MaverickF22

If the new owner shall make an account for DCS..., will i be able to transfer these 2 products/gifts into his account without loosing anything? I don't need my money back, because it would be a shame..., but i hope there is a possibility to transfer the activations to the other owner! Thank you very much!

Hi there, I've just bought 2 products for DCSW (DCS A-10C 1.2.2 and Black Shark 2 1.2.2) on the willing to make someone a gift for Christmas..., but then i realized that if i bought them onto my account (without knowing the account details of the future owner), no one else will be able to activate them for himself...! Am i missing something, or is there a possibility for activating these 2 products on someone else's account and not mine? An answer will be well appreciated..., and i hope i haven't bought these 2 for myself, cause i already have them...! Thank you!

Hi there, I'd like to ask, if i'm on the right thread for this..., how can make a unit or a group always respawn again, each time it is destroyed? For instance..., i've put 3 SPAA Shilka's in a group, somewhere on the map and for each time i finish destroying all of them, i want them to respawn once again in the same position or in any other position, doesn't matter..., but i may only build a trigger which creates some other units that i specify in the trigger menu..., yet of course, that would make those new units appear only once, while having the first ones destroyed, but i'd have to repeat that trigger a lot of times and created a lot of new groups which should appear when the first one's destroyed..., and there has to be an easier way to make a unit or group respawn forever each time you destroy it! Thanks in advance, and cheers to all the players! Maverick!

In our sim, the deflection of the flaps/flaperons isn't small at all, it is rather maximum when close to critical alpha, especially for the Su-27. I agree with you with the idea of drag rise due to separation which starts developing a bit earlier (one or 2 degrees AoA) before CLmax at critical AoA..., from where you'll get a new CD vs AoA slope which may even double (but rarely) for some combinations of airfoils and geometries if you continue to increase alpha from that point..., but you should never get in that region for any other reason than doing a Cobra or entering a deep stall! Now having the idea that the drag increased a lot at critical AoA without flaps and you have a partial flow separation..., lowering flaps/flaperons do indeed reattach part of the separated flow and also increase and not degrease the critical AoA..., but still, your drag will be even higher even if you'd reattach the hole separated flow, if you lower them enough (let's say 7-10 deg) because of the high pressure created underneath the flaps, so you will never see any CD vs AoA slope/curve degrease in the region of having the flaps lowered between takeoff and landing position..., and landing position is what Su-27 uses when it turns like that, so don't tell me it has less drag or the same as having them raised...! There is a very small region where the flaps will delay the drag due to separation and will mostly maintain that drag amount, not make it lower, at angles lower than critical alpha (let's say 5 degrees lower) and this region won't exceed a flaps/flaperon deflection of more than 3-5 degrees, which it was what you've meant , after which the flaps will only create more drag, even than the separation itself, if they are continuously lowered, so not only in those areas close to critical or supercritical alpha, but everywhere. A supercritical angle of attack occurs at the second peak in the CL vs alpha graph after the wing's stall (where the flow over the upper surface separates from the airfoil), this time the lower surface of the airfoil, which continued to increase lift after the stall (Pugachev's Cobra benefits from this), does also start to drop the lift force component that is perpendicular to the undisturbed airflow (usually above 45 deg alpha). Here's a link with an example with both critical and supercritical alpha: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0194.shtml Although the idea of supercritical alpha has less to do with the subject, it's something good to know about and i hope everyone understands these principles, if they truly love the flight and it's always better to know more even if you're just a fan of sim playing...! You must say that you'll get the same CL, but at a lower AoA in order to reduce or restrain the CD by delaying the separation, as said before, otherwise you might want to say that you obtain a higher critical AoA and not lower, when you lower flaps/flaperons, because there are only some rare situations where, after lowering the flaps fully..., you'll get a sudden CL drop and consequently reduce the maximum AoA! If you maintain the initial critical AoA, from where lowering the flaps will reattach part of the flow and start to increase your AoA (also the critical) up to a level, if you continue to lower them beyond a critical point you'll get another separation, which is the case of the CL drop which lowers your maximum AoA, yet this is definitely not the case here...! So the devs should try and take a closer look at the CD created by the flaps, not just for the Su-27 or Su-33, but also for the MIG-29 where again, a lowered flaps won't be felt almost at all in terms of drag increase, so it's no joke...! Take the F-16 for example (cause i had already given some examples with the DCSA-10C, P-51D and Su-25's)..., and i know it very well too. It settles somewhere at 200 knots at sea level with full AB and full aft stick (max allowed AoA of 24-26 deg) without flaperons being lowered! With fully lowered flaperons, it settles at around 145-150kts in the same conditions. So this huge difference can't come from anywhere else, other than the drag created by the flaperons! Cheers, Mav.

