How's leatherneck sims?

[Callsign112]

5 hours ago, Boosterdog said:

Im sorta the opposite though I have a spitfire somewhere from years ago....... which I why I read your post and said aloud "its not a Corsair, its a Crusader" 

My bad. I thought you were thinking I was confusing the Corsair and the Crusader. I had to read your post twice to get its meaning... I think!

Your a jet guy getting back into props with the Corsair, and I am more into War Birds and want to support third parties like Magnitude 3LLC for the great work they are obviously doing.

[303_Kermit]

On 8/21/2021 at 7:02 PM, TLTeo said:

(...)but the Mig-21 is a really good module.

Except SAU not working properly, ARU not even in slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m) pulling hard with ARU in manual mode set in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G. 
Plane is able to sustain 9,8 G (it was reduced couple months ago from previous bigger value). However many MiG-21 pilots reported exceding G over "11" without damaging a plane in DCS MiG sustain just 9,8G. If you pull 8,5 G crazy ARU may cause exceding G to over 10 and brake your... Wing tips (sic!) instead of bending your wing, but it's ok. You can fly (and land) MiG-21 without wings anyway.
Other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting unguided rockets with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy. It gives you precise hit point for FAB's with wind correction. A ballistic table For manual bombing with various dive angles and sight deflection angles doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since I play DCS, Letherneck / Magnitude never attempted to correct these issues. 

Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie).

If you report any problem the answer is "It's old module so we're not supporting it - in fact you shall be graceful for everything we make around it anyway. You shall not expect any support for an oldest DCS module. Currently all resources are directed towards F-4U anyway. No MiG-21 major updates before F-4U release."

Except that, it's a legendary plane, and most neglected module in DCS

With my best regards
Kermit

Edited November 21, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[QuiGon]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

Except SAU not working properly, ARU not even slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m pulling hard with ARU in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G.
other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting missiles with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy, Bombing table for various dive angle and defflection doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since i play DCS. 

If you report any problem the answer is "It's old module so we're not supporting it - in fat you shall be graceful for everything we make around it"

Except that, it's a legendary plane, and most neglected module in DCS

With my best regards
Kermit

This! Well, except the alleged dev response. I actually don't see the devs responding much at all to these issues...

[Art-J]

^ Although I'd absolutely love to have a more up-to-date and accurately modelled -21 as many others here, I have to ask - seriously, what world do some of you guys live in and what do you expect? Every PC game / addon / any software product for that matter has a fixed, practical shelf-life after which support either ends completely or is limited to making sure the product only launches at all. The fact that it's still sold doesn't change anything. It's no different to Win-XP and Win-7 dedicated programs that one can still legally buy, even though they're not supopsed to be used anymore. In DCS universe ex-Belsimtek modules are a good example as well, cause no matter what NineLine and BigNewy say (or are allowed to say), in practical terms they're expensive abandonware nowadays.

At some point, unless developer offers a paid overhaul (like for A-10C of Ka-50), updating and bugfixing becomes not financially viable. So yeah, if M3 say they will throw in some last free  tweaks for the MiG after F4U is done, I don't realistically expect anything more.

[303_Kermit]

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

(...)The fact that it's still sold doesn't change anything. (...)

Would you buy a new car that's broken? Or Ice creams with salmonella? Or maybe would you like to buy flat-screen with some broken pixels? For a guy who buys MiG-21 from Letherneck it's not an old module. It's brand new, and he has right to expect it to work properly. If it's not possible, and MiG-21 is considered "out of date" like old sausage, consider similar procedure. Remove outdated product from the shelf. Otherwise it's unfair.

Anyway. A subject of the topic was "how's Letherneck sims?" I gave a fair feedback. I don't demand anything. I give a fair customer review. Compared to Heatblur, Rasbam or other 3'rd party they're IMO not recommended. 

