Corrigan

Well, I looked at the track you posted in your other thread (not sure why you needed two); your settings are probably correct, I just think you have unreasonable expectations on how a real aircraft behaves. Watching your track, it's only ever 100% input or nothing. You can almost never yank the stick back fully like that and expect anything reasonable to happen, especially not in an Su-25 doing 400 km/h. In that track, you stall the aircraft and fall out of the sky. Be gentle! The track I'm talking about was posted here, if anyone wants to give a second opinion. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2184700&postcount=6

Yeap, sounds like a bug.

Cool stuff, thanks for your efforts. I also tried a climb test at your atmospheric settings, of a clean aircraft with 100% internal fuel, burning to 600 km/h and then climbing at 870 km/h TAS to 7000 m. It took me about 4:10 (good), I spent 425 L of fuel (good), but I ended up 55 km from where I took off, and not 40 km as in the chart. Did you measure that, travelled distance? EDIT Wait, I guess I should have flown level until reaching 870 TAS, then started climbing. I kept climbing after TO and got up to 870 TAS more slowly. I'll do it again! I tried again, and that took me even further away. So it seems the fuel consumption and time is spot on, but the distance taken is off by 50%. EDIT 2 What am I missing with that table? How can they possibly get 40 km? If you fly 870 km/h TRUE AIRSPEED for about 4 mins you'll have moved 870*4/60 km = 58 km through the airmass. Since you're only 7 km up at the end, you have basically the same distance across the ground too. I don't understand how they've found 40 km. Is there some definitional matter I'm missing or a term I'm misunderstanding?

Sounds very plausible.

Failed to reproduce, I see one just fine.

You should probably give the relative difference too.

One suggestion is separate Flight performance tests: Results and Flight performance tests: Discussion threads. The former could be just one or a few posts, and we could bounce ideas in the latter.

To add to the rather trivial statement above; yes, the oxygen system is bugged, and you will get hypoxic even if you've done everything right. The developers know about it.

Yeah, wasn't implying that that was the entire issue, just that it's something that everyone might not think of ahead of every test. Also, you can go quite fast with flaps in TO. It seems weird to me that the flight model should be this off. Has it been tuned using different figures? If so, maybe Dolphin could share some of them?

Just something I'm sure you've thought of: a number of times I've forgotten my flaps switch on my WH, started in the air, and since I have controls sync on, ended up flying a while with the flaps out until I notice. Something to keep in mind!

You have to bind your controls properly. Check your settings!

Yeah I know, there's something not right, but we should probably keep prototype-set records on the periphery of the discussion atm. Come on. That's probably not the bis model. Let's try to keep this discussion serious, please.

But you shouldn't have to set any curves to fly non-mushily. If you post a short track (demos/replays in DCS are called this; you'll be prompted to save one after exiting a mission) we can see if you're doing anything odd.

Honestly, I don't know if that number (62,401 ft) is relevant. It was a record set by a "prototype", so I bet it was cleaned up and lighter than our run-of-the-mill, combat-specced aircraft.

Or just make clear which curve should be read together with which axis, dual axes can be fine.

Are you using the keyboard? It sounds like it. If so, you can't just hold down a key and expect the aircraft to respond, since you're demanding full control surface deflection in a very short time. You have to tap they keys briefly instead. Look at the stick in your cockpit to see what you're doing. ad If you're using a joystick, you can set curves in control options -> axis assign ->axis tune.

I've noticed that too.

Ah, sorry, read the preamble in the OP instead of the second post. Tried that now, I am unable to hold altitude, doing 400 km/h with 12 or 13 deg AoA.

Try ticking Uncontrolled in the ME, perhaps?

Then maybe it's time to read the manual. Switch CU22.

I found that I certainly could, with the small centreline tank, an R3R under each wing, 50% internal fuel, and full military power. When I stopped the test I was doing 550 km/h and increasing at 6 deg AoA in Recovery mode autopilot. I was using the default atmospheric settings in the mission editor. Could you share your exact settings so I can try to recreate? EDIT: Actually, looking at your post again ("weight around 20500 lbs"), you must be using full internal fuel? Using that weight I agree with your findings, but I dunno if that's what the table assumes.

EDIT: never mind, using different weights. I agree that there clearly is a problem with the thrust/drag at high alts.

See post below.

Have you even fired the cannon? No bullets, it fires these things:

Shouldn't you be over in the Swiss part of the forum?