SgtPappy

This sounds like it will be a blast! There should be more missions like this. For anyone interested, I'm GMT -5. Hopefully I can join you in this campaign. EDIT: Can't find the server (or anything called operation spearhead) :( It is 16:30 GMT +1 right?

Ohhh you're going to make me sooo happy! :thumbup:

Good posts, gents. Wow I've been doing so much wrong. I think this time I'll practise endlessly instead of giving in to just BFM fights on other servers. I feel determined now!

Would this server happen to have F-15s in it? I've always wanted to fly F-15s with 70's weapons against MiG-21bis' for a long time before the Fishbed was released. Perhaps if you're open to it, il_corleone, you can have F-15's armed with AIM-9P's and only 2x AIM-7Ms (since we have no AIM-7F's). This would be my absolute favorite kind of combat :) EDIT: Oh I guess there aren't F-15s :(

That worked! Thanks!

I think I'd much prefer the traditional Spitfire wings as well. It just won't seem like a Spitfire without it. Not to mention, the standard wings were far more common for the Mk. IX. I'm still excited though! Just not as much... :P

Oh I did not :( Okay thanks, I will try this. EDIT: All of them worked except the MiG-15bis. It keeps giving me the same error and so the same thing happens as with the original post but only with the MiG-15. Deleting its registry over and over does nothing.

I upgraded my hardware with a new motherboard and graphics card recently. When I try to launch any single-player mission, DCS asks me to activate each module. I click activate for each one and DCS tells me activation was successful for each module. The mission then starts, but the plane I set as "Player"-controlled is AI-controlled and I have no choice but to close the mission. The mission (which is hosted in the DCS MP session executable) then crashes to the SP debrief screen. The game doesn't close, but crashes, with a window saying "wait for program to respond?" or "Close". Clicking either option leads to the SP session debrief screen. So I restart DCS and I am asked again for activation and the cycle continues. However, the numbers of remaining activations does not decrease from this point. What should I do? I have not tried multiplayer or any tutorials.

The thing is on a VN diagram, it defines the aircraft's capabilities to load itself. Anything beyond that is subject to endless discussion. I think the VN curve in the Soviet diagrams should therefore really define what G's our MiG can pull at a given speed.

No no, I do! I was just confused because the first one doesn't really agree with the second one in terms of Mach number at 7G, and Curly was postulating that they might be calculated, not taken from flight tests. If they actually are from flight tests, well that works moreso to prove my point concerning the disparity between the real and DCS MiG-15 so I'd rather use the Soviet VN diagrams as fact. Let's not forget that we do have control effectiveness modeled though, to an extent. A MiG-15bis at 0.78-0.82 Mach will barely pull any G's due to the heavy control forces needed. But you can and will physically stall if you pull G's under corner speed. So I understand your point but I'm not convinced that it would be recorded as the stall line on the VN diagram since the plane isn't actually stalling.

Well what I'm saying is that even though we see the ITR limit as it is, it would be known that the aircraft isn't flying near stall, but is hard on the controls. Also I'm pretty sure that just because the aircraft have a similar stall speed doesn't prove it will have the same ITR. Other EM diagram comparisons (like the Su-27 vs F-15) do not have a huge disparity at the lower left of the plots but they have very different turn characteristics. But yes, let's forget about the supposed Boyd diagram because we don't really know its conditions. Let's just look at the Soviet TO and the F-86 flight manual. Both have VN diagrams that are not suspect and we can see ITR but in G's instead. From what Curly said, these plots are using CL values and likely have nothing to do with pilot strength. They both show the disparity between the Sabre and MiG 7G corner speeds so I really don't think surface deflection is a factor. I'd still like to find more VN diagrams of the MiG though to make sure.

Ohhh I see what yo mean lol forgive my mistake :) But then it technically wouldn't be the stall line right? Because they would know they're not stalling. They won't get enough deflection to stall and no buffet would occur, or am I missing something? Also, at low speeds, that's no excuse because they should be able to get full deflection and then at higher speeds, there would be something of a discontinuity in the curve, i.e. it wouldn't be modeled by that consistent spline that we see. I hope I'm not sounding too aggressive. Still trying to figure this issue out.

The stall line is the stall line. I also posted the MiG-15bis VN diagram here: http://airspot.ru/book/file/1108/MIG15bis.pdf. Page 42 in the pdf (real page 73, 74). Doesn't matter how strong you are, you are not going to be able to pull G past the point when your wing stalls. But I'm not too sure how stick force into account so I can't comment much on that. Either way, the MiG's VN diagram yields the same results when compared to the Sabre's. Huge difference in corner speed. I'm not sure if the stick force can account for that difference. Comparing these, the MiG is still turning too well at too low of a speed. It's as simple as it's simply not supposed to turn at 7.0Gs at the speeds it can right now according to every publication so far, Soviet or American.

