Jump to content

Thank you for the new FM


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I agree with what has been said. The high AOA flying is a step back...

 

One day Magnitude will learn to do flight models.... Maybe

 

I won't be nice to Magnitude. But I think, the split was a great thing for Heatblur. Heatblur has delivered on their promises and brought one of the most glorious aircrafts in DCS. In the same timeframe magnitude has delivered a CEII; to me the worst module in DCS (which I could have been flying way more since it is a very challenging and fun aircraft IRL). They've been promising updates most notably on the CEII sounds for more than a year now... Just for a sound pack...

 

Quite frankly I would not be surprised to see them fail in this buisness. I just hope the customers won't be harmed...

 

Doesn't riojax show the alpha is reasonable? How many aircraft have you stalled? We need facts not opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't riojax show the alpha is reasonable? How many aircraft have you stalled? We need facts not opinions.

 

You don't want any opinions but, you are of the opinion I lie? Please be coherent.

 

The delta wings do have very nice high alpha carateristics. This is allowed by the self generation of very strong vortices on the wing leading edge. Unfortunately, these vortices do produce a huge increase of drag not currently visible.

 

Also during a stall, most aircrafts will tend to drop a wing, sometimes even exibit dutch roll. At the moment, there is none of that.

 

The other big issue is that according to this chart provided, from 28 to 33°, it is a dangerous operating area as there is a possibility of stalling (black and red area). I haven't managed to be punished by flying in this area, or beyond... And the turn rate does actually looks beneficial.

 

To me, It starts to be a bit too much... Drag not punishing, and flying not punishing nor challenging. As other said, it feels like flying on FBW. But, this is just my opinion whether you like it or not.

 

As for your question, to date I have flown 23 different types. I stalled most of them.

Gliders are: WA30 - SNC34 - G103 - DuoDiscus - FOX - ASK13- C201 - C101 - LS-4 (HK36 and SF28 not stalled)

Airplanes are: C152 - C172 - C182RG - J3 - PA28 - GA8 - Citabria - Christen Eagle - PA30 -PA31 (CRJ200 and 900 only "stalled" in level D sim)


Edited by pierrewind
Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet some people still believe it's a "normal" behaviour... chair.gif

 

 

I did a Cobra with a 21, I also went 100km/h, pulled hard, then release pressure and it came back to horizontal flight just like that.

Also, you can do barel roll when on final and still land the jet as a RC plane.

 

 

 

Yeah, everything is fine some say...

Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't want any opinions but, you are of the opinion I lie? Please be coherent.

 

The delta wings do have very nice high alpha carateristics. This is allowed by the self generation of very strong vortices on the wing leading edge. Unfortunately, these vortices do produce a huge increase of drag not currently visible.

 

Also during a stall, most aircrafts will tend to drop a wing, sometimes even exibit dutch roll. At the moment, there is none of that.

 

The other big issue is that according to this chart provided, from 28 to 33°, it is a dangerous operating area as there is a possibility of stalling (black and red area). I haven't managed to be punished by flying in this area, or beyond... And the turn rate does actually looks beneficial.

 

To me, It starts to be a bit too much... Drag not punishing, and flying not punishing nor challenging. As other said, it feels like flying on FBW. But, this is just my opinion whether you like it or not.

 

As for your question, to date I have flown 23 different types. I stalled most of them.

Gliders are: WA30 - SNC34 - G103 - DuoDiscus - FOX - ASK13- C201 - C101 - LS-4 (HK36 and SF28 not stalled)

Airplanes are: C152 - C172 - C182RG - J3 - PA28 - GA8 - Citabria - Christen Eagle - PA30 -PA31 (CRJ200 and 900 only "stalled" in level D sim)

 

'Most aircraft will drop a wing' isn't really applicable. Does the MiG 21?

 

I have noticed that drag at hi alpha is perhaps a little low. I can keep on pulling without serious issues in mil.

 

Yes i agree more to be done, and i really do wish more aircraft in dcs would bite back, its so much more fun.