Ok, but in order to optimize the CL/CD, which normally goes for higher airspeeds, the FBW would rather deflect the flaperons to a corresponding negative value for that airspeed...! From my knowledge in aerodynamics, there can be no positive deflection for any kind of known flaperons, that would increase your CL/CD ratio, but rather degrade it as the CD will always increase a lot more than the CL with alpha..., so the FBW can't increase the CL/CD ratio by lowering the flaperons..., but would most probably increase the ITR a lot for a moment before wasting a lot of airspeed, so it won't increase STR! That's my opinion for it, and the maximum airspeed the Su-27 should settle at, in time, while having full AB and full aft stick should be way below 300km/h..., those flaperons, when fully lowered, create at least 50% more drag than the airbrake would do when fully deflected! Thanks the reply!

Ok, thank you very much Tharos..., but i still doubt about how realistic is the drag created by the flaperons when they are deployed..., cause from my opinion the airspeed at which the Su-27 settles (350km/h) is a bit high and should be well below 300km/h if fully lowered, or that's just my guess! Thanks again!

Thanks for the video..., it's a rarity in terms of ACM dogfights of the F-15! I also have a video with a Flanker, the only video so far giving me a look at a 360 degree turn, which was a STR not an ITR (full aft stick turn), so it took 19 seconds for it to complete between 2:05 and 2:24: I'd really like to ask GGTharos why does the Flanker and Su-33 in our game lower flaps automatically and with no authority to control them (except for a small ammount in the Su-33), if in real life this never happens? Are all the videos on youtube or any real footage too old to show that they've implemented something new into the control systems of the Flanker and make it lower the flaps automatically to a given amount dependent on alpha and airspeed if you pull the stick? And how realistic is it having no control over the flaps in the sim, if they don't even lower in reality? Thanks in advance, Maverick!

I want to agree with GGTharos, because he seems a reasonable man who tries to explain what happens and has the patience for telling it..., and at the same time i'm trying to understand some things which are completely out of logic or out of the "polar"(graph), and yet there might be something i'm missing, but still, the difference seems huge enough in some areas to make me think just once...! Well, the nitpicking is about the huge impact that these aero coeffs have on any flying object's performance..., and for anyone who doesn't understand what they are, because those are the crucial elements of any dogfight (they won't count very much in BVR though), next to the engine's performance..., could simply start learning what they are and it isn't very complicated, so don't make the assumption that "if you strap on externals", these things would go off the window, cause they won't! Sorry for the big long talking again..., but i only wish for the best! Cheers, Maverick!

I will personally work on the CL (at least) and CD coefficients for both the Eagle and the Flanker and obtain their derivatives vs alpha between Mach = 0 to Mach = 2.5 also including the transonic region for simulation, with my own CFD program..., and i'll reply back with some more accurate values than you already have used for these 2 planes, cause i've gotten sick of this! See you by then! Cheers, Maverick!

Are you ****ing kidding us? Then why does the Eagle turn so much better now and also has it's drag coefficient even more increased than it has already been in FC2? Not to talk about the Flanker's shitty high roll rate:P This won't compare at any point with LOMAC or FC1..., those ROCKED, period! You have only increased realism in other parts (AAA, SAM, missile dynamics, graphics, effects) which is the only reason why some buy FC3..., but these two birds..., the Eagle and the Flanker..., you have been ****ing up since FC2 came up! JUST TURN BACK TO THE SAME DAMN FC1 SFM (Simplified Flight Model) for F-15 and Su-27 until you'll get better results, and everyone would be happier, than doing crap with your own calculations and whatever you do using polar graph descriptions in the wrong way, or maybe those polars, CL vs AoA and CD vs AOA graphs that you use aren't good, or for whatever reason these two birds just don't fly like the real ones..., but even worse than in FC1 (which gave the best SFM's so far) like i've said, and i'm not probably the only one who's saying the same thing! If you ask a real F-15 pilot let's say..., what's the DPS his Eagle would do in a constant/sustained turn (because that gives more accurate measurements over an ITR) at a given altitude, a given IAS (indicated airspeed), a given engine thrust and aircraft weight (% of fuel left, loadout, etc.), and he'd tell you, if he knows and has already done that, what would that value be..., it should be compared to the graphs in the manual, and normally they should match, otherwise there's a gap somewhere...! But this would be an accurate info ONLY if he has done that or knows for sure..., and less accurate, but normally not more than a 10% error he should get in the case of trying to compare what he's got used to by many years, in terms of accelerations, turn rates and roll rates of the real Eagle and compare then with the "sim"! I only hope that this would still remain a beta until all the dumb things in it would be corrected..., otherwise this would be a bigger failure than FC2, except for the graphics and missile dynamics, but these have a rather lower impact than the messed up FM's or the erratic blackout simulation, which is an effect taken from a nightmare, not due to the way this effect looks, but by how fast it comes up and it's not from a real pilot, period...! Let's hope things will be sorted out..., in time, but be sorted and fixed! Cheers!

