Corrigan

Ok, so the physics appears to suggest rudder input actually applies diff. braking on its own, since there's no airspeed dependence according to the above. Now, if this is the case, why doesn't the pressure meter show anything? Are these valves not monitored? Has it been mistakenly left out in the sim? Also, why hasn't the literature been clearer? As I said before, everything I've read on the subject suggests that you can turn only when you apply brakes. And that's including what Viper posted (and probably misunderstood...)

Yeah, DCS has a habit of binding weapons release keys etc to the same-numbered button on all devices. You might have a fire button on your throttle.

That's not wind, that's a bug with those fortified hangars. I think the door looks like it's open but isn't, or something. Spawn on an open parking and you'll see.

Video is broken, you forgot the important bit in the URL.

Could your joystick be giving inputs on its own?

Good idea, do it! Of course, the devs might have "cheated" and used actual rudder input as a proxy for rudder deflection and subsequent aerodynamic forces, if you see what I mean. But your test can still tell us something.

It's not even comparable. This is a bit like looking to upgrade from a pager to a smartphone. "When I try and research the main differences, all I get is the touchscreen. Is it a gimmick?" :P Often Advanced Systems Modelling (ASM) is used interchangably with "clickable cockpit", but that's misleading. Again in my analogy, the big touchscreen might be the first feature you notice, but the interface is obviously only an expression of the improvement. I hope you see what I'm trying to say.

Are those GBU-28s, or what? Normal JDAMs?

When I saw it happen to a 21 it was player controlled and alone, though. Just so you know.

Holy crap.

What do you mean? Which of the numbers?

There's something fishy here still. If rudder activates diff braking without us touching the brakes, why don't we see it on the manometer? Why doesn't the manual (or anything else I've ever read) explain this? If, when no brakes are manually applied, we are turning just by aerodynamics, why can we turn so sharply at unphysically low speeds? There has to be something amiss with the sim's behaviour, IMO.

Interesting that they went for the 22's for that type of mission. Can't have been the cheapest choice. Furthermore (and I hope this isn't too political a statement), I can think of few better uses of tax money than killing ISIS militants. 100% behind these missions.

Yep, easy to attain, but maybe too easy? It's not a matter of can we make it, rather, is it realistic that they allotted this much time to that phase in the chart. My first guess for that time was one minute, but as I say, I can't test it in the sim atm.

Yep, I agree too. Also, don't be stressed about coming in fast, or long landings; the chute will take care of that.

Yeah, I included that in my sketch calculation, or are you talking about something else? Thanks Novak. Are you referring to the scheduled patch/hotfix this week (tomorrow?), or a later bugfix?

OK, I can't test in the sim until tonight, so maybe someone else could. I did a back-of-the-envelope calculation: if it takes us 2 min to get to 870 km/h TAS (from a standing start), at ground level, assuming an avg of 400 km/h TAS during those 2 minutes, and then start climbing as normal, the total distance taken is 44 km. So, it seems we can massage the numbers to fit into 40 km, if the 2 mins to take off and get to 870 km/h TAS is reasonable. I suspect it might not be. But, I dunno if the sim can climb as steeply as this requires. Can someone test?

Ok, but that's a small effect. I'll check when I sit down, walking with my phone atm. EDIT: turns out that is important, thanks.

Yes, by geometrical necessity. Me on page 4: I have to go now, but maybe you could check the numbers in the glide chart too, see if they're as muddled as this one. If we can't make sense of those data either I don't think we can draw any conclusions about the glide performance, meaning we still don't know if it's a drag problem or a thrust problem (or both).

I've tried raising this discussion several times. I don't understand how they've arrived at their values. If you climb at 870 km/h TAS for 4 mins, you will have moved about 60 km through the airmass. According to the chart, you end up at 7 km above the ground, 40 km from where you started. This is not a triangle. The chart, as I understand it, is geometrically impossible. Even as you explain it, if ground speed at sea level is 870 km/h, after 4 mins 10 s you are NOT 40 km out: 870 * (4+1/6)/60 km = 60 km

Except the climb distances in that manual don't make sense.

I think some kind of damage just makes the model disappear. I've seen a 21 perform a hard landing and then taxi floating on invisible landing gear.

Yep, it's actually surprising. Such an elementary thing, and something that no other aircraft shows.

I love the MiG. It's such a scruffy-looking and weirdly designed plane, you know like "oh look, someone's spilled red paint on the stick." "If I want to turn off my radar filters I have to unlock my target?" "You stick the canopy anti-ice switch in my face but I have to go heads down to engage radar fixed beam mode?" But then, surprisingly, it's just a really good little aircraft! I love it.

Congrats to the winners and thanks again cichlidfan, awesome thing of you to do.