Pilotasso Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 I just came a cross a thought, has the mig always been nearly invisible in all versions of the game or is it a post 1.1 issue? I dont quite remenber, back then prior to 1.02. .
GGTharos Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Yeah, I noticed when playing last night ... won't see it past 5km. Maybe closer. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Pilotasso Posted February 15, 2007 Author Posted February 15, 2007 But my question is, has it always been like this? .
3Sqn_Fudd Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 My somewhat clear recollection is that this arrived post 1.1... http://3sqn.com/forum/ Here's to 1.13 -- > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0488djMDBU
Aeroscout Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 I'v never noticed that actually. It seems to work fine for me. DCS Wishlist: 1) FIX THE DAMN RIVERS!!! 2) Spherical or cylindrical panorama view projection. 3) Enhanced input options (action upon button release, etc). 4) Aircraft flight parameter dump upon exit (stick posn, attitude, rates, accel, control volume, control-surface positions, SAS bias, etc). 5) ADS-33 maneuver courses as static objects. 6) Exposed API or exports of trim position and stick force for custom controllers. 7) Select auto multiple audio devices
golfsierra2 Posted February 15, 2007 Posted February 15, 2007 Do not forget that the MiG 29 is a rather small aircraft - you will miss it very often kind regards, Raven.... [sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic]
GGTharos Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Ehm, yeah, and that's fine, but in comparison to other aircraft in LO, it being invisble beyond 10km (even closer in some cases) while you can see others 30km out is BS. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Kuky Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 On my end I tend to see some aircraft very easy when I zoom out while in cockpit, but I can't see them at all when I zoom in. This happens only if the aircraft is further away (ie around 20km). Also if I keep default zoom I can see the aircraft while further away (as a dot) then as it approaches it just disapears completely, then becomes visible again (actual LOD visible, not just a dot) when in close range... I find this very anoying. I haven't noticed (actually I haven't paid any attention to this) as to if this is happens for all aircraft or just hapens with some aircraft only. PC specs: Windows 11 Home | Asus TUF Gaming B850-Plus WiFi | AMD Ryzen 7 9800X3D + LC 360 AIO | MSI RTX 5090 LC 360 AIO | 55" Samsung Odyssey Gen 2 | 64GB PC5-48000 DDR5 | 1TB M2 SSD for OS | 2TB M2 SSD for DCS | NZXT C1000 Gold ATX 3.1 1000W | TM Cougar Throttle, Floor Mounted MongoosT-50 Grip on TM Cougar board, MFG Crosswind, Track IR
Pilotasso Posted February 16, 2007 Author Posted February 16, 2007 Ehm, yeah, and that's fine, but in comparison to other aircraft in LO, it being invisble beyond 10km (even closer in some cases) while you can see others 30km out is BS. Precisely, you can see an F-15 or a Su-27 20 miles away. Being smaller the mig should be seen 10-15 miles away (or scale them all down to a more realistic range). I had missed migs after chasing them at their 6 oclock under 2 miles. If you break your sight with it for a blink of an eye moment your unlikely to ever find it again. Its that hard. .
4c Hajduk Veljko Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 F-15 and probably all other airplanes are also near invisible under certain conditions. There is some combination of distance to the airplane and cockpit zoom angle when airplanes become transparent. Thermaltake Kandalf LCS | Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R | Etasis ET750 (850W Max) | i7-920 OC to 4.0 GHz | Gigabyte HD5850 | OCZ Gold 6GB DDR3 2000 | 2 X 30GB OCZ Vertex SSD in RAID 0 | ASUS VW266H 25.5" | LG Blue Ray 10X burner | TIR 5 | Saitek X-52 Pro | Logitech G930 | Saitek Pro flight rudder pedals | Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
Guest IguanaKing Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Doesn't the MiG-29 have a REALLY smoky engine though?...or am I wrong about that? (talking IRL here)
GGTharos Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Yes, you're right. Very smoky fuel at the least. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
BlackEagle Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=6515 Feb. 2005: Starlight:I'd like to see more effects in LockOn in the future. In particular I mean aircraft smoking and more realistic vapor effects, and apart from the graphics/scenic reasons, I think they could also affect air combat in some ways.... aircraft smoking are much easier to spot during A2A, and in LockOn there are some aircraft which are very renowned to be heavy smokers, first of all the Fulcrum, which is also a flyable.... And then also the vapor effects could help spotting an aircraft in A2A combat. GGTharos: ...the development of said effects might be rather time-consuming and there are other things to be done first. Starlight: I agree there are things which need to be fixed first. But one thing that would be quite easy to implement and is also the most critical among the "effects", is the engine smoke. It's critical in A2A combat because it's much easier to spot aircraft which have this dark trail, and it's critical because there are aircraft that are smoky, and aircraft that are not so. The smoke feature could be made similar to the one already modelled smoke for damaged engines, but a bit lighter and/or more trasparent. BTW smoky engines are already modelled in "a sim with ancient graphics" like Falcon 4 Feb. 2007: golfsierra2: Do not forget that the MiG 29 is a rather small aircraft - you will miss it very often GGTharos: Ehm, yeah, and that's fine, but in comparison to other aircraft in LO, it being invisble beyond 10km (even closer in some cases) while you can see others 30km out is BS. Irony. :glare:
Kula66 Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 What about the issue the way a/c go invisible at about 2-4miles as the level of detail changes from a black dot to a render aircraft (LOD). This distance is critical in dogfighting and to loose visibility at this point is just a pain. Anyway this distance can be changed to say 1mile ... at which point the rendered image would be visible.