That's great news..., thanks for telling!:) So there's someone working on the F-16 for DCS! It's the best news i've ever been expecting from ED/TFC or third party members..., to have an AFM/HFFM F-16 in DCS, it's like an old dream come true...! Meanwhile, until the F-16 arrives..., i want to talk now a little bit about the "changes" or whatever they are in FC3 as i just bought it yesterday..., and here's what i have to say, even if i'm a piss off for some people here..., but there are still things yet not understood or they are pretended not to be...: 1. The roll rate of the Flanker is still high, no matter how did you calculate it or how is the formula of Cl (rolling momentum coefficient) varying with airspeed, it doesn't have the right values! And you're going to ask me for the graphs of it, but i don't have them yet! Even if you're going to judge me because i compare it to real life footage..., it shows exactly how far the roll rates in our "sim" exceed quite much the real ones, not to mention that when instantly applying a full left roll to a full right one and vice-versa, the elevons and flaperons also instantly deflect (no mechanical inertia at all), and so does the plane itself too (no rolling momentum inertia), and it looks very ugly for a 25 tons aircraft to do that even at speeds well below 400km/h for example, reason for which some people who might try it the first time will ask something like: "What is this shit?", and there's nothing you can say to them! 2. Yet it seems like the devs have tweaked the CD (drag coefficient) of the Flanker and increased it, which is more realistic now, but the CL (lift coef.) is still a bit higher than normal..., anyway, thumbs up:thumbup: for this at least! 3. The F-15 Eagle's CD has been also increased (although it was already a bit higher than it should be) and it's even more exaggerated, but you also increased it's CL which had good values and now the Eagle turns like the real Flanker should do:P! So i'm not getting anything anymore and i think i should quit this! In other terms, someone has made a "balance" between the Eagle and the Flanker by adding some drag to both and some lift for the Eagle:P...! Where are you FC1? I don't want anyone to think that i'm an Eagle lover or a Flanker lover, NO! I love both the Flanker and the Eagle in the same way..., as a matter affect i like/love the Flanker even more for some reason, yet i can't find their flight models realistic..., and who's gonna listen to me just because i say it, if i don't have their real CL; CD vs alpha graphs, yet there should be someone higher than me who should have them..., and those are the devs which are russians as i know..., so at least, they should have the real Flanker's aerodynamics polars and graphs without the need to obtain them with CFD or with whatever the hell complicated method! So why don't the devs have the real Cl; CL; CD coeffs for the Flanker? I only want these flight models to be better, that's all, i'm not here to criticize anyone, cause i already see how i'm being pushed back for that...! So i'm only trying to figure out what needs to be done, if something can be done to bring these FM's for Flanker and Eagle to a closer value to the real ones, until a true AFM will come and replace them! So now as i've bought FC3 i can only lie myself for what i've really wanted to see fixed in it..., so i'd only be pleased with the graphics..., and with the AFM for missiles which is way better so far:thumbup:, the AMRAAM has a reduced smoke, and the SRM (short range missile) has a more realistic guidance after launch:thumbup: (a guidance delay, dunno of it's the real one but it's better) + an increased alpha and/or beta angle when turning (this simulates way better the R-73 Archer which is a TV controlled missile). Respectfully, Maverick!

If a Lockheed Martin engineer would come here and show me that, i would trust him and also the video of an F-16 and i doubt that i'd find the gap that you're pointing at...:music_whistling:! Furthermore..., i already have the aerodynamic coefficient tables for the F-16 and guess what..., if you apply the corresponding coeffs in their corresponding formulas you would find the same G load of the aircraft for a given airspeed compared to an airshow demonstration, hence the turn rate! The only thing hard to control when you want to calculate these would be the variation of the CL and CD vs the continuously dropping airspeed, thus leading to a constantly dropping lift force, respectively turn rate..., so you may only talk about turn rate at a given condition in time, or simply to average the turn rate! And maybe that's what you've pointed at when you thought i'd say that the F-16 should have 15 deg/s instead of 20 by just watching a video! I know when and how these factors vary, so you'd be going nowhere by making fun of me! Now why wouldn't the same things apply in Lock On? I don't know..., or should i call it G-loc On for whatever reason...!

It is called Lock On Flaming Cliffs 2!

Now here are some credible charts that i could find on some other forums: http://www.f-16.net/attachments/comparison_of_turn_rate_characteristics_for_the_f_15c_and_su_27_182.jpg http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=208321&d=1347999333 http://forum.keypublishing.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=208324&d=1347999333 So now you could see what the manual shows..., and the turn rate is much lower than what the airshow proved and that's mainly due to initial the conditions like height and weight for these charts..., and also due to the fact that an airshow plane will always be lighter than a combat ready plane..., as it may have it's cannon taken off, radar probably and having the nose left with only a lower weight ballast to not let the aircraft become too unstable, and various equipments which can be unload from the aircraft..., and that indeed serves for a greatly improved turn rate!

