So I've been flying the MiG-29C...

[Apocal 0]

...and I've noticed something. It's really, really underpowered. Loaded out with nothing but A/A missiles (two R-60s and four R-73s) it can't break Mach 1 at 25K at full afterburner. Climbing at any angle higher than about 25 degrees, it can't maintain airspeed.

 

Granted, I don't know anywhere near as much about Russian aircraft as I do American, but damn, I'm pretty sure that isn't right. It seems odd that the aircraft that is (arguably) the best WVR fighter in the world has such a lack of power and speed. If I'm wrong though, feel free to boresight me on this issue.

[+drdoyo 2]

...and I've noticed something. It's really, really underpowered. Loaded out with nothing but A/A missiles (two R-60s and four R-73s) it can't break Mach 1 at 25K at full afterburner. Climbing at any angle higher than about 25 degrees, it can't maintain airspeed.

 

Granted, I don't know anywhere near as much about Russian aircraft as I do American, but damn, I'm pretty sure that isn't right. It seems odd that the aircraft that is (arguably) the best WVR fighter in the world has such a lack of power and speed. If I'm wrong though, feel free to boresight me on this issue.

 

There was a post a few months ago about a decimal being out of place in the data.ini file. It should be in the SFP1 general forum, or the mods and skinning forum. I don't remember which off hand.

[Kirsten 0]

...and I've noticed something. It's really, really underpowered. Loaded out with nothing but A/A missiles (two R-60s and four R-73s) it can't break Mach 1 at 25K at full afterburner. Climbing at any angle higher than about 25 degrees, it can't maintain airspeed.

 

Granted, I don't know anywhere near as much about Russian aircraft as I do American, but damn, I'm pretty sure that isn't right. It seems odd that the aircraft that is (arguably) the best WVR fighter in the world has such a lack of power and speed. If I'm wrong though, feel free to boresight me on this issue.

 

For one thing the Fulcrum C -and the A, G and all other versions too for that matter- are IMHO way too heavy because of an excessive fuel load in SFP1.

According to the very comprehensive article by Easy Tatar (www.sci.fi/fta/MiG-29) on the MiG 29, the C variant takes 3595 kgf internal fuel instead of no less than 6103 kgf if you add the contents of the fuel cells in the data.ini in the SPF1 download.

More than 2500 kgf ( 5530 lbs) of extra fuel weight does make a difference.........

I reduced the internal fuel for all the Fulcrums to about 59% in all cells.

I didn't go into the SFC of the engines, but assuming they are correct, it will cut the endurance considerably. The Fulcrum does not have "long legs" in real life though.

 

Aju,

 

Derk

[Apocal 0]

There was a post a few months ago about a decimal being out of place in the data.ini file. It should be in the SFP1 general forum, or the mods and skinning forum. I don't remember which off hand.

 

OK, I checked all those places, no joy to be found. Can you give a ballpark area to search, I might be able to it on my own.

[sparkomatic 7]

Have you tried this one:

 

MiG-29 isdelije 9.14 Sturmovik Fulcrum

 

If you like the MiG-29C, you may want to compare the data files and then edit to your tastes.

 

Personally I like both and thank the dudes who spent their free time in making them, and their generosity in sharing them

[Apocal 0]

I didn't go into the SFC of the engines, but assuming they are correct, it will cut the endurance considerably. The Fulcrum does not have "long legs" in real life though.

 

According to the Wikipedia entry and my "How to Fly and Fight in the MiG-29" the SFC is mostly correct. I went through the SLThrustDry/Wet entries and found them to be pretty much on the mark (slightly overrated), so I can't figure out why it won't break Mach 1.

 

I'm draining the tanks right now, like you suggested, but I really don't think that is the cause of the problem. If it was simply slow accleration, yeah, I could see that, but right now, the aircraft just hits a brickwall at about .93 Mach and simply won't go faster, regardless of how much coal you put in the burner.

 

If you like the MiG-29C, you may want to compare the data files and then edit to your tastes.

 

Thanks, giving it a shot now.

Edited January 21, 2008 by Apocal

[Apocal 0]

I guess my question should be, what other line items in the ini affect top end speed? I'm not as knowledgeable about aerodynamics or flight modelling as others around here.

[sparkomatic 7]

C5 knows this stuff cold...saw him post either here or at 3Wire about just thing

[Apocal 0]

Have you tried this one:

 

MiG-29 isdelije 9.14 Sturmovik Fulcrum

 

If you like the MiG-29C, you may want to compare the data files and then edit to your tastes.

 

Personally I like both and thank the dudes who spent their free time in making them, and their generosity in sharing them

 

I gave it a shot, exact same problem as before. They appear to be using identical flight models.

 

C5 knows this stuff cold...saw him post either here or at 3Wire about just thing

 

I've been searching, but I can't find anything related to the MiG-29.

[MigBuster 2,861]

if changing the thrust doesnt work then its probably a bunch of coefficients that might need changing - maybe in relation to drag on various parts of the body. That is just a guess you need someone who understands flight models really - if you cant get hold of a different model.

[+Paladrian 11]

I recently edited Thirdwire's F-104G FM because I felt it too was underpowered

 

The variables I changed were the following

 

AltitudeTableData

DryMachTableData

WetMachTableData

 

I believe the values in these variables represent a percentage of max thrust available at certain altitudes ( 1.0 = 100% ), so increasing them should give you more speed.

 

My starfighter now really flies like a missile :)

[+Gepard 10,251]

If you want to have a Mach 2 capable MiG-29 then do following steps:

 

1. open file MiG-29_Data.ini

 

2. look for [fuselage]

 

3. in section [fuselage] look for entries

CD0MachTableNumData=5

CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40

CD0MachTableStartX=0.00

CD0MachTableData=1.275,1.000,0.991,46.549,48.253

 

4. replace it with

CD0MachTableNumData=8

CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40

CD0MachTableStartX=0.00

CD0MachTableData=1.113,1.000,0.993,1.181,0.998,0.890,0.795,0.729

 

5. safe file

6. start game an enjoy a very fast Fulcrum

[Apocal 0]

VICTORY IS MINE!

 

Sweet man, thanks. Are these the 'realistic' settings or just settings that give a realistic result?

[+Gepard 10,251]

It's more a guess, but it brings relative realistic speeds. I tested it with a F-15A as Wingman. The MiG accellerates better, but at high altitudes the F-15 has a higher final speed.

[sparkomatic 7]

please also remember something important about modern jet fighters...

 

max speed is kind of like the "cyclic rate" of an assault rifle...it is the "lab fire rate"

 

So, like the vaunted F-15 can go Mach 2+...if you think every Eagle in the fleet can just put the throttle in the "go really fast position" and off you go like Halley's Comet...then you bought propaganda.

 

Real jets take a while to spool up...even still...not as bad as before, but not like in the movies...and once they spool up, they like to stay there...you slam that throttle around like Tom Cruise and you will most likely hear a very nasty "pop" and a sudden lurch...welcome to compressor stall...do it again, and you may be explaining things to an accident review board

 

It is far better to change pitch than throttle to seduce a different speed in a hurry...and the "boards" man never throw that thing out there unless you just like waiting a day and a half to get back the energy you just threw away...the game lets you throw your "speed brake" around like beads at Mardi Gras...real life is different

 

Energy management is huge...no, it is the only thing...fail that and you die...still want realism?

 

Hey ask FastCargo what he does to students that rack the throttle around during 'forms...gentle...gentle...

 

Man, my first approach turn stall maneuver and I put my boot on that throttle...yep and a banshee from hell itself erupted from my IP...never made that mistake again...gentle...gentle

 

What am I saying? A dirty (as in pylons, weapons, fuel, low to the deck) MiG-29C will not kill the Easter Bunny with its acceleration nor will it fly Mach Snot after you shove your throttle to 100%...it takes a while

 

But, this is a game, and if you want to play X-Wing, go ahead man, have fun that is why I enjoy this game, it is fun...

 

Like in MSFS 2K4 I was tooling around the pattern in a Mirage 2000-5 and as I pushed the throttle past 35% I was doing like 500 KIAS at 100 meters...no no no...whomever made the profile for the game was like it goes Mach Snot so 100% throttle must equal Mach Snot...Now the Mirage 2000-5 is a super sweet ride, yes...but it cannot come off the tarmac and before I have to squawk ident peel the paint off the tower...

 

So, before anyone goes off throwing wild numbers in the ini to make the jet "feel" like a modern fighter, be careful what you ask for, seriously...

[Apocal 0]

What am I saying? A dirty (as in pylons, weapons, fuel, low to the deck) MiG-29C will not kill the Easter Bunny with its acceleration nor will it fly Mach Snot after you shove your throttle to 100%...it takes a while

 

Dude, it wouldn't break Mach 1 loaded with ordnance, period. I could fly at 20,000ft for five minutes at full burner and it won't get faster than M0.93. I'm pretty sure something is wrong with that. I'm not saying the "fix" is necessarily realistic, but hell man, it's not like that uber-overpowered F-104 that could break Mach coming off the tarmac. It stays at about M1.2 (ish) low level, maybe M1.5 up high. This is after setting autolevel, 100% throttle, with an obscene fuel efficiency so I don't run out of gas, and leaving to go get a sandwhich.

 

Unlike the default F-15A, which will bust M2 with a full load of missiles and gun ammo, * cough*bulls**t*cough.

[sparkomatic 7]

wait...are you agreeing with me...message broken, weak...

[+Typhoid 231]

"Man, my first approach turn stall maneuver and I put my boot on that throttle...yep and a banshee from hell itself erupted from my IP...never made that mistake again...gentle...gentle "

 

I had a student do that when I was doing a little IP work during a practice engine out deadstick to a farmer's field. When it came time to terminate that and go around he jammed the throttle and the engine got real quiet.

 

I wasn't so quiet.....

 

low altitude restarts are fun!

 

[column5 62]

C5 knows this stuff cold...saw him post either here or at 3Wire about just thing

 

Wow with a compliment like that I guess I should try and say something intelligent.

 

EDIT: I just noticed where Gepard told you essentially the same thing I am about to, only with less long-winded explanation. So this is just an expansion on what he said.

 

If you want to tweak on the aircraft's max speed and acceleration without getting too involved in the coefficients (most of which are beyond me anyway, you need Streakeagle for an education on that) you can look at the following section, starting with the Fuselage component:

 

CD0MachTableNumData=5

CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40

CD0MachTableStartX=0.00

CD0MachTableData=1.195,1.000,1.008,1.792,1.767

 

Basically, this is a table of data that modifies the CD0 value (CD0 being drag coefficient at 0 alpha).

 

The first line defines the number of data points in the table.

The second line defines the "distance" in Mach between each data point.

The third line tells the game that the table starts at Mach 0.

The fourth line contains the data.

 

So, let's say that the CD0 for the fuselage was 0.01 (just for example, to make this easy, that is actually a fairly high value for CD0).

 

At Mach 0.00, the CD0 would be 0.01 x 1.195 = 0.01195

At Mach 0.40, the CD0 would be 0.01 x 1.000 = 0.01000

At Mach 0.80, the CD0 would be 0.01 x 1.008 = 0.01008

At Mach 1.20, the CD0 would be 0.01 x 1.792 = 0.01792

At Mach 1.20, the CD0 would be 0.01 x 1.767 = 0.01767

 

So, you can see how between Mach 0.80 and 1.20, this airplane runs into a "brick wall" of drag, with the CD0 increasing over 70%. Its a safe bet that this airplane would normally be subsonic, and might break Mach 1 in a dive.

 

What you can do is change the values in the table, and even add more data points to get finer control over the drag at various speeds.

 

For example, if you wanted this aircraft to have better acceleration between Mach 0.4 and 0.8, you could reduce the third value in the table.

 

Likewise, if you wanted to extend the top speed to Mach 1.2, you could reduce the fourth value in the table.

 

Make changes in small (5 or 10%) increments and then test.

 

Several of the components that make up the plane will have CD0 tables like this, but if you just want to make a quick and dirty modification, you can play only with the table for the fuselage. Also, there are other ways to accomplish the task, such as playing with the engine altitude tables, but this will give you decent results and as mentioned is quick and easy.

 

Edited January 31, 2008 by column5

[IAFmars 0]

I think CCCP's planes which in game aren't ture. So I think if you want to play CCCP's fighter ,you may be edit its films.

[sparkomatic 7]

I think CCCP's planes which in game aren't ture. So I think if you want to play CCCP's fighter ,you may be edit its films.

 

 

I have no idea what you just wrote...

[+Typhoid 231]

If you want to have a Mach 2 capable MiG-29 then do following steps:

 

1. open file MiG-29_Data.ini

 

2. look for [fuselage]

 

3. in section [fuselage] look for entries

CD0MachTableNumData=5

CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40

CD0MachTableStartX=0.00

CD0MachTableData=1.275,1.000,0.991,46.549,48.253

 

4. replace it with

CD0MachTableNumData=8

CD0MachTableDeltaX=0.40

CD0MachTableStartX=0.00

CD0MachTableData=1.113,1.000,0.993,1.181,0.998,0.890,0.795,0.729

 

5. safe file

6. start game an enjoy a very fast Fulcrum

 

seems to work pretty well. It tops out at about 731 and matches similar aircraft on the same profile. I don't know how accurate that is, but as a relative measure it seems OK.

 

to reiterate what C5 and Streakeagle pointed out - a fully loaded aircraft is not going to perform that well.

[+Gepard 10,251]

I only adjusted the fuselage. I tested it in clean mode, also flying without weapons and tanks. And i think the performance of the clean bird could be relative okay. For a more correct performance of a missile armed plane, i think it would be neccessary to edit the drag performed by the pylons and the weapons.

 

Of course, only a guy who had flown the MiG-29 can tell us, how exact the here used flight model is.

I found an article of an interview with a german MiG-29 pilot who was asked what he thought about computer flight sims:

 

Q:Flanker 2.5 now simulates also the Mig-29 K, almost exactly the plane you are flying (Nb. The sim models the navalized version, which is capable of carrier landings and air to air refueling. The Mig-29 G in Laage is the land based version.). What's your impression ?

 

A:It seems to be a very realistic simulation. The flight characteristics and the cockpit are caught very well. Also all the HUD, IRST and radar modes are very realistic including their presentations. The only thing that is not so realistic is the performance of the radar. In real world it has much more trouble in finding targets and is a lot less stable in tracking those. But on the other hand is the simulation imitating the more modern MiG-29K with a better radar.

 

Q:Are the general flight characteristics well caught ? How does the sim flight model perform on the border of the safe Mig flight envelope ?

 

A:The flight characteristics are caught very well. The energy bleed rate also seems to be right. The only thing I would like to criticise is the tendency to go out of control to easily and then to be to hard to recover. The real MiG hardly goes out of control and then is very easy and quickly to recover. Also does it seem to be a little bit to unstable in normal flight.

 

Q:How does the simulation perform regarding the Fulcrum high performance region, do things like turn rate and sustained corner speed feel right ?

 

A:Yes, turnrate and corner speed feel very right.

 

 

So i guess if we would compare the flight model of the MiG-29 for SFP1 family and the MiG-29 of Flanker 2.51 we could get a feeling how acurate our MiG is.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Gepard

[Apocal 0]

Wow with a compliment like that I guess I should try and say something intelligent.

 

ROCK! That was exactly what I was looking for.

 

I just got in a few MiG-29 books after scouring all over for something resembling a performance mark. And I FOUND ONE!

 

At Mach 0.85 (this is a typo, I'm 99% sure they mean Mach 0.4) the MiG-29's linear acceleration is 36 ft/sec-squared at sea level, which means the fighter can go from 277 knots to 555 knots in just 13 seconds. At 19,685ft and Mach 0.85, linear acceleration is 21.32 ft/sec-squared.

 

I've already started testing and revising the data.ini. Which was the reason for my other thread. At sea level, everything is pretty much smack-on. I'm doing the high-altitude testing now. BTW, could a mod combine these two topics? They are pretty much regarding the same thing.

[+Viggen 517]

I think CCCP's planes which in game aren't ture. So I think if you want to play CCCP's fighter ,you may be edit its films.

 

So your saying the USSR's planes aren't right or pure? And that if we want to play as a Soviet you edit the movie? What?

 

Sparko I agree you here.