Jump to content

New Fulcrum PFM is very susceptible to PIO and excessive bounce.

DmitriKozlowsky

By DmitriKozlowsky
in MiG-29 for DCS World

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • ED Team
Yo-Yo

Yo-Yo

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
Also, thrust seems to be exaggerated now, acceleration without AB is incredible. And why is it that when going supersonic you almost cannot push down the nose?

 

I hope ED will start from scratch when they do a full MiG-29A module. Congrats on the Su FMs, but this one is messed up, tell me what you want.

 

Take a look at the graphs for MiG-29 in this document to be sure that accelration and trim are right.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=281651

  • Thanks 1

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Skysurfer
Skysurfer

Honestly if you dont s*ck at handflying and understand basics of pitch & power, alpha and always flying the numbers the 29 is really easy and forgiving to fly in DCS. I think for most people one o

IvanK
IvanK

Damper tweaks in Ver 2.7 imo make the MIG29 a much nicer aeroplane down final. The pitch sensitivity to both pilot input and config changes is much improved. it sits there quire nicely on the Glide sl

Mateo
Mateo

Welcome back 😛 After some days of testing and reading all the complains for pitch through over two houndred pages thread for Russian speaking players I have began to wonder about pitch instead of

Volator

Volator

Posted
Posted
I couldn't get to terms with the new MiG-29 FM since day one. Su-25 and Su-27 feel great, they can be controlled very precisely and are easy to take off and land, but the MiG-29 feels all wobbly and twitchy.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462318&postcount=274

 

Thanks, this confirms what I was trying to emphasize. Take-off and landing is not realistic in this module.

JG_71_100.jpg1./JG71 "Richthofen" - Seven Eleven711_patch_100.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Weta43

Weta43

Posted
Posted
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462318&postcount=274

 

Thanks, this confirms what I was trying to emphasize. Take-off and landing is not realistic in this module.

 

 

Can you point us at the post before the part you linked to, because the bit you linked to isn't sourced at all.

 

If MiiG engineers compared the results of the calculations used in DCS with their own company wind tunnel testing, presumably E.D. gave them the copyrighted, (encrypted in the app) calculations used to generate the FM, and MiG approved the time & expenses & use of the wind tunnel data associated with the investigation.

 

If E.D. & MiG both sanctioned it, it will be published somewhere, and a link would give the quote's conclusion some weight.

 

Otherwise it's really only hearsay, or personal opinion of the same type as the earlier comment from an actual MiG-29 pilot who said if you allowed for the lack of haptic feedback, and the short sticks we mostly use, landing behaviour in the DCS.MiG-29 was/is as he'd expect...

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Yo-Yo

Yo-Yo

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4462318&postcount=274

 

Thanks, this confirms what I was trying to emphasize. Take-off and landing is not realistic in this module.

 

If you take a look at GAF flight manual you will find all distinctive features of the take-off and landing behaviour DCS MiG-29 has.

 

As well as stick input required at transsonic region.

1962494741_Landingandflaps.thumb.png.61f35974b48543a3e383c9c3b296670d.png

Transsonic.png.c1c2c5fdec3579d1b09eb1197c9e710e.png

  • Thanks 1

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Volator

Volator

Posted
Posted
Can you point us at the post before the part you linked to, because the bit you linked to isn't sourced at all.

 

Sorry, I can't. As you can see it's a quote from another user who also doesn't cite references. It just illustrates it's not only me who doubts some quirks of the flight model.

 

Otherwise it's really only hearsay, or personal opinion of the same type as the earlier comment from an actual MiG-29 pilot who said if you allowed for the lack of haptic feedback, and the short sticks we mostly use, landing behaviour in the DCS.MiG-29 was/is as he'd expect...