Edited November 21, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[marcin34-13]

4 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

Except SAU not working properly, ARU not even in slightest way working properly, Radar much to efficient at low altitude, Strangely modeled elevator behavior at high altitudes (over 15 000m) pulling hard with ARU in manual mode set in position "Take off" (strangely it's also the same position in "Auto" mode on these altitude) gives slight, gentle turn with about 2G. 
Plane is able to sustain 9,8 G (it was reduced couple months ago from previous bigger value). However many MiG-21 pilots reported exceding G over "11" without damaging a plane in DCS MiG sustain just 9,8G. If you pull 8,5 G crazy ARU may cause exceding G to over 10 and brake your... Wing tips (sic!) instead of bending your wing, but it's ok. You can fly (and land) MiG-21 without wings anyway.
Other case is gyro sight - switch positions give different effect as expected: in pure Gyro mode only 300m range works as expected, auto ranging works different as expected (based on original flight instruction), A2G mode - shooting unguided rockets with rdr ranging and gyro gives also wind correction -> way too acurate, A2G bombing sight is a pure fantasy. It gives you precise hit point for FAB's with wind correction. A ballistic table For manual bombing with various dive angles and sight deflection angles doesn't exist. Also MiG-21 Cluster bombs are able to kill every server since I play DCS, Letherneck / Magnitude never attempted to correct these issues. 

Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie).

If you report any problem the answer is "It's old module so we're not supporting it - in fact you shall be graceful for everything we make around it anyway. You shall not expect any support for an oldest DCS module. Currently all resources are directed towards F-4U anyway. No MiG-21 major updates before F-4U release."

Except that, it's a legendary plane, and most neglected module in DCS

With my best regards
Kermit

 

Good opinion, hear this guy out, he knows what is he saying. Every people flying MiG-21bis in dcs who is interested, who is serious about flying in this module will say the same.

[Art-J]

@303_KermitNothing wrong about giving feedback in itself, but your comparisons here are a logical phallacy - you compare things which are supposed to work as designed but broke later (ie. bugs) to things in MiG, which are not bugs, but features - poorly implemented / simplified ones for sure, but also done this way by design (whether because of insufficient programing skills of Novak, or lack of sufficient documentation is a topic for another discussion). It's almost as if you purchased FC3-level module and complained about discovering non-clickable cockpits and simplified avionics systems. 

Same with the MiG-21. Because of its FC3 mod origins, its source code and features will always sit somewhere between FC3 and ED modules (I guess nowadays one could compare it to community A-4E mod in some aspects) and it's just impractical to expect the plane to be anything more at this point without a complete rewrite, which is never going ot happen unless new payware version is developed from ground up.

I agree that the module is not a good choice for a new customer who likes operating plane by the real life manuals, and it's good that you highlighted these discrepancies. However, as long as the customer is aware if its simplifications and is OK with them, there's no reason why the product should be pulled off the shelf.

[Bremspropeller]

On 11/21/2022 at 9:19 AM, 303_Kermit said:

Engine flames out after exceding 1300KIAS which is a total fantasy (and explanation given in DCS manual is made-up total fiction. It doesn't fit liquid mechanic, or jet engine behavior). Speed shall be limited by loosing longitudinal/directional stability and there is a proper description how it works in real MiG-21. And "the devs " are well aware about it. Modelling a proper behavior is too much effort i suppose? Engine flame out (due to over-speeding) is pure fiction (and a lie).

Please elaborate. What's supposed to happen?

[303_Kermit]

On 11/22/2022 at 10:26 AM, Bremspropeller said:

Please elaborate. What's supposed to happen?

Sure.

First problem (that I'm aware of) appears by Ma >> 1. There is no possibility of reaching CL max on dynamic altitude. The biggest reason of it is fast build up of a drag (while increasing AoA) which prohibits exploiting bigger AoA. In other words you may pull a stick but everything you get is loss of speed.
Independently there may be other reasons of stall at big Ma numbers. Due to a gradually decreasing directional stability (on dynamic altitude while increasing Ma number), there is a possibility of uncontrolled, big angle side-slip. description of plane Behavior is given on chart:
H - (first line from the top) altitude
Ma - Ma number (2,1 in those test)
delta v (thrird line) - rotation around vertical axis (+ is counter-clockwise)
delta l (4-th line) - rotation around longitudinal axis
delta h (5-th line) - rotation around horizontal axis
omega x, y, z - rotation speeds in rad / s. usually x is longitudinal axis, y horizontal, and z vertical
nz, ny - G in horizontal axis (left right), nz - classic G , in vertical axis.


