(Mig-21) Rear View Mirror - Remove in options

[kushoon]

Hi, would it be possible to have an option in the special section of the Mig-21 to remove the rear view mirror from the canopy glass so that we can have full unobstructed view?

I find it completely unnecessary as I cannot see enemies up and above because of that massive rear view mirror assembly and its almost useless in tracking bandits on my six. 

[Matuchkin]

The ingame model is a representation of the MiG-21Bis Fishbed-N, which had the mirror. If the mirror were to be removed as you requested, the aircraft would no longer be that. It would in fact be a fictional aircraft.

 

What you want is equivalent to asking whether or not the main pitot boom can be removed, or whether the canopy can be opened forward like on the MiG-21F13, or whether the nosewheel can have mechanical steering. They can't, because this is a simulation of a real aircraft that existed and never had these features.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Matuchkin

[Red Yeti]

With the weapons and targeting system available, the plane is fiction anyway.

[Matuchkin]

10 hours ago, Red Yeti said:

With the weapons and targeting system available, the plane is fiction anyway.

Uh no, it isn't. If you give it a realistic loadout, it will be a good representation of its real life counterpart.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "targeting system". The ASP and RP-22 are both simulated very well to my knowledge.

Edited September 19, 2021 by Matuchkin

[portman]

Am 19.9.2021 um 10:15 schrieb Red Yeti:

With the weapons and targeting system available, the plane is fiction anyway.

Indeed, the same with the completely absurd ARC functionality, the incomplete SAU, the half-baked RSBN and several incorrectly assigned buttons. Somebody who says this MiG is a good representation of the real life counterpart just has no inkling about the real thing.

[rossmum]

17 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

Uh no, it isn't. If you give it a realistic loadout, it will be a good representation of its real life counterpart.

 

I don't understand what you mean by "targeting system". The ASP and RP-22 are both simulated very well to my knowledge.

 

The ASP is actually the nexus of several of the module's best-known issues, including a good mix of actual bugs and incorrect modelling. Use actual original documentation as your source for what is correct and what isn't, not community-made guides, other games, or the module itself. RP-22 has some issues and potentially more than currently known, because documentation for it is incredibly hard to get a hold of, but hopefully that situation will see some improvement at some point. Then we have the entire radio nav suite and the autopilot, the latter of which is enormously underrepresented and would make life a lot easier if it worked as it's meant to.

 

In fact, to your point about unrealistically including nosewheel steering or mechanical assistance - the module does include a subtle form of assistance for steering, which is why you will find its ground handling substantially different to the other early MiGs in DCS. The aircraft was known to have excellent rudder authority at surprisingly low speeds, but I think enough to make subtle turns even at 20-30km/h might be taking some liberties.

Edited September 20, 2021 by rossmum

[Matuchkin]

On 9/20/2021 at 7:28 AM, rossmum said:

 

The ASP is actually the nexus of several of the module's best-known issues, including a good mix of actual bugs and incorrect modelling. Use actual original documentation as your source for what is correct and what isn't, not community-made guides, other games, or the module itself. RP-22 has some issues and potentially more than currently known, because documentation for it is incredibly hard to get a hold of, but hopefully that situation will see some improvement at some point. Then we have the entire radio nav suite and the autopilot, the latter of which is enormously underrepresented and would make life a lot easier if it worked as it's meant to.

 

In fact, to your point about unrealistically including nosewheel steering or mechanical assistance - the module does include a subtle form of assistance for steering, which is why you will find its ground handling substantially different to the other early MiGs in DCS. The aircraft was known to have excellent rudder authority at surprisingly low speeds, but I think enough to make subtle turns even at 20-30km/h might be taking some liberties.

 

Spoiler

I understand then. The following is what I am currently reading through to learn about the ASP and radar, I believe they are several excerpts from the notes of a MiG-21PFM pilot (the section with the relevant materiel is lower):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LdfUyHuZ5cPuE6QBpU2bzXaLndyPl5Oi/view?usp=sharing

 

I think my problem was that these notes go through equipment usage/user IO, but not equipment behavior. While I cannot find numbers on RP-22 behaviour (its various basic display functions seem to work though, and I notice a discrepancy between displayed range and that which is reported by ingame GCI), I have compared what I could find about the ASP PFD with at least its ingame representation.

