Jump to content

On the Various FM Issues


CptSmiley

Recommended Posts

There is a sort of digital step in thrust somewhere between 9500 and 9800. If you have airbrake out during approach, that helps a lot.

 

Oh yeah, there's no landing without airbrake out. Ideally, you keep a relatively high throttle setting with the brake out and retract it if you need to go around. At the moment, I have the best success flying it like a Pa-24, though; power in and chop throttle over the threshold.

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

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...

I think only the stall characteristics made it into the first two updates.

 

Engine performance and ability to super cruise in the early stages of the model were mentioned here and will be fixed, hopefully soon:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=236511

 

Let's hope for the next update.

 

Regards

Jens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you for responding! I proceeded from the comparison with the dynamics of the MiG of the 15th. In equal environment, more lightweight and nimble aircraft, as 15, can not be inert heavy 19th, especially in the modification of "P"! In this case, setup inactivity 19 came out even lower than its doubly easy grandparent. Then there is the impact of the booster ailerons, since absolutely no difference enabled or not. In the settings of the stabilizer I did not climb, only added a bit of inertia to the pitch. According to the reports of test flights, the product SM-9 was very sensitive to the shift of the depth rudder, which led to a progressive pitching. Here, even with the ARU off, I never managed to rock the car. The joint is buried somewhere in the code, and I'm not good at it. Most likely, that in the MiG-19. physics of the Harrier, here the dog is buried. Who flew, he knows how easy it is to rock the plane pitch and roll, if there are no smart systems that compensate for this phenomenon. In the air there are no self-compensating moments of forces to the application of force and forces of inertia. It's like riding a unicycle - you have to keep your balance all the time!

Bank. Tightening the roll at angles above 45* in the presence of lateral sliding and subsequent stall at low speeds, when the centripetal force is not enough - a mandatory phenomenon (personal experience). To implement this effect, all you had to shift the point of the center of mass up, but not much, otherwise the model on the run immediately turned up his nose. Dancing with a tambourine is not over yet, it's just a test of the pen. It is simply impossible to adjust anything to the graphics with my capabilities here, since I do not understand the word "at all"in the code. And there shovel need to, and with profoundly. And to build an aerodynamic model on the charts, you need a base of "live" atmosphere, not "dead water", and it is something we do not yet have.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MiG-19P FM is being improved all the time and all the issues will be fixed as time passes. The last FM available included work on stall and spin behavior and some overload and combat damage as well as many engine thrust improvements.

 

I would also like to remember that any affirmations or requests regarding the aircraft FM behavior should be backed with the correct proof (charts, tables ,manuals... etc) otherwise we won´t pay attention to it.

 

Also, it would help a lot if undesired behaviors can be correctly documented by the community as with videos that show engine regime, speed and altitude or DCS tracks after checking that they work correctly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Anaglob, the SM-9 is the prototype of the first MiG-19 variant, the one with elevators (not all moving stabs) and several other minor aerodynamic differences with the later MiG-19S like the lower fin fillet.

 

The latest prototype for the MiG-19P was the SM-7/2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anaglob, the SM-9 is the prototype of the first MiG-19 variant, the one with elevators (not all moving stabs) and several other minor aerodynamic differences with the later MiG-19S like the lower fin fillet.

 

The latest prototype for the MiG-19P was the SM-7/2.

 

I agree with you. :)

I'm sorry, I have a subjective opinion based on personal experience, you can not pay attention to it. But the chassis settings, I think, will be useful to you.


Edited by Anaglob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Summer model primary. It seemed to me that the model has excessive volatility with the switched-off engines. Floating in the clouds glider, I liked it! There was a feeling that he was in an upward flow of air.))) Aerodynamic quality of a wing did not measure, but it seemed to me that for such fighter it is excessive.

Record I enclose.

парение на Миг-19.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

Hello CYLON,

 

as there are many that give constructive feedback and criticism there are also many that do the same in a negative way with no other desire than to troll the module. This is a fact.

 

The people charged with working on the aircraft flight model and systems are really busy people, so they can´t be all the time checking their work because two or three posts by different users state that this or that is wrong because "it feels wrong", so any wrong behavior claims should be supported the best people can with hard data.

 

As I have pointed MANY TIMES before, this doesn´t mean that DCS pilots cannot ask about things they don´t think are right. We are more than happy to clear people´s doubts regarding the aircraft behavior as proved many times before as well. Everyone can ask no problem and now you know that the "we won´t pay attention to it" statement is directed at those that come with an absolute "this is wrong because I feel it´s wrong" kind of report.

