FSKRipper

One of my favorite actors ever. R.I.P.

Thanks for this patch, only one question... I installed the patch, run the repair (for the MiG-21 Problem) and now... I'm missing the Flaming Cliffs Manual in german language. I searched in DCS\Mods\aircraft\Flaming Cliffs\Doc without success. I'm using DCS in english but to my best knowledge all language versions were installed in the past!?

Eigentlich ist es ganz gut :thumbup: Naja, wie in meiner Signatur zu lesen komme ich aus der Unistadt Greifswald (Nordosten von Mecklenburg/Vorpommern), ziemlich ruhig im Winter aber im Sommer dank naher Ostsee ganz groß.

I have only a slight imagination for which air force you work and can only speak for german air force standards but our pilots are supposed to study things like aerospace technology/aerospace engineering during their carreer. Won't say they have no idea how their plane works.

Pleeease! First of all edit your last posts and try not to spam the whole thread with new thoughts every couple of minutes. 2nd, you constantly try to ignore that this is a beta. LN IS WORKING on the Asp 3rd, you know there is a bug report forum?

The Caucasus map is only a starting point of DCS. I think for Nevada and especially the Strait of Hormuz, the Tomcat is a must have for scenarios around the 80's/ early 90's. Since carrier operations are planned and most of the FC3 aircraft (plus the the 21 bis, the Hawk, Uh-1H, Mi-8 are perfectly fitting into this timeframe, it would create amazing options to use this bird on both sides (in the A Version).

I think it's like hiking in the wild with a swiss army knife. In 95% you won't need it but on this one special trip you left it at home, you will damn yourself forever :lol:

No dogfight hit but I can recommend reading "Viper Pilot" by Dan Hampton. He used his cannon to successfully engage APC's and Trucks during a heavy gunfight between US Marines which were pinned down by Iraqi armed forces (2003). Several vehicles were destroyed and they retreated. So the gun is still a lifesaver (if you are one the right side of the gun :music_whistling:).

Thanks for this patch. :thumbup: Let's hope nobody complains that his engine is desintegrating beyond a speed limit which was so "unrealistic" Only a joke, let it hit them hard :megalol:. Would like to see overspeeding turbine blades setting the whole thing to fire without warning.

Instead of Steel Armor you should hope for something like Steel Beasts Pro PE. But since the physics of this simulator are enough to keep a modern I7 busy we should invest our prayers for a 200 year long life to get the computers for such a combined Air/Land/Sea simulator. Even with ED's indicated future plans we will get 10 years older to see all this stuff :megalol:

Since I can't find an official thread I will make the report here. Every sort of crosswind is moving the rudder to the respective direction. Very funny during landing runs :lol:

First of all welcome to the forum. You joined some days ago, your experience is based on how many flying hours? - Don't see this as a game, it's a simulator not Battlefield 4 (as mentioned: life ins't fair nor balanced) - Do you know that flying in a formation, communicating with each other and employing tactics can simply counter this issue? - You are aware that the F-15C in DCS is not the same build than the actual USAF version? (btw same for the Su-27 which had a lot of upgrades) - You know that you own an aircraft with a "light" simulation level where the focus goes on tactics and flying skills? (For real simulations, look for the A-10C, Mig-21, F-86, or the Belsimtek helos) Spend some time on online servers, consume a lot of BVR/WVR documents and most of all, get some folks flying with you. I can promise you, trying the lone wolf scenario will make you regret your purchase.

Version 3.025 released. No patch, just a full installer but with tons of bugfixes. Navmeshbuilder 1.20 added to downloads. http://www.esimgames.com/?page_id=1390