 

True. And to some extent the flight characteristics are backed up by the -1 manual of the GAF MiG-29 Yo-Yo posted. However, I think every add-on developer should bear the hardware limitations in mind when creating an aircraft for a PC flight sim. I speak from my real-world piloting experience (not MiG-29 of course, but who could serioulsy claim that here in the forums) that if a plane was as twitchy as the DCS MiG-29, it would constantly kill pilots, cause a terrible accident rate and not be a successful flying machine, let alone a fighting machine. This "it's just because your TMW is too short, with a real stick it would be realistic" case is nonsense. It's not just the case with the DCS MiG-29 though, there are other aircraft in this sim that have this short-coming, yet some don't (see Su-25 and Su-27: excellent, well-balanced flight models). And I already use a 10cm extention for my TMW.

JG_71_100.jpg1./JG71 "Richthofen" - Seven Eleven711_patch_100.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Yo-Yo

Yo-Yo

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted (edited)
Sorry, I can't. As you can see it's a quote from another user who also doesn't cite references. It just illustrates it's not only me who doubts some quirks of the flight model.

 

 

 

True. And to some extent the flight characteristics are backed up by the -1 manual of the GAF MiG-29 Yo-Yo posted. However, I think every add-on developer should bear the hardware limitations in mind when creating an aircraft for a PC flight sim. I speak from my real-world piloting experience (not MiG-29 of course, but who could serioulsy claim that here in the forums) that if a plane was as twitchy as the DCS MiG-29, it would constantly kill pilots, cause a terrible accident rate and not be a successful flying machine, let alone a fighting machine. This "it's just because your TMW is too short, with a real stick it would be realistic" case is nonsense. It's not just the case with the DCS MiG-29 though, there are other aircraft in this sim that have this short-coming, yet some don't (see Su-25 and Su-27: excellent, well-balanced flight models). And I already use a 10cm extention for my TMW.

 

What is inconvenient for you personally? The only thing the simulation having lack of acceleration feedback requires from you is well documented and known stick pulling just before the touchdown. In RL you would pull the stick regarding aircraft attitude, altitude and your seat-on-the pants feedback. In the sim you have no binocular vision and, that is more important - accelerations.

The same problem presents for helicopters VRS entering during decelerations - you need to add collective pitch to maintain vertical speed to avoid VRS. Our RL helicopter pilots always say the they feel inconvenient in this situation. The problem is worse for the pilot who primarily use seat-on-the-pants rather than visual channel.

MiG-29 in DCS is absolutely safe and predictable, if you take-off and land inside the manual directions and keep in mind the features the manual states.


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ACME_WIdgets

ACME_WIdgets

Posted
Posted (edited)

Based on what I read on @Yo-Yo posting I tried this for takeoff, and it works:

MIG-29S takeoff:

1-2 clicks down trim

2-Very slight forward pressure on stick until ~200km/h

 

3- NO flaps

 

4-100% standard power, not afterburners

5-Allow rotation ~320+ km/h

 

6-Very slight back stick pressure to lift off ~350 km/h

No PIO at all for me.


Edited by ACME_Widgets
confused MIL and AB power terms

5600x, EVGA 3070 FTW, B550 Tomahawk, M.2 Samsung, 32GB CL16, AIO 240mm
VKB Gladiator Pro, Freetracker IR 3d printed, TM MkII HOTAS circa 1985 w/USB
Asus 27" 2560x1440 60fps (so constrain DCS to 60fps)    F-16, F-18
       2021 = First year on DCS:
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Volator

Volator

Posted
Posted
What is inconvenient for you personally?

 

Just very quickly due to little time, this is not going to be a complete analysis of what appears to be suspect for me as a RL pilot:

 

When I'm in a military pattern to land, turning from downwind through base to final in landing configuration, even minimal stick/elevator movement can violently pitch up the nose. That is with curves and a 10cm extension for the TMW.

 

During final approach, the MiG slows down rather slowly, even with full flaps and gear down. On the other hand, the margin for throttle movement to set the correct power is very small. With throttle to idle or almost idle, you risk a very hard landing (feels like the MiG gets sucked into the ground). I know the manual states the real aircraft needs to be landed with almost full stick back, but in the sim it somehow feels very on/off, this effect. Also, due to the very small throttle movement margin, setting the power a little to high will make the MiG accelerate very easily, which seems exaggerated in a full landing config with rather high AOA.