The result of these phenomena was a stall. It occurred on so called "dynamical altitude". High Ma (>>1) stall, on lower (static) altitudes is not much different, however there are more reasons for stall on high altitudes since there is no (or rather is much smaller) aerodynamic damping of plane oscillations. 

On approach to a speed of instability plane starts side oscillations from wing to wing. Oscillations become intenser by closing to critical speed. Main source of instability is gyroscopic moment of an engine. 

Depending on pilot skill MiG-21 were repeatedly exceeding maximum allowed speed. There are many relations available in YT

With my respect
303_Kermit

Edited November 23, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

Sure.

First problem (that I'm aware of) appears by Ma >> 1. There is no possibility of reaching CL max on dynamic altitude. The biggest reason of it is fast build up of a drag (while increasing AoA) which prohibits exploiting bigger AoA. In other words you may pull a stick but everything you get is loss of speed.
Independently there may be other reasons of stall at big Ma numbers. Due to a gradually decreasing directional stability (on dynamic altitude while increasing Ma number), there is a possibility of uncontrolled, big angle side-slip. description of plane Behavior is given on chart:
H - (first line from the top) altitude
Ma - Ma number (2,1 in those test)
delta v (thrird line) - rotation around vertical axis (+ is counter-clockwise)
delta l (4-th line) - rotation around longitudinal axis
delta h (5-th line) - rotation around horizontal axis
omega x, y, z - rotation speeds in rad / s. usually x is longitudinal axis, y horizontal, and z vertical
nz, ny - G in horizontal axis (left right), nz - classic G , in vertical axis.


The result of these phenomena was a stall. It occurred on so called "dynamical altitude". High Ma (>>1) stall, on lower (static) altitudes is not much different, however there are more reasons for stall on high altitudes since there is no (or rather is much smaller) aerodynamic damping of plane oscillations. 

On approach to a speed of instability plane starts side oscillations from wing to wing. Oscillations become intenser by closing to critical speed. Main source of instability is gyroscopic moment of an engine. 

Depending on pilot skill MiG-21 were repeatedly exceeding maximum allowed speed. There are many relations available in YT

With my greatest respect to mr. Hiromachi
303_Kermit

 

Thanks for the insight, Kermit. In terms of high Mach turns, you'd also lose some G due to the CoL coming aft and robbing you of effective stabilator travel.

I was more interested in the "engine out" behaviour, though. Many aircraft-types have exceeded their limit Mach during their service-time*. So just defning an arbitrary number, where the engine stalls or will go out may not be overly realistic - at the same time, exceeding the limit numbers willingly on every single flight (which is what you'd see then) also isn't quite realistic. It's hard to define the middle ground between being forced to stay within the boundaries of the envelope and completely gaming the game. Especially since every gamer defines this boundary differently.

Generally, there's a couple of scary things conspiring against the pilot if he's willing to exceed max Mach by some substantial margin:

- the shock-heating will lead to structural creep

- the CoL travelling aft and the thin air lead to lower dampening of pertubations; usually in Yaw this becomes limiting quickly

- if you fly through an OAT pertubation (and hence a signifigant instant shift of Mach), your intake might unstart as it's mismatched with the actual Mach**

- if you swallow your intake-shockwave your compressor will burp, leading to all kinds of different outcomes

___

*For example there's a quote by an F1C pilot having gone to M2.27 during an intercept exercise with the whole flight and nobody even recognized it - only after the flight, they'd found out they had been going much faster than the normal limit - the LIM light (wired to the TAT sensor) didn't come on as the atmosphere was particularily cold that day

** Lots of interesting stories of SR-71 and Concorde concerning this phenomenon

[303_Kermit]

38 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

(...)

I was more interested in the "engine out" behaviour, though. (...)