 

Can we do this without the snarky comments? It's so tiresome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I absolutely love the Mig -21 in dcs always have I find it such a quirky interesting module. And it just feels realistic. But since I've had VR I find its so strange to look into your seat and see nothing there and unfortunately it's got to the point where I'm only flying modules with a VR pilot body. I really hope they get round to implementing this for the Mig-21. Thanks for the continued updates on the FM.

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3457419&postcount=2

 

There you go! You are welcome to read that from page 132, where it discusses stalls and spins in the Mig-21bis !

 

Short story if someone is too lazy:

 

There will be rocking from wing to wing if AoA too high, and if there is slideslip or rudder displacement, then the plane might enter a spin.

 

Inverted spin is also possible...

 

I think, it is logical, that if you have 2 large red lights coming on right in front of your face when you exceed max AoA, that might suggest: something bad is about to happen :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3457419&postcount=2

 

There you go! You are welcome to read that from page 132, where it discusses stalls and spins in the Mig-21bis !

 

Short story if someone is too lazy:

 

There will be rocking from wing to wing if AoA too high, and if there is slideslip or rudder displacement, then the plane might enter a spin.

 

Inverted spin is also possible...

 

I think, it is logical, that if you have 2 large red lights coming on right in front of your face when you exceed max AoA, that might suggest: something bad is about to happen :)

 

 

Let it go... you are speaking to brick-walls.

 

Thanks to the new "FM", many people can actually fly the jet and so they believe it's the normal behaviour because it's easy.

 

 

 

It's reported and being investigated so let's hope the dev will manage to fix the FM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Let it go... you are speaking to brick-walls.

 

Thanks to the new "FM", many people can actually fly the jet and so they believe it's the normal behaviour because it's easy.

 

 

 

It's reported and being investigated so let's hope the dev will manage to fix the FM.

 

There is nothing worse than flying fake FM, it's like being cheated.

 

If anyone enjoys that, then let's fly flying saucers with unlimited g, unlimited power.. fun eh

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

First and foremost people, stop the rude behaviour, this is not a children´s community, there are grownup fan´s of military aviation here. To be elite you have to act like it, especially to new ones who didn´t read forum rules, do so!

 

Now, I have to admit that the new FM is not the best, MiG-21Bis has seen better times, some of the best flight models were the very first ones when the module came out (by Leatherneck Simulations back then, before the split). It really surprises me to see such a major change in the FM, when it is atleast the 3rd major revamp of the FM. It does feel different, but not in a good way.

 

What really get´s at me though, is that the team should have all the resources it should need, with Novak - Dolphin887 who actually has flown this aircraft. I just cannot understand that we keep getting such major FM changes with the MiG21Bis, that it doesn´t land at a final FM with some fine tuning here and there. I believe that M3 owes an explanation here as to what is going on, especially to all of us who have been there from the start and before.

 

To add it on the side note, one of the many threads I opened about MiG21Bis right at it´s release was about the missing pilot-body in cockpit. Back then I was promised "next patch". It is now a couple years later, with VR and a missing pilot body, which ruins immersion. This along with the aforementioned leads me to believe that either things are not working as they should within the team or the module is not a priority. Quite honestly, everyone here has paid money for the module and done their part of the deal, the rest is up to you M3. That is to bring a fully functioning module. It´s now so many years since release, that such a basic thing as FM should have been settled a long time ago. Again, harsh words, but that is from a fan who has been waiting since release, and if I may speak for colleagues in the community, not only me but us all. I guess you should update us on what is going on right now, and how you plan to tackle this, cause the new FM is so different that one starts to doubt if you will ever settle down for a realistic FM or if we will have everything from a Ka50 to M2000C in one and the same MiG21Bis. Christen Eagle is cool and all, but you got a MiG21Bis to finish. Pretty please, with sugar on top ;)

 

That said, there have been many good updates as well, eg. ASP-17. It´s just that FM should be above all I suppose. It´s not so fun to fly a different plane every "little" FM upgrade ;)


Edited by zerO_crash

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites
First and foremost people, stop the rude behaviour, this is not a children´s community, there are grownup fan´s of military aviation here. To be elite you have to act like it, especially to new ones who didn´t read forum rules, do so!

