DarkFire

In anything other than direct control mode (activated by hitting S) the automatic control system does have a built-in combination AOA and G limiter. That being said, the limiter is designed only to prevent you from exceeding airframe G-load limits at a specific configuration weight (IIRC 23,500 Kg). The limited in the Su-27S which we have in DCS does not dynamically adjust for all-up weight i.e. stores and current fuel weight. It is therefore possible at extremes of weight & speed to exceed the ability of the limiter. In most circumstances though it will save you no matter what you do. It's also true that the limiter takes a fraction of a second to operate so care is needed with instantaneous G-loading of the airframe. Next consideration: the Su-27 does not have what most people would call an autopilot. The automatic control system is always engaged (unless operating in direct mode). The "autopilot" modes uses the trim system to maintain altitude, attitude etc. The system naturally also has limits and outside of certain parameters will disengage. The fact that the ACS uses the trim system is important: even if you disengage the "autopilot" the effective centre position of the control surfaces will not necessarily be the true centre value but rather a centre value that's been moved by the ACS "autopilot" trim system. It's therefore the case that even though the "autopilot" is off, maximum available control deflection is not 100% of the theoretical value. The way to deal with this, and it's particularly relevant before entering combat, is to turn off the "autopilot" and then reset the ACS (I can't remember the key combo off hand) - this resets the ACS internal trim level to default, restoring 100% of available manual control deflection. Last point: what's your entry speed for the turns? Corner speed in the Flanker depends on several factors but is generally in the vague region of 720-750 Km/h to get that sweet 23 degrees per second sustained turn rate. The Flanker, especially when fully loaded with fuel & missiles, will heavily bleed speed in tight turns because it's such a huge lump of an aircraft so you have to be very careful in managing your speed during the turn. It's very easy to get to the point where you're actually pointing the nose using increased AOA rather than keeping up the turn rate.

Are we talking about radar vertical scan or EOS?

I just fired up the game and jumped in to the Su-33. Looks like the problem is that in-game the entire black panel that is the top 1/4 of the instrument panel is significantly further forwards than it is in reality, which leads the red light or whatever it is to obscure the top of the ADI. In reality it looks like the parts of the instrument panel are much closer together so the weapons indicators, ACU warning lights and whatever the red thing is can't obscure anything on the rest of the instrument panel.

Looks like the red thing beneath the IR receiver for the HMS is much bigger in game than the real one, which obscures the heading indicator. Hopefully this will be fixed at some point.

Yes, the indicator on the right hand side of the HUD does appear to be a descent angle. I'd be willing to bet that it's also designed to take AOA in to account, i.e. it measures actual TVV descent angle. Given how huge the Su-33 is it would be sensible for it to have a 1,000m entry altitude box with a 5-9Km final approach.

Good spot :thumbup: so it looks like the pattern used by the Su-33 pilots is larger and a higher altitude circuit than for the F/A-18. Edited to add: if the pilot is at 800m just after the turn on to finals then if my trigonometry is correct, for a 3 degree glide slope that would equal a final approach of ~8.9Km. Interesting, though at 260Km/h that would be a very lengthy 125 second approach. Hmm, I don't think that makes a lot of sense. I would postulate that the naval pattern uses a steeper decent than the standard 3 degree glide slope.

Yep, pretty sure I've got my wheels wet a couple of times in similar situations. Makes for a very hairy takeoff. Still haven't found any definite figures for a Kuznetsov pattern, and I guess with the damage to the ship a while ago we may never know, but for now I've been using a 5Km final approach leg which seems to work well for anything except very heavy approaches.

It's worth mentioning that neither the L-005 Sorbtsiya nor the ALQ-135 are simple noise jammers, as DCS models them to be. The question then is whether or not it would be possible to model these systems (and ECM in general) to the exacting standards of DCS world. I would suggest not, given that the functioning of ECM systems are some of the most closely guarded military secrets for air forces the world over. That and how computationally expensive it would be to even approximate actual ECM / ECCM / ESM functions. I'd love to see electronic warfare in general get a serious treatment in a future DCS world update, but I think it's very unlikely to happen. Pretty sure the very basic noise jammers that we currently have in DCS World have been modelled that way all the way back to Su-27 Flanker Squadron Commander's Edition days in about 1996. My personal view is that I'd like to see them removed until the time that ECM could be given a comprehensive treatment, if that's ever possible.

Good point. Given that this is an Su-27 dedicated forum could this threat be stickied please?

It's worth bearing in mind that the real Su-27 has a combined radar / EOS mode whereby if you want to launch a SARH missile at an aircraft but the radar can't get a lock it will use the EOS as a sort of radar director to illuminate the target for the missile. I don't know if the in-game Su-27 models this, but it might not be quite as simple as the AI F-16 being able to detect an EOS lock.

