Jump to content

What's the highest altitude you've legitimately reached?


Tiger-II

Recommended Posts

...by legitimately, I mean not zoom-climbing, flying empty, etc.

 

I took off with two tanks, two sidewinders, gun ammo, and even two rocket pods.

 

As you can see, I dumped them...

 

Mdc1Ol5.jpg

 

F3xYKG1.png

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha, wtf, I don't own the mig 19 but from what I hear and from what you just showed, there seems to be some... umm... some issues you could say hehe, or maybe it is just a mig 31 in disguise ?

 

Not gonna lie, kinda getting some DCS:hawk vibes seeing this, no wonder this module got removed from DCS...

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not gonna lie, kinda getting some DCS:hawk vibes seeing this, no wonder this module got removed from DCS...

The MiG-19 has never been removed from sale and while it may have issues, it is IMHO still a valuable to addition to DCS.

 

VZIuKqR.png

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3824927#post3824927

 

IMHO Razbam are clearly focusing resources on the older M-2000C and AV-8B at the moment but I'm sure they will eventually turn their attention back to the MiG-19.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MiG-19 has never been removed from sale and while it may have issues, it is IMHO still a valuable to addition to DCS.

 

VZIuKqR.png

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3824927#post3824927

 

IMHO Razbam are clearly focusing resources on the older M-2000C and AV-8B at the moment but I'm sure they will eventually turn their attention back to the MiG-19.

 

sorry, when I said was removed from sale I was talking about the hawk.

Also like you, I find the mig19 to be a great addition to DCS even if it is not my type of jet (I prefer more modern planes), in fact I'm still happy with any new aircarft entering the game, adds a lot of variety IMHO, BUT there are some pretty flagrant issues with this module and even if razbam has their hands full with the other two modules, couldn't they fix these pretty outrageous issues first ? The mirage 2000 and the harrier which I both own are totally OK, but this mig19 climbing to 80000 feet is kinda stupid, any sane person would wonder why this is still in the game...

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Tiger-II,

 

Thanks for the feedback. Last time it was tested the aircraft could not statically reach that altitude while it should be possible to reach in a zoom climb while carefully flying and this is realistic.

For us to be able to check the issue could you upload a track file with everything configured as you said? This is with all the external payload and reaching the altitude shown in the screens.

Thanks

 

any sane person would wonder why this is still in the game

 

Eagle Dynamics has an strict control over every module quality. There were some cases when modules were still not up to the level of realism required by DCS, but it was always told to the userbase that work was still being made by the developer to fulfill this goal.

 

This is not the case of DCS MiG-19P and it is also why it is an approved quality product by Eagle Dynamics.

 

The charts posted by Ramsay above are just a little example of the level of quality of the aircraft flight model, but there´s also an entire thread in the MiG-19 sub-forum with more data available about the FM, which is not a common sight for other developments. Since that analysis was posted the aircraft FM has improved a lot more and there´re still some new features that will be added to it.

As I posted in the flight model discussion months ago, anyone is welcomed to bring more data to the table and prove which aspects of the FM are wrong.

 

Thanks


Edited by OverStratos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Not where I expected the thread to go!

 

Just to clarify I'm trying the MiG-19 as part of the free month, and was just messing around with it. You did however gain a customer!

 

How did I pull off this fete? I think I have an idea.

 

First, I just continually climbed from takeoff. If you do this with a low fuel load you can't get high enough.

 

I don't have a track (I fly DCS often and any temporary stuff gets lost quickly).

 

Try this (IMHO I don't think the load-out matters):

 

* Full load of fuel, rocket pods, tanks, and missiles.

* Takeoff and just fly an optimum climb profile

* Keep climbing

 

Atmosphere is whatever the default settings are when you create a mission.

 

I did fire some rockets, and the guns (a few rounds), before I dumped them.

 

I dropped the tanks first, when they were empty.

 

I then dropped the rocket pods to reduce drag as I climbed higher.

 

I just kept climbing, slowly.

 

At around 68,000 ft, something interesting happened. The flight model "bumped" as if I entered a thermal (I fly gliders IRL - natural reaction LOL). Nothing outwardly changed, but the VS increased very slightly.

 

I kept climbing.

 

Eventually leveled out at 80000 ft.

 

It took about an hour to get there, and I just flew in a straight line.

 

Seeing as you're looking into this, the flight model does have a problem with lift calculation vs. AoA.

 

Another test:

 

At an altitude of your choice, accelerate to about 800 km/h (level), and pull and HOLD for a +4 g loop (hold, as in do NOT move the elevator once set at +4 g. It's the elevator position you hold, not the g loading).