 

ASP PFD Basic IO, including gunsight visual reaction to said IO:

The lighting and ranging indicator system on the ASP works well according to what I see and breakoff/launch auth indicators behave correctly. The mode switches (P/RS, S/B, AVT/RUCh) and SS/GIRO switches seem to work correctly. All knobs pertaining to fixed cage/mobile cage and parameters such as brightness work. The deflection knob is aligned correctly, and so is the wingspan knob.

 

ASP PFD observed behavioral properties, my experiences with them:

I have used the automatic ranging and intercept function once and it seemed to work, but I don't have enough experience with it to comment.

I can confirm from my end that I have experienced expected air-to-ground targeting inaccuracies in angular, velocity, and altitude regions outside the parameters listed for the ASP PFD - these inaccuracies are largely prevalent above -30 degrees of pitch during the combat dive and outside the distance parameters of the ASP. To my knowledge, they conform to the expected behavior of the gunsight.

 

So perhaps the well known issues appear due to the interaction between the ASP and radar - i.e. radar-based weapons ranging data, behavior in and out of beam mode. This is something that I cannot comment on, so this area may be where these aforementioned issues come from. It also seems to that (a) the fact that the top of the fixed net is cut off is expected, (b) there should be only one X at 11.5 mils, instead of 2, (c) the actual angular values of the components of the fixed net and moving net don't seem to hold their true values or are slightly off (small markers 6T, large markers 12T, distance from one large marker to the next 20T, etc).

 

For numbers on aircraft performance, I have picked up the following document. Again, its in Russian so my apologies, but there are sections at which mostly acronyms and numbers are used, so someone who doesn't know the language could conceivably understand certain parts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h8l6PbOrNwAab4WU8kc2gWtSKC24Vlo_/view?usp=sharing

 

This is a document on flight and technical characteristics for the MiG-21 Bis. Unfortunately it's for 75A, but this one doesn't seem to contain information on navigation so Polyot/Lazur is irrelevant. I suspect this is because this is book 1 of a series of 4 such manuals, the other three of which I am currently searching for. Nevertheless, this one contains parameters on flight characteristics, instruments, fuel consumption, et al, which should be useful for analyzing normal flight. It is detailed enough that it contains information you couldn't possibly need or acquire inflight, and I admit that I have not read through everything.

 

The very last pages (pg 116 until end of table 5) contains general characteristics (weight params, distance from CG to MAC, etc) for every permitted payload the aircraft has. This was what I used to make my earlier conclusion that most payloads, save for the R60 series, present on the MiG-21 Bis ingame are realistic.

(I. Options without tanks; II. Options with 800L tanks; III. Options with 2x490L; IV. Options with 3x490L)

 

I have noticed that, upon accelerating to at or above 60kph (as instructed) during taxi in the NAVIG. nosewheel regime, my rudder has enough authority to maintain direction, but not enough to make any meaningful turns without use of hydraulic brakes. Can you confirm this?

 

I would like to know what documentation you use, and how you make your conclusions. I understand the above word dump likely sounds extremely snobbish, but the truth is that I am new to analyzing simulated aircraft like this and I would like to know, from someone who has dealt with this before, whether I'm thinking correctly here and whether you observe the same.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Matuchkin

[Frederf]

The ASP is wrong in a lot of ways. I could go into detail but you really have to have your eyes shut to not notice the errors. Be careful as there are multiple variants of ASP-PFD-21 (mk 1, mk 2, mk 3, mk 4, maybe more) with small differences. The SAU is mostly missing one of its biggest features: stabilize. You should be able to fire 1 AA missile and take your hand off the stick and not roll. There are some minor errors with the radar and a few other things which aren't attempted (variable ECM mode, how chaff rejection works). In my comparison of supersonic acceleration to documented values the DCS version outperformed by a factor of 3 (100s what the book says takes 300s).

