[RESOLVED / NO BUG] Major FM bugs

Here are some bugs (not only FM in my video):

1) Rudder allows to taxi on very low speed. Real MiG-21 pilot told me, that rudder can turn the plane after 120-150km/h.

2) Brakes without ABS stop our MiG too fast. (near 100m from 150km/h with plane mass about 10 tonns)

3) Speed barrier (it was discussed after I done this video). My opinion (my friends agree with me) - it is not realistic and this feature unacceptable in DCS!

---- Why compressors RPM become more 100% on Emergency (second) Afterburner???

---- Why Ext. Fuel Tanks (and other stores on pilons) fall away on G-loads? It must be factor of safety about 1.5 (Real pitot said it shoul be abou 2!)

4) Stall and spin... no commets. (And who said that it is OK? )

Maybe the reason of this problem is loosing of G after stall?

Here is performance charts and other usefull charts. I can translate demand parts ;)

1 - https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/ru/files/340342/

2 - https://mega.co.nz/#!WoEhASab!HOr3MB...V3a2Rm8xTVaTlU (http://myfolder.ru/files/41787223)

The taxiing with rudder had been made on purpose iirc.

The taxiing with rudder had been made on purpose iirc.

I have no words to describe my resentment! :( If you are right.

Here are some bugs (not only FM in my video):

3) ---- Why compressors RPM become more 100% on Emergency (second) Afterburner???

Manual states that the N1 (compressor) can go up to 103.5%, which is shown the video.

Should it probably be a ramp up rather than a snap? Maybe, but the values are correct as far as I know.

Manual states that the N1 (compressor) can go up to 103.5%, which is shown the video.

 

Should it probably be a ramp up rather than a snap? Maybe, but the values are correct as far as I know.

Yes, it said that only N1 goes up, but no word about N2. And Yes, you are right - needle moves too rapidly. But it is not major bug, its a small "bonus".

I have no words to describe my resentment! :( If you are right.

This topic has been discussed with the community at length. This is a concession to the fact that the majority of users do not have the hardware to map brakes to an axis (which would be required to give the small braking inputs to support minor turns). Since I am not sitting here with MiG-21 style hardware, I think this is a smart solution.

Yes, it said that only N1 goes up, but no word about N2. And Yes, you are right - needle moves too rapidly. But it is not major bug, its a small "bonus".

Quote from the manual:

Note that

RPM1 should never exceed 103,5% and RPM2 should never exceed 107,5%.

Quote from the manual:

It doesnt describe the situation with Second Afterburner.

Yes, it said that only N1 goes up, but no word about N2. And Yes, you are right - needle moves too rapidly. But it is not major bug, its a small "bonus".

It does mention N2, in the same sentence on page 65:

Note that RPM1 should never exceed 103,5% and RPM2 should never exceed 107,5%.

Or, even better, in the operating limits on page 35:

15. Maximum low-pressure (LP) rotor speed must not exceed:

(a) 101. 5% at first, partial and minimum reheat settings as

well as at full throttle non-reheat setting;

(b) 103.5% at second (emergency) reheat setting.

 

16. Maximum high-pressure (HP) rotor speed, not over 107.5%

This topic has been discussed with the community at length. This is a concession to the fact that the majority of users do not have the hardware to map brakes to an axis (which would be required to give the small braking inputs to support minor turns). Since I am not sitting here with MiG-21 style hardware, I think this is a smart solution.

It is unacceptable solution for DCS module! Russian community is shocked by this dicision! (I speak with my friends in TS now)

It does mention N2, in the same sentence on page 65:

 

 

Or, even better, in the operating limits on page 35:

I understand it, I read russian technical manual now and saw this chapter. I mean that those N2 RPM could be on high speeds or altitudes or another conditions. Lets wait for Developers answer.

It doesnt describe the situation with Second Afterburner.

Well, if this isn't enough proof, let me quote another manual then:

Selection of the second reheat power is monitored by a thrust increment, increase of LP rotor rpm to 102 - 103.5% and by appropriate light signals.

[...]

As the engine is running at the full reheat or second reheat power setting, the Mach number growing, the HP rotor rpm will grow; they may increase up to 107.5% (and then they will become constant again); afterwards, the LP rotor rpm will start decreasing. The value of the LP rotor rpm decrease is not limited.

Note:

LP = Low pressure = RPM1

HP = High pressure = RPM2

Well, if this isn't enough proof, let me quote another manual then:

 

 

 

Note:

LP = Low pressure = RPM1

HP = High pressure = RPM2

OK, now I see, thanks. Excuse me for my obstinacy. :)

I would think making the rudder effectiveness am option in the special options tab would be the right way to go, so those purists out there can have it set to realistic, and those needing to have the option enabled can do so.

It works well for the trim settings in the Huey etc.

This topic has been discussed with the community at length. This is a concession to the fact that the majority of users do not have the hardware to map brakes to an axis (which would be required to give the small braking inputs to support minor turns). Since I am not sitting here with MiG-21 style hardware, I think this is a smart solution.