 

As the aircraft loses speed, g INCREASES, and rather suddenly. This should not happen. g should reduce gradually as the aircraft is losing airspeed, and both lift and elevator effectiveness should reduce.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been able to re-create this, clean, with full fuel, the highest I could achieve was about 53,000ft or so and it was on a knife edge. I got to about 60,000 but just 1000ft more and it completely departed. I was able to zoom climb to 70,000ft, no idea how you achieved 80,000.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. Not where I expected the thread to go!

 

Don´t worry, you´re genuinely presenting an issue that may turn to be an intermittent bug, because after some testing I was not able to replicate it. However, if you can do this again and save a track file, this would be very helpful for us.

Also, in the case of the increased G issue we will also check this.

 

thanks

 

I was mostly giving an answer before to those that hurry to trash the flight model without any actual proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem! I'll try again and see if I can replicate it myself.

 

Thank you!

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not been able to re-create this, clean, with full fuel, the highest I could achieve was about 53,000ft or so and it was on a knife edge. I got to about 60,000 but just 1000ft more and it completely departed. I was able to zoom climb to 70,000ft, no idea how you achieved 80,000.

 

I can get to about 70000 ft consistently. Any higher and I just stall.

 

I was going to fly something with spinning wings, but actually I'm going to try this again. :joystick:

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a thought - I think on the previous flight I ripped the tanks off.

 

Try this... takeoff, rip the tanks off (just exceed maximum forward speed for the tanks > 1000 kph TAS), land, re-arm (including tanks), and fly again.

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was mostly giving an answer before to those that hurry to trash the flight model without any actual proof.

 

I'm sorry but what ? Firstly I wasn't trashing the flight model, I was just stating out the obvious, climbing to 80000ft is quite a big flight model issue and secondly why are you saying without any proof ? The person who started the thread already gave some proof and if you still aren't satisfied, I actually downloaded the module and tried it out for myself. Without any prior training on this module I reached 20000 m (65600 feet) quite easily after dropping the tanks and engaging afterburners in your free flight mission.

Then using only precise trim controls I reached a max altitude of 22660m (74343 feet).

 

So I ask again why are you saying that I am trashing the flight model ? This is indeed a huge issue that was pointed out. Other than that I flew a bit, tried some acrobatics with this plane and everything else looked fine.

Also on a side note I tested your mirage 2000 to see what was it's max altitude and it was exactly what the specifications said so good job for that plane.

 

So here's the picture and a track, I really hope you fix this bug before you say that people have no proof and talk before knowing anything...

 

 

 

proof4.thumb.jpg.8f90b949222e82efb514a93c9f4cebbe.jpg

track1.trk

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@notproplayer3, the answer to you was originally because you wrote the following:

 

there are some pretty flagrant issues with this module

any sane person would wonder why this is still in the game

 

This has nothing to do with the issue being mentioned here and is considered direct bashing of the product without proof. You have all the right to point out the flagrant issues you mention with something to prove why they are wrong in an appropriate thread. If you continue to do this moderation action will be taken.

 

As you can notice by reading my posts, the issue in question pointed out by Tiger-II is being worked and it was acknowledged.

 

thanks for providing a track file, this helps us in finding what the problem may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@notproplayer3, the answer to you was originally because you wrote the following:

 

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with the issue being mentioned here and is considered direct bashing of the product without proof. You have all the right to point out the flagrant issues you mention with something to prove why they are wrong in an appropriate thread. If you continue to do this moderation action will be taken.

 

As you can notice by reading my posts, the issue in question pointed out by Tiger-II is being worked and it was acknowledged.

 

thanks for providing a track file, this helps us in finding what the problem may be.

 

To respond to the second quote you mentioned, I wasn't talking about the mig19 module at all, I was talking about this bug, and why wasn't it patched earlier but apparently it wasn't an issue before...

 

To respond to the first quote I'll apologize for the wrong and harsh use of words, this sentence was meant to be in singular and talking about this particular 80000ft climb bug.

 

 

!!!! You can skip if you don't want to read my lame excuse!!!!

Looking back on what I said I agree that it looks quite rude and sarcastic but I can assure you it wasn't the intention, I'll unfortunately throw out a unoriginal but true excuse that I had a bad day when I wrote these comments, I apologize for this and for making you lose precious time on my misconduct.

Most importantly stay safe and good luck :thumbup:


Edited by notproplayer3

Full fidelity su27/mig29 ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...