 

But I don't think mirror removal is a reasonable request. It's part of the airplane just like the left wing is. There is no removing the mirror just like there is no removing the left wing. The mirror can be flipped down though so you can do your makeup. The housing is fixed though.

[rossmum]

2 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I understand then. The following is what I am currently reading through to learn about the ASP and radar, I believe they are several excerpts from the notes of a MiG-21PFM pilot (the section with the relevant materiel is lower):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LdfUyHuZ5cPuE6QBpU2bzXaLndyPl5Oi/view?usp=sharing

 

I think my problem was that these notes go through equipment usage/user IO, but not equipment behavior. While I cannot find numbers on RP-22 behaviour (its various basic display functions seem to work though, and I notice a discrepancy between displayed range and that which is reported by ingame GCI), I have compared what I could find about the ASP PFD with at least its ingame representation.

 

ASP PFD Basic IO, including gunsight visual reaction to said IO:

The lighting and ranging indicator system on the ASP works well according to what I see and breakoff/launch auth indicators behave correctly. The mode switches (P/RS, S/B, AVT/RUCh) and SS/GIRO switches seem to work correctly. All knobs pertaining to fixed cage/mobile cage and parameters such as brightness work. The deflection knob is aligned correctly, and so is the wingspan knob.

 

ASP PFD observed behavioral properties, my experiences with them:

I have used the automatic ranging and intercept function once and it seemed to work, but I don't have enough experience with it to comment.

I can confirm from my end that I have experienced expected air-to-ground targeting inaccuracies in angular, velocity, and altitude regions outside the parameters listed for the ASP PFD - these inaccuracies are largely prevalent above -30 degrees of pitch during the combat dive and outside the distance parameters of the ASP. To my knowledge, they conform to the expected behavior of the gunsight.

 

So perhaps the well known issues appear due to the interaction between the ASP and radar - i.e. radar-based weapons ranging data, behavior in and out of beam mode. This is something that I cannot comment on, so this area may be where these aforementioned issues come from. It also seems to that (a) the fact that the top of the fixed net is cut off is expected, (b) there should be only one X at 11.5 mils, instead of 2, (c) the actual angular values of the components of the fixed net and moving net don't seem to hold their true values or are slightly off (small markers 6T, large markers 12T, distance from one large marker to the next 20T, etc).

 

For numbers on aircraft performance, I have picked up the following document. Again, its in Russian so my apologies, but there are sections at which mostly acronyms and numbers are used, so someone who doesn't know the language could conceivably understand certain parts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1h8l6PbOrNwAab4WU8kc2gWtSKC24Vlo_/view?usp=sharing

 

This is a document on flight and technical characteristics for the MiG-21 Bis. Unfortunately it's for 75A, but this one doesn't seem to contain information on navigation so Polyot/Lazur is irrelevant. I suspect this is because this is book 1 of a series of 4 such manuals, the other three of which I am currently searching for. Nevertheless, this one contains parameters on flight characteristics, instruments, fuel consumption, et al, which should be useful for analyzing normal flight. It is detailed enough that it contains information you couldn't possibly need or acquire inflight, and I admit that I have not read through everything.

 

The very last pages (pg 116 until end of table 5) contains general characteristics (weight params, distance from CG to MAC, etc) for every permitted payload the aircraft has. This was what I used to make my earlier conclusion that most payloads, save for the R60 series, present on the MiG-21 Bis ingame are realistic.

(I. Options without tanks; II. Options with 800L tanks; III. Options with 2x490L; IV. Options with 3x490L)

 

I have noticed that, upon accelerating to at or above 60kph (as instructed) during taxi in the NAVIG. nosewheel regime, my rudder has enough authority to maintain direction, but not enough to make any meaningful turns without use of hydraulic brakes. Can you confirm this?

