DarkFire

I would be very, very cautious about pursuing this idea. If ED quietly contacted the admins for the top 10 most used MP servers and asked them what would make their lives easier then I think that could have significant value. I would suggest though that any such discussion should be strictly limited to the running of MP servers. I've seen this so very many times over the past >20 years of on-line gaming: as soon as a dev team engages with a small section of the community about game design then utter chaos ensues, the entire community tends to destabilise and become horribly toxic in a way that ED games have thankfully never suffered from before, and I hope will not suffer from in the future. Let me make this very clear, from bitter experience: making changes to a game in order to appease <5% of the total user base is a recipe for utter disaster. It leads to player power struggles, allegations of "who put you in charge" and the worst sort of electioneering corruption. Stick to discussing the setup and administration of MP servers and this could be a very useful discussion for the small percentage of players who run servers and/or who play on them. Go any further than that is an existential risk to the stability and longevity of the entire DCS player community.

"Normal" fuel state is IIRC tanks 1 & 4, so 60% of maximum fuel, which is 5,640 Kg. The E-M diagrams and the maximum G as a function of mach diagrams for the Su-27 are all set for an all-up weight of 21,400 Kg which equates to a full gun pad, full expendables, 2 x R-73, 2 x R-27R and 32.5% of maximum fuel.

Yes, that's exactly what I imagined was happening. It would be an interesting but difficult experiment (very difficult to be consistent) to see whether the best throttle setting for a roll-out with chute deployed is zero or actually slightly above zero, i.e. whether there is a point where the back draught from the chute is greater than the forward thrust. By nothing more than intuition I think this may be true for the Su-25 but is unlikely to be true for the larger aircraft like the Su-27 / -33. May also be true for the MiG-21.

That's quite cool actually, I had no idea it was modelled to that level. Thrust reverser drag chute :lol:

Just to reinforce the point, and this applies to any of the Russian aircraft with braking chutes - the chute will produce a strong weather vane effect in strong cross wind conditions. If you have the runway length then it's much better to land as slowly as possible (keeping aircraft weight and it's effect on glide slope in mind) and aerobrake as much as possible before gently application of the wheel brakes. There are a few runways in the Caucasus where this is unlikely to be possible due to the short runway length. IIRC the shortest is only about 1.7Km from threshold to threshold, with the longest being something like 3.6 Km.

I'd guess that all the module presence & certification is now handled by the DCS back end servers with their new key-free DRM scheme, so it may not be possible any more.

Many years ago I was fortunate enough to spend 5 minutes chatting with the RAF Tornado pilot who'd been involved with the test series for the ALARM. He barely said anything about it's true capabilities other than to say that it really was way ahead of it's time. Having an ALARM equipped Tornado, either the RAF GR4 or the German ECR, would be an amazingly powerful SEAD platform for DCS. More generally I'd dearly love to have a Tornado GR4 or even a GR1. Either would be a very impressively capable strike aircraft for DCS missions. I'd be much more ambivalent about the F3 since it would be comprehensively outclassed by most of the fighter aircraft currently available. Big +1 to having a DCS Tornado :thumbup:

Looked like a nearly perfect landing to me. The on-off 'sticktion' is an artifact of the basic flight model. PFMs have dynamic simulation throughout the flight envelope so this'll be corrected once the MiG gets it's PFM which should be by the end of the year.

I think the performance calculations were aimed at specific circumstances. Take the loadout mentioned here for example: 30% of maximum fuel with 2 x R-73 & 2 x R-27R looks very much like a relatively short range intercept platform, or alternatively a longer range escort mission that has already engaged in BVR combat prior to a WVR engagement. I agree with GGTharos - 30% of maximum fuel would be roughly 2,735 Kg of fuel. For a reasonably high altitude cruise this would still give you a range of roughly 450 Km.

Agreed. Having thought about it some more I think I would like to see civilian models in DCS, plus whatever AI and game logic requirements would be needed to implement an ROE system. Ultimately for DCS I'd like to see more realism, and less "pew pew".