 

Yo-Yo, I know these are only sujective feelings and impressions by a pilot who has no stick time on a real MiG-29, and you have the -1 backing up some of the specialties of the MiG-29, but I think the effects are overdone, or exaggerated if you will. For a PC simulation you might have to cut some corners here and there. An aircraft as unbalanced and willing to 'bite' the pilot at so many times would not be very successful in RL.

 

The "alternative" take-off procedure described above seems totally unrealistic and not worthy of a MiG-29. Take-off is mostly ok for me, but the oscillations can happen and might very well be a result of PC hardware, but again, that's something a developer should take care of.

 

I'm not going to discuss more about this, especially not on the aerodynamic/mathematical level that you prefer. I'm just bringing in a pilot's perspective, and seeing the discussion going on about the MiG-29 especially in the Russian forum, it shows that I have a quite some company with my concerns.

JG_71_100.jpg1./JG71 "Richthofen" - Seven Eleven711_patch_100.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Yo-Yo

Yo-Yo

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted (edited)
Just very quickly due to little time, this is not going to be a complete analysis of what appears to be suspect for me as a RL pilot:

 

When I'm in a military pattern to land, turning from downwind through base to final in landing configuration, even minimal stick/elevator movement can violently pitch up the nose. That is with curves and a 10cm extension for the TMW.

 

During final approach, the MiG slows down rather slowly, even with full flaps and gear down. On the other hand, the margin for throttle movement to set the correct power is very small. With throttle to idle or almost idle, you risk a very hard landing (feels like the MiG gets sucked into the ground). I know the manual states the real aircraft needs to be landed with almost full stick back, but in the sim it somehow feels very on/off, this effect. Also, due to the very small throttle movement margin, setting the power a little to high will make the MiG accelerate very easily, which seems exaggerated in a full landing config with rather high AOA.

 

Yo-Yo, I know these are only sujective feelings and impressions by a pilot who has no stick time on a real MiG-29, and you have the -1 backing up some of the specialties of the MiG-29, but I think the effects are overdone, or exaggerated if you will. For a PC simulation you might have to cut some corners here and there. An aircraft as unbalanced and willing to 'bite' the pilot at so many times would not be very successful in RL.

 

The "alternative" take-off procedure described above seems totally unrealistic and not worthy of a MiG-29. Take-off is mostly ok for me, but the oscillations can happen and might very well be a result of PC hardware, but again, that's something a developer should take care of.

 

I'm not going to discuss more about this, especially not on the aerodynamic/mathematical level that you prefer. I'm just bringing in a pilot's perspective, and seeing the discussion going on about the MiG-29 especially in the Russian forum, it shows that I have a quite some company with my concerns.

 

I just quote some points translated from Russian book, hope they explain some effects and will help:

 

Downwind: 500 kph, 76-78% engine N2, AoA 3.5...4. Need to remember that 30-50 kph of IAS changing requires 1-3% of N2, so N2 must be checked by gauge readings.

Generally, altitude and speed maintaining require increased attention, because the plane "follows the stick" easily (comparing to other types of fighters) and the altitude corrections require SMALL and SMOOTH stick inputs.

Lower gears. At 450 kph lower flaps and begin baseleg turn.

The final approach turn - 350 kph

Final - 300 kph

 

And, from me: the triangle under the HUD IAS reading shows speed changes, so it helps to set the throttle properly.

 

P.S. As for me, TMW loading is not the best thing for smooth and small inputs at all :) I think, using the trimmer is the best way to overcome this issue. Or to make a mod :)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=239378


Edited by Yo-Yo

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kappi

Kappi

Posted
Posted

 

When I'm in a military pattern to land, turning from downwind through base to final in landing configuration, even minimal stick/elevator movement can violently pitch up the nose. That is with curves and a 10cm extension for the TMW.

