS - would that be acceptable to any pilot? I'll be amazed if anyone says yes. The non-linear response of the FBW at times is quite ridiculous. I've binned the idea of doing any flying on it until something gets done about it. I mean obviously no FM in DCS is perfect, but some really convey a realistic feel 95% of the time. The 29 is a disaster in DCS as it stands. I sincerely hope the newsletter was showing how they are currently evaluating the flight model to improve it and not a pat on the back for doing a great job with the one we have currently - that would be one hell of a waste of a newsletter.

[Northstar98]

The only thing I will say about the MiG-29 is that on approach at roughly 300kph it feels incredibly sensitive, where even if the stick is barely being deflected, it responds as if it were much larger, necessitating quite excessive curves (which leads to it being overly sensitive in other areas), almost like there's some funny business going on with the ARU(?). It definitely doesn't seem like

where the pilot is making larger deflections on the stick, but not much movement (at least as far as I can tell) by the aircraft.

 

Compare it to

where very little movement is being made on the stick, but the aircraft is a lot more responsive.

 

The same can be said for the MiG-29s trim which also seems to cause large deflections with the smallest of presses.

 

I personally find precisely flying the MiG-21bis to be much easier, especially in level flight and on approach/landing.

 

EDIT: Meh it's actually not so bad once you relax a little, I guess me using the keyboard for throttle is probably a bigger part of the problem.

[Gierasimov]

 

(..) which let me lose interest in the announced full-fidelity MiG-29A.

 

I do admit I took so time off from the forums (did not like the new "hard to locate stuff" style) but, I am sure I would not miss such, for me, a big thing.

 

"Announced" (?) When? Where?

 

[CommandT]

 

I do admit I took so time off from the forums (did not like the new "hard to locate stuff" style) but, I am sure I would not miss such, for me, a big thing.

 

"Announced" (?) When? Where?

 

I don't think it's been officially announced but various interviews with ED mentioned it was in the to do list depending on whether they can get access to enough detailed info about it. So I think it's more of a "highly likely" than "announced" module.

[Volator]

 

I do admit I took so time off from the forums (did not like the new "hard to locate stuff" style) but, I am sure I would not miss such, for me, a big thing.

 

"Announced" (?) When? Where?

 

Yeah, maybe "announced" is not appropriate, but see for yourself:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/forum/english/digital-combat-simulator/dcs-world-2-5/dcs-wishlist-aa/284905-dcs-mig-29a

 

 

[Gierasimov]

So, weekend news soon and it looks like Cyprus, doesn't it? Now I am excited.

[hornblower793]

Cyprus is indeed there - as is the news that there is another major forum upgrade to change the underlying technology so forums will not be available on Monday and you may need to request a new password afterwards

[Eldur]

The news sound great. Totally looking forward to that map expansion there.

 

@BIGNEWY As for the Syria map getting Cyprus added, have you gotten any response or news on the Lake of Galilei not being below MSL as IRL yet? It would be great if that could get fixed while the thing is being worked on, but the last time this topic came up we simply didn't know if it was due to an internal engine limitation or something else.

 

Also I think it's pretty news on the board software topic. I presume IPS is Invision Power Services, so technically the new software will be the same that the other (WWII) sim's company uses, which would be great. That one does have some minor quirks as well, but all in all I do like it a lot. I think it's great that you guys considered and decided to switch to another software completely.

 

BTW as for the BB Codes on that one, you can't enter those anymore, but do all the things that would be possible with them with the WYSIWYG editor. It has some nice features like automatically recognizing links for posting images or Tube embeds, so you don't even have to mess around with tags anymore at all. Just drop the thing and it will convert it accordingly, giving you the option to revert to a "plain text paste" anytime. ED just has to lift the limit of images per post (IIRC there was a default of like 5), so we aren't limited in smiley/emoticon usage by that. Well that's one of those config things that have to be done and probably won't take long.

[AKULA_OPTIMUS]

The news sound great. Totally looking forward to that map expansion there.

 

@BIGNEWY As for the Syria map getting Cyprus added, have you gotten any response or news on the Lake of Galilei not being below MSL as IRL yet? It would be great if that could get fixed while the thing is being worked on, but the last time this topic came up we simply didn't know if it was due to an internal engine limitation or something else.

 

 

As long as the sea is rendered below all the map, I don´t think it would be possible:(

 

[Lenux]

On 11/27/2020 at 3:02 PM, Gierasimov said:

So, weekend news soon and it looks like Cyprus, doesn't it? Now I am excited.

what do you talking about?? 

[Gierasimov]

7 hours ago, Lenux said:

what do you talking about?? 

Lenux, I posted that before November 27^th weekend news. I was talking about Cyprus addition as there were screenshots available before the actual letter. 

Thanks.

[Gierasimov]

Thank you for the news today!

