ShuRugal

This. I want the ability to brake at speeds above 40kph without blowing tires.

i would expect the g-forces experienced in a turn to interfere with the operation of accelerometers.

stick to trimmer mode button turns the stick into a trimmer, but not in the way that would make intuitive sense: when pressed, moving the stick away from center has the same effect as holding down the trimmer button in that direction, but at a slower speed. Unfortunately, there is an enormous dead-zone, and the minimum speed the trim moves at is still large enough to over-shoot, so you end up whipping the stick all over the place trying to get trimmed. better just to use the trimmer buttons.

Don't use the H.U.D. software to program the stick, do it in game. Saitek has never been very good with their profiling software, and the new H.U.D. is every bit as lousy as SST ever was. Only thing i use it for is calibrating the stick and setting my curves.

update: if i run the launcher in a window (and decrease screen resolution so it actually goes into a window) the problem does not occur

I have just had to do a clean install of my OS, and I am experiencing a very weird problem in the launcher. When i first open the launcher, everything works as normal. But as time passes, I begin to notice a delay between when i click the mouse or press a key, and when the launcher registers that i have done this. This delay grows with time. 30 seconds after i start the launcher, it takes a quarter second to register a click. 30 seconds later, a full second. 30 seconds later, two or three seconds. Mouse does not lag. when i roll it over an option, that option is highlighted instantly. Further, joystick inputs are detected instantly when i move an axis or a switch. Weirder still, if i alt-tab out of the launcher and back in, the delay goes back to zero and then starts growing again.

For starters, you can tell just by looking at the bird that she's tail-heavy: The engines are entirely behind the center-of-lift on the wings, and over half of each engine is behind the trailing-edge of the wing. Further, the weapon stations are pushed back near the trailing edge of the wings. Finally, the aircraft has no fuselage to speak of, it is almost entirely wings and engine, with just enough space for the pilot tacked on to the nose. Any one of these features would push CG, aft. Tail-heavy behavior is definitely to be expected from this aircraft (would also explain the insane amounts of nose-down trim required). As to comparing the SU-27 against other aircraft... you really can't. The A-10 is in an entirely different class of aircraft, the only similarity it shares with the SU-27 is that it flies and has one pilot. The F-15C, while superficially similar, has radically different design features and goals: The US Air Force philosophy on fighter design is dictated by the theory of 'energy maneuverability', which boils down to "faster == better". The Russian philosophy on fighter design calls for maintaining the ability to maneuver well at low airspeed. Where the F-15 practically falls like a brick below 200-250kts (370-460 kph), depending on loadout, the SU-27 is well-behaved at speeds as low as 250 kph (130 kts). The Mig-21 is also a completely different animal, weighing less than half as much and having the same wing loading on a set of wings that are so small and steeply swept that calling them 'fins' seems more descriptive. As far as making your turns match what you see in videos: how do you know that the pilot in that video is not burning as much energy as you are in the sim? The camera frame provides a very poor reference for estimating his speed, and you have no idea what his throttle positions through the turn are: for all you know, he could be burning 100kg of fuel every time he makes a turn in order to maintain airspeed.

I think the problem going around with so many people stalling "too easily" is that the old SFM gave unrealistic expectations as to the stability of a fighter aircraft. A true fighter aircraft is unlike any other thing that flies, all the way from conception to final product. Civil aircraft, transport planes, and even (dedicated) ground-attack aircraft are all designed to be aerodynamically stable. There is no need to change attitude rapidly, so the aerodynamic design trades this ability away in exchange for aircraft which, when flown inside their design envelop, are virtually impossible to place in unrecoverable situations. A fighter, on the other hand, must be able to fly fast and turn rapidly, above almost all other considerations. The speed requirement means low-aspect, deeply-swept wings. The maneuverability requirement means large control surfaces and low(ish) wing loadings. The only feature in that list which leads to more stability is designing for low wing loadings, but there is a limit to how much that can be achieved with the need to carry fuel and weapons. The end result of fighter design requirements is an aircraft which is capable of changing attitude significalntly faster than direction of flight. Coupled with low aspect wings (enters stall easier) and high-sweep (stall spreads rapidly spanwise) you now have an aircraft which is very easy to maneuver into out-of-envelope situations. In real life, this is handled through the application of hundreds of hours of flight training, until the pilot knows exactly what his aircraft can be asked to do under any given set of conditions. TL;DR version: Flying a fighter is like operating linux as root: the machine can and will do anything you ask it, including fly tail-first into the ground (rm -rf /)

Also, when the IFF system has identified a friendly, you will not be able to launch unless you engage manual override.

might at least explain to him the reason.... the timer is to allow the laser time to cool down before the next shot. if you override it, the laser will eventually overheat and burn out.