@ GUMAR First of all regarding my track, if you mean why it ended so fast, I canceled it after flameout and before kissing the ground (forgot to switch the logbook...) I checked your tracks. Nice flying so far but maybe we have some kind of issue here I don't understand. It is no problem for me to post enough tracks of the flameout if you wish. I think it would take until tomorrow evening (Today is TV-evening with my wife :music_whistling:) Maybe some people (some of your friends with Tacview also?) could check the attached tacview files but according to them you never exceeded 1089km/h IAS. In the dive your maximum IAS was 1032km/h. During your supersonic track, you reached 1089km/h IAS. Can't say if we encountered a possible tacview issue, a bug in DCS data handling or a FM issue. Contacted Vyrtuoz and will report back after I got an answer. UPDATE: After contacting Vyrtuoz I got the following: Hello Ripper, This is a good question. In DCS, the IAS is literally coming from the cockpit instruments. My script is looking at the needle position. That’s why, when you reach the limit of your aircraft, the IAS cannot go higher than what the instruments can display. I’m working on a new way to export data from DCS for Tacview 1.4 and I may be able to find a workaround. But this is too early to be sure of that. Frantz Quote: Originally Posted by FSKRipper Hello Vyrtuoz, first of all thank you for your superb Tacview program. In the discussion about the MiG-21 and the Su-25 flight model we encountered a problem and I hope you can bring some light into it. I have some tracks of a hard diving Su-25 and checked them in Tacview 1.2.7. One thing we observed, was that the IAS stopped raising at 1098km/h. In all tracks I reviewed and flights recorded for myself, I never got the IAS above this IAS limit. The MiG-21 has a higher value at which IAS will stop raising but this seems to be a confirmed FM limit. My question is, could it be that there is an issue in data recording/handling or ist it more probable that we encountered a flight model barrier? Greetings, Ripper So I would agree that you are right concerning the abnormal speed readings I have seen. In this case I was wrong from the first post. It' seems to be an issue with data reading/handling by Tacview. My doubts about the speed limits in other aircraft have no firm basis as long as I can't believe my evaluation tools. I still have no idea regarding the flameout but if G readings would also differ in +/- 1G, it could have been a simple flameout according to fuel shortage based on negative G. I will cross check all tracks as soon as I find another possibility for data readout (Would be great if you have a hint for a tool reading IAS, TAS and GS!?It could be more productive for future discussions to use speed information not relying on needles in the pit). I would be happy if the other discussions would also try to stay on a evidence based, less emotional basis. As everyone can see, this leads to the fastest solutions. Tacview.zip

As you said discussion began after your started creating your video (thx for the work btw). I'm still trying to sort things out with GUMAR but it seems that this speed barrier is not MiG-21 exclusive. We will see.

Right, for commercial aviation. From my experience the term is used for refusal speed in military aviation. Edit: Found a publication (attachement), document page 7, PDF page 18. MIL-STD-3013A.PDF

thx for the reply. So I'm not crazy. Not yet :)

Since there was no reaction from you, may it be that you instructions include a specific Vref for runway requirement? Vref stands for refusal speed. Refusal speed is the maximum speed during takeoff from which the air vehicle can stop within the available remaining runway length for a specified altitude, weight, and configuration. Your t/o distance is significantly shorter than the required runway lenght.

Will post the track soon, the Tacview also dont lie. Constant fall rate with engines off. So far for the difference between AFM's. Don't get me wrong, I love both modules but don't try to make more of the Su Afm as it really is. Edit: Track attached, same situation as before. 0,8/0,9G before flameout. IAS never exceeded 1098km/h. After flameout, immidiate unloading to 0G down to -0,5, speed stable with 1089km/h. Tacview will be added if someone asks. Did 5 runs so far, every time the same result. So far for magic barriers.... Did the same test with the Su-25T, no flameout but the IAS stopped to raise at 1098.0km/h. If someone can provide tracks with a higher velocity, I would be thankful, otherwise I would come to the conclusion that the guys from ED were simply smarter in hiding this barrier :music_whistling: BTW: Would be nice to see a track from you, how you got this beast (Su-25) to supersonic flight without engine overspeed especially at low altitude. su-25flameout.trk

Will check it later when home again but as I remember, I pulled the stick into my gut to keep the plane from sinking to fast. Edit: Tacview shows between 0.8 and 1.5 before engine failure. After flameout the plane unloads to 0.1.