Question on the radar - is it just as a Early Warning station or is it for the SA-5 in development? Will it come with other bits (electrical trailer and a MAZ truck)?

 

It's great to see new ground units coming, however with the new T-72B3 and new Ural trucks in works as well, will those units announced today share the same fate? By fate I mean announced with nice renders and left for less busy times to deliver?

[Northstar98]

8 hours ago, Gierasimov said:

Thank you for the news today!

Question on the radar - is it just as a Early Warning station or is it for the SA-5 in development? Will it come with other bits (electrical trailer and a MAZ truck)?

 

It's great to see new ground units coming, however with the new T-72B3 and new Ural trucks in works as well, will those units announced today share the same fate? By fate I mean announced with nice renders and left for less busy times to deliver?

 

The ST-68U/36D6 "Tin Shield" is a search/acquisition RADAR of the S-300PT/PS (predecessor to the 64N6E "Big Bird" RADAR we have currently, though that is long overdue a graphical overhaul). Unfortunately no mention of tractor for it (like the KrAZ-260V or MAZ-79100), or whether we'll get one on 40V6M mast.

 

While I love getting more battery components, personally I'd rather the work go into updating older units instead of adding new, and every component of the SA-6 and SA-10B are long overdue an update. At least with the BTR-82A, it shares the same hull as the older BTR-80 model.

 

Though I do agree that it seems like we're waiting years between having these models teased in newsletters and then actually coming to DCS, if you look through the development screenshots there's plenty that we still haven't seen despite seeing them teased years ago. 

 

AFAIK the SA-5 doesn't really have a dedicated acquisition RADAR as such, but AFAIK is associated with RADARs like the P-14/5N84AE "Tall King C" or ST-67/5N69 "Big Back" as well as others like the P-30, -35/37.  Unfortunately many of SAM systems are missing a fair few battery components; things like transloaders, operator cabins and other support units (generators for instance), as well as IFF systems like the 1L22 Parol-4. I think the Patriot PAC-2 that we have is the only SAM system with a comprehensive set of battery components, just missing tractor units and other support vehicles such as the M985 GMT HEMTT

 

(even the SA-2 we have doesn't have its search/acquisition RADAR (P-18 Spoon Rest D).

 

 

Edited December 5, 2020 by Northstar98

[Mars Exulte]

On 11/15/2020 at 5:03 AM, CommandT said:

Ask a simple question - if it flew in real life the way it does in DCS - would that be acceptable to any pilot? I'll be amazed if anyone says yes. The non-linear response of the FBW at times is quite ridiculous.

 

#1 The MiG-29 is not FBW. Full stop. That IS one of the things that causes it to have somewhat erratic handling in some regimes, because it does NOT have a FBW system dampening your inputs or ''interpeting'' for you. It is in some ways similar to flying the Su-27 with the paddle switch held all the time (not that extreme, however). The most modern versions probably have FBW, I dunno, but the early ones we have do NOT. This is also what prompted the remark about gaming controls. It's a modern ''inherently unstable supermaneuverable fighter'' that lacks fbw controls and we lack all the physical feedback/weighted controls that the real plane has, resulting in it being naturally harder to control than it ''should'' be. The F-14 is similar to some extent also lacking FBW while being really tweaky but I don't believe its as ''inherently unstable'' as future planes. That's literally why FBW was developed : the planes were becoming uncontrollable with the manual methods of previous generations.

 

#2 History is full of mass produced aircraft with negative or even dangerous characteristics, so ''ask yourself blah blah'' yes, they very well could produce such a plane and multiple countries have done so countless times. I could literally make a list as long as my arm of ''iconic'' aircraft that were known for being widowmakers.

 

Not being a dick but from #1 and #2 it's obvious you don't know much about either the 29 specifically or aviation history in general, so I'd take your own opinion with a grain of salt if I was you.

 

The only obvious issue with the MiG-29, imo, is the overly aggressive bouncing that doesn't destroy it or collapse the nose gear. The wobbliness in general is readily apparent on video, the finickiness of its landing characteristics are attested by the unusual specificity of its landing instructions in the real manual. Some of the ingame landings I've seen should have resulted in physical damage/destruction however, and that inarguably needs fixing (if it hasn't been yet, I'm unable to play for a few months now)

[CommandT]

2 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

 

#1 The MiG-29 is not FBW. Full stop. That IS one of the things that causes it to have somewhat erratic handling in some regimes, because it does NOT have a FBW system dampening your inputs or ''interpeting'' for you. It is in some ways similar to flying the Su-27 with the paddle switch held all the time (not that extreme, however). The most modern versions probably have FBW, I dunno, but the early ones we have do NOT. This is also what prompted the remark about gaming controls. It's a modern ''inherently unstable supermaneuverable fighter'' that lacks fbw controls and we lack all the physical feedback/weighted controls that the real plane has, resulting in it being naturally harder to control than it ''should'' be. The F-14 is similar to some extent also lacking FBW while being really tweaky but I don't believe its as ''inherently unstable'' as future planes. That's literally why FBW was developed : the planes were becoming uncontrollable with the manual methods of previous generations.