I see that supersonic flow isn't unknown subject for you, also a physics of a shock-wave is not strange to you, so I won't pretend smarter than I am, and I I'll avoid boring (and not so basic) explanations. 
Basic fluid mechanic and airflow inside of Jet engine demands, that all air that wents inside an engine must be subsonic. So No matter how fast you go, inside of an air inlet airflow must stay subsonic. It's simple. There are many quite nice explanations on how it works. I found out quite nice video. See for example these one here.
https://youtu.be/636ANEHgEOo?t=81

Explanation about how works an inlet of MiG-21 starts in 4:30. Basically such type of an inlet works fine for Ma >> 2. (Here a foto of Blackbird in given YT video is not exactly a good choice, but that's completely other subject and another story).

my best regards
303_Kermit

Edited November 23, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

19 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

I see that supersonic flow isn't unknown subject for you, also a physics of a shock-wave is not strange to you, so I won't pretend smarter than I am, and I I'll avoid boring (and not so basic) explanations. 
Basic fluid mechanic and airflow inside of Jet engine demands, that all air that wents inside an engine must be subsonic. So No matter how fast you go, inside air inlet airflow must stay subsonic. It's simple. There are many quite explanations on how it works. I found for example here - with quite nice video.
https://youtu.be/636ANEHgEOo?t=81

Explanation about how works an inlet of MiG-21 starts in 4:30. Basically such type of an inlet works fine up to Ma 3. (Here a foto of Blackbird in given YT video is not exactly a good choice, but that's completely other subject and another story.

my best regards
303_Kermit

 

What the video does not explain is that the cone's finite geometry constraints (read: how far can it travel?) do also constrain the attainable Mach of that intake. At some point, the cone will reach maximal forward travel and an increase of Mach will now put the oblique shock inside the intake, as opposed to on the intake-lip.

At first, the intake will be able to tolerate that to a certain amount, but at some point, the oblique shock will be too far down the intake, and the whole thing will quit. That's exactly what happened to a couple of SR-71s and Concordes (mostly during flight test for the latter). I believe there have been a number of losses on the SR-71 due to an intake-unstart, because the aircraft cannot handle the sudden amount of asymmetric thrust at Mach 3+. The Concore fares a lot better, but it also has a digital engine control and the ramp-system allows for some overboard-bleed downstream of the ramps.

IIRC, the surge-doors on the MiG-21 only open inwards and hence they could not help here, bleeding excessive air overboard.

This video goes a bit deeper into the SR-71 intake system and he mentions the bleeds, as well as the max compressor inlet temperature. For reference, in the F-104 that temperature is 120°C!

The shock-cone-schedule in the 71 is interesting, and it's different to other aircraft.

 

[303_Kermit]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

(...) IIRC, the surge-doors on the MiG-21 only open inwards and hence they could not help here, bleeding excessive air overboard. (...)

 

As I said SR-71 is not the best example because it's a Turboramjet. A unique construction, not quite good example here. As for a Concorde and other supersonic jet engines -> if inlet fails it's adjustment angle there's a risk of sudden compressor stall and destruction of an engine. It is also explained in a YT I posted here. Solution used in MiG-21 (cone) was also used in Su-17M2, M3 and allowed him to reach also about Ma=2, in Su17M4 cone was fixed in position. In spite of these it was able to reach Ma =1,75. 

You shall trouble yourself and watch a movie I posted. There is no risk of feeding a Jet engine with too much air. it's explained in movie. So surge doors are opening in right direction. You may block an airflow by letting perpendicular shockwave inside an inlet. It blocks an airflow, causing Pressure drop inside an air intake and may cause a sudden compressor stall. In many cases it may cause total destruction of an engine, and / or deformation of an inlet.

Once again: there's no possibility of excessive air in jet engine. 

It's rather opposite problem. Leatherneck explanation is (in terms of fluid mechanics) like... Flat Earth society.

Edited November 23, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

56 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

You shall trouble yourself and watch a movie I posted.

I did. It's significantly oversimplyfying things and stops before the compressor, which is the crucial part.

57 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

There is no risk of feeding a Jet engine with too much air.

Who said there was?

