Pavlin_33

Even without the override, that is at 7.5G, it still has superior turning performance. What that document shows is that it can endure around 30 deg angle of attack - hence why such high G load at realtively low speed. As @BIGNEWYsuggested, things might get revised.

Yup the document seems to suggest that F-18 has both better turn rate at both corner speed and as sustained turn rate. It's insane turn-rate comes from insanely tight turn radius at high loads. I persoanly had no idea that Hornet is supposed to turn better than the Viper. To be honest something seems a bit off there. F-15 is also intended for 9G as well as the MiG-29 as these are their max loads.

This is simply not true. Even with missiles involved, being the first one to point the nose on the enemy will depend on your state. In a one-circle fight it will be the fighter with the smaller radius of turn and in a two-circle fight it will be the fighter with a higher turn rate. That's why one-cirlce (nose to nose) fight is called "radius" fight and two-circle (nose to tail) is called "rate" fight. Reason for this is simple: geometry. To illustrate this I've created a rudimentary animation here: https://jsfiddle.net/0f7r61me/2/ Blue fighter has double the turn rate of the red one, while the red fighter has half the turn circle. From the animation, it's clear who gets the first shot.

Well TOR has some arcade-like interface in CA. Would be great if we had at least something similar in other SAM sites also :D.

Well, the whole point is that it is and they should

Blacking out has to do with the G forces. 9G is 9G no matter the speed or the aircraft you experience it in. Small disclaimer, I've neglected the fact that Viper has a 30 deg. seat incline in RL - in DCS this is not modeled, I think. In a two-circle (nose-to-tail) turn fight, you want to be at the "left" part of the "plateau", i.e. you want the lowest possible speed at the highest possible G-force as this gives you the most turn rate. I am assuming that "plateau" means constant G limit.

Or give us humans ability to operate 'em inside Combined Arms.

I should have written "at high altitudes" or "above a certain" altitude. My intent was not to refernce that particular altitude of 35k '.

Try one of the following: 1. delay releasing the brakes until the engines stabilize at full power 2. take off with the NWS turned on - taxi setting

At 35.000 feet you should be looking at the Mach number instead of K-nots.

Also this value should be dynamic. Damage won't be the same at sea-level or at altitude, if the missile is maneuvring or not, etc...

I used to have this issue with MiG-29A: couldn't hit a bunker with Bet-ABs if my life depended on it. It was also happening online - I have since stopped trying.

Grass is always greener on the other side. As someone who eats 120s on regular basis I would say it's laser-like, but that's 'cause I fly FC3 mostly. I would suggest, if you own FC3, to try them out and see how easy/diffcult it is to shoot someone down. P.S. Any radar guided missile can be notched - that's just how PD radar works

After thinking about it for a while, I realized that the issue of Su-27s performance comes down to its engines: They provide maximum power very slowly. If you think about it, the acceleration of an airplane comes down to two forces: drag and thrust (ignoring gravity at the moment). Now I know that in DCS the Flanker can go Mach 2+ even with significant amount of fuel on board, the drag does not change, so it has to be the thrust. It seems that engines are just not quick enough to provide max thrust available. I can't see anything else causing very slow acceleration of the Su-27 in DCS when its top-speed matches that of an Eagle or Fulcrum.

Well I can't really argue much here, as I don't have any other data to disprove what you guys wrote. I am just perplexed that the taxi lights offer much better visibility than the landing ones do. Thanks again for the screenshots @Ironhand.

I've read many times on the forums, that J-11A is not simply a re-skin of Su-27. Does this mean that J-11A will ever be able to get features that Su-27 is lacking? Most notably, it's missing a "time to target" indicator, which should be located on the right side of the HUD when firing radar guided missiles.

What about in STT mode?

Any chance you could take the outside screenshots with a camera a bit lower to the ground, so all the lights are visible? I am away from DCS at the moment. If what you wrote is correct, then there's a different bug I need to raise, 'cause having these so called "landing lights" is useless Having an offset spotlight, can't really be considered a landing light 'cause at best it can be used for taxiing

Light switch inside the cockpit does not match the actual lights: фонарь посад should turn on the landing lights - currently it turns on the taxi lights рулеж should turn on the taxi lights - currently is turns on the landing lights

Not a stupid question at all. To put it simply, AoA (angle-of-attack) determines how much drag force (force that opposes motion) the airplane will produce. In general, the higher the AoA the higher the drag. Every airplane has it's optimum AoA where it has the lowest lift-to-drag ratio. In airliners this number is usually around 4 degrees and this is what determines the most optimal cruising speed. Think of AoA as an abstraction of the airplane's performance. We usually use speeds to do this, 'cause as humans this is something more tangible for us, but if you think about it AoA is the true performance indicator. What I mean by this is think of approach/landing speeds for the same airplane at different weights: you would need to know what speed is perfect for each weight. If you use an AoA, and you know what is the best value for it to use on landing, then you don't even need to care about your airspeed. As long as you have AoA value correct, what ever speed you are going at is the correct one. Same goes for stalling, cruising, etc.