He passed almost above the camera which gives you the feeling of a sudden turn rate increase! That turn wasn't a complete 180 degree, but rather 160 for 4.3 seconds...! It didn't start right from the opposite direction where it finally came at! If the cameraman was further back or if you could have an onboard view, you would've seen the difference! Indeed it showed an impressive instantaneous turn rate, which in the case of a 160 deg in about 4.3 seconds (i couldn't count it lower than 4.3 for that turn, but rather 4.5, so just let's say) would lead to an average of 37.2 deg/s, for which i can say "hats down", but the airspeed bled would lead to a rapid degrading of the average turn rate through a 360 degree turn, not to talk about stabilizing around a terminal airspeed if the stick was to be held full aft for further continuous turns:P, the turn rate would be very low..., but in our "game" it's just stabilizing somewhere at 24 deg/s at full aft stick held and at 300km/h, so i have no more words for that! I love the Flanker and i like this plane very much, much more than the Eagle..., but i hate when things don't respect the real thing..., just that!

Where? At roll rates? At Ix inertia which seems like a quarter of the value it should have and jumps from a left aileron roll to a right aileron roll just like an Extra-300? Or at the greater overall turn rates than it had in FC1? Thrust me..., i've made some graphs with turning times for the F-15, MIG-29 and Su-27 for both FC1 and FC2 and noticed that the F-15 was having an exaggerated turning ability in FC1 while the Su-27 had quite a realistic one..., while in FC2 things are just the opposite for these two..., while the MIG-29 and Su-33 remained with the same values, except for engine thrusts which had been increased for all the fighters (that means except the Su-25's and A-10A). I don't really see where did the Su-27 had been degraded from FC1, or it's barely noticeable! And yet for charts and real flight manual performance reports..., i have a better eye for comparing a real video to the actual game, than comparing the flight manual reports with it! And different videos of the same plane don't show different stuff, but just the same, hence the fact that it could be an accurate source of info..., more accurate than everything if it is flown at the edge of it's envelope! If i were to compare a real video of the A-10C's turning capability with what DCS had provided, i can guarantee that they'd match perfectly, or if i were to compare a video of the P-51D's turning performances, again i would find the same thing, but comparing a real video of what Flanker can do doesn't fit at all with what FC2 shows! And trust me, if i could manage to turn the Flanker's actual FM into an AFM, respecting that aircraft's real aero coefficients, then i would make my time for it, but i don't have a licence for that as the guy who's making the MIG-21 for DCS for example..., cause i'd definitely do that!

Do you know what a structural limit is? And if so..., it means that in that airshow, it quite achieved it's best of ever turning capabilities..., so moreover it turns much too great in the game again!