 

Now, I have to admit that the new FM is not the best, MiG-21Bis has seen better times, some of the best flight models were the very first ones when the module came out (by Leatherneck Simulations back then, before the split). It really surprises me to see such a major change in the FM, when it is atleast the 3rd major revamp of the FM. It does feel different, but not in a good way.

 

What really get´s at me though, is that the team should have all the resources it should need, with Novak - Dolphin887 who actually has flown this aircraft. I just cannot understand that we keep getting such major FM changes with the MiG21Bis, that it doesn´t land at a final FM with some fine tuning here and there. I believe that M3 owes an explanation here as to what is going on, especially to all of us who have been there from the start and before.

 

To add it on the side note, one of the many threads I opened about MiG21Bis right at it´s release was about the missing pilot-body in cockpit. Back then I was promised "next patch". It is now a couple years later, with VR and a missing pilot body, which ruins immersion. This along with the aforementioned leads me to believe that either things are not working as they should within the team or the module is not a priority. Quite honestly, everyone here has paid money for the module and done their part of the deal, the rest is up to you M3. That is to bring a fully functioning module. It´s now so many years since release, that such a basic thing as FM should have been settled a long time ago. Again, harsh words, but that is from a fan who has been waiting since release, and if I may speak for colleagues in the community, not only me but us all. I guess you should update us on what is going on right now, and how you plan to tackle this, cause the new FM is so different that one starts to doubt if you will ever settle down for a realistic FM or if we will have everything from a Ka50 to M2000C in one and the same MiG21Bis. Christen Eagle is cool and all, but you got a MiG21Bis to finish. Pretty please, with sugar on top ;)

 

That said, there have been many good updates as well, eg. ASP-17. It´s just that FM should be above all I suppose. It´s not so fun to fly a different plane every "little" FM upgrade ;)

 

Fair points well put.

harrier landing GIFRYZEN 7 3700X Running at 4.35 GHz

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080Ti

32gb DDR4 RAM @3200 MHz

Oculus CV1 NvME 970 EVO

TM Warthog Stick & Throttle plus 11" extension. VKB T-Rudder MKIV

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a post from a couple of weeks ago from one of M3 guys stating that due to contract obligations it's "all hands on the deck" for F4U Corsair now. I'm not surprised then, that older products drop on priority list in that situation (not to mention that if they don't bring much money anymore, they'll always be lower on priority list - nature of videogame industry).

 

As for Dolphin's input - well, I'll say it again, being an experienced pilot doesn't automatically make you a champion software engineer and I guess after all these years and 2 developer changes, MiG code is probably a bit of a mess even he cannot control fully.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I seem to recall a post from a couple of weeks ago from one of M3 guys stating that due to contract obligations it's "all hands on the deck" for F4U Corsair now. I'm not surprised then, that older products drop on priority list in that situation (not to mention that if they don't bring much money anymore, they'll always be lower on priority list - nature of videogame industry).

 

As for Dolphin's input - well, I'll say it again, being an experienced pilot doesn't automatically make you a champion software engineer and I guess after all these years and 2 developer changes, MiG code is probably a bit of a mess even he cannot control fully.

 

I don´t ask him to be a pro coder either. But he should be able to feel out the plane and compare it to IRL. If the FM change is closer to the real one, sure update it. But with the major fm changes we have had since the beginning, they have all acted so different that they are pulling the plane in different performance spectrums each time. Why release a fm update that pulls us further away from it. It would be nice to have him comment whether this is really how MiG21Bis is supposed to feel. (Somehow I doubt it, as the plane handles in some flight-regimes as if it was a su27 or MiG29).