 

Well, don't want to questions your experience with the MiG-29 but I can't confirm this behaviour using a X52 Pro. Maybe it's really a TMW issue seeing how many people have problems using that stick.

___________________________________________

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Looking forward to it, Belsimtek!:thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted
If you take a look at GAF flight manual you will find all distinctive features of the take-off and landing behaviour DCS MiG-29 has.

As well as stick input required at transsonic region.

 

Hi!

 

From time to time I fly the MiG-29, and I have a question regarding the statement in the section "Landing", where the text says: " ... a noticeable nose lowering tendency ... during airspeed decrease is experienced."

 

What would happen (in the real aircraft) if the airspeed would be kept constant during the approach AND the flare.

Would the taileron now be negatively affected too, or is airspeed not the important part, but the taileron's distance to the ground?

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • ED Team
Yo-Yo

Yo-Yo

Posted
  • ED Team
Posted
Hi!

 

From time to time I fly the MiG-29, and I have a question regarding the statement in the section "Landing", where the text says: " ... a noticeable nose lowering tendency ... during airspeed decrease is experienced."

 

What would happen (in the real aircraft) if the airspeed would be kept constant during the approach AND the flare.

Would the taileron now be negatively affected too, or is airspeed not the important part, but the taileron's distance to the ground?

 

Yes, the last suggestion is absolutely right. The required stick movement for the same speed range is very different OGE and IGE, so keeping the same speed and AoA will require additional stick input near ground.

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hey yo-yo, thanks for your answer!

 

After reading a few things about the mighty bird during the last weeks here and there, I finally came to the question above. Now, following your answer and the information given in the manual, I had to change a posting I did in the past in another thread.

There I stated that the increased sink rate near ground seemed strange, because back then I thought this was a programming mistake. :noexpression:

Unfortunately, but no excuse anyway, I haven't had the excerpt of the GAF manual in hands when writing bullshit. :D


Edited by TOViper

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Flаnker

Flаnker

Posted
Posted (edited)

Records of parameters of various flight modes of a real MiG-29

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4491618&postcount=4560

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4491637&postcount=4562

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4492671&postcount=4578

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4492352&postcount=4576

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4493510&postcount=4604

 

Comparison of these parameters with Mig29 from DCS

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4493447&postcount=4598

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4494719&postcount=4685


Edited by Flаnker

Мои авиафото

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TOViper

TOViper

Posted
Posted

 

Nice, but ... what do the diagrams tell us non Russian language pro's ... ;)

Visit https://www.viggen.training
...Viggen... what more can you ask for?

my computer:
AMD Ryzen 5600G | NVIDIA GTX 1080 Ti OC 11GB | 32 GB 3200 MHz DDR4 DUAL | SSD 980 256 GB SYS + SSD 2TB DCS | TM Warthog Stick + Throttle + TPR | Rift CV1
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ironhand

Ironhand

Posted
Posted
Nice, but ... what do the diagrams tell us non Russian language pro's ... ;)

They are supposed to demonstrate that the real world aircraft and DCS aircraft are worlds apart, when it comes to landing. The problem is that the air speed and altitude recordings in the real world tracings are inaccurate due to calibration issues according to the person who posted them. Or for the first one, at least.

YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCU1...CR6IZ7crfdZxDg

 

_____

Win 10 Pro x64, ASUS Z97 Pro MoBo, Intel i7-4790K, EVGA GTX 970 4GB, HyperX Savage 32GB, Samsung 850 EVO 250 GB SSD, 2x Seagate Hybrid Drive 2TB Raid 0.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gavagai

gavagai

Posted
Posted

Very, very late to the party. I tried out the Mig-29A a few times in anticipation of the DCS version. I don't think there is any module where it is so easy to damage a tire. I have no trouble landing, but it was a quick lesson that you have to be careful with takeoff. So much for rugged Soviet design.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites
draconus

draconus

Posted
Posted
Very, very late to the party. I tried out the Mig-29A a few times in anticipation of the DCS version. I don't think there is any module where it is so easy to damage a tire. I have no trouble landing, but it was a quick lesson that you have to be careful with takeoff. So much for rugged Soviet design.