Wow, thank you for the link with John Farley, it really deserved to learn some more about the aircraft (yet not very much), but when it comes to the saying that it did it in 10 seconds..., i didn't see an actual footage of that:P to agree with him, nor with anyone else until i actually see it...! He also stated that the plane had 36 deg/s turn rate, yeah, 360/10 = 36, but those 36 were the average if it were to be like that, so the instantaneous should've been more than 45deg/s for 2-3 seconds before starting to get lower as the speed was bled, and those kind of values are completely outside any aircraft's capability nomatter what type, so his statement is completely unsolid! Who knows if that guy just started looking at his watch a few seconds after the plane had already started turning and said: "OMG, it took almost 10 seconds", of course he was so excited of what he had seen and made him say that, yet he didn't mention exactly WHEN he started looking at his timer, so more ambiguous is what he said than what i've tested! Now i've been playing LOMAC for quite a while, FC1 and finally FC2, and i've tested almost every aspect of everything you might think in these games , more than playing..., cause i'm a fanatic for realism if you might call me that way, so i've tested and tested stuff in it, mainly for the Su-27 and F-15's performance characteristics in many aspects like, turn rates, roll rates, longitudinal accelerations or decelerations and done comparisons with actual real videos, it wasn't a hard thing, but i just thought about this despite anyone else playing it! I don't put my money on speculatios and blah blah of other people..., i simply look into the real thing... and that's what i trust the most! Now i don't know how the devs have done this and that, using RCS for what Sov13t was saying about..., but it simply doesn't mix with the real thing! Now i told that i had a chronometer for a 360 degree looping of the Flanker and did it just like in the video that i've linked, and did it many times just to make sure, at 30% fuel state (i definitely had more fuel than the real one), starting from 650km/h and 500m MSL..., and took me merely 11.6 - 11.8 seconds to end with the nose just in the same position i was when i started it and i've also tried this test at speeds 100km/h lower and higher than 650, just to make sure, yet the timing didn't finish at more than 1 second further! So from just this..., now i know it doesn't simulate it accurately at all, leaving a gap of 27-30% of turning capability between the real Flanker, which was an airshow one and i also doubt it had a radar..., being lighter again than my aircraft in the game! Now i agree with Sov13t that there might be ambiguity between game tests and real footages as compared, yet the differences are too high and can't be logically explained! Now when DCS will bring me an F-15C or a Su-27 Flanker with advanced flight model, i'd trust that! They don't have to make it simulate the supersonic flight envelope, just the subsonic - compressible one, something similar to what the Su-25's can already simulate, if it simulates compressibility factors for airflow, but i don't care...! Just someone..., make the devs have a small break for one day and try to simulate an advanced flight model for the Su-27 only for the subsonic region as i've said (not a complete flight envelope), and there you should see the difference in flight performances between FC2 and DCS, if done well...! In FC1, the Flanker was way closer to real than it became in FC2..., in FC2 the Flanker was intentionally cheated i believe...! For instance..., i'm not making any commercial here..., and i'll always love DCS for what it did and still does, maybe more than whatever will ever come on the market from now on..., but let me tell you about some other fighter jet simulators that i've been trying, and again, tested to the their bone..., and one very accurate, but i mean..., very accurate, is the Falcon BMS simulator for the F-16...! Now i don't care if is it free or not, i'd just pay for everything that deserves it..., and even if it had a rough and twisted history from those who have initially created it..., the Falcon remained one of my favorite! Now the F-16 with an advanced flight model simulated in BMS, yet i could personally find some small issues about the Ix and Iz moments of inertia of the plane, so there might be some equations of motion problems in it or simply bad values for when the plane tail slides and reaches -90 AoA for achieving a too high yawing acceleration in that region if you apply a full rudder (but they'll fix that as they're still working on it, so it's just a matter of time)..., the rest of the flight performances and flight envelope, including transonic and supersonic regions, have very, if not perfectly accurate CL, Cm, CD vs alpha and engine thrust polars of the real plane..., again, from Mach = 0 until Mach = 2+! The F-16A through F-16C Block 50-52 and F-16C with CFT (conformal fuel tanks) behave and perform with astonishing respect of the real aircraft's capabilities! So having this said..., i only wish for the best, as i'm not here to waste my time or to talk much for no reason..., i just can't wait to see it better, and to be able to forget of the things that i see and aren't right...! Respectfully yours, Maverick!

