lunaticfringe

Everybody else is wrong- run with that. That's not how this works- that's not how any of this works. Stall is a function of AoA, not speed; nor is it dependent on G. The relationship between the two is that maximum aerodynamic load available to the wing is attained at maximum AoA. An AoA limiter is invoked to preclude stall, not G. Mach is dependent on speed and altitude, as is G; the higher the altitude, the lower the available G for a given Mach due to lower density. Subsequently, an AoA limiter set to preclude high altitude departure (as is the Su-27's, being an interceptor) isn't going to save you from overstressing the aircraft at 23,000 feet, because your available G is too damned high- you will break off the wings well before they stall. If you knew the mathematical relationship between minimum stall speed for a given weight and available G at a higher speed, you'd grasp this concept- it's blatantly obvious. You don't, so you're not. And that's why this garbage about DCS calculating G incorrectly is nothing more than hand waving by someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

And with that, I don't think there's enough left of the argument to pick up with a sponge. I must say though- I like the part where governments are supposedly putting out faulty documents for their pilots. You know, because it's awesome to be expected to develop proficiency with one standard, then have another one to toss out on rainy days that will remain classified so they never get used in internet fights to restore the foundation of shattered egos. Pilots live, fight, and die by those charts. And they are expected, for much of them, to retain substantial amounts of memory regarding the performance of their aircraft. Having bad data would not only make them ineffective in the learning and training process, but would have lethal effects within the confines of combat. But hey- it's a NATO manual rather than a VVS one; because it's not like NATO would want to show it's own pilots accurate numbers as to what a MiG-29 could do while they had them for use. Everything is propaganda to somebody.

1. You cannot "undersweep" the program. Progression in manual forward will stop when the wings reach the program minimum. IE, you cannot force 20 degrees when the programmed minimum is 40. The sweep override cover is only utilized in emergencies, and won't override the minimum. The reason it's used in emergencies is because it's marked with relative positions, whereas the thumb switch is merely "FWD" and "AFT", and requires usage of the ACM panel gauge to *confirm* required programming, rather than *direct* the CADC to put the wings in the required setting. 2. There are a number of tactical reasons beyond merely falsifying an energy state intro to a fight for which sweep may be set over normal parameters. Remember- with increased sweep comes the increased drag of an increased delta profile. If you're sitting slightly hot to make your first turn, the rapid loss rate will put you at your intended speed faster; you simply need to remember to go Auto after the turn, and the sweep mechanism will program forward. While it sounds like a mere offshoot of the "fast" look, in practice it didn't work that way; in fact, TOPGUN issued a number of Journal articles regarding the technique over the years. 3. The original mach sweep program of the F-14 was set for CL Max, with sweep not initiating until M 0.75; after review by Navy, the determination was that for type longevity- specifically of the wings as they showed substantial flex that made some non-aero admirals consider, that the program would be reset for specific excess power. 4. With regards to range, the F-14 in both engine configurations had substantially longer legs than the Hornet, and a reasonable increase over the F-15. The external bags carried an additional 3600 lbs of gas, or roughly 20% more. In a wartime CAP orientation, a two ship could top up coming off the boat, run out 300 miles, loiter two hours well hung, and head back.

That's gonna leave a mark.

I asked you what the *G* was at the point of breakage. Not a bunch of things I already know. You should try answering the question that's asked.

Then why am I talking to you? No, seriously- you started with a contention that isn't borne out by RL facts, and it was outlined how clearly broken the M2000 is known to be. Even the developers know its ridiculously overpowered performance wise against its real life counterpart. And when I state the part from where this confirming data is attained, you don't know what I'm talking about- something that is talked about in every thread regarding the performance model of every aircraft in this system.

No, he stated there was no balancing issue, even when using the F-14 or other BVR types, which was the nature of the complaint. When someone says a scenario can't be balanced against an aircraft, they're not really saying its OP; what they're really saying is that they don't know basics regarding the subject well enough from both sides to create operational and tactical challenges for the new threat.

No, what I want it to fly like is the EM- that is, realistically. Not M1.52 on the deck, as was recently illustrated. And when it flies realistically. it's not dominating any of those. Nor the MiG-29, or the F/A-18C, or the F-16 in any variant if it ever arrives.

Endorsed. In fact, I'll have a Flamethrower, a small fry, and a large Heath Blizzard. Since it was your idea, I'll buy- what'll you have?

Mirage beating Su-27s, F-15Cs, and eventually F-14Bs in WVR? Yeah, call us when Razbam gets around to fixing the FM.

^this^ Its been said before, but AoA isn't G. Its also important to note that the faster you go, the greater the attainable G at lower AoA; if you're standing on stall speed, maximum AoA equates to 1G. If you're at corner, maximum AoA equates to your airframe G load rating. And if you're faster, maximum AoA is higher than what the aircraft can withstand. So in your newest example, jackmckay- what was the G?

Yes. Visual confirmation solves everything. The passengers and crew of KAL 007 would have something to say about that, but they're all indisposed at this time.