So you're trying to tell me that in the real world, flares have a 100% success rate? That's not even true in other modules of this sim. In the KA-50, I can dump flares as fast as i want against an Igla that's already in the air and it won't save my life. Why is it that two flares is enough to decoy a much more sophisticated air-to-air missile? Well, naturally.

Define "no overheating issues". Do you mean additional overheating? Because the MBP hasn't been made that doesn't run excessively hot just sitting still doing nothing. I've had my hands on most of the models produced since 2006, and they are all scorchers. The 2006 version (owned one for three years) would idle at 80-celsius (core), and get over 105 when doing anything intense. I used an IR gun to measure the case temp at the exhaust ports under load once... it came out to ~100C.

The fuel level is indicated in metric tons. The yellow lights are indeed to indicate empty tanks. don't know about a light for externals, i never bother with them on the 25

personally, i have -never- seen only the top or bottom light up when flying level, unless the threat was almost directly beneath me. Only time upper or lower light comes on alone is when i am in a ~30-degree bank (any steeper and SPO stops receiving) or in a steep climb or dive.

This. While it is less effective against the AMRAAM, I have found that by binding the scroll wheel on my throttle to countermeasures (forward for flare, aft for chaff) I can effectively defeat any missile launch which I am aware of. My technique upon becoming aware of a launch is to simply scroll the wheel forward or backward (or both) rapidly for one full revolution, thus effectively dropping 20-30 flare or chaff. I feel like this should be ineffective for the same reason that firing a full salvo of missiles simultaneously is innefective: That many launched at once will have the same probability of success as a single alone would, because the launch conditions are not changed.

Ultimate Argument. Saw the new campaign a few days ago and figured I'd have a whirl at it. So far, my results have been less than stellar, mainly due to piss-poor performance from my missiles against AI aircraft. So far, I have run through the first mission five times, completing it only once. In the first four iterations, I expended all of my missiles, and only managed to kill a total of two Frogs. I stumbled across Scats missile mod and used it on the last flight, and was able do down three frogs and damage one badly enough for him to RTB... but again the majority of my missiles went for the decoys instead of their intended targets, even when they were launched from favourable aspects well inside the NEZ. In addition, my wingman has also managed to get shot down several times, by SU-25s. What gives here? there is no way an AI frog should ever take down an AI fighter. For some reason, the frogfoot missiles hit my wingman, but his don't hit the frog. Why does the flanker not have the magic immunity that flankers seem to have? Also, on an amusing note, a pair of flankers at the end got thoroughly mixed up landing and kept scaring each other out of approach. I have seen this occur many times in the past, is this ever going to be fixed? tacview attached.

depending on the circumstances... When I'm under 10km from an SU-25, the skin return from the SU-25 should be stronger than the return from chaff, especially when closing at a head-on aspect, since he will be between my radar and the chaff he just dumped. When i'm WVR, my STT cone shouldn't even light up his chaff for longer than a fraction of a second, since chaff tends to stay where it it dumped (low momentum, extremely high drag)

I don't exepect much inside of EDGE either. They've been on the cusp of release since 2011. I just want my missiles to work. I've flown the first mission of the new campaign four times now, and killed a total of two frogfoots.... with 40 missiles expended, all from well inside NEZ. All the AI has to do is drop chaff and flare (which they do instantly) and the missiles desperately evade their targets.

nope. head on aspect to both targets in both instances, neither was flaking or cold at any point in the engagement. Negative on TAD outranging HUD as well, you can see in the second image where have the target locked on TWS that his range is well within the range limit of the HUD display.

nope. note the closed triangle of the enemy. datalink targets are open triangles (like a < sign). Also, in the first image, I was flying on a server with no AWACS or EWR support (104th)

I have recently encountered a bug where targets illuminated by my radar will show on the VSI, but not on the HUD. here is one instance: in this one you can see i am actually tracking the contact with TWS, but it still does not display on HUD:

I think the problem is that the autopilot still gives inputs as if the old flight model were still used: It's trying to fly with full stick deflection. I have found that I can use Altitude-Hold/Transiiton-level-flight if I level off and trim manually so there is minimal altitude change (<1 m/s) and my IAS is over 500 kph. But yeah, needs fixed.

that seems like needlessly complicating a simple task... why doesn't he land?

1.8 GB of RAM usage is normal. Are you on a 32-bit or a 64-bit OS?

I always assume that the other guy has already launched, and I go defensive as soon as i launch. Since the other guy is usually an F15, this tends to be a reasonable assumption and i typically get a nice view of the slammer that kills me flying sideways into my canopy.