I don't particularly have a strong opinion on whether or not I'd want to see civilian units & consequent restrictions in DCS, but it's worth noting that other games of a similar nature such as ARMA deal with civilians reasonably well, given certain scenario type restrictions. Difference being I guess that a bullet from a soldier's rifle does very much less collateral damage than a FAB-1500 would. Might be interesting to be able to have civilian traffic as destroyable units. Terrorists escaping in a car? Better use an AGM-65 or Vikhr instead of rockets. And so on.

Definitely +1 to this idea. Using the arrow keys for very small placement adjustments would be very helpful.

If memory serves all the plots for the Su-27 are done with an all-up weight of 21,400 Kg which should roughly equate to 30% fuel, 2 x R-73 and 2 x R-27R. I would imagine that the wing tanks would be empty at 30% fuel. I've never seen anything which considers the wing tanks to be anything other than part of the total fuel load. That being said, The Su-27SM and any more modern variants do have 2 x wet wing pylons, so maybe that's where the 'no external fuel' thing comes from. Amusing that the graph plots the Su-27 against the Tornado F2 which was a turkey of an aircraft if ever there was one, with it's 'blue concrete' radar :doh: Edited to add: That's a weird graph. Everything I've seen indicates that the corner speed should be around 780 Km/h yet the plot has it at around 950. Interesting :geek: Further edit: Assuming a full gunpad & expendables, 30% fuel with 2 x R-73 and 2 x R-27R results in an all-up weight of 21,193 Kg. 21,400 is achieved with 32.5% fuel.

Yep, this is a HUGE benefit to map object & unit placement. Excellent job!

Good idea. I'm sure most of the information about the various squadrons that countries have is publicly available, so that would be very useful to have.

There's a problem in that the log book only records flights where the aircraft you're flying is the same nation as your logbook pilot. Patently this is not always true as I have an RAF pilot in my log book and it quite happily records my various flights in my Su-27, whether I'm flying a Russian or Ukrainian aircraft. If there is a problem there, and there does seem to be, then I don't think it manifests itself all the time. This may be the issue that you're experiencing. It's also the case that the log book only records single player flights, not multiplayer ones.

Just came across this manual. Excellent work, really handy reference to brush up on techniques. :thumbup:

Just a few point to add: 1) Currently the very best flight models of any aircraft in DCS World are the F-15C and Su-27. Both have, as I understand it, been signed off by real world pilots. Both are obviously FC3 aircraft. I can imagine that when complete the F/A-18 may be as detailed if not more so, but there's nothing wrong with FC3 PFM's. 2) Let's also not forget that for the foreseeable future FC3 will be the only way for us to get some cockpit time in the Russian aircraft. This is a big deal for those of us who came to DCS, or Lock On as it was back then, because it offered something other than teen series fighters or offered a guestimate of how the F-22 would fly and behave. As it is now DCS World and FC3 specifically is the only place to fly an Su-27 or MiG-29S (I'm not counting Xplane as it quite obviously isn't a combat sim). FC-level aircraft still have great value and a purpose. Not only for the above but for the simple reason that FC3 should probably be everyone's first module, so new players can see if they're going to like a certain general type of aircraft before they make what could be an expensive mistake.

This seems to be a common mistake. QNH in the target area should be covered as part of any strike flight briefing.

Can confirm, all the videos are back. That's a relief!

That would be a real shame if Lex was ordered to take down his videos. The information about pattern flying s publicly available after all :(

Nice. A bit fast intercepting the glide slope, but this was a great illustration of what happens if you accurately follow the ILS down: you land successfully. :thumbup:

Something I've seen by observation is that the M-2000 is very capable at high-alpha excursions to bring about a gun shot or bring an enemy within launch parameters. The problem appears to be that high-alpha excursions like this cost a huge amount of energy, more so than in say an Su-27 or MiG-29. If you can force an M-2000 to carry out some wild & wonderful manoeuvres then it's likely that he'll end up low and slow which can be deadly for the Mirage because both a lightly loaded Su-27 and an F-15C have a real T/W advantage.

Awesome model of the F-15C! Which make / version is it?

Currently watching A.E.W's videos on landing technique. Also absolutely essential watching :thumbup: His channel is here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNvV27UZkI8W-jvMA-iGqyQ