Mig-29 FM

Well, we all have seen them, but it's not good example (it actually is ;) ) because of good piloting. You should look for bad landings or touchdown crashes instead.

Yeah I know :) I only wanted to say, that something‘s not right, either my game or a part of the behaviour of the MiG.

I‘m trying to make a video to show to you what I mean.

No, FM is still the same, you don't break anything unless using FFB. Curve is just a tool for making our deficient hardware control setup more managable.

No, the afm/pfm were design to be used with no curved axis (1:1)

I never used curved and it's perfect

For DCS you need to have decent hardware (change it, if your's is defficient, "like you said")

It makes things easier and you gain more control.

For noobs perhaps, but it's not a good idea, it's like "labels", it's better to start without.

But you seems to be newcommer, then i can understand your POV.

And while you comment on my advices I don't see yours.

My advice is :

No curved axis, training, training and ...training.

Ironhand, from 5:15 the nose wheel is bouncing noticiable and i think the main wheels at touchdown also a little.

There are two Mig landing, im talking about the second one.

@sylkhan: Thanks for your advices, but I'm not the one who ask for them in the first place. I'm doing fine, really :thumbup: Stick to the topic to help others. And I don't think stripping them off the curves will do any good. Quite the opposite.

As for the 1:1 stick moves you don't get one unless you're sitting in the real thing, sorry to break it to you. Still, FM is not about how to move the stick. It's what aircraft does. Curves only changes the sensitivity range where you want it most. Maybe some day I have a stick that doesn't need it. Right now, people use it a lot - deal with it.

Calm down please.

 

 

Overblown simplicistic generalized statements like „is the most realistic in world“ are not helpful .

 

 

Of course you are entitled to your opinion,however, so are others too.

 

Regarding your statement that the real aircraft was designed with close in air combat maneuvering in mind among other things ,so were other aicraft too, like the F-15 - this does not preclude it from having balanced or precise flight controls and it s not a „slug“ either btw..

 

Contrary to what you imply I dońt think many people really want to revert back to the SFM.The PFM is a big leap forward.

 

But as you can see from the official update/bugfix list , not even the PFM of the Mig-29 is perfect from the get-go and it has been re-adjusted already.

 

People are simply discussing their observations and maybe it helps to further improve the model, without simplifying it.

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

Snappy

Hello,

Maybe I failed to make it more explicit, but those 5 sentences were obviously meant to be humorous citations - "the real McCoy" and such. :D

A slight exageration (hence the humour), as a way to reply to the ever growing number of threads about the MiG-29 Flight Model.

And sometimes, as draconus mentions below: by new users that just rebate everything, while they just don't care to inform themselves the least amount about the respective aircraft.

No big deal, I've done precisely the same thing when i first joined jet sims forums (Free Falcon 5 at the time) - it's just that sometimes people could show some appreciation to the developers, exposing their questions without so much disregard / cricticism.

Although I believe there may exist some quirks, like the jumping while landing on the runway and so, I'm also very satisfied with the new acquired capability in therms of agility / maneuverability / turning / etc.

These capabilities weren't available with the SFM... but the devs gave us that.

It's just that.

I can tell you how it usually works:

 

1. Some kid spoiled by other arcade or just bad sims without real experience whatsoever takes on DCS PFM aircraft, loads a mission and... fails miserably on landings, BVR, bomb runs or whatever he wants to achieve in just 5 minutes of training.

 

2. Without a second thought, without searching forums or even looking at the manuals the user whines on a forum using big words how much of the bad modelling DCS use and how not realistic all of this is. He provides no real data, video or track, RL manual comparisons whatesoever. Just his own opinions and feelings screamed at the devs.

 

3. Then some more experienced and knowledgable DCS players, SMEs, real pilots and technicians start to calmly explain that OP is just bollocks and that it's really not DCS fault - just the user in speak and use the kindest possible words to not hurt his feelings instead of just saying "you suck" (which would be true in most cases). They also provide hard data, manual citations, videos or tracks that prove OP wrong. Those same guys make also proper bug reports, because they know DCS is not perfect.

 

What the user is going to learn and do whith it is not our problem anymore.

 

 

And yes, sometimes they are right - very rare case. I assure you no one is going to defend DCS just because of fanboyism. [except Top Jockey ;)]

Well draconus, you're almost 100 % correct.

It's not DCS, it's the Fulcrum.

For some, it's the Su-27's wings that shouldn't get ripped out;

For others, it's the F-15's missiles that have too much longer / better reach;

For me, it was the MiG-29's turning handicap since LOMAC times.

I can be wrong but, as I understand it, part of the reason why the Fulcrum is not so smooth when landing now with PFM, is because of it's nervous / fast pitch rate.

(edit: I'm not talking about the "jumping", but controling nose pointing and sink rate when landing.)

... but without this fast pitch rate it wouldn't turn / maneuver as it should.

And that was lacking in the SFM.

Bought LOMAC some 15 years ago, essentially because of the Fulcrum's Helmet Mounted Sight feature, and because of it's top maneuverability...

What a disapointment it was at that time, when I found it didn't turn much, and was easier to pursuit a Mirage 2000C in sharp turns in an Su-27 than in the MiG.