 

What I really want you to understand is the correct procedure to report a behavior that you don´t think is right. This includes all the information you can give regarding at what speed, altitude, pitch or dive angle and engine regime the problem appeared and if possible a track is also really helpful. If you can back your claims with real life data that will be even better. We will then try to reproduce the problem or wrong behavior in our PCs and will acknowledge or deny the report with correct proof.

 

I´m sorry, but in reality flight experience in T-6 and L-39 aircrafts is not really helpful to judge the MiG-19P behavior. Regarding the reports of the turn performance, the 3d model of the stabs and rudder and the pilot G-load endurance we are aware of this and it has been recognized in later posts and in our Discord channel.

 

Regarding the RD-9B engines performance I´m afraid I have to tell you that it is as close as its real counterpart as possible, even if still there may be some parts that can be tweaked a little more. This has been proved against real life data here in the MiG-19P sub-forum.

 

Since we are the only ones that have the information (as you said), regular updates, plotting the simulated aircraft performance against the real MiG-19P performance charts have been posted showing how close/accurate the current MiG-19P FM is.

 

We are closer to the community than you may think, as some aspects of the aircraft FM and systems have been fixed in base of correct user feedback.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it's fair to suggest anyone here is trolling. You're talking to customers who care about the accuracy of a product they paid for, it's the name of the game in flight simulation. Obviously your people work hard. I know CJ takes his work seriously. That's no reason that your customers should be unable to present concerns about your work, even if those concerns are generalized perceptions.

 

You're lecturing your customer about how to address a concern about the accuracy of your product, but he's doing his best to show you that your own patch notes may be misleading. Your patch notes say that super-cruise should no longer be possible, and he's trying to help you see that this may not be the case. He's using common sense. A MiG-19 flight model shouldn't super-cruise, and yours has already been shown to do so in the past by admission. He's not trolling, ranting, or being rude.

 

Rather than write long replies that suggest your customers bring you real life data and essentially do your work for you, I think you could show a little more genuine concern about possible flaws in your product. This trend of DCS developers complaining back to customers and being defensive is neither productive nor professional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding the RD-9B engines performance I´m afraid I have to tell you that it is as close as its real counterpart as possible, even if still there may be some parts that can be tweaked a little more. This has been proved against real life data here in the MiG-19P sub-forum.

 

...but he's doing his best to show you that your own patch notes may be misleading. Your patch notes say that super-cruise should no longer be possible, and he's trying to help you see that this may not be the case.

 

Hello,

 

just also wanted to show this.

 

The "DCS MiG-19P Status update_First report" thread gave a huge number of improvements, including the statement, that super cruise was possible and than showing a number of graphs regarding mil power level flight acceleration at different altitudes which all ended before Mach 1.0.

 

At this point, many of us think, these changes have been implemented into the patches, but only two points are mentioned in the changelog belong to FM and engine behaviour:

 

Update March 13th 2019:

* Fixed the engine RPM vs thrust spike issue between 9000 to 10000 RPM

 

Update March 27th 2019:

* Flight model improved- spin and recovery

 

Could you please confirm that not all made it into the patch, what was written in the status report thread?

 

I noticed the supercruising thing on my own. Went up to 12000m with mil power at Mach 0.8 to 0.9, leveld out and noticed that after a while the Mach meter showed around Mach 1.02. Maybe the difference is really small, but at this point really annoying, cause without AB the plane should not be able to break the sound barrier at level flight.

 

Please don't give up the good work.

 

Regards

Jens

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please check your scheduled flight without engines. ))))

I have no desire to engage in trolling or insult, no!

I really want to help sort out the flaws to make the plane very good. I like the MiG-19, it's our story. I wish you success in the project. Sincerely, Anaglob.


Edited by Anaglob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of all, that is completely insulting.

 

I´m sorry if you feel this way, it was not my intention to insult you in any way. What I will never tell you is a lie, and in reality, you can´t judge a MiG-19 aircraft by flying in low performance, straight wing aircraft.

 

I´m also not saying that anyone in this thread is a troll and that´s is pretty clear in my post, that will remain there with no changes. I´m just pointing out that we had to deal with many troll posts in this very sub-forum and we are just being careful regarding user feedback while advising the best way you can use to help us, which is to provide as much info as you can when pointing out what you believe are flaws.

 

CYLON, I myself recognized to you the flaws in the turn performance and MIL power speed the aircraft currently have in our Discord and explained to you that is not related with the engine but mostly with the drag tuning, but you still post here that the engine performance is way off. That Discord chat picture you posted proves that. The feedback we receive from the users is quite good, but it´s not helpful to repeat the same thing again and again.