 

I would like to know what documentation you use, and how you make your conclusions. I understand the above word dump likely sounds extremely snobbish, but the truth is that I am new to analyzing simulated aircraft like this and I would like to know, from someone who has dealt with this before, whether I'm thinking correctly here and whether you observe the same.

 

 

The real life pilot's operating handbook for a start, but there are also mechanics floating around who you can ask, as well as a couple of pilots on the Russian forums. In fact, if you go to the Russian forums, you'll probably notice they have a longer list than I do.

 

I can tell you right now there's a nice, simple experiment you can do: take a Ka-50, turn on the LWR, and then fly a MiG-21 around it. Watch what happens.

 

Currently, the slant range unit (which is what should be doing the work for CCIP) is not modelled. You may also notice that as you're taxiing on the ground in certain ASP modes, the reticle will expand and shrink as the nose dips towards the ground, even when the radar is off. The module uses an invisible, always-on laser to do A/G rangefinding. It was the first third party module and began life as a mod, and workarounds like that are common for mods - it's just that the 21 is still using them. This is why an aircraft which had absolutely no lasers of any variety in real life sets off the Ka-50's LWR in the sim.

There should be no CCIP at all for bombs, bomb dropping was done via manual reticle depression and drop tables, like the F-5. The CCIP for guns/rockets is correct to the best of my knowledge. ASP stuff is pg 58/59 of the English translation of the POH and there are other supplements floating around the Russian forums, including diagrams of the actual switch logic in the unit. The POH itself makes scant reference to bombing, but notably only describes provision for aimed dive bombing, while it is much more explicit about what we'd now call CCIP when using gun/rockets.

 

RSBN doesn't match up with any of the stations used for other FF aircraft, because the MiG-21 uses its own 'canned' implementation. This is why the channels are all different between it and other aircraft equipped with this system - the module predates proper RSBN implementation and never retroactively received it. Likewise its ARK system is a separate implementation unique to the module and missing aspects of how the ARK is actually meant to work, like the function of the near/far switch.

 

The autopilot has one issue that is an artefact of how DCS controls work, which is that the system does not disconnect unless you press the disconnect button. Simply applying force to the stick is enough to do this in real life, the stick base has a ring of 8 microswitches (stacked 2 vertically at each of the cardinal directions) that bump against the inside of the stick extension and allow the pilot to quickly make a manoeuvre and then allow the autopilot to resume working. This is an annoyance, but understandable as you'd need a force feedback stick to simulate it at all on the user's end. The other big issue it has is that the stabilise mode should essentially function as an attitude hold, including rolling the wings level if they're within a few degrees of bank, with the pilot able to make trim inputs as well as override the stick in the same manner as the above to manoeuvre. In DCS, enabling the mode makes little difference aside from damping roll response enough to prevent accurate rolling increments, and requires a separate keypress that does not match any button in the cockpit to enter an attitude hold mode - which you cannot override manually, you have to turn it off, make an input, then do it all again.

 

 

The ARU will stop accounting for the relationship between speed and altitude above, from memory, 7km and go immediately into its long arm position as if you're ready for landing. I'm still digging for the specific mention of whether this is accurate or not in the POH as I tend to skim for relevant sections when I need to check something, but I don't believe this is entirely accurate and it leads to both extremely twitchy flight at high Mach numbers, and also a pronounced and jarring 'kick' as you break down through that altitude in a high speed dive. It's abrupt and violent enough that the first time I experienced it I thought I'd lost a wing or been hit by a missile, it wasn't until I caught sight of the ARU needle ripping across from longest arm to shortest arm in the space of about half a second that I realised what it was.

 

The IFF system currently treats the izd. 81 switch as a power switch. In reality this is a lockwired switch that should only be flipped when ordered, as the izd. 81 box is there specifically to scramble IFF codes in case of compromise. Obviously this is not a thing you want to be doing normally.

 

I have heard from multiple sources, but am yet to confirm via documentation, that the aircraft should have something akin to a seeker uncage mode as the weapon release is held in to fire. Nothing like this is modelled in DCS.