 

Also, if F4U Corsair is priority list, because it can fix their financial problems, well then this issue will drag itself forever with something always lagging behind. They as devs have an obligation to us customers who have paid for it. I didn´t pay for MiG21Bis to have them abort it mid way to release the F4U. (Not saying this is the case, but if it´s true what you state, then that´s my answer to it). I somehow don´t think they have abandoned it, as the cockpit received newly updated in-cockpit lightning. Not sure if a priority or not, but it should be a minimum requirements that it´s fm be updated once and for all, with rather minor updates over time, before F4U... That´s what I would consieder a competent business choice, considering that your potential future F4U buyers could be your former MiG21Bis buyers. See my point? ;)

 

I don´t either understand their silence. We are not here to mock anyone, rather as customers, ask for some two-way communication. Surely they must know we will compare them as a dev to other 3rd party devs. It is impossible not to. It´s like eating food at different restaurants and not comparing them. I am not saying either that they have to explain themselves every update they make, but the fm is critical in DCS, and with so many changes, we have never really gotten any statements as to why so much changes each time they tweak.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand the silence and I don't understand why this wasn't in the patch notes either? I literally just found this out by randomly browsing the forum.

 

I haven't tried the new flight model but I'm pretty disturbed by what I just read. I'd like to point out I've had the MiG-21 for 5 years now, why did the flight model need to change in the first place? Aren't we well passed release version?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Current MiG-21 Cl comparision

 

Hello, I finished my calcs and plotted them over the real MiG-21bis Cl table.

 

The shaded area is the buffeting zone, and upper that the plane will stall, downwards, all must to be ok.

 

[FIRST IMAGE]

* Blue line: The Cl with 33º on the UUA-1 indicator

* Orange line: The Cl with max possible pitch

* Yellow line: The CL with 21º on the UUA-1 indicator

 

[sECOND IMAGE]

* Blue line: The Cl with max possible pitch using ARU-3V in manual (full left)

* Orange line: The Cl with max possible pitch using ARU-3V in AUTO.

* Yellow line: Simulated DCS AoA using current FM to match the real UUA-1 33º value.

 

[1] EDIT: Possible DCS bug related to the atmospheric lift, compare the two attached images, one at 760mmHg and other at 900mmHg, also check the corrected rho value. For this maybe the current FM Cl is ok for < 0.6M

[2] EDIT: Using the ARU-3V in manual forced at full left the FM seems a lot better! (attached img2)

 

As you can see actually the M3 MiG-21 has three issues:

1) the UUA-1 indicator don't work as the real one.

2) the FM at max pull over-performs the pre-stall MiG-21 capabilities under 0.6M (check the possible DCS bug[1])

3) the FM at max pull under-performs the MiG-21 capabilities over 0.6M[2]

 

As conclusion, the FM is near to real on 0.6M and under[1], and the biggest issues are the under-perform over 0.6M using the ARU-3 in auto[2] that it's very noticeable and the UUA-1 issue that at this point makes this instrument totally useless and difficult to compare the exact non-buffeting values.

 

Anyway, thank you a lot for this update, that did a better FM than before and set it on the right way!

 

UPDATE1: The tables was updated with ARU-3V in manual and auto.

UPDATE2: Maybe the ARU-3V uses the wrong UUA-1 values and for this the wrong behavior.

UPDATE3: Added the simulated data for UUA-1 33º in the 2nd image.

 

The chart and tables are attached as libre office calc and an image.

AVIO_CL_MIG21.zip

mig21.thumb.PNG.7bf5ed6cea56ab3101e394f3abff5547.PNG

mig21_2.thumb.PNG.15f679fd05fc81e8ae2e63f1efcccf89.PNG


Edited by riojax
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting work, thanks for doing it!

 

I think, there might be a problem with your calculation at or above Mach 0.6, because as you know, the flight control system of the 21 (ARU-3V) keeps decreasing the ratio between your stick input and actual elevator movement (less elevator movement for given stick movement as speed increases). For me it seems, that corresponds to the constant G while decreasing AoA.

 

Can you repeat the test with ARU-3 set to manual? That will overstress the aircraft of course and may break apart of course, but only then can you recieve the actual Cl.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting work, thanks for doing it!