It's just a bit more complex than in your little movie there. The compressor needs the right amount of air at the right pressure, temperature and desity to maintain stable airflow over the blades at given RPM and not stall or surge. If your intake is messing up and the pressure-recovery suddenly drops because it swallows the oblique shock*, turning it into a fancy pitot inlet, there is a discontinuity in temp (goes up), pressure (recoverable stagnation pressure goes down) and desity (goes down), changing your local AoA over the compressor blades and may be inducing a good old stall.

Having VSVs (IGVs) and a good bleed system makes things a little easier because they can taylor the flow a little better to what the engine can handle right at this moment, but their reaction isn't instantaneous either.

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

Solution used in MiG-21 (cone) was also used in Su-17M2, M3 and allowed him to reach also about Ma=2, in Su17M4 cone was fixed in position. In spite of these it was able to reach Ma =1,75. 

And the F-8 was able to attain the same (even a slightly higher) Mach without a centerbody and just the nose of the airplane assisting in creating an oblique shock and pre-compressing the air before entering the fixed inlet.

1 hour ago, 303_Kermit said:

You may block an airflow by letting perpendicular shockwave inside an inlet. It blocks an airflow, causing Pressure drop inside an air intake and may cause a sudden compressor stall. In many cases it may cause total destruction of an engine, and / or deformation of an inlet.

You don't really block the airflow downstream, the throat-area reaching Mach 1 just gives the intake (or pipe, or whatever) it's max attainable mass-flow. No matter how much upstream pressure you are putting into the system, the mass-flow will not increase but air will start bypassing the intake, causing spillage-drag.

But mass-flow itself isn't the issue here, it's a combination of local pressure, temperature and density that determines whether the compressor-blades can handle the air flow, or not. And that, in turn is dependant on what the intake upstream does and if it's operating in a stable condition or if there's instabilities.

___

* Normally, that condition should not be easily reachable by just accelerating, but it might be attainable for some aircraft.

[303_Kermit]

28 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I did. It's significantly oversimplyfying things and stops before the compressor, which is the crucial part.

Who said there was?

It's just a bit more complex than in your little movie there. The compressor needs the right amount of air at the right pressure, temperature and desity to maintain stable airflow over the blades at given RPM and not stall or surge. If your intake is messing up and the pressure-recovery suddenly drops because it swallows the oblique shock*, turning it into a fancy pitot inlet, there is a discontinuity in temp (goes up), pressure (recoverable stagnation pressure goes down) and desity (goes down), changing your local AoA over the compressor blades and may be inducing a good old stall.

Having VSVs (IGVs) and a good bleed system makes things a little easier because they can taylor the flow a little better to what the engine can handle right at this moment, but their reaction isn't instantaneous either.

And the F-8 was able to attain the same (even a slightly higher) Mach without a centerbody and just the nose of the airplane assisting in creating an oblique shock and pre-compressing the air before entering the fixed inlet.

You don't really block the airflow downstream, the throat-area reaching Mach 1 just gives the intake (or pipe, or whatever) it's max attainable mass-flow. No matter how much upstream pressure you are putting into the system, the mass-flow will not increase but air will start bypassing the intake, causing spillage-drag.

But mass-flow itself isn't the issue here, it's a combination of local pressure, temperature and density that determines whether the compressor-blades can handle the air flow, or not. And that, in turn is dependant on what the intake upstream does and if it's operating in a stable condition or if there's instabilities.

___

* Normally, that condition should not be easily reachable by just accelerating, but it might be attainable for some aircraft.

As far as I understood, you're agree with me... In quite complicated way  I'm trying to avoid too much complicated words. The older I am the more I admire people who have ability to put difficult science in simple words. Nothing wrong with that, right?

As for shockwave inside engine inlet with cone it looks like that, sorry for simplification:

Edited November 23, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

3 hours ago, 303_Kermit said:

As far as I understood, you're agree with me... In quite complicated way  I'm trying to avoid too much complicated words. The older I am the more I admire people who have ability to put difficult science in simple words. Nothing wrong with that, right?

As for shockwave inside engine inlet with cone it looks like that, sorry for simplification:

 

Trouble is, that's not how it works.