 

I have been quite active here in the forum and in the Discord having quite deep technical discussions sometimes about our aircraft and also comparing real life data with the simulated modules while at the same time trying to clear everyone´s doubts. If this was the wrong approach then let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refueling is complete, there is no suspension.

Flying with the engines off.From a height of 6000 meters to 5000 meters model flew 19.68 kilometers with an average speed of 307 km\h.

From the height of 4000 meters to 3000 meters the model flew 23.25 kilometers with an average instrument speed of 305 km/h. the Decrease was an average of -4 m/sec.

From the height of 3000 meters to 2000 meters the model flew 25.25 kilometers with an average speed of 305 km/h and a decrease in the total -4 m/sec.

From a height of 2000 meters to 1000 meters, the model flew with the landing gear 14.89 km with an average instrument speed of 302 km/h.

With the flaps released, the model went into a gentle decline with a total speed of 288 km/h, while trying to extinguish the rate of decline, the model went into parachuting mode, completely lost lift and crashed.

Conclusion:

Aerodynamic quality "K" model MiG-19P, from a height of 3000 meters, is 25.25. Such an indicator can only boast of a free-floating glider.

Thrust engines affect the lift of the wing at low speed. Releasing the flaps does not create enough lift. With the flaps retracted model plans, sits and takes off better than with the released. The take-off distance without flaps averages 250 meters.

The ratio of the wing area to aerodynamic quality 1/1, Which is more than that of free-floating gliders (l-13 "Blanik", for example, the ratio 1/1.488, "K"=28.5)

I apologize if there are technical errors in the text.


Edited by Anaglob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Refueling is complete, there is no suspension.

Flying with the engines off.From a height of 6000 meters to 5000 meters model flew 19.68 kilometers with an average speed of 307 km\h.

From the height of 4000 meters to 3000 meters the model flew 23.25 kilometers with an average instrument speed of 305 km/h. the Decrease was an average of -4 m/sec.

From the height of 3000 meters to 2000 meters the model flew 25.25 kilometers with an average speed of 305 km/h and a decrease in the total -4 m/sec.

From a height of 2000 meters to 1000 meters, the model flew with the landing gear 14.89 km with an average instrument speed of 302 km/h.

With the flaps released, the model went into a gentle decline with a total speed of 288 km/h, while trying to extinguish the rate of decline, the model went into parachuting mode, completely lost lift and crashed.

Conclusion:

Aerodynamic quality "K" model MiG-19P, from a height of 3000 meters, is 25.25. Such an indicator can only boast of a free-floating glider.

Thrust engines affect the lift of the wing at low speed. Releasing the flaps does not create enough lift. With the flaps retracted model plans, sits and takes off better than with the released. The take-off distance without flaps averages 250 meters.

The ratio of the wing area to aerodynamic quality 1/1, Which is more than that of free-floating gliders (l-13 "Blanik", for example, the ratio 1/1.488, "K"=28.5)

I apologize if there are technical errors in the text.

 

 

I've tried out how it glides with the following results (roughly): (engines off)

 

 

at 600 km/h vertical speed is around 23 m/s (L/D 7)

at 390 km/h -----------------------8 m/s (L/D 13)<-- that is already too much

at 300 km/h -----------------------4 m/s (L/D 21)<-- My calculation is less accurate than yours, but confirms the problem!

 

 

For reference, the Mig-15 bis:

 

at 600 km/h vertical speed is around 25 m/s (L/D 6,5)

at 390 km/h -----------------------10m/s (L/D 10)

at 300 km/h -----------------------8 m/s (L/D 10)

 

So compared to the Mig-15 it seems to be almost exactly the same, down until below 400km/h, when it suddenly starts to glide twice better. Clearly bugged.

 

 

Please treat this as a bug report. Move to bug section if you whish.

 

See track attached!

Mig-19 glide.trk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I do hope RAZBAM are giving the FM top priority atm, anything else would be a big mistake.

 

Personally I am still holding back on purchasing the module until I hear good stuff about the FM, and I know several people who feel exactly the same, the FM is afterall THE most important bit to get right in a flight simulator.

 

So please RAZBAM, do your outmost to perfect the flight model before diverting your attention elsewhere. It really is the key to making your module successful and well liked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when you guys said you wanted to release the mig-19 in a near finished state the fm was the last thing i expected corners to be cut on.

 

i have likewise been withholding my purchase until greater confidence can be put in the fm.


Edited by probad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the FM is still broken?

 

I'm holding off until its "finished"

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there are minor inaccuracies, but yes FM is ok. Major problems with spins, fall etc. were fixed. Now in the same quality as Mig-15 have. I like this module :thumbup:

Some trolls will be always doing his work :D


Edited by Magot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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