 

The electrical system will allow you to turn things on or off in whatever order you like, with or without the engine up and running, with no consequences, so starting by-the-book is unnecessary in DCS as you can just slam everything on before the engine even finishes spooling.

 

The radar has a few issues, some of which are constraints of how it is coded ingame, some of which aren't. It's overall too sensitive, it can't see the new clouds, it doesn't display chaff (this is probably a DCS level issue to be fair), and my understanding is that clutter should appear as contacts (similar to jamming strobes) rather than just vague blurry haze, making contact sorting much harder than it is now. The documents have proven elusive but maybe we'll see some changes here at some point.

 

R-60s are realistic on a 21bis, I think they were cleared for service after the manuals are written as the POH lacks them as well but they were routinely photographed in use in the real world. RS-2US and Kh-66 are not as the RP-22 radar could not support either weapon, they were used on the MF whose radar could support them and could not support R-3R.

 

The rudder does indeed provide enough authority to keep the aircraft straight (or straighten out after a turn) at much lower speeds than anything else. It isn't enough to actively steer with, but it makes a huge difference in how you taxi - the first time I tried either MiG-15 or MiG-19 I kept ending up oversteering or understeering and ending up in the grass, because I was used to having the plane do more of the work for me.

 

There are probably other things I'm forgetting here and there, and there are features which aren't finished or are awaiting rework. We just got a fun new feature to play with recently in the form of the boundary layer system inhibiting AB lightoff. Overall it's still my favourite module to fly and a lot of its issues stem from its lineage and age, but over the past three years of owning and flying it as well as reading up on the real aircraft and talking to people on the Russian side of the fence, there are a lot of ways where the DCS simulation of its systems does not match up with reality and it becomes all the more obvious once you're dealing with the same or similar systems in other Soviet aircraft modules from a similar period.

 

As for the mirror... the entire periscope assembly is part of the canopy. You can't just remove it, you'd need to find a canopy without it. There are photos floating around of 21Rs with no periscope, but if you look closely, you'll notice the external housing has been removed but the actual cutout and base support for it is still there and has just been blanked over. If you have VR or headtracking it should be a non-issue anyway; if you don't, I can understand it'd be an annoyance, but it's there on the real aircraft and you'll just have to live with it. In any case, it's fantastic for checking behind you and with it, your only rearwards blindspot with a little head movement is what's masked by your own fuselage.

[Matuchkin]

14 hours ago, Frederf said:

The SAU is mostly missing one of its biggest features: stabilize. You should be able to fire 1 AA missile and take your hand off the stick and not roll. There are some minor errors with the radar and a few other things which aren't attempted (variable ECM mode, how chaff rejection works).

Wow - my impression of the stab mode was that it served as a primitive oscillation damper for aircraft movement, I didn't know it had the above purpose. That is a pretty big oversight on a model of an aircraft that doesn't have roll trim specifically because of this system.

 

@rossmum I believe I have found that POH. Is this the one you're using?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FZN487bOKkmHAnw702T13r5ekhrP1xd0/view?usp=sharing

 

Edit: and looking at the POH, here's about the SAU stab mode:

So indeed it dampens stick input and enables the trimmer (which may explain why the trim does not work in normal flight). The roll stabilization function is what appears to be missing.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Matuchkin

[Frederf]

I learned a few things there but I can add a few.