How about option to make rudder action realistic to those who have fully capable hardware within DCS / Options / Other / MiG-21 ?

---- Why Ext. Fuel Tanks (and other stores on pilons) fall away on G-loads? It must be factor of safety about 1.5 (Real pitot said it shoul be abou 2!)

Both RL and in game manuals state 490l FT - 5g limit, 800l FT -4g limit.

Even so you can go little past this limit without detaching the stores.

If I recal correctly from my tests, it even depend on quantity of fuel in them.

Yes, the taxiing with rudder was intended. But it is not the only thing, that was made for gameplay reasons. Kh-66, ASP range detection are also gameplay decisions.

I do hope, that one day we get an option for full realism. No artificial simplification. No rudder help, no distance measuring ASP, no sudden speed barrier etc..

I´m eager to see, how Belsimtek implements rudder/steering into the MiG-15Bis.

The sudden acceleration stop when reaching Mach 2.05. The sudden jump of the N1 and N2 needles are indeed strange. N1(LP) and N2(HP) need time to accelerate when operating within the mil power range. But when it comes to AB and AB2 they just jump in no time. I don´t know if this is right or wrong.

The movement-spikes in the high-alpha situations might be too high. But if the forces are big enough, inertia doesn´t matter.

I still love the MiG-21. I just wish we could have an option for full realism without compromise.

Here are two videos from NASA. Very interesting High-Alpha footage

Fox

Yes, the taxiing with rudder was intended. But it is not the only thing, that was made for gameplay reasons. Kh-66, ASP range detection are also gameplay decisions.

Source on Kh-66 and ASP range please.

3) Speed barrier (it was discussed after I done this video). My opinion (my friends agree with me) - it is not realistic and this feature unacceptable in DCS!

 

 

As you said discussion began after your started creating your video (thx for the work btw). I'm still trying to sort things out with GUMAR but it seems that this speed barrier is not MiG-21 exclusive. We will see.

Source on Kh-66 and ASP range please.

Grom: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=129523

ASP: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131327

Source on Kh-66 and ASP range please.

Thx Flagrum.

Here is more:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2255579#post2255579

So, currently many things in MIG are still unrealistic:

 

1) Radar can lockon some point on the ground in beam regime and then track it. This is unrealistic! Sapfir can't do that.

2) In game instead of Kh-66 we have some pretty modern missile. Here Grom just can fly like high maneuverable, high precision missile without any restrictions. When it fly to the target it isn't even bothered by maneuvers of the mig-21! In cruel reality it was very hard to use kh-66. Grom can be used only in dive(Not just like it in game, where it can be used even in straight fly in extremely low altitude. It can fly only straight with very light changes to fly direction(not maneuvering like crazy after the radar beam). Any major maneuver of mig in real life caused lost of radar beam for kh-66. In game Kh-66 is better than even Kh-25.

3) From where ASP knows altitude of the target? It neither have radio rangefinder nor laser rangefinder, but it put the point of impact without any error even in the mountains

...

1 & 2) If we went for realistic implementation of the KH-66 Grom, we would simply remove it entirely from the aircraft. Why?

The MiG-21bis cannot carry or guide this missile. It is not a realistic implementation and was done for the sake of gameplay.

 

3) This is a cheat we implemented knowing full well what we are doing.

It is conductive to gameplay due to various cumbersone DCS features.

...

Thanks. I can get behind the decision for the Kh-66 inclusion, our MiG-21Bis will need to work as a stand in for more than one model as other aircraft are added. It's easy enough to limit weapons in the mission itself to suite the environment. More than one MiG-21 model would be preferable given its long history, but as an alternative this does work. The ASP decision I'm not fond of, but it is what it is. Maybe they'll change it at some point but that seems unlikely.

As for the FM bugs, I think their choice on the ground handling is fine. You can only do very minor course corrections without the brakes as it is. The crazy high G high alpha high speed stall things are totally unrealistic of course. But the thing that's most unrealistic is the plane surviving it. 90 degrees AoA at mach 1 really should just sheer the wings and elevator off. Instead of trying to make an utterly unrealistic maneuver more "realistic," they should instead put that effort into the damage model to make it wreck the plane. That issue is not limited to the MiG-21 though, it also applies to the Su-27 and F-15 when the limiters are switched off. I hadn't noticed this issue in the MiG-21 before looking at a few threads here on it since I never bothered switching the limiter on the MIG-21 off. Under normal operation, it will not do these things no matter how hard you push it.

Thx Flagrum.

 

Here is more:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2255579#post2255579

I cant believe my eyes! :doh: Russian community wait for bug fixes in ASP and other systems, and Cobra says that it is FEATURE!!! :cry:

OK, count "+1" from MiG-21 users, witch want REALISTIC MiG-21bis, DCS level module!

I cant believe my eyes! :doh: Russian community wait for bug fixes in ASP and other systems, and Cobra says that it is FEATURE!!! :cry:

OK, count "+1" from MiG-21 users, witch want REALISTIC MiG-21bis, DCS module level!

+1

+1

+1