 

#2 History is full of mass produced aircraft with negative or even dangerous characteristics, so ''ask yourself blah blah'' yes, they very well could produce such a plane and multiple countries have done so countless times. I could literally make a list as long as my arm of ''iconic'' aircraft that were known for being widowmakers.

 

Not being a dick but from #1 and #2 it's obvious you don't know much about either the 29 specifically or aviation history in general, so I'd take your own opinion with a grain of salt if I was you.

 

The only obvious issue with the MiG-29, imo, is the overly aggressive bouncing that doesn't destroy it or collapse the nose gear. The wobbliness in general is readily apparent on video, the finickiness of its landing characteristics are attested by the unusual specificity of its landing instructions in the real manual. Some of the ingame landings I've seen should have resulted in physical damage/destruction however, and that inarguably needs fixing (if it hasn't been yet, I'm unable to play for a few months now)

I'll give you one thing, I was wrong about the early MiG-29 versions not having FBW. That is true. All the variants from "M" onward are FBW. I did not realise the early versions (9-12/13) are not. 

However, with regards to the rest of the assumptions you've made, you are extreme arrogant. 

Firstly, the MiG-29 was never a "widowmaker", nor has it ever been known for being hard to control. In fact exactly the opposite is true. The pilots that flew it remarked how easy it was to fly and how approachable it was. 

Secondly, before I say the following regarding my personal opinion about the (lack of) realistic flight dynamics of the MiG-29 in DCS, I will definitely state that this is my personal opinion and I don't claim to be an expert, however as a real life pilot flying airliners, GA, aerobatics, gliders and having acquired a degree in Aeronautical Engineering, I am not a stranger to aircraft handling, control systems and aerodynamics - on the whole. And I know people who have flown various fighters including the MiG-29 and Su-27 in real life. 

So, using this new found knowledge of the DCS 29's not being FBW, my argument for it's broken FM is even stronger, just from a basic understanding of aerodynamics. The non-linearity of the response that I remarked before is even less likely without a FBW system (that is "broken"). There are instances where at full back stick and high G, the aircraft goes through an entire cycle of suddenly and abruptly allowing you to pull more Gs and increase the turn rate then gradually easing out of this, then abruptly doing the same again, and so the vicious cycle continues. This is all whilst keeping the stick in the same position. This is just one example, a pretty obvious one that something is definitely wrong. 

I maintain what I said before - if it flew like this in real life, would this be acceptable to any pilot? I don't think so. Obviously we can poke holes in almost any DCS module. They all have quirks and "FM bugs", but some feel much more realistic for the majority of the time, irrespective of how accurate or inaccurate their performance is to the real thing. They feel 'realistic' in handling, the MiG-29 is really not.   

As with regards to the lack of real seat of the pants feeling - partly true, but also doesn't explain erratic behaviour on regimes well before critical AoA. Doesn't matter that you can't feel it, you can see the crazy sh*t the plane does.

And just like you have done I would draw comparisons with real life videos of airshows and various maneuvers which to me show a very different aeroplane to the one we have in DCS. Some things are of course not bad - how it rolls for instance does seem pretty good in game, but once you start putting Gs on it, for me it quickly looses any sense of simulating reality. 

Once again, my personal opinion. I will not say any more on the subject. But, to finish off - this aeroplane's FM has been getting more flak than any other in DCS... maybe, just maybe, there's a reason behind it... and not because we are all just armchair enthusiasts who think we know better... 

[Mars Exulte]

I didn't say the 29 was a widowmaker. I said history is full of aircraft that were, thus ''would you design a plane like this way'' is not a valid argument.

 

There is nothing ''arrogant'' about those two remarks. This is the internet, not LinkedIn, real life experience is not apparent, nor always relevant.

 

For example, an airliner pilot is not necessarily more qualified to pontificate about fighter jets than a random guy off the street if he doesn't have experience with them because they are designed with completely different goals. Airliners are inherently stable, whereas fighters are inherently UNstable. I remember a guy saying ''Planes don't stall this quickly, and *I* would know because *I* fly airliners''. Said individual was so full of himself, he not only waved his ignorance about for all to see but also highlighted what a crap pilot he must be if he didn't even grasp the basics. Point is, self described ''authority'' doesn't guarantee one is correct. You made two key observations in your original post related to FBW and whether a plane would ever be designed ''such a way''. Both are demonstrably incorrect, your ''credentials'' are irrelevant.

 

That's it.

 

To clarify- I did not say the plane is perfect, or that it doesn't have issues. It does, one of which I mentioned myself.