RvETito Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Yes, you're right. Very smoky fuel at the least. The fuel is all the same for the 29 and the 27 but the AL-31F smokes a lot less. I always wondered why the RD-33 smokes so much since it has similar EGT as the AL-31F. I had the chance to work with an engineer from the Klimov design bureau last summer and despite our job was concerning helicopter gearboxes I didn't miss the opportunity to talk with him about the RD-33. He explained to me that they had to make the combustion chamber very short in order to fit the engine's overall length. As a result the burn process becomes unefficient and part of the fuel leave the engine not fully burned. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
3Sqn_Fudd Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Ehm, yeah, and that's fine, but in comparison to other aircraft in LO, it being invisble beyond 10km (even closer in some cases) while you can see others 30km out is BS. QFT ... Plus smoky exhaust http://3sqn.com/forum/ Here's to 1.13 -- > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0488djMDBU
golfsierra2 Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The fuel is all the same for the 29 and the 27 but the AL-31F smokes a lot less. I always wondered why the RD-33 smokes so much since it has similar EGT as the AL-31F. I had the chance to work with an engineer from the Klimov design bureau last summer and despite our job was concerning helicopter gearboxes I didn't miss the opportunity to talk with him about the RD-33. He explained to me that they had to make the combustion chamber very short in order to fit the engine's overall length. As a result the burn process becomes unefficient and part of the fuel leave the engine not fully burned. From the German F-4F fleet, I know that intentionally the engine max temperature was lowered for the benefit of engine wear. It could be the same with the RD-33. Maybe beside the short combustion chambers, the temperature settings were chosen to be on the lower end in order to increase the engine life / engine refurbishment cycles. kind regards, Raven.... [sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic]
Alfa Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The fuel is all the same for the 29 and the 27 but the AL-31F smokes a lot less. I always wondered why the RD-33 smokes so much since it has similar EGT as the AL-31F. I had the chance to work with an engineer from the Klimov design bureau last summer and despite our job was concerning helicopter gearboxes I didn't miss the opportunity to talk with him about the RD-33. He explained to me that they had to make the combustion chamber very short in order to fit the engine's overall length. As a result the burn process becomes unefficient and part of the fuel leave the engine not fully burned. Yes but note that there is a more recent version of the RD-33(series-III), which apart from extending the service life, IIRC also has a redesigned combustion chamber that apparently eliminates the smoking :) Here is a link to the RD-33 section on the Klimov web site: http://www.klimov.ru/en/products/military/turboprop_engines/rd-33/ ....it doesn't mention anything about "smokeless combustion chambers" though. JJ
VVanks Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The maximum range for an average human eye is 10-15km. I guess fighter pilots can see around 20km. But that's stretching it on a clear, 0 haze day. Homepage: http://www.worldwynd.net Coming Soon: http://www.simplywyn.com
Cosmonaut Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 No doubt about it there is a visual distance issue with the Mig29 and the F18 for sure, maybe a few others too. It's always been like that for the Hornet but I cant really say with any certainty if it was any different for the Mig in previous patches. This shouldn't be too hard to fix either but this has been brought up many times before and nothings been done so far. However if you think it's bad now then back when LO was first released it was impossible to see anything, I started a thread back in Jan 2004 regarding visual distances for aircraft/ ground units and it gained enough momentum that we got things changed by the time the next patch was released (1.02) :D . Oddly enough I checked my archives and the thread still exists :) . http://forums.ubi.com/eve/ubb.x?q=Y&a=tpc&s=400102&f=38610606&m=439103961&p=1 Page 5 is where we get an official response from Wags who was then working for UBI then pages 7 and 8 is where we get conformation from Stormin that the problem had been improved greatly. Hopefully we can get the same efficiency with regards to the Mig29 and F18 as well :smilewink: . What about the issue the way a/c go invisible at about 2-4miles as the level of detail changes from a black dot to a render aircraft (LOD). This distance is critical in dogfighting and to loose visibility at this point is just a pain. Anyway this distance can be changed to say 1mile ... at which point the rendered image would be visible. Yep I totally agree, it can be really irritating at times when objects are easier to see at a distance then disappear when close up :huh: . Cozmo. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Minimum effort, maximum satisfaction. CDDS Tutorial Version 3. | Main Screen Mods.
