Corrigan

Oh, cool. I still wonder why though. But I guess there are more pressing issues for the devs to address, and I can certainly live with this quirk. Glad to get this sorted out! Now we only need to get the cruising performance up to scratch too.

Well, as I see it, EDGE itself will probably be easier to run than the current engine, since we're getting more modern shaders etc. I think the stated intention is that EDGE will run faster on a given system than currently. The new MAPS, however, I can easily imagine containing many more polygons and more highly resolved topography etc, so I think the overall performance change on one of the new maps is still unknown.' The safe and obvious answer to your question is to wait a few months and then see how it runs.

Right, but why should switches change positions in the cockpit after repair? Sounds like a bug to me.

When I did this with Justin here for the first time I got lost in the clouds on approach, fell out of the sky and died. Still had fun! We can't all be natural pilots. :P

So there's still a (much more benign) bug here, then; or should the switch come off during the work for some reason?

Engine stress should reset upon engine shut-down (manual p. 21), and if not then, certainly when the aircraft is repaired by the groud crew. If it is engine wear, it's not realistic (effectively broken aircraft after one climb following SOP?) and subject to a bug in it not being repairable. EDIT: see above. Philipp2, you lovely man.

Interesting! Let's hope that's it. Can't check atm, not at home.

I guess this was behind Tango's anomalous 12 min climb earlier then.

I'd say pitot freezing. I've seen that happen in other aircraft in DCS under less than realistic circumstances. If you still have the track you can try switching pitot to the backup one.

No, you're just playing a training mission with damage off.

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.