Your picture shows an SR-71 intake, which is mixed (external and internal) compression. That's not the case with the MiG-21, which uses an external compression intake.

With the cone at max fwd position, it becomes a fixed intake (as in: it can't move any more fwd and make up for a higher Mach number). The result is shown in the lower left corner of this illustration:

It will swallow the oblique shock from the cone, which in turn combines with a new oblique shock, formed by the intake-lip. The combination will lead to several rather strong shocks and flow-separation, critically disturbing the air reaching the compressor interface. That and it will have a lower recovery factor (compression), compared to the optimun, shown bottom right.

The only way of mitigating this is chosing a shock-cone angle that will always have a Mach-angle greater than the intake-lip. This has to be bought with greater shock-losses and spillage drag, though.

There's no free lunch and there's no oversimplifications that work.

 

____

the unlimited index means free-stream Mach and "Entwurf" means "design"

[Hiromachi]

29 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

From which book is this picture? 

I have Praktische Aerodynamik für Flugzeuge mit Strahltriebwerken printed in Berlin in 1976 and used in Nationale Volksarmee Offiziershochule "Franz Mehring" in Rothenburg, but it doesnt have such fancy stuff

[Bremspropeller]

It's Klaus Hünecke's "Das Kampfflugzeug von Heute - Technik und Funktion" by Motorbuch Verlag. My copy is of the second issue from 1989.

It's one of the best books on the broad topic of fighter design in German - and you won't need to be overly fluent in greek letters to read it. Highly recommended!

[303_Kermit]

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

Trouble is, that's not how it works.

Your picture shows an SR-71 intake, which is mixed (external and internal) compression. That's not the case with the MiG-21, which uses an external compression intake.

With the cone at max fwd position, it becomes a fixed intake (as in: it can't move any more fwd and make up for a higher Mach number). The result is shown in the lower left corner of this illustration:

It will swallow the oblique shock from the cone, which in turn combines with a new oblique shock, formed by the intake-lip. The combination will lead to several rather strong shocks and flow-separation, critically disturbing the air reaching the compressor interface. That and it will have a lower recovery factor (compression), compared to the optimun, shown bottom right.

The only way of mitigating this is chosing a shock-cone angle that will always have a Mach-angle greater than the intake-lip. This has to be bought with greater shock-losses and spillage drag, though.

There's no free lunch and there's no oversimplifications that work.

 

____

the unlimited index means free-stream Mach and "Entwurf" means "design"

Shown pictures IMO are rather a case of flow SU-17 M3 vs M4. MiG 21 cone isn't wide enough to create phenomena shown in lower left or right picture. Cone is fixed far before inlet, and geometry shall prohibit shown patern. I write "shall" because one has to calculate angled shockwave. To do that you need cone geometry and Ma number. The rest is actually quite simple. Just use the drawing and simple equation:



Equation works also for convex corners. Calculate yourself if you don't believe me, or use a chart if you lazy like me.


Calculate as long as you wish and you'll never find an "excessive air" in MiG-21 Inlet.

My best regards

PS. I still do believe that one can and shall describe it using simple words and simple language. It tells the people that you actually understand what you tell. Not just quoting someone

Edited November 23, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[Bremspropeller]

49 minutes ago, 303_Kermit said:

Shown pictures IMO are rather a case of flow SU-17 M3 vs M4. MiG 21 cone isn't wide enough to create phenomena shown in lower left or right picture. Cone is fixed far before inlet, and geometry shall prohibit shown patern. I write "shall" because one has to calculate angled shockwave. To do that you need cone geometry and Ma number. The rest is actually quite simple. Just use the drawing and simple equation:



Equation works also for convex corners. Calculate yourself if you don't believe me, or use a chart if you lazy like me.


Calculate as long as you wish and you'll never find an "excessive air" in MiG-21 Inlet.

My best regards

PS. I still do believe that one can and shall describe it using simple words and simple language. It tells the people that you actually understand what you tell. Not just quoting someone

 

Yeah, I already wrote that:

3 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

The only way of mitigating this is chosing a shock-cone angle that will always have a Mach-angle greater than the intake-lip. This has to be bought with greater shock-losses and spillage drag, though.