Are you giving them enough time to carry out the repair? It can take up to 8-10 minutes to repair some types of damage but since you don't see the ground crew it will seem that nothing is happening.

Interesting. I remember reading somewhere, unfortunately can't remember where now, that SOP is to only use the chute for short fields or under conditions of reduced surface grip. If it's not mentioned in the RW manual then I guess it comes down to pilot discretion.

Beautiful landing given the bloody awful flying conditions. I've only bothered to do this training mission twice. I have a pathological dislike of crosswind landings. Probably comes from not having a set of rudder pedals. I keep going back & forth on whether or not to use the chute for crosswind landings. Significantly reduces roll out distance but it can weathervane horribly. I don't think the DCS Su-27 flight manual mentions chute usage conditions unfortunately.

I agree, and I think this is what makes it a poor training mission. There should be a number of training missions: 1) Standard weight landing in perfect weather. 2) Heavy landing in perfect weather. 3) Low fuel "emergency" landing in perfect weather. 4) Standard landing in high wind. 5) Standard landing in poor visibility with low wind. 6) Standard landing in poor visibility with higher wind. 7) Standard landing in winter conditions / low runway surface grip. Then repeat each scenario but this time at night. Being thrown in to a "lol, sucks to be you" scenario simply isn't realistic. One final point: the range of a DCS Su-27 with no weapons and a full fuel load is well in excess of 2,000Km. Under the conditions in that training mission the only sensible approach would be to contact control and request a divert airfield, many of which could easily be reached.

Ideally this is what we should have in-game in that case.

Yeah, I can understand why they did it, but it makes little sense: having that much fuel puts the Su-27 WAY above the actual maximum permitted landing weight which makes for an unrealistic training mission. Outside of a mission aborted straight after takeoff I can't really think of a sim scenario which would mandate landing at such a heavy weight. The difficulty in this mission should come from essentially being forced to do an IFR landing rather than having unusual and unhelpful flight characteristics during the approach and touchdown. Heavy landings could have much more effectively been taught during a separate "mission abort" training scenario. 30% fuel would have allowed for plenty of go-arounds while also providing much more realistic landing characteristics.

What's the realistic behaviour? Does the 7MH loft all the time or is it selectable by the pilot?

It's a shame the training mission has you at 100% fuel. Having to land fast due to weight really won't be helpful for newcomers to the Su-27. I guess it was programmed that way to give the player plenty of chances to go around. It'd almost be worth flying lazy orbits whilst dumping fuel for 7-8 minutes to get down to a realistic landing weight.

This. For some additional info, check this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=190270&highlight=Landing

Depends. TWS has it's uses. I can't remember now if Russian TWS provides any lock warning for Western RWR systems, but if you have a target 'bugged' it will automatically drop in to STT at around (IIRC) 85% of Rmax, so in theory as soon as the radar enters STT you should be in a position to fire. With the R-77 you do need STT to fire, and you must maintain STT until the missile is 15Km away from the intended target, at which point it will go pitbull and will not require any further guidance from the launch aircraft. When it reaches the 15Km mark is not reported however, so you will have to do some educated time of flight guesswork.

Not necessarily. It depends on the emission spectrum of the flare compared to the absorption spectrum of the sensor in the missile seeker head. Also depends on whether the missile seeker head has imaging capabilities or not (IIRC the base model R-73 does not) or whether it's simply a point source seeker. Also depends on whether or not the missile seeker head is programmed to reject targets that bloom instantly, like a flair might, or to reject targets that heat & cool quickly, again like a flare might. Also depends on whether the flare in question is long or short duration, multi or narrow spectrum emission, low or high drag etc. Lots and lots of factors to take in to account.

Weird. Were you at negative G or inverted at the time? The Su-27 only has a 500Kg (IIRC) cache tank for the fuel system, which is gravity fed, so it's very easy to flame out the engines if you're at zero or negative G for longer than a few seconds, especially at low altitude. Not sure about the fire warning though.

No. Under 1,500m AGL the HUD will automatically display radar altitude rather than barometric. Note that the radio altimeter instrument only displays up to 1,000m AGL but the HUD reading will be based on the radar altimeter up to 1,500m AGL. Flight manual page 48.

As far as I'm aware DCS used the standard meteorological conditions for atmospheric modelling. The 'standard model' makes assumptions about density, sea level pressure, temperature and viscosity but does not include any assumption regarding humidity. I would imagine that the contrail on / off variance that we see in-game is due to some very simplistic homogeneous altitude-invariant humidity value, hence contrail altitude is simply a function of temperature as far as the game is concerned. Like FoxAlpha said, close enough for government work without having to ask NASA if they have a spare computer we can borrow to get above 1 fps.

This. The advantages of the R-27ER have always been a higher top speed and better acceleration. Assuming equal launch conditions it's never going to out-range an AIM-120C5 or god forbid a 120-D7.