Edited December 5, 2020 by zhukov032186

[draconus]

21 hours ago, CommandT said:

This is just one example, a pretty obvious one that something is definitely wrong. 

Read here the part of the real manual explaining this maneuvering behavior sent by Yo-yo himself, the FM creator:

This is not a good place to discuss this again but feel free to add your contribution in MiG-29 subforum.

Edited December 5, 2020 by draconus

[=4c=Nikola]

On 11/15/2020 at 1:03 PM, CommandT said:

Ask a simple question - if it flew in real life the way it does in DCS - would that be acceptable to any pilot?

 

I already asked mig-29 pilots. They've said that such aircraft would not be considered airworthy. They even said that aircraft with such flying characteristics wouldn't be accepted by any airforce. They say that real mig-29 is really easy and fun to control, no oscillations, no unexpected moments, it just flies where you point the stick.

[Dudikoff]

On 12/4/2020 at 11:13 PM, zhukov032186 said:

 

#1 The MiG-29 is not FBW. Full stop. That IS one of the things that causes it to have somewhat erratic handling in some regimes, because it does NOT have a FBW system dampening your inputs or ''interpeting'' for you. It is in some ways similar to flying the Su-27 with the paddle switch held all the time (not that extreme, however). The most modern versions probably have FBW, I dunno, but the early ones we have do NOT. This is also what prompted the remark about gaming controls. It's a modern ''inherently unstable supermaneuverable fighter'' that lacks fbw controls and we lack all the physical feedback/weighted controls that the real plane has, resulting in it being naturally harder to control than it ''should'' be. 

 

IIRC, the MiG-29 was not designed to be inherently unstable, unlike the Su-27 which was and thus does require some sort of FBW assistance in the pitch.

Edited December 7, 2020 by Dudikoff

[Volator]

18 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

IIRC, the MiG-29 was not designed to be inherently unstable

Exactly. 

[Mars Exulte]

21 hours ago, Dudikoff said:

 

IIRC, the MiG-29 was not designed to be inherently unstable, unlike the Su-27 which does required some sort of FBW assistance in the pitch.

 

That's possible, I suppose. Aerodynamically, the entire rear half of the plane is virtually identical, though, merely scaled down. I always assumed the MiG-29 lacking FBW was because it was the smaller, shorter, cheaper ''mass produced'' counterpart to the Su-27, but small shifts in CoG and CoL can make a big difference, of course, so, I dunno. I'll try to go read about it later.

 

I dunno, most mention I'm seeing of supermanueverability and the MiG-29 are referencing inherent instability, usually alongside references to the F-16 and Su-27.

Edited December 6, 2020 by zhukov032186

[Dudikoff]

12 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

I dunno, most mention I'm seeing of supermanueverability and the MiG-29 are referencing inherent instability, usually alongside references to the F-16 and Su-27.

 

Logically, if it was designed as statically unstable, it would require some kind of an FBW system (like Su-27) as it would be hard for the pilots to keep it under control otherwise I guess.

 

Can't search in the proper books now, but, here are a few quick search-engine references I've found:

 

"In this regard, Mikoyan's management has disclosed that the firm is now at work on a MiG-29 successor prototype which embodies the MiG-29's aerodynamically stable airframe, but which is fundamentally new in every other important respect (see "Mikoyan Flight-Tests Fulcrum Follow-On," Flight International, October 3, 1990, p. 32)."

 

"They might not like it, but with a 28deg/sec instantaneous turn rate (compared to the Block 50 F-16's 26deg) we can out-turn them. Our stable, manually controlled airplane can out-turn their FBW aircraft. But the real edge we have is the ‘Archer’ which can reliably lock on to targets 45deg off-boresight."

 

"While the Su-27 featured an advanced computerized fly-by-wire system that allowed for an aerodynamically unstable airframe, the MiG-29 despite a similar layout of engine and wings did not have this, instead relying on a traditional system of hydraulically controlled control surfaces."

 

Edited December 7, 2020 by Dudikoff

[sLYFa]

The Mig-29M was statically unstable and had FBW, significantly improving its maneuverability and handling characteristics. Too bad only a handful were built and it never entered full production/service.

FWIW I have no trouble handling the DCS Mig-29 but then again I have (unlike most) almost as much stick travel on my joystick as the real thing does, maybe that helps...

[Mars Exulte]

@Dudikoff

I've been reading some more and concur with your statement and sources, as well as your reasoning on FBW etc. I was wrong ;)

[Volator]

On 12/8/2020 at 2:10 PM, sLYFa said:

FWIW I have no trouble handling the DCS Mig-29 but then again I have (unlike most) almost as much stick travel on my joystick as the real thing does, maybe that helps...

Not really in my opinion. I tried a 45cm extension, but the nervous pitch behavior did not improve significantly.