• Pressing the SORC caution button multiple times isn't a thing. If there are 10 systems producing a caution state you just press the button once.
• The 1-9km range scale on the sight only works in AA-CC-firing-auto mode. In every single other case it's the 2km scale.
• The separation of the range marks represent 0 range at a significant width equal the to the marks on the scope glass.
• The engine will begin the start process with the throttle handle latched off.
• In anti-jam mode the throttle twist should change the anti-jam radar sensitivity
• Range needle not 600m fixed range when no radar target in auto (but is in man, backward)
• Missile-firing PUS switch needed for bomb release.
• Ground checks which need DC and AC ground power not possible
• Engine flames out at idle at minimum throttle very fast
• Emergency pump switch is not normally on
• ARK waves switch doesn't switch between channel categories, 9 stations is max not 8x9.
• Letdown mode is affected if AA-AG switch in AG
• External fuel tanks are not drawn wing before center
• Reticle/backup reticle "power" switches should just be between primary and backup bulbs
• CC-gyro in gyro during landing can damage it
• PRMG glideslope way too steep
• PRMG localizer too narrow
• AGD director bars not central when not in approach mode
• RSBN manual az/range switches not spring-loaded
• Needle in corner sight should show effective missile range not range to target
• Angle set at 6° puts pipper at 60mil (3.4°)
• Can't set range needle with throttle twist in man / Can set range needle with throttle in auto (backward)
• 300m range /25m span does not give reticle diameter 83mrad (less than 50) when in AA gunnery mode
• Reticle changes size when switching above to AA rockets (shouldn't), doesn't dip (should)

 

I have strong doubts that ARU controller is working right. Instead of a smooth changeover it has a sharp switch to short arm at a certain altitude. I believe the ratio controller should have the largest arm setting which violates neither the speed or alt number on the dial. I.e. the needle goes fully CCW as far as it's allowed based on airspeed or altitude. For flight >850 km/h the needle goes from 4 to 7km CCW as you climb as basically a repeat of the altimeter. At 849 km/h at 6999m alt the needle should be essentially all the way to the long arm.

 

A screen of a spreadsheet which shows what I think the relationship might be, red short arm, green short arm.

Edited September 23, 2021 by Frederf

[rossmum]

14 hours ago, Matuchkin said:

Wow - my impression of the stab mode was that it served as a primitive oscillation damper for aircraft movement, I didn't know it had the above purpose. That is a pretty big oversight on a model of an aircraft that doesn't have roll trim specifically because of this system.

 

@rossmum I believe I have found that POH. Is this the one you're using?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FZN487bOKkmHAnw702T13r5ekhrP1xd0/view?usp=sharing

 

Edit: and looking at the POH, here's about the SAU stab mode:

So indeed it dampens stick input and enables the trimmer (which may explain why the trim does not work in normal flight). The roll stabilization function is what appears to be missing.

 

Yep, that's the one. Note as well the mention of those limitations does imply that it functions as a full-blown attitude hold by default, while currently it only performs that task if you press an 'imaginary' keybind - and you can't really use it in that role anyway, as you have to fully disconnect and then re-engage the system to make any manoeuvres, rather than just using a little extra force to overcome the AP. An implementation more like the Mirage or Viggen stick overrides would be enormously more useful for DCS pilots, even without FFB. Maybe deflecting the stick out of a certain small deadzone can act as a disconnect or something and it can re-enable when the stick returns to neutral.

[Frederf]

It doesn't even work that way. Put it at +10 pitch and 10R bank, let go of stick, and engage stab mode. It won't hold those figures. Also when in stab mode the trimmer button should no longer trim the tail surface. Instead it acts as an input for the pitch hold channel to change the held pitch angle.

[Northstar98]

@rossmum @Frederf

Wow, those are very long list of issues with the MiG-21bis, I thought it had a couple of issues but not as much as that. Damn...

I sincerely hope that M3 someday will address as much of it as possible, though perhaps these would be suited better in their own seperate thread.

@Hiromachi is it possible to take a look at all of this?

Edited November 24, 2021 by Northstar98
formatting

[Hiromachi]

I am looking at it all the time buddy. We have a list of priorities but there is also time for bug fixes. Right now we will be trying to prioritize fixes for the radar. 

[Fynek]

On 10/2/2021 at 3:56 PM, Hiromachi said:

I am looking at it all the time buddy. We have a list of priorities but there is also time for bug fixes. Right now we will be trying to prioritize fixes for the radar. 

That is for me really a fantastic news to learn that you are still working on the Mig21, I really hope that we will see an update of it, I would pay for that like i paid for the A10CII or the BlackShark update.

Please make it happen, this module is really special in many ways and thank you for sharing this info.