 

So did you run the numbers and come up with figures?

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by Bremspropeller

[303_Kermit]

57 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

Yeah, I already wrote that:

 

So did you run the numbers and come up with figures?

 

 

Yes, some 20 years ago to become 3- (C-) on 5'th (or 6th?) semester. 

 

Edited November 23, 2022 by 303_Kermit

[virgo47]

I'm not here to judge the charts and realism shown above, but I tried two modules from Magnitude 3 - that is both of those released. I even considered buying the CE2 just for fun (because it is), but I have one main gripe with DCS, regardless of the module and the vendor - and that's the long-standing bugs. ED is a master of those, but CE2 has a couple of those as well. The displays for the radio and fuel flying around the view... I'm not even going to the flight model - I'm no real pilot. I just want something that feels maintained over time.

Now I'm trialling MiG-21. It was a whim, really, it could have been F1 or M2000, but I decided to try MiG-21 for a change - without even considering the creator behind it. I'm sure the module has its strengths, otherwise, it would not be on the store (let's forget about things like NS430 or some other support modules we just don't know where they go and when/if they actually get there). But I was let down by a few things in just a few minutes - before getting to the flying:

• I can't bind elementary things to the mouse as I can for other modules (Zoom normal, single mouse button click to toggle the clickable cockpit, etc... why is it even prohibited to bind any button to the mouse?!)...
• and then the brutally unprofessional tone of the first tutorial mission. I mean, I'm generally a fun(ny) guy, but that was way over top, not to mention the "fun" stuff took away the space that could have been more informational for a new pilot. (Yeah, I know there is a manual.)

I generally root for any team of any size that delivers, but I root much more for those that (by the way) show how it is possible to care for older modules too.

How can I be sure the Corsair will not be in CE2 state any time soon? Now, granted, there are real life issues, I mean, if you get out of business (because anything unexpected happens in a life of any one member of the said small team), I can understand that. But at there should be some continuity. Some month in a year when you fix old bugs or something. Or declare the module officially as abandoned, I don't know. But I wish to know the status of the modules.

And yes, many of ED's modules are in (or close to) "abandonware" status as well. Nothing is for ever. But I'd like to now about it.

[Rudel_chw]

1 hour ago, virgo47 said:

Now I'm trialling MiG-21. But I was let down by a few things in just a few minutes - before getting to the flying:

• I can't bind elementary things to the mouse as I can for other modules (Zoom normal, single mouse button click to toggle the clickable cockpit, etc... why is it even prohibited to bind any button to the mouse?!)...

 

There is a negative tone on the term "prohibited", as it is not the same as "not implemented". Every command binding, for each device (keyboard, joystick, mouse, headtracking, rudder) must be defined on a lua file … as this represents development work, it is understandable that the developer does not implement every binding for every device .. usually the most complete are keyboard and joystick, while the mouse, rudder and headtracking have only a subset.

 

1 hour ago, virgo47 said:

• and then the brutally unprofessional tone of the first tutorial mission. I mean, I'm generally a fun(ny) guy, but that was way over top, not to mention the "fun" stuff took away the space that could have been more informational for a new pilot. (Yeah, I know there is a manual.)

 

I agree that the training missions are not up to current standard, having been edited probably on 2014.

 

1 hour ago, virgo47 said:

… but I root much more for those that (by the way) show how it is possible to care for older modules too.

 

as the maker of any user mod aircraft can attest, if a module is not maintained then the monthly advance of the DCS environment will fairly quickly render it unflyable. So I can asure you that the MIg-21 is being maintained actively, as is the case for every other official module. The problem is that for many users "caring" for a module means adding new features or re-do existing ones, just updating it to keep pace with DCS advances is not enough for those users.

 

1 hour ago, virgo47 said:

many of ED's modules are in (or close to) "abandonware" status as well. Nothing is for ever.

