Neglected/incomplete flight model?

yeah, sad but true. A lot of promise, and the rest... well time will be the judge I guess. Over 4 years in "early accses"..... and now the lighting in the cockpit is broken, missiles i s wonky, SAU wierd... yeah, still hoping though...

Or Heatblur makes a J-35......

Enviado desde mi GT-S7580 mediante Tapatalk

Plans, not "Promises"...

 

Enviado desde mi GT-S7580 mediante Tapatalk

And on those "promises" your buisness is run. If you dont deliver you loose credability.

See where this is going young padowan....?

First of all, rules of this forum forbid posting of tech documents, update yourself on that matter.

 

Second, I obtained missile chart from a former russian pilot, I still didn't get answer from him if its secret or not. Meanwhile though in Russia, some WW2 stuff is still considered secret, it is more bureaucracy thing that logic actually..

 

Third, I never said that MiG-21 model is "A-OK" I just said that no one can extract any start point for FM investigation from OP post here. Even without docs OP could have at least describe what is not working as intended and why he thinks that..

 

As for the missile, I just need to find a link somewhere in web to confirm that I can post at least that link, but no joy for now. Thing is R-13M thread started with no documental support, so even if I claim something and you say its laughable, same "laughable" degree can be used to initial claim there. So we are equal. Thing is though max speed of R-13M is 550 meters per second, you can see on my charts which are same tacview charts as Mortisrose posted you can see that R-13M reached 2457 km per hour. So your initial claim "The R-3R and the R-13 can barely cross mach 1.6 before burning out" already not checking out. That was my main point, and "sikrit dokumints" is secondary.

 

PS I don't believe that you are not trying to be rude ;) sorry if I offended you somehow.

I'm really not trying to be rude, honest. I may have came off as a bit harsh because I really, really have reservations on all my researched numbers with sources being called wrong.. because of information that I can't see and is considered secret. Especially when you say things like this

Thing is R-13M thread started with no documental support,

If my post came off as harsh, I apologize. However, I'm not going to give up my reservations with those weapons based on information that I can't see. If it's conflicting, then I would like that information to be given to Leatherneck so they can improve the weapons.

My posts about the flight models still stand.

Third, I never said that MiG-21 model is "A-OK" I just said that no one can extract any start point for FM investigation from OP post here.

Errrr... What is your definition of "organic flight model" and "magic numbers" ?

Because it seems the only thing you seek is to prove that there are "magic numbers" in current Mig21 FM, and it's not an "organic FM", and that would be a bad thing.

AFAIK there is no magic "organic" FM possible on our current PC hardware that would simulate plane physics up to every flight envelop, there are "Magic Numbers" everywhere, in every FM, including ED PFM even though they push it as close to real as possible

The problem with magic numbers is that it's not how the plane actually flies. It's an approximation at that point.

The Hornet, I would say, is very close to an organic flight model for certain regions of flight. It doesn't have things like 2G hard coded limits or AoA maximums in its flight model.

The Mig-29 PFM model is close to an organic flight model. It doesn't have the aforementioned problems and no one has found a region of its flight envelope where the suspension of disbelief breaks down because of a very obvious use of hard-coded limits.

The Mig-21, does. While, true, their solution is to call it an EFM instead of a PFM. Which I can't argue with because that is how it's called on the store page. I still think that's not the best way to address that problem in the long term. It IS affecting you, as I said, but you'll never know in what way because, simply put, we can only see the results of the edge case of its flight modeling.

However, if you want my opinion on where they should focus their efforts if this is the path they wish to go down:

yeah, sad but true. A lot of promise, and the rest... well time will be the judge I guess. Over 4 years in "early accses"..... and now the lighting in the cockpit is broken, missiles i s wonky, SAU wierd... yeah, still hoping though...

Or Heatblur makes a J-35......

This, right here. This should be front and center for the aircraft because it's ridiculous how often basic stuff inside of it like the lighting breaks. It looked GREAT just a patch or two ago.

I don't even care about the missiles as much as I care about the texturing not breaking and the lighting functioning as it should. It's kind of silly how we've been on-off with that for the past few years.

This, right here. This should be front and center for the aircraft because it's ridiculous how often basic stuff inside of it like the lighting breaks. It looked GREAT just a patch or two ago.

The update to cockpit lights was already provided to ED:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3674850&postcount=10

We can only wait for the next patch, since its not in our hands to force any updates. Like everyone else we wait for every Wendsday impatiently.

As for why it was broken in the first place, it was nothing on our side since we did not change the code. ED most recently changed some variables and this led to bug you are experiencing. We've fixed it and new files will come with next patch.

