Jump to content

Supernova-III

Members
  • Posts

    161
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Supernova-III

  1. You are not alone. MiG-29 is really hard to land it without proper training. It doesn't forgive mistakes when you try to land it. There are some points to consider when you passed inner beacon: start flaring at 8-10 m AGL, the airspeed should be 280-290 km/h you should reach 0 m/s vertical speed at 0.5-1 m AGL once your vertical speed is zero, set throttles to idle once idle, pull the stick to set the AoA to 11 deg (not bigger than that, to avoid tailstrike), stick movement is quite wide at the speed about 270 km/h, don't be afraid of that. the airplane will start losing the speed and lift, slowly descending to the touchdown point It's very hard to train properly. On the beginning it will seem that things happen too fast to consider that amount information at such short period of time (several seconds). But keeping trying you will ace it. Good luck! You can believe me, it's possible to land it. Some airplanes require more dedication, more time to spend training. Avoid jumping from one module to another if you want to have best results.
  2. Yeah, Su-25 should yaw to the left...
  3. Not sure I understand this, could you please explain more or give a reference if there's already some explanation?
  4. what is wrong with it? Any references to real thing how it should be?
  5. yes, that wrong... but this happens I hope the upcoming update of Su-25 will fix this. Fingers crossed!
  6. Brakes on pedals is typical solution for Sukhoi planes. And this solution was in use a waaaaay before su-27. Su-17 had brakes on pedals. So I don't think the statement about brakes on Su-27 is true. On su-25, brakes were always on pedals.
  7. no redundancy at all. I fly only Su-25, and completely ignore Su-25T, they are so different. The only similar thing is the airframe and flight models are close. But even in this respect, non-T version is more agile.
  8. it's entirely possible to implement pretty precise mouse control. There are some good examples of this.
  9. got it. So it feels better for you knowing that there's just 5% deviation from the docs?
  10. why? I'm pretty sure I'm not alone This is mostly true. But 5% Compared to what? To reality? Don't you mix accuracy of solving differential equations and "closeness to reality"? How to even express that closeness to reality? How do you convince yourself that it's closer to/further from reality with one or another update? I believe, if you as a player haven't witnessed the real thing, you have no ability to recognize that something is close to real. Doesn't matter how complex your equations are and how accurate they solved. It should make the model closer to reality, but most people cannot recognize this. I'm really interested, what you'd answer to this. @draconus I know, for example, that real Su-25 has a "narrow gauge" which makes taxiing a bit trickier, but it also makes takeoff and run after landing very dangerous (especially with crosswind). In DCS I can say the same thing about Su-25, but does it mean that it's close to reality? IMO, no. It's entirely possible that real rook is dangerous in different way in reality, compared to DCS.
  11. DCS is still a simulator. It's still a waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than WT (the DCS recently started being compared to). It models the systems. In realistic way or not. ED will strive to implement this as realistic as possible if there's info. In every other way, it may help ED to earn more money and finally release my favorite Su-25. Maybe
  12. Anyway guys, how do you know if we actually have accurate simulation of existing planes? How much of us flown F-14/15/16/18? Or maybe Sukhoi's planes? So ask yourself, what do you really mean by saying "I wanna have realistic model". Most of us will never have possibility to verify that the plane flies the way it does in reality. Same to aircraft systems. Most of us have a very limited knowledge how it should work. I'm not even saying about the right feel in the aircraft which is anyway different even for every single pilot. So maybe we have to stop that madness with ultra-realism? It's fine if there's something well-known about the aircraft and it modeled this way in DCS. But otherwise you won't ever verify this anyway. woops, I said it
  13. makes sense!
  14. Me too, but nowadays F-35 is more realistic to release. Hahahaha, I was surprised so much!
  15. I'd like to have Sh modifications of FAB-250 and FAB-500: ShL and ShN.
  16. sorry, not sure I get it
  17. For WW2 birds, release of F-35 means that they cannot fly safe anymore...
  18. but what stops you from using A-10C as simpler attack aircraft? Just don't use guided weapons and targeting pod. Or maybe it kills the vibe for you?
  19. Why not start over and make F-15E from scratch instead of F-15C? F-15E is not absolute property of RAZBAM I guess?
  20. It would make a lot more sense if they could make Su-27 and make sure that it sells like hot cakes. MiG-29 is a legendary plane, no doubts, but it's not competitive against most 4-th gen fighters in DCS. And overall it's not as capable as Su-27, which can carry a lot more weapons and fuel. From that perspective, making MiG-29 doesn't make any sense to me. ED decided to make one of the weakest redfor 4-th gen plane, I won't be surprised if it won't be as popular as one might expect.
×
×
  • Create New...