One more question for the devs..., cause it already smells like in FC3 also, the pilot would blackout again in about 5 seconds at 9G but NEVER EVER blacks out at 8 G's instead and only greys out in that region and holds it forever (maybe i forgot to mention about this fact in my previous posts about the damn blackout, but i think i did so), so it would feel like it should rather be turned completely off from the options, because it is overall more realistic like that!:P I'm going to ask about the Flanker's flight model alone (not asking for any advanced flight model cause i know i won't get that), because after the crap that i've seen in FC2, it already made me sick to see what the russians did to it in this so called sim..., because the real Flanker flies way different! In FC1 the Flanker was just about right for roll rates and turn rates, which means that the Cl (aerodynamic rolling coefficient) or the Pcom (the maximum commanded roll rate by the flight controls system) were giving the aircraft a roll rate very similar to the one of the real Flanker and the CL (aerodynamic lift coefficient) for the wing + fuselage (without taking the elevator into account, the Su-27 is longitudinally unstable, and the elevator also provides lift in the same direction of the wing but it won't add much to the global CL) should be around 1.45 at Mach = 0.05 and 1.65 at M = 0.3 which is the maximum CL it could have, because beyond that Mach number, the CL would naturally start to degrade towards supersonic flights and beyond that! I don't know what a heck Pcom and CL did the FC2 devs used for the Flanker, but it seems that they've cheated with it, giving it a roll rate and a lift coefficient way beyond the real Su-27 Flanker's capabilities...! WHY? Here's a good demonstration of the real Su-27 Flanker's capabilities, not garbage: Never in real life would a Su-27 do a 360 degree turn in less than 14 seconds even at sea level if it has only a pound of fuel, whatever it does! In game, the Su-27 can do a 360 degree turn in about 10.8 - 11 seconds O.o just above sea level with just 800 pounds of fuel left..., and not to talk about the insane roll rates also! A complete 360 degree looping in the video demonstration at minute 7:05 shows that it takes around 15 seconds to complete for this real Flanker that had around 25-30% fuel left! In game, at the same conditions of height and fuel state (i took 30% just to make sure), it takes around 11.5 seconds:P to complete a 360 degree looping, so it has a 30+% higher turn rate than the real Flanker in the same conditions, which is unacceptable! The real roll rate can be seen in the video at minute 6:45 and it takes 4 seconds for the Flanker to complete 2 aileron rolls, that means 2 seconds for a 360 deg roll! In game, it takes exactly 3 seconds to do 2 rolls at the same speed, so it rolls 50% faster than the real one! Also the F-15C has been modified from the previous version FC1..., but this time it's been worsted in areas like CD performances (aerodynamic drag coefficient) beyond 10 AoA (angle of attack), erratically growing in that area between alpha 10 and critical alpha and this isn't right...! Yes the CD vs alpha slope should be exponential due to induced drag rising with alpha, but not exaggerated like that! If any of you (players i mean) ever used the outside view and tried to turn with a full aft stick and bled airspeed that way, you could see the difference in how quickly or slowly would any plane decelerate and notice that all other aircrafts despite the F-15C would have quite a similar deceleration rate when applying a full aft stick, with little difference done by the loadout and fuel state for each of the aircrafts! The F-15C has a tremendous if not double the drag it should normally have for those angles in reality..., hence it's deceleration rate is almost doubled and it's not realistic at all! WHY does that happen? It seems that the devs really wanted to show that the Flanker is better than everything ever created or will ever be created in this world with it's performances, in game i mean, cause in reality it is outperformed in a constant/sustained turn by the F-15C at higher speeds (around Mach 0.8 and higher altitudes than 15000 feet, where the Su-27 has worse overall performances..., while in this game, the Flanker outperforms everything everywhere without any logical explanation! I doubt that they didn't know what they were doing, because they should know aerodynamics pretty well in order to make a simulator, otherwise this would only stick to the status of a game, and doesn't deserve to mix up with DCSW in the future (from my opinion it doesn't due to these factors), which really is a simulator and deserves all the money for that! The main reason why i've ever liked to play Lock On was exactly for this epic battle between the Eagle and the Flanker, and i know the performances of both even if i didn't fly them..., i don't need to fly them to know exactly where one excells and the other doesn't and vice-versa, so don't doubt my knowledge about that..., and if the devs or ED whoever does the flight modelling of the aircrafts don't want to take this into account, i won't buy FC3 at all, and probably others wouldn't do it either due to the same fact! Against all odds, i hope they'll seriously take the F-15C vs Su-27's performances into account as a main issue if they want to give it a real name for dogfights in FC3, because the blackout thing still remains a rubbish..., at least this they should fix! With honest respect, Maverick!

Thank you very much man..., so that explains it..., no more for the questions! The answer lied where i least expected, but it clarifies it well!:doh: I appreciate it! Thank you!

You may also exit the spins, i forgot to do that in my video..., by simply working with the throttle only as you've said..., and depending on the side of the spin, you may have to apply throttle, or to reduce it, and the torque effect changing to it's opposite direction when throttling back may also take you out of the spin, which is something normal! If other simulators prove a more persistent spin for the P-51D, that's because they don't have an accurate data or FM(flight model) leading to an exaggerated spin, from which is also harder to recover! If you'd look at a real flat spin for most of the prop palnes (search youtube), you'll see the same as in DCS, that you may exit it quite fast if you apply the proper inputs, even if the spin rate is initially high! So, DCS boys and girls..., has broke the ice!:thumbup: Cheers!

Hi, I'm not starting this thread with the reason of finding any flight model problems or whatsoever, because i've flown the P-51D pretty well with ALL aids and helps off (included using the simulation mode and not game), and this plane can turn quite well, having a respectfully low turn radius at the same time(especially when using flaps) if it is flown as it should! So i've got used to the aircraft's limitations of not allowing Maverick style pulls on the stick and use correct and fine rudder inputs..., and btw, i don't have a movable stick, i have a Satiek X65F which is a pressure control stick (doesn't move), but i don't find it difficult to know how much should i pull in order to move the real stick to a given position (this joystick, even if it's pressure based, has the highest input accuracy i've ever experienced), thus i'm not finding it difficult to pass under very low bridges while flying inverted also..., if i'm gentile with the pressure, but that's another thing! So i'm mostly trying to explain what happens and why things behave in a way or another to the regular or experienced P-51D pilots in DCS, because these pilots aren't many not due to the fact that the aircraft wasn't done right in this sim..., but because they can't explain "what a heck is going on" in some areas, where they knew from other simulators, that things were a lot easier and you seemed like a pilot after one day! Well it isn't so...! For all who believe that DCS didn't, at a high level of accuracy, manage to replicate the exact behaving of the real aircraft..., they are very wrong! In other words, i'd like to use this thread as a school for the flight behaviour of the P-51D Mustang, for myself and for others who wish to express their opinions and try to understand the basics of it! I also have some questions myself that i'd like to ask, for the sake of my knowledge: 1. Why does the normal G load seem to continue inceasing (positively for positive alpha, and slightly negatively for negative alpha respectively) after you've pulled the stick up to a level and held it there (just locked the stick and did not continue to pull further), a level which is behind the stall limit, so the aircraft remains within it's flight envelope...! Why does the alpha continue to increase by itself to a higher limit (which in turn leads to a higher G level than the one desired) over the one corresponding to my input, which is held for a constant negative (negative because it creates downward lift) elevator deflection or a back stick input? The same thing happens for negative alpha and negative G load, where again, after i apply, for let's say a 10% forward stick input which positively deflects the elevator (now the elevator creates positive lift, giving a pitch down momentum)..., the negative alpha will continue to go more negative, thus increasing the negative G load..., but this self-increase for the negative alpha is softer (as i've already mentioned) than what happens for the positive alphas! For short..., the back and forth movement of the stick while in flight, will be a some sort of combination between an initial pitch rate (something usual and normal) given by the input and a pitch rate acceleration which develops for a short time after the input has been given(this acceleration onsets quickly and diminishes within 0.5 to 1 seconds after applying and holding a constant input) for both negative and positive alpha angles or G values! As i could see during various testings (visually) within the sim..., this effect is inversely proportional (let's say linear, but it might be a function of airspeed) to IAS (Indicated Air Speed, and not to be confused with the TAS (true airspeed) which is indicated on the external view)! In other words..., the faster you go, the less this effect will be felt, and vice-versa for lower speeds where you have to be very careful, especially for takeoffs and landings, but more for takeoffs because there, the high torque effects play a huge role for directional and longitudinal stability (that's why you may use the takeoff assist feature within the game, but which i hate because i want the real thing)! I've been playing IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 for many years (which was considered the most realistic for FM(flight model) at least for props) and i also own IL-2 Cliffs of Dover, but i've never seen this kind of behaviour at any prop plane in any of the two IL-2 sims, not just for the P-51D which also was flyable in the first one! So, ok..., they might've been wrong in these places where DCS simulates something different..., but this still has to be explainable in a decent manner in order to be realistic! My own first answer for the first question would be that the Cm(momentum coefficient around the pitch axis) derivative versus alpha derivative has a steeper function for the laminar airfoils than for non-laminar ones, so it tends to go positive (unstable) much sooner before the flow separates (boundary layer thickens and separates = stall) and as alpha increases...! This would be one reason for the pitch rate and angle of attack accelerations which develop after i've rapidly set an aft stick of about 10% holding it there, accelerations which diminish after 0.5-1 seconds as i've said, gaining me an additional pitch rate, alpha and G load than the input i've set for, because the center of pressure continues to travel a lot to the front of the plane during that period, pitching the aircraft further up until it settles at a momentum equilibrium between the main wing's Cm, fuselage Cm and the up/down lift generated on the elevator (otherwise the aircraft would pitch over and depart if it's unstable)! For short..., a very common aspect of a laminar airfoil is that it provides a better lift/drag ratio up to a given AoA, greater top speed, but a sudden/violent stall..., the visually (in an aerodynamic tunnel) softest disturbance in the boundary layer can lead to a violent flow separation from the trailing edge towards the leading edge of that airfoil's section, completely stalling that wing if the airfoil is laminar from root to tip (which is the case for the P-51), and because usually a wing stalls before the other, a high roll rate + some yaw rate are rapidly induced, so everything is correct in this sim! A second reason for this..., and basically because it has a higher effect for positive alpha than for negative..., is that the horizontal empennage (stabilizer + elevator) are aerodynamically shadowed by the wing at angles between 7 to 10 degrees AoA (angle of attack), and this shadowing of the H tail is dependent on airspeed also..., and the slower you fly, the lower this angle where the shadowing effect occurs due to the boundary layer which thickens and separates earlier at lower speeds, creating more