I have come to believe that the DCS MiG-15bis ITR is too high, based on some tests I evaluated against real data. The full post is here in a different thread, but I thought I should bring this up in the bugs sub-forum so that BST can see it: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2421737&postcount=74 Essentially, I found that the MiG-15's 7G corner speed is the same as the Sabre's in-game, although John Boy'd real-world tests plotted on an EM chart state that the Sabre should have a significant advantage in that category; able to hit 7G @ 5000' at a speed 52 knots lower than the MiG. Unless of course, Boyd's plot is wrong, but I cannot find a more reputable source. I have also heard from some that MiG's sustained turn rate might be too low, but I'll have to test that next weekend. My aim is not to nerf the MiG. I love flying it very much, but I certainly do not enjoy flying it as much (or flying against it) now knowing that its turn performance is too high and inaccurate. Please BST, take a look at this at least for the sake of accuracy. Thanks.

Blaze, those look awesome! I'm a big fan of your Korean War skins. And speaking of the Korean War, here are some shots from some fun times on different servers.

I wish I knew what was going on as well. According to all accounts I've read, the MiG should have terrible stall characteristics. "Postwar American tests of a MiG-15 revealed that the MiG had virtually no stall warning and would snap into a spin, clearly dangerous characteristics for inexperienced pilots." - from Sabres Over MiG Alley: The F-86 and the Battle for Air Superiority in Korea - K. Werrell Not sure what to make of that compared to our MiG :S

Awesome! :)

Will there be another event like this? It sounds like fun, and I can't ever find any servers with MiG pilots to fly against anymore :(

Hey it looks like the KOREAN WAR! server is back up and running! I hopped in today and AWACs worked perfectly for both sides :) Thanks JAGTF!

That's right, it was very populous but the lack of working AWACS seems to have brought it down. If there are any JAGTF squad guys reading this, please fix the AWACS! Your server is awesome and it'd be great to bring life back into it.

Oh, hmm I don't know who the admin is. I'll have to look around. But why is this only a problem now? I don't remember anything changing with the process before and it worked great.

I noticed that no matter what aircraft you fly, I haven't been able to get a response from AWACS in the KOREAN WAR! server. I'm not sure if the problem persists to other servers. Furthermore - and I don't know if this is a new bug - if I contact AWACS at all in my F-86, the radio channel selector automatically switches to channel 1, regardless of what I ask AWACS for. I.e. in the KOREAN WAR! server, AWACS transmits on 260 MHz, which corresponds to channel 3 on my radio. So I go to channel 3, and as soon as I ask for Bogey Dope (for example), I see my channel instantaneously switch to channel 1. If I fly the MiG-15bis, I also get no response from AWACS. Last week when I played, I had no problems getting vectors, now it's impossible to find players unless we contrail and coordinate where to meet in the sky.

I'm not too sure 7-10 G's should be treated so lightly. Once the plane goes above 7 G's there's supposed to be a check of the entire aircraft as per the manual. Above 10 G's, is an engine inspection. It's not a maybe, or a perhaps. An engine needing to be dropped signifies damage. Over 7.33 G's, there is likely to be some kind of structural yielding (which is not the same as ultimate failure). I don't have the source of that on me right now, but perhaps I'll see if I can find it later if people want to see it. And yielding is not structural failure, it's permanent plastic deformation of certain parts and that is not something to chuckle at. Perhaps, just past 7 G's, yeah, it's not too TOO much a big deal, but passing 7.33 G's (given a factor of safety of 1.2) gives you 8.4 G's. So perhaps, you would see some yielding around 8.4 G's and then failure would be around 11 according to what I've read so far. Furthermore, if you bring plastic deformation to a part, its ultimate load will decrease, meaning that maybe 8 G's will cause failure. Note that I used the lower 1.2 factor of safety value for military aircraft which are expected to pull more G's and fight hard where civil planes would use a factor of safety of 1.5. Additionally, pulling 7 G's with load can rip pylons off: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/017568.pdf Forgive me, I can't find the page now but somewhere in there, it states how the pylons left the plane at 7 G's. Ralph Parr has also mentioned gun jams, and blown fuses at 8 G's. As with any aircraft, fatigue comes into play which means that pulling the aircraft past 7 over and over again for years would eventually bring that plastic deformation point lower. Our F-86 is simply not acting as it should. A single instance past 8 G will almost certainly cause yielding, and continuously going past 7.33 will lead to failure somewhere.

Is there a way to edit at which point certain sounds are triggered? The 39th guys and I would like to modify the heavy breathing sound trigger so that we can train ourselves to fly near, but not past the 7G limit. If possible, we'd like to edit a lua file so that the heavy breathing starts at around 5.5-6 G rather than 3.5 G. I wasn't sure if I should put this in the G-limits thread, because it's more about a sound mod than a feature implementation request. Thanks!

The following image is the energy diagrams of the MiG-15 and the F-86F hard wing from Boyd's book. You can easily see that at maximum turn rate, the Sabre is superior by almost 4 deg./s. That's a huge amount but its lower thrust to weight ratio is detrimental to sustained turning. If you're in a Sabre and you can pull only 4G or less, the MiG gains the advantage because it can sustain 4G quite easily while the Sabre will slow down and lose turn rate. This is why nose low turns and lag pursuit is necessary for the Sabre pilot, so that it can take advantage of its higher turn rate each time it speeds up/stays fast.