I disagree with your assesment, many of the third party modules are actually a labor of love for the developer, many of them have to have another main job, as the revenue from selling DCS modules is not as big as most users think … so many users feel entitled to constant updates for free and expect that a 40 dollar purchase will give over 10 years of enjoyment.

in the same way as many developers do this out of love for its subject, a user could be equally devoted to it … I enjoyed the Mig-21 a lot and when doing its built-in training I disliked it in the same way as you, but instead of coming to the forum to vent I opted to edit my version of how the training missions should be, like this:

 

 

in the same way, other users have found that their favorite module lacks a binding, and rather to vent about it on the forums, they edit the Lua file to implement it (its not that hard, you can basically copy the definition of the keyboard binding into a mouse binding) … search for "quaggles" for more info.

 

Eduardo

 

[PawlaczGMD]

The Mig-21 has multiple issues that bug me, but is still a fun and functional module to fly. While I hope that they will update it properly one day, it is definitely worth $20 on sale. 

It is also one of the most iconic aircraft, and a staple of red Cold War gameplay. You're missing out so much if you neglect it because muh 3rd party developer.

[virgo47]

First an apology for the overly dark and not fair assessment. I play mostly a bit in the evening, mostly single player, and I like to go through the single player content. That is what affects the experience a lot. I've heard MiG-21 in the sky is a good module and I'm looking forward to get there.

8 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

as the maker of any user mod aircraft can attest, if a module is not maintained then the monthly advance of the DCS environment will fairly quickly render it unflyable. So I can asure you that the MIg-21 is being maintained actively, as is the case for every other official module. The problem is that for many users "caring" for a module means adding new features or re-do existing ones, just updating it to keep pace with DCS advances is not enough for those users.

I understand that keeping up with the DCS updates is difficult. If the plane is done, I don't want new features or even variants of the plane. Even if I wish something, I don't feel entitled to that and don't judge based on that. I've heard some devs do it, which is great, but I'm a different kind of SW developer too, so I understand the burden and priorities, etc.

What bothers me most are the bugs... and yes, also missing binding capabilities. Not implemented there is "prohibited" on my end. That said...

8 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

in the same way, other users have found that their favorite module lacks a binding, and rather to vent about it on the forums, they edit the Lua file to implement it (its not that hard, you can basically copy the definition of the keyboard binding into a mouse binding) … search for "quaggles" for more info.

Thanks for the tip. I'll check those lua fixes you mention, although I don't understand why I have to do it. But I will, because I want the mouse to be consistent across modules.

8 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

in the same way as many developers do this out of love for its subject, a user could be equally devoted to it … I enjoyed the Mig-21 a lot and when doing its built-in training I disliked it in the same way as you, but instead of coming to the forum to vent I opted to edit my version of how the training missions should be, like this:

Nice mission and you're right.

Of course, I can't do missions like these for a new plane, where I struggle with buggy training missions instead. I took the wrong path.

In general, I know you do a lot for the community, I'm not able to on that level, I at least report bugs. And I don't expect them to be fixed anytime soon - although sometimes I'm surprised. Recently a few of the reported bugs in a few modules I considered frozen got fixed. I appreciate when that happens.

8 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

I disagree with your assesment, many of the third party modules are actually a labor of love for the developer, many of them have to have another main job, as the revenue from selling DCS modules is not as big as most users think … so many users feel entitled to constant updates for free and expect that a 40 dollar purchase will give over 10 years of enjoyment.

To clarify a bit - I didn't talk about MiG-21 here necessarily as I barely started with it, it was more about CE2. However, the most recent change log contained:

"Added 3 customizable mouse inputs: Comm menu, Zoom in slow, Zoom out slow" for both CE2 and MiG-21, so... there is still hope.

I don't want to comment on the module price, but when I buy something now, I have no idea where it will be in 10 years. I haven't been enjoying the module for 10 years yet. After 10 years I'd consider the cost amortized, I guess.

As for my abandonware remark, I felt that way about NS430 or Yak-52 (very little development for an early access module, although there were at least some bug fixes lately, so again, there is hope). I admit CE2 is not there yet and I hope it will not be.

I appreciate your response and thank you for the information. And again, I'm sorry about the outburst.

Edited December 22, 2023 by virgo47