golfsierra2 Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The maximum range for an average human eye is 10-15km. I guess fighter pilots can see around 20km. But that's stretching it on a clear, 0 haze day. And very depending on the given contrast. Above the clouds and looking down onto a bright white cloud layer, one likely will spot a jet (aircraft and smoke trail) at very great distances. Same aircraft at the same distance will not be visible in front of the ground texture unless it's snow or desert terrain or calm see. kind regards, Raven.... [sigpic]http://www.crc-mindreader.de/CRT/images/Birds2011.gif[/sigpic]
RvETito Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 From the German F-4F fleet, I know that intentionally the engine max temperature was lowered for the benefit of engine wear. It could be the same with the RD-33. Maybe beside the short combustion chambers, the temperature settings were chosen to be on the lower end in order to increase the engine life / engine refurbishment cycles. Actualy this is the case with the German MiG-29s- they have underpowered their RD-33s by 10%(by decreasing the max EGT) to extend their TBO. But still they smoke a lot, like before getting the power cut. It's the combustion chamber that has poor design. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
RvETito Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 Yes but note that there is a more recent version of the RD-33(series-III), which apart from extending the service life, IIRC also has a redesigned combustion chamber that apparently eliminates the smoking :) Here is a link to the RD-33 section on the Klimov web site: http://www.klimov.ru/en/products/military/turboprop_engines/rd-33/ ....it doesn't mention anything about "smokeless combustion chambers" though. The smokeless combustion chamber is still in developement. All variants of the RD-33 are pretty smoky:) The 3 series has indeed extended service life 700h TBO and 1500h service life (the first series have only 300h TBO and 700h respectively) but it smokes like the earlier series. The life extension is mostly due to the newer KSA-3 common gearbox, rather any other engine improvements. The weakest component(from what this guy from Klimov told me and from the experience of the RD-33 series 2 in BAF) is the combustion chamber: - shorter than it's supposed to be, hence the smoke; - poor walls cooling which is a reason for vicious crack thendency on the combustion chamber's body caused by thermal stresses; - serious structural issues of the fuel nozzles' manifold- again cracks in it's supporting elements, which after colapse have caused several engine fires with catastrophic consequences. However the RD-33K is totaly different case. It has different(bigger) fan, redesigned HP turbine and increased EGT and it has the service life of the RD-33 series 3. But still no change in the combustion chamber lenght and it is also a 'smoker':D though from footage I've seen it seems to me it has started to quit cigarettes:D May be RD-33MK that is now intended for the indian MiG-29KUB will finaly get rid of the smoke or at least bring it to acceptable levels. "See, to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells what your angle of attack is. If you don't know you shouldn't be flying." - Chuck Yeager, from the back seat of F-15D at age 89. =RvE=
Frostie Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 The maximum range for an average human eye is 10-15km. I guess fighter pilots can see around 20km. But that's stretching it on a clear, 0 haze day. IIRC there is no max range for the human eye ,it all depends on the brightness and clarity of the object in view eg. Great Wall of China from space, the stars, the golden arches. "[51☭] FROSTIE" #55 'Red 5'. Lord Flashheart 51st PVO "Bisons" - 100 KIAP Regiment Fastest MiG pilot in the world - TCR'10 https://100kiap.org
GGTharos Posted February 16, 2007 Posted February 16, 2007 IIRC there is no max range for the human eye ,it all depends on the brightness and clarity of the object in view eg. Great Wall of China from space, the stars, the golden arches. Nope, angular dimention DOES matter and DOES limit range. You can't see the GWC from space for this very reason: It's only some 20 meters across. If there was 'no limit' to the human eye range, you'd be able to see bacteria, dude - since that would imply you have unlimited resolution. The limit -is- the angular size of what you're looking at. Contrast and so forth come into play when the angular size -IS- large enough for you to see ... this is what camouflage is about - making sure you can't see something past a given range which is far, far shorter than the limit of your eye's angular resolution. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Recommended Posts