Esac_mirmidon said:

Ironhand, from 5:15 the nose wheel is bouncing noticiable and i think the main wheels at touchdown also a little.

 

There are two Mig landing, im talking about the second one.

Yes, I realized I had the wrong one after posting and looked at the 2nd one in slow motion. The mains don't so much bounce as float when he crosses the depression in the runway at speed. There's some bounce as he hits the rising runway on the front side. At that point I see the nosewheel come off the runway once. There is some bouncing but it's the uneven runway itself causing it.

Not a big deal either way, though, as it bears no resemblance to this:

Admittedly, I was trying to hit hard but...

@ironhand

Rofl, ok, that's the first time I've seen an actual video of the described behavior. That does seem a bit overmuch lol Seems it did destroy/cripple your plane, though

That bouncing reaction is exaggerated, to say with kind words but i think is more a bad suspension-struts force model than a flight model problem itself.

If you do it "right" you can even black out from the nose bounce.

That bouncing reaction is exaggerated, to say with kind words but i think is more a bad suspension-struts force model than a flight model problem itself.

It looks like the bounce energy is inverted... instead of losing energy with each bounce, it is getting more energy

..i think is more a bad suspension-struts force model than a flight model problem itself.

That's been my suspicion as well for awhile now. Especially the front strut. That's the one that causes the major issues. I have a video I posted somewhere here that shows the front strut pitching the nose up 6° on its own as it unloads during takeoff.

With this thread (but also with others on the same theme) it seems to have created a little bit of "fire". And it was not my intention to do it. When I wrote I had made at least thirty attempted landings (all catastrophic) and I was "slightly" frustrated. However, the day after, I continued to train and, finally, I understood how to land and I started to perform good landings one after the other. Now I have no problems. Unfortunately I still do not land on the roads as Ironhand manages to do, but tomorrow who knows ?! A small cheat (which was useful to me) is to try first to make some landings with F-15 (a little more tolerant than the new Mig-29). It was useful to me. Thank you all!

Dont worry mate, this thread is very interesting and positive. We are all trying to help for better landing technics adapted to the new FM, but after all, that bring back "energy" making the Mig-29 bounce so high is IMHO overdone.

I remember similar problems before with other modules ( my mind brings me the Mig-21 ) and it was something with the way the tension, forces, struts and ground behaviour interaction all together.

Something im sure ED will look at it.

@ironhand

 

Rofl, ok, that's the first time I've seen an actual video of the described behavior. That does seem a bit overmuch lol Seems it did destroy/cripple your plane, though

Oh, it crippled it in spades. :) I keep forgetting to change my pilot in the logbook to the "Crash Test Dummy" entry. I've killed off poor "Ironhand" so many times testing this stuff...

...Now I have no problems. Unfortunately I still do not land on the roads as Ironhand manages to do, but tomorrow who knows ?! A small cheat (which was useful to me) is to try first to make some landings with F-15 (a little more tolerant than the new Mig-29). It was useful to me. Thank you all!

The biggest secret with a road landing is the lineup. You have to be accurate. If you're a bit off to the side, you'll have problems. In my video, just before touchdown, I realized I was a bit off and kicked left rudder. If I hadn't...

Guys, a friend of mine, a good friend but a bad pilot ( ) yesterday come in mission with a F-18 and believe me, when he (ehmmm) landing he managed to make the Hornet bounce like the MiG-29, without breaking the landing gear or blowing a single tire... So it could be that at some point the problem is correlated with a more general phisic problem? I'm only asking...

Inviato dal mio BLA-L09 utilizzando Tapatalk

No, there is definitely a problem.

the plane should lose vertical energy and bounce less with each next bounce, on the last clip it can be clearly seen that the plane bonuces are getting higher and higher till the plane brakes. There isn't anything that could add new vertical energy than the overpowered dampers... they should be taking energy away from the system, not introducing new one.... but maybe its already fixed... waiting for the patch tomorrow

Except that with each bounce the AoA goes up, and so the plane gets thrown up, stalls, falls on the nose harder than last time, pitches up, increases AoA, climbs higher, drops on the nose harder, etc, until the speed drops to where the plane doesn't lift off any more.

To me ... the initial bounce should be damped by the rebound damping on the strut, and bounce that hard afterwards should just collapse the nose gear.

The main gear's rebound damping looks fine which is why the plane doesn't bounce back up flat, but flicks up at the front & takes off...

What's the bet the up and down damping rates on the front gear are reversed ? (it should go in fast & out slow, not in slow and out fast)

The really short wheelbase doesn't help

If you read this section on the new Mig 29 FM as there are a few, you will see it is a common theme about landing this Mig 29, it's a bitch pardon my language but I said the same thing !! I thought it was impossible to land this little bitch but it's all practice. !!

Mizzy

If you read this section on the new Mig 29 FM as there are a few, you will see it is a common theme about landing this Mig 29, it's a bitch pardon my language but I said the same thing !! I thought it was impossible to land this little bitch but it's all practice. !!

 

Mizzy

I think, rather, the complaint is how ridiculous it looks, when you botch a landing. Botch it in any other aircraft and you'll bounce but each successive bounce gets smaller. In the -29, however, each bounce gets bigger until the airframe finally stops the progression by breaking. Then, finally, you've landed... :)

So maybe fix in next patch ??