And same thing actually relates to missiles you claim to be incorrectly performing. We've so far investigated code and nothing changed on our side since they were first modeled. So what is left to investigate is environment changes. You see, things that you call "basic stuff" are just as prone to bugs as any other elements without us changing anything, but ED changing things somewhere in the game. We can only respond as fast as we discover where some changes took place. In case of lights it was less than a day, in other cases it may take significantly longer.

The update to cockpit lights was already provided to ED:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3674850&postcount=10

 

We can only wait for the next patch, since its not in our hands to force any updates. Like everyone else we wait for every Wendsday impatiently.

As for why it was broken in the first place, it was nothing on our side since we did not change the code. ED most recently changed some variables and this led to bug you are experiencing. We've fixed it and new files will come with next patch.

 

And same thing actually relates to missiles you claim to be incorrectly performing. We've so far investigated code and nothing changed on our side since they were first modeled. So what is left to investigate is environment changes. You see, things that you call "basic stuff" are just as prone to bugs as any other elements without us changing anything, but ED changing things somewhere in the game. We can only respond as fast as we discover where some changes took place. In case of lights it was less than a day, in other cases it may take significantly longer.

Okay, great! I'm glad to hear that these problems are still being worked on. That's really all I want to hear, that these are indeed recognized and are being resolved in due time.

I don't think anyone blames you for problems not being fixed instantly. Especially with how often DCS can change from patch to patch.

Is anyone working on this any new updates ive gone to 2.5 . i really want to get back into the mig21

Tried a flight in the MiG-21 yesterday after a loooong time. It's as bad as i remembered, nothing changed. Worst FM of all DCS modules (haven't tried the CE2), say what you want but that scripted stall is just so 1998.

P.S. why are the small gear lights on when the plane is sitting cold and dark, with no external power? Are they powered by perennial stalinium batteries?

Tried a flight in the MiG-21 yesterday after a loooong time. It's as bad as i remembered, nothing changed. Worst FM of all DCS modules (haven't tried the CE2), say what you want but that scripted stall is just so 1998.

 

P.S. why are the small gear lights on when the plane is sitting cold and dark, with no external power? Are they powered by perennial stalinium batteries?

What is happening, and this is part of the lighting bug that I discussed earlier: The landing lights are actually shining onto the inside of the model. When you flip the switch to turn on the lights, the lights don't really come on or go off, they just rotate to face outward. You can see this if you turn on the landing lights at night, and then turn them back off again; the yellow glow is still projecting onto the inside of the plane's model.

Same thing happens when you start cold and dark: the lights aren't off, because as far as I can tell they never turn off. They are just rotated to where the player can't see them immediately.

Things like this are exactly why I'm pretty frustrated with people demanding that we quit talking about these problems. I'm happy with the attention the Fishbed has received prior to MAC (it's about time), but the work is far from over.

What is happening, and this is part of the lighting bug that I discussed earlier: The landing lights are actually shining onto the inside of the model. When you flip the switch to turn on the lights, the lights don't really come on or go off, they just rotate to face outward. You can see this if you turn on the landing lights at night, and then turn them back off again; the yellow glow is still projecting onto the inside of the plane's model.

 

 

 

Same thing happens when you start cold and dark: the lights aren't off, because as far as I can tell they never turn off. They are just rotated to where the player can't see them immediately.

 

 

 

Things like this are exactly why I'm pretty frustrated with people demanding that we quit talking about these problems. I'm happy with the attention the Fishbed has received prior to MAC (it's about time), but the work is far from over.

What version are you on? I'm on the recent OB and don't have these lighting issues, nor are my landings lights on when I cold start.

What version are you on? I'm on the recent OB and don't have these lighting issues, nor are my landings lights on when I cold start.

Recent OB, as well. Try it at night.

What is happening, and this is part of the lighting bug that I discussed earlier: The landing lights are actually shining onto the inside of the model. When you flip the switch to turn on the lights, the lights don't really come on or go off, they just rotate to face outward. You can see this if you turn on the landing lights at night, and then turn them back off again; the yellow glow is still projecting onto the inside of the plane's model.

 

 

 

Same thing happens when you start cold and dark: the lights aren't off, because as far as I can tell they never turn off. They are just rotated to where the player can't see them immediately.

 

 

 

Things like this are exactly why I'm pretty frustrated with people demanding that we quit talking about these problems. I'm happy with the attention the Fishbed has received prior to MAC (it's about time), but the work is far from over.

I was talking about the small "light bulbs" that are attached to each gear leg, those are always on too.