I can understand your point of view. As you have seen the LN Team monitores the bug section very well. When they decide to announce features for the next patch and you read nothing about known bugs, that doesn't mean they are ignoring them. Look at ED's PR strategy, it's done when it's done. I would only start to worry if they declare that the work on the 21 is completely finished but as a lot of ED's planes the Fishbed is still in beta state. For the avionics part you may be right. As said I'm simply not that trained on this aircraft (yet). You said there is no compromise in the Su-25 engine model. But there is one thing i don't understand. The plane starts shaking (very nice :thumbup:) into it's non-recoverable dive (as long as you accelerate) taking more and more speed. In my mind a critical jet engine overspeed results in mechanical fan blade failure with a total flameout and loss of power (since the engine is simply dead). All the developers did is setting a given value (around 1100km/h, like the magic barrier in the 21) at which the engine experiences a flameout. Is that correct so far? If so, the developers could (if they want) change that speed barrier from acceleration-stop to instant engine kill. Would be the same as in the Su-25 then. Edit: I attached the Tacview file frome the flameout. It occurs at timestamp 10:01:22. From there on IAS stays exactly at 1089,0 km/h...also not very dynamic flameout.txt.zip

Completely useless. Chemical weapons? Most modern military vehicles don't suffer from that due to air processing. Soldiers can also wear ABC gear... Biological weapons? More useless since DCS models missions of some hours and not weeks. I don't like that weapons at all from a human Point. From a strategic point, biological weapons are not much more than a morale weapon. Nobody used them because you can't control it's spread, the area will stay contaminated forever and you will end up with a nuke in your garden.

Ok, after monitoring several threads for some days here comes my conclusion: 1. the wrong way: "The FM is crap", "it's horrible", "completely unrealistic" with no proof in most circumstances 2. the right way: "There seems to be a speed limit in level flight" + track -> "Ok, there is some kind of barrier, but why?" -> answer from a developer -> constructive disscussion In this special case Dolphin gave us an aswer: Most important, no bug but a compromise. Pros: A solution for the "Arcade Players" (I can hear them cry when their engine is melting). It seems currently not to be possible to seperate the FM between the two game modes. Second, as long as DCS has no dynamic character, in which your engine state can be passed over to the next mission, it is impossible for the developers to punish pilots for excessive engine mismanagement or over-G. Imagine your crew chief will ram his boots in your a.. because he has to change your engine for the second time this month. I don't think your Commander will let you take off again if you show such a ressource management. Edit: I'm not talking of reduced lifetime in terms of weeks or months, more days or hours... In case of radical over-G, you can get of your plane and send it to a museum. Contras: An artificial barrier in high speed performance. Degraded realism to say it rude. Feel free to discuss, I can go with the current implementation hoping that there can be another solution in the future. Remember even ED is just starting to develop a supersonic FM for it's F-18. For the Avionics part, I'm simply not deep enough into it but I remember reading in the Hawk Forum, that some modules have a seperate file in which navigation points (NDB, ILS?) are stored. If i'm not totally wrong, uboats corrected some coordinates by hand after the Hawk release because of some little mistakes which lead to missleading gauges. Feel free to correct this one :thumbup:. If it would be true, I would call it a minor bug which goes to the bug section and can be corrected.

Also ich finde es ganz nett. Um die Pre-Alpha mache ich mir keine großen Sorgen, auch wenn es schwer wird, warte ich lieber zwei Monate mehr anstatt mir mit der Installation DCS komplett zu zerschießen. Wäre nicht das erste Mal... Sorge bereitet mir eher das Multicockpit Feature. Ich habe gehofft sie sind damit schon etwas weiter und es wird bis zur L-39 fertig. Ich nehme mal nicht an das die noch vor den Sommerferien kommt. Da ich jetzt schon den Hawk und die C-101 habe bleibt der Jet dann leider erst mal auf der Strecke bis Multiplayer möglich ist. Ich hoffe einfach das Beste und drücke ED die Daumen, vielleicht sehen wir die Hornet dann ja auch in 3-4 Falcon weeks :megalol:

I enjoyed to read some suggestions for your problem. To give you a honest answer and make tests for ourself, we need several comparing attempts. Statistics lower n=6 are no statistics. At least a track from your side would be helpful to recreate your take off behaviour. If you can provide some more information, I will take the time and test it. It's not personal, but I won't waste my precious spare time for statements like "this is totally wrong", or "horrible FM" which are increasing the last days, especially from people comparing a PFM with the "driving on rails" behaviour of a SFM. Give us some hard evidence and we will look into it :thumbup: Edit: As Vitesse2l asked: What is your method to measure TO distance?