Work on the AWG-9/AIM-54 combination predated the attempted integration with the F-111B by a number of years. Grumman Model 303 was a clean sheet internal design for a maritime air superiority aircraft to solve issues being experienced by the F-4 Phantom under the expectation that the Navy would request a replacement in the early 70s. The ability of the airframe to carry palletized Phoenix stems from the usage of the fuselage to generate body lift and substantially increase available fuel carriage to extend loiter time in the CAP, and increase range at speed in a DLI situation. Which is to say, the convergence of the pancake's availability to accept drag-optimized Phoenix pallets was a fortuitous coincidence, not by design. Sparrow remains in circulation with the USN.

Yes. Actually looks like the truck is in front of the wing, because he makes the "two, rolling" call, and the truck blows up perhaps two seconds later.

There is a substantial difference between accessibility, such as a zoom function which factors to all players based on apparent resolution between the human eye and a computer monitor, or the inclusion of aids for color blindness or deafness, versus the creation of an analogue to a pilot assist function that is unavailable on the type in question. It's interesting to note that, as I've mentioned, there already exists a method to do exactly what a pilot does to function as an assist here. Subsequently, I'm left to believe this isn't an argument about accessibility, but one of difficulty, because it's hard to put aside old habits or deal with a decrease in relative ease of employment. But cheer up- max performing a Flanker is difficult in real life, too.

And neither of those function as a literal G inhibitor, an audible warning, or a visual cue- unless of course you're staring at the stick. So yes, lets get back to ED recreating a simulator based on real life and dealing with the operational ramifications of such rather than piling up a bunch of add ons and excuses.

As well you should; the aircraft has structural limits, and the FBW is not designed to limit them. This, however, is not the nature of the original discussion given the track/acmi file involved. The aircraft was fundamentally overweight for the limitation set in the -1. Structural limitation was substantially exceeded, and the aircraft fell apart. Why would we expect it to do anything less? There's this thing called the "horizon". Really spectacular feedback tool for developing habits regarding rate of turn as developed by G at speed. And glancing back to monitor speed loss is a fundamental aspect of flying an aircraft in combat. It doesn't require fixating on the gauge; a momentary glance to check for loss, gain, or constant rate tells you all you need to know, and let's you get back to the task at hand. Hell, DCS is really nice about it, granting you the ability to dedicate a view key to do exactly that, with an instantaneous return to your previous viewpoint upon release, while the actual pilot has to turn around. And yet, when circumstances demand it, they manage it. It would be unrealistic because the actual aircraft doesn't have it. What this is really boiling down to is that it is being expected that the Su-27 be permitted to flown like an F-16 (with an FBW limiter) or an F-15 (with OWS warning), rather than a Su-27. Really makes me excited to see the complaints when the F-14A gets here with the TF30s high AoA setting change limitations. :lol:

Running around overladen for transonic/supersonic turn performance is counterproductive to combat efficiency. Being overspeed for safe combat G limits based on one's given weight is counterproductive to combat efficiency. Every simulated aircraft here deals with the translation error stemming from stick feel versus reproduction of aircraft performance. Some have systemic aids based around actual systems found in their real-life counterparts. Others do not have such aids, and require their pilots to monitor conditions to a higher level. I mean, are we to say that a Russian pilot sitting in a Su-27 simulator at Maryy needs something extra that's not there in the actual jet not to overstress or destroy his virtual aircraft when he's flying around heavy, or does he work through the problem by developing good habits that will actually translate over?

The first two teen series aircraft have no actual restrictions; the F-14, even with DFCS, has no limitations (with one particular victor employing 10.2G to avoid target debris without popping even a rivet), and the F-15's CAS/OWS combination amount to polite suggestions. Out of the box the F/A-18 has less AoA restrictions than the Su-27. And the Viper, way back when, was originally operation with full air to ground loadouts in what would now be considered CAT I, because the FLCS category system didn't exist at that point- without structural issue. But if you can't have 9.0G available all the time and figure out how to use the laws of physics to beat an opponent, you need to go back to school.

Not so, because not all FBW systems are created equal. They can be constructed with AoA limitation, G limitation, stability augmentation in one, two, or three channels, all of these aspects, or one of these aspects. With the publicly released documentation that I can find, the Su-27's FBW exists to provide stability augmentation in the pitch and roll channels, and under certain circumstances, an AoA limiter. As you know, AoA isn't G. And the system isn't noted from sources (Gordon, manual translations, further Soviet/Russian translated materials) to involve an inhibitor for raw G load. Subsequently, as far as what the material I can find shows, the Su-27's FBW functions in similar to that of the F-15 CAS or the F-14's DFCS- essentially trim functionality in two channels, with the addition of a soft limit that can be turned off by the pilot. Such as it is, one would need more information on hand to determine if it involves any sort of speed, G, or load biasing to aid in pitch onset reduction when heavy. Given that there's a chart running around showing the pilot the airframe prohibition limits when substantially laden, I'm of the mind it's not actually built to limit. Engineers have been creating aircraft able to be catastrophically destroyed through pilot input since the Wright Brothