Robin_Hood

It is more of an Easter Egg feature than anything at the moment. In the same spirit, they had made so the ejected pilot could drive an UAZ (long before Combined Arms). Yet, they may make it more interesting in the future. They have already "upgraded" this feature slightly (at first other players in multiplayer wouldn't see the ejected pilot ; now they see him, though always in the place he has landed, they don't see him walk around).

Ok, so. After a couple more flight tests, I have come to the conclusion that the (current) engine always produce the same thrust when the nozzles are open, ie. having your RPM at 70% or 78% produces exactly the same thrust if the nozzles are open. See attached charts with a comparison of speed* and acceleration** against time (also, for reference, altitude* and left engine RPM*). * extracted by export script ** computed by derivation of the velocity For all the parameters (except obviously RPM), both curves are pretty much exactly superimposed, indicating that the 8.5% difference in RPM does not change anything. I might try plotting the same for 80% and 88%, for comparison purposes, although I strongly expect it would show a much better acceleration for 88% than for 80%. Note that I have tested on a light aircraft in order to have a better sensivity to thrust. I know I may seem obsessed about the matter, but I'm simply intrigued by the current behaviour (also, I like to do flight tests and charts). Also, note that I am not at all trying to belittle the huge work that was done on the Su-27 flight model, which is very impressive.

Could be, I guess. I noticed Idle RPM are dependent on the temperature. Here's a little chart I made shortly after the PFM was released. Although this is quite off-topic

For the engine spooling down part, make sure you are not applying negative Gs to the aircraft, especially while in afterburner. The fuel reserve for negative-G flight is rather small, and after a short while your engine will shut down from fuel starvation. From what I recall, the manual says something like 3 seconds in afterburner (or 8 seconds above 5 000 m), and 12 ? seconds otherwise (15 seconds above 5 000 m). Not sure about the 12, but something like that.

Just for information, the 1.12 gives the same results:

It has nothing to do with static friction IMO. It is the way thrust is modeled in relation to the engine nozzles (realistic or not, I cannot say). The same things happen in flight, just try it (from idle to 79% you just hopelessly lose speed, then at 80% thrust kicks in, and stays down to 74%, below that you'll fall out of the sky again). See here

If you have a joystick with a programming software, you should be able to do this. I don't think it is possible with the in-game control options.

The main thing I think is that more lift does not necessarily produce a nose-high tendency, which is what seems to be implied by the OP. esb77 explained well why the nose-down behaviour is consistent with flaps placed aft of the center of gravity.

I was only referring to this part ...not the blown tires problem. I do not have an opinion on that one, as I personally blow tires very rarely. I do not use brakes for keeping my speed during taxiing though, instead pumping the throttle like crazy. Doesn't make for a very clean taxi, mind you, but maybe it will have less of a tendency to blow tires. Anyway, great to see the damaged tires effects added in the new patch :)

If what you mean is fighter-to-fighter datalink, I doubt we will see that anytime soon. When (if) a full DCS: Su-27 is released, sure, but don't hold your breath IMO. Of course, AWACS-to-fighter or EWR-to-fighter datalink is already working, and it is already very useful if you are Lucky enough to have those. BTW, a real great thanks to ED for unexpectedly improving the datalink. I love that kind of surprises :)

That is apparently a question of engine thrust, and the same effects happen in flight. See this thread (I hadn't heard it was acknowledged as a bug before though, we will see I guess).

I am sorry to bring this topic again, but it still seems very strange to me, so I would like to confirm that the behaviour is realistic. The thrust with open nozzles is apparently immensely less than with nozzles open, and it doesn't seem to really increase with RPMs (which is to say, 70% or 78% doesn't seem to make any difference in thrust). I did a little acceleration testing (in flight, so nothing about wheels friction here) to illustrate what I mean, using an export script. I maintained 7 000 m during the whole maneuver. What I did was start idle, and advance the throttle slowly (by increments), until 85%, then retard the throttle slowly back to 70%, all the while recording the time, IAS (in m/s) and RPM (left engine). Here are the results: As you can see: - the aircraft (nozzles open) starts at 70% and decelerating. - as the throttle advances from 70% to 79% it keeps decelerating at a steady pace, as if RPM didn't matter. - when when reaching about 80%, nozzles close* and thrust kicks in, instantly resulting in a significant acceleration. - as the throttles is advanced to 85, the aicraft accelerates faster and faster - with the RPM going back, acceleration decreases slowly until speed as approximately constant at about 75% RPM - when RPM goes under 74%, nozzles open* and the aircraft immediately starts decelerating at a great pace - once again, as the throttle is retarded from 4% to 70%, no change in the pace of deceleration is noticed. * I suppose What I would gather from that is that it would seem as if thrust was kept constant at idle thrust in the whole region where nozzles are open. I may be interpreting this wrong, of course, and maybe the engine model is absolutely allright, but I wanted to share this tests with you so that a confirmation could be made that this is realistic for the Su-27. Note: I did not made this tests in the new Open Beta, so if things have changed, I will redo them later with the new version.

In addition to what has been said, You may have one of the contributing factors right there. FW-190 and P-51 are propeller-driven, not the best targets for a heat-seeking missile. I suspect the Yak-40 isn't the hottest either. Now the MiG-15 should give you better results. You can try the MiG-21Bis also, if it goes into afterburner you should have a real good heat source to lock your Sidewinder into.

Very probably not Bulleye, no. The AWACS sometimes uses Bullseye, though, but all such calls are preceded by "Bulls" (should be "Bullseye" in full, really, but I guess they are lazy). I am still unsure as to what your problem is, could you give an exemple of a radio communication that you seems wrong to you? Also, don't mix up AWACS, Wingmen and SPO, there's really no relation to each other. Oh, and yes, the SPO has quite some shortcomings.

Good to know. Is there no nosegear brake like there is on the MiG-21bis? Only the two main gear?

I hope ED address this issue with EDGE and the planned weather improvements (not necessarily at launch, of course).

I have the same problem. The real-life manual (Su-27SK, so probably not the exact same variant, I grant you) says : pull the stick at 200 km/h and nosewheel should come off the ground at 230-280 km/h (depending on the mass). By the way, this is from an operating manual, not an advertisement brochure. I am not saying the PFM is wrong, just wondering. I must admit I haven't done a lot of testing, either. PS: Incidentally, I tend to see the same thing in the MiG-21, ie. nosewheel comes off the ground at a higher speed than mentioned in the manual.

I'm pretty sure every chopper currently modeled has an automatic regulation of the RPM, so I'm not sure a manual meddling would help ?

I'd like to point out that normally, BRA(A) never refers to the Bullseye, only to the bearing and range from your position - and then Altitude and Aspect - (and each call of that type should include "BRAA" ideally). There are two main standard formats that you should expect the AWACS to use. BRAA Bearing (from your aircraft), Range (from your aircraft), Altitude, Aspect + Additional infos Here's an example: "Uzi 11, group BRAA 090, 50, 20 000, Hot, Hostile, Heavy" A group of contacts is located at 090° (due east) from your position (bearing), at 50 nm from you (range), at 20 thousand feet. He is pointed towards you (aspect), he is hostile (which means you are authorized to shoot at him), and is composed of more than 2 aircrafts (Heavy is more than two). Note that additionnal informations like ID and composition are not used by the in-game AWACS. The ID should be given if you call for a Declare, though. Bullseye Bearing (from Bullseye), Range (from Bullseye), Altitude, Direction of flight + Additional infos Here's an example "Darkstar, picture, one group Bullseye 090, 50, 20 000, Track West, Hostile, Heavy" Now there is a group of contacts due east at 090° from the Bullseye, at 50 nm from the Bullseye, at 20 thousand feet. The group is heading west (the AWACS could also have said "heading 270"), is hostile and composed of more than 2 aircrafts. An aircraft over the Bullseye is normally called just that, eg. "North group over Bullseye". Also remember, the AWACS will never mention your own heading, because it is not relevant to the contact it is describing (unless of course he is describing you to some other group). Anyway, I think that the in-game AWACS will never mention heading whatsoever. So it's always the bearing (others described how it is different already). The closest thing to a heading that the in-game AWACS does mention is the Aspect, in the form of "Hot", "Cold", or "Flanking", which tells you if the bandit is flying towards you, away from you, or neither (respectively). I hope it helps. If you want to know more about AWACS calls in real life, you should be able to find everything you want to know in a document called AFTTP 3-1.1

The funny thing is that in your screenshot, all the passworded servers are empty ;) Probably because most of them belong to virtual squads that only use them at some definite time for training or missions. But anyway, that's not the topic. The OP is just asking for a filtering/sorting feature, which I think we all agree is needed. I'm sure ED agree too, they just have to prioritize every feature that they want to implement (and there are many I'm sure).

From what I remember (I haven't flown the Ka-50 for a very long time), I think the last digit is not seconds, but tens of minutes. So that 5 would be 30 seconds, and not 50 seconds So it would use 42° 32.5" instead of 42° 32" 30'.

The F10 map view seems pretty costly indeed. I have made some further tests, and here's what I got : - I used an empty map, with one armored Ural as an Anchor, in a low resolution area (north of Mozdok). I placed the units in the general area of the truck, but not quite in view, as I am only trying to test the ressources taken up by units in the mission, not by their graphical representation. - Having 400 (active) infantry units lowered the FPS slightly (I lost 4 FPS) in normal view (F7 view on the truck) - not as much as I thought, but I think this is very much hardware and situation dependent. - In F10 view, however, I lost 45 FPS ! - The results were identical whether I used 8 groups of 50 units or 40 groups of 10 units - Static infantry units* (400 of them) gave a better result, as I had no FPS drop in normal view, and "only" a 26 FPS drop in F10 view Of course, I'm sure all of this is very much hardware dépendent. Also, units moving or fighting may be another story. * I had to use different infantry, as the standard russian infantry apparently didn't work as a static object - is this a bug on my side ?. So I used paratroopers instead. Shouldn't really matter that much.

Maybe you can try editing a mission the following way : 1. Start with a basic mission (it can be empty, or have a few units already) 2. Start the mission and check your frames per seconds 3. Place 500 "vehicule" (active) infantry troops (for example, it can be some other number, and the test should be valid with other types of unit as well) - do not have them move around as this may incur further performance hit 4. Check your frames per seconds with those, see by how much they were reduced 5. Remove all those troops, and place the same number (in this case 500 infantry) in static form (I know, placing 500 static objects will take a while, thanks God for Ctrl+V) 6. Ensure that you have the same number of troops (the units list should enable you to do that) 7. Check the frames per seconds again, and see if they are higher than with active units (it should be, I guess) As I said, things then may differ when units are moving, shooting, etc... (not talking about the purely graphical hit that is sure to happen watching 500+ units fighting). I have not tested this myself, so this may be interesting. What I have tested though is putting an AI OFF trigger on the units (several hundred), and guess what ? It didn't change anything. So AI OFF is not useful for reducing the strain on the server (it is useful for other things though).

Note that the MiG-21 does not make its approach to the runway at a constant speed or AoA. Russian procedure is to keep reducing speed from the turn to final or so, all the way to touchdown. When you get to the runway, pull the stick to stop your descent just above the ground, throttle not to IDLE, but to MIN (if you retard the throttle more than that, you will lose a lot of lift because of the BLC), and let your airspeed go down. Keep on pulling gently on the stick to touchdown with the stick very much aft and at 260-280 km/h. That's what the manual says.

Pretty sure it is on by default, so that would tell you it's off position (also, checklists don't say to turn it on, so it's got to be on already).