Can you repeat the test with ARU-3 set to manual? That will overstress the aircraft of course and may break apart of course, but only then can you recieve the actual Cl.

 

Thank you mate, I will update it later :)

EDIT: The original post is updated, the change isn't noticeable and into the common measure error.


Edited by riojax
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is strange.... What position is shown on the ARU-3 indicator when you do the test at lets say, Mach 0.9? Is it all the way left? I would expect a gross over G (not just 11), if the ARU is set for maximum elevator movement.

 

EDIT: What I'm trying to get across here: The original russian chart shows Cl at a given AoA, for example there is a line for alpha = 33 degrees,---> that means the AoA is at constant 33 indicated and the CL is calculated for that.

 

the problem in your test is: AoA is not kept constant, it decreases above M0.6----> that makes the test invalid, because if the AoA is NOT 33 then the calculated CL is obiously not corresponding to AoA=33.

 

You have to test it all as you did with the AoA=21 line. Same AoA for all measurements, or it does not make sense.


Edited by HWasp
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well this is strange.... What position is shown on the ARU-3 indicator when you do the test at lets say, Mach 0.9? Is it all the way left? I would expect a gross over G (not just 11), if the ARU is set for maximum elevator movement.

 

No, I tried to regulate it to avoid break the plane, I will redo with full left at the break instant.

EDIT: Updated with near breaking values.


Edited by riojax
Link to post
Share on other sites
EDIT: What I'm trying to get across here: The original russian chart shows Cl at a given AoA, for example there is a line for alpha = 33 degrees,---> that means the AoA is at constant 33 indicated and the CL is calculated for that.

 

As you can see the original don't use AoA, it uses the UUA-1 value (that is similar to NACA TN 4351) for this in the first page I used 3 measures, 33º UUA-1 when it was possible, 21º and full stick backwards.

The issue is that 33º wasn't possible from 0.6M and the maximum possible UUA-1 value is indicated in the UUA-1 column. This probably isn't a FM issue and only need fixing the UUA-1 value with the correct Cl for each.

 

Anyway the UUA-1 value is totally broken for now and for this we are focusing on the pre-stall buffeting area and the stall barrier that is pure Cl calc. that don't use AoA for nothing.


Edited by riojax
Link to post
Share on other sites

UUA-1 is measured local AoA, that is proportional to the real AoA of the wing. Different, but proportional. So it is an AoA value. If you can't keep lets say 33 UAA or AoA or whatever, because of the flight controls or anything, then that 33 UAA line should simply stop there, because then it is not valid for that chart anymore.

That russian chart is not for practical use, for example 33 UAA at Mach 0.9 gives 16Gs (with your weight). But aerodynamically it should be possible for the plane even if it breaks apart. If flight controls don't let you, then that is another thing.

 

What your test shows until now: below Mach 0.6 where it is valid (for 33 UAA) that the current Mig-21 FM has a higher CL for a given AoA, than it should.

Link to post
Share on other sites
UUA-1 is measured local AoA, that is proportional to the real AoA of the wing. Different, but proportional. So it is an AoA value.

Right but to avoid an misconception is better to say only UUA-1 value.

 

If you can't keep lets say 33 UAA or AoA or whatever, because of the flight controls or anything, then that 33 UAA line should simply stop there, because then it is not valid for that chart anymore.

Right. I will fix that.

 

What your test shows until now: below Mach 0.6 where it is valid (for 33 UAA) that the current Mig-21 FM has a higher CL for a given AoA, than it should.

Negative. As you can see the wing AoA is in the chart too, and the UUA-1 value seems totally wrong when you compare it with the AoA. Also is interesting to check the NACA TN 4351 as it have similar calibration calcs.

Also I recommend to you check the air pressure issue, as for example on 900mmHG the chart is a lot better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well yes, it is possible that the UAA vs actual AoA is wrong somehow, but still both your CL max and CL 33 lines are way above the highest line on the original chart. CL=1.25 should be the highest at some extreme AoA, yet you have measured 1.39.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...