buffet on the H (horizontal) and V (vertical) tail! So the slower you go, the lower the stability of the plane (it isn't unstable like an F-16, but with a reduced longitudinal (or pitch) stability) will be! The shadowing never occurs for negative alpha, and it's logic why, therefore this effect is reduced when pushing the stick! ***Something similar to the pitch's Cm variation with alpha, happens to the fuselage's Cn (yaw momentum coefficient) variation with beta, but the fuselage alone is aerodynamically unstable around both pitch and yaw axis, always tending to swing around + or around - 90 degrees alpha and or beta! Just imagine a steel pipe (let's say it has a length of 10 times it's width) falling from the sky that always has the tendency to settle at a 90 deg AoA, or like a falling sheet of paper if it wouldn't have the vertical and horizontal stabilizers (you must've encountered this tendency of the plane yawing without control to the left or to the right when your vertical fin/stab is completely blown off)! So when you apply left or right rudder, you increase the yaw (directional) instability generated aerodynamically by the fuselage..., and the final beta angle or yaw angle will be a bit higher than the angle you should get according to your rudder deflection! Thus when you have applied full left or right rudder let's say and the aircraft has settled at a given yaw angle, the fuselage will tend to yaw further in order to reach 90 degrees where it likes to settle, but the the hole vertical empennage/fin, even if you have deflected in the direction you want it to yaw, will generate lift slightly opposite to your command which is not as high as the beta/sideslip angle that the hole plane sits at! So at those high angles of yaw/beta your rudder is generating opposite lift in order to hold you there, otherwise the plane would overyaw or depart from yaw and spin uncontrollably! Moreover, this is the only simulator for which, let's say that i'm between the few to actually have observed this effect, the rudder or vertical fin also simulates a stall! You can tell it when you apply rudder inputs in order to make it swing from one side to another, you'll notice where and how do the accelerations around the Z (yaw) axis vary! So this is the only simulator i've played so far which simulates the stall on all the 3 elements (wing, elevator, fin/rudder), so i may say: CONGRATULATIONS DCS for this kind of performance..., this seriously is a simulator, aerodynamically speaking! Only for the yaw there is no further acceleration occurring like it did to pitch after applying and holding a constant rudder input..., but for the pitch i think i have already answered correctly (if not, someone at ED should please tell us why this happens in order to know that it is realistic)! *** This is why we have the feeling that the P-51D in DCS yaws so much and this is more a reply for the guy called "Rodd" who wrote: 2. Why does the G level and alpha come back so slowly (like for the F-16) when i reduce the elevator/stick position (let's say null position) and it maintains me (not 100%, but higher than 70% i'd say) the attitude angle i have at the moment when i release the stick or bring it to null? The pitch rate should become opposite for a split second as alpha rapidly decreases! This thing seems to work in some manner when releasing the stick after a high negative alpha, when the nose has a slight pitch up, because the alpha rapidly decreases, but not the same thing happens from positive alpha, and i can't find the reason! Now it shouldn't necessarily oscillate as it would do when recovering from beta or sideslip angle which tends to accelerate towards 0 (zero) around the Z (yaw) axis in a tendency to stabilize in a position after the rudder has been set to null, which is simulated well, but it seems that the elevator doesn't provide the lift required for it's corresponding position (null), but a less lift which increases to the normal value in time! So it's like after i've rapidly released the stick, the elevator slowly comes to the desired position at a given rate just enough to hold me at a constant attitude, which is something that only happens on FBW (Fly By Wire) or ACS (Augment control system, like the A-10C) aircrafts! I've also provided a video that i've done using FRAPS, in order to review these effects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBZ2UQKPStY Now i can see that the aircraft, as the way it has been built by it's engineers, won't need a stick travel of more than 15-20% back from it's null position in order to reach critical or stall alpha on the wings..., at least this is what DCS shows, i haven't flown that plane for real, so i just trust what i have so far! This baby uses a laminar airfoil, close to NACA 66-415, (although roughly rounded at the leading edge) and having the laminar layer being driven up to almost 60% of the chord back, before it becomes turbulent, at low AoA (angle of attack). I don't know why did the engineers of that time..., let the P-51D, which has a lower critical alpha (with flaps raised) due to that kind of airfoil and it's overall stall danger, have so much amount of unneeded pitch input (let's say: so much amount of positive(aft input) for so much negative elevator deflection (negative because it produces negative lift), because we mostly pull the stick and that concerns us the most), because even during takeoff or landing it becomes dangerous to apply a 20% back stick..., so let's say you'd need a short 30% back stick input for whatever reason, but why are 70% still available..., when they could've made the stick travel the same as much, no problem with that, but for a lower amount of elevator travel, giving a less sensitive or less violent pitch control! Anyway, this might be an off-topic question of why did they do that..., but i'm confident that DCS simulates the real aircraft! I'm becoming an aircraft engineer myself the next year (2013), so i'm pretty confident with my flight mechanics and aerodynamics knowledge that i have so far and i'm also an active pilot, so i might say that i know enough, but i'm always willing to learn more! Here's a useful link which talks about laminar airfoils and their advantage/disadvantage characteristics: http://www.dreesecode.com/primer/airfoil5.html Sorry for this long and possibly boring introduction to aerodynamics and flight mechanics story, but i hope that all which i had to say are for the purpose of realizing the complexity (which the people at ED already know more than i do) of flight dynamics, yet what i've said here isn't enough for understanding all that happens with the aircraft for some given cases, but let's hope that time will reveal all the aspects that are necessary to be addressed in order for these things to be sorted out...! Thank you!

This damn bug still persists! OK, so here we go again! Sadly!:music_whistling: Even if BS2 offers huge enhances over BS1..., the problem for which i've started this thread 2 years ago, seems to persist!:joystick::joystick: Why the hell didn't they fix this? If you start an engine, YOU SHOULDN'T for whatever reason in the world shut it down in less than 1 minute and 5 seconds, don't know if this time interval has changed in some way from BS1, but i've recounted it and you need at least 1:05 minutes at idle if you want to shut it down again! Although this is not a problem that would hold us from flying the Black Shark..., but it suggests that there's something simulated wrong about the engines management and it's not good! Anyway, i hope they will find the cause for why this happens!:book::doh: Here's the video link of this problem in Black Shark 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2TDhOqpLYk By then..., i wish all DCS pilots, a happy and thrilling flight! Cheers!