I don't know how your comment relates to PIO and bounce but you should definitely try Su-25 re gear. Try to rotate sooner next time.

🖥️ Win10  i7-10700KF  32GB  RTX3060   🥽 Rift S   🕹️ T16000M  TWCS  TFRP   ✈️ FC3  F-14A/B  F-15E   ⚙️ CA   🚢 SC   🌐 NTTR  PG  Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gavagai

gavagai

Posted
Posted

Obviously.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Mateo

Mateo

Posted
Posted

Hello there!

 

I would like to share my settings and a way of using it for all fans of MiG-29 who are in troubles due to pitch channel singularity and who are using a short stick like Saitek X52, Saitek Cyborg or Logitech etc.

 

I have spent plenty of hours testing especially take offs and landings with different settings, I found out:

  • during normal flight within envelope, pitch trim is set a bit for AFT ("pulling"), during special circumstances trim setting is FWD or for high AFT setting.
  • when in flight envelope you are pulling the stick over 75% of range, the MiG enters the range over critical AOA, which is rarely used.
  • during inverted flight and afterburner use, stick need to be pushed almost to the limit of FWD range.
  • during landing or rather flare itself, stick need to be pulled in sophisticated manner to almost 'MAX AFT' which is simple to feel in real aircraft, but not so obvious in simulator. I have tested Saitek Cyborg Evo and Logitech Extreme 3D Pro, both gave me soft touchdown, so I share my way to let other's try. FIrst of all that procedure is based on document "Техника пилотирования МиГ-29". For not speaking russian I will translate most important part about landing:

    [...] At the height of 30...20 m check the speed and aiming point and continue visually glancing ahead and a bit left to judge descend rate visually. At height 10...8 m start flaring and let the aircraft fly horizontally at height 0.5...0.8 m. With following descend and speed drop reduce thrust to IDLE. Touchdown should occur at speed 260 ... 250 km/h and AOA should be 11 degrees. [...] Touchdown with AOA above 13 degrees is forbidden.

So the first thing to do it correctly with short stick is to achieve more precision when pulling. I have achieved this by settings that I have uploaded here. Please note that all range of stick movement is available, the trick is that precision is increased within range used for normal flight. Making it with 'Curve' settings only is impossible and will result in much worse effect for short stick use.

The second thing is to contribute the pulling with trim action, because it is precise. Below 30 m height, involve few trim up inputs in order to reduce descend rate just a bit. Then both pulling the stick and trimming up might be used to fly the aircraft almost horizontally at height of 0.5 m.

The third thing and the last one is to avoid pushing the stick. It can be achieved by pulling the stick by fingertips few times or gently pull once and hold pulled. Never let it move in forward direction too much as it will result in lost of stability on flare, and it will for sure result in hard touchdown with bounce.

 

Wish you soft landings.

 

Best Regards,

Mateo

 

021.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Mateo

Mateo

Posted
Posted

Hi,

So without 'slider' a very similar curve shape is available and some of you might try it, but there is one adventage if slider is set to on. I will attach picture what will happen with slider set to off. A more flat curve is something that increase precision, a more vertical curve is somthing that reduces its precision. We want to have hight precision within flight envelope deflection zones - it is range about 0 to 65. I can actually reduce saturation to 65 and it would be ok, but I couldn't reach maximum deflection. If I will use 'user curve' without slider I will achieve much shorter zone of flight envelope and still very ow precision near maximum deflection zone. So I'd rather to use slider and have longer zone with high precission within flight envelope. I still don't give up maximum deflection which is used very rarely and no precission is needed there. You will see difference if you will compare below pictures of slider to off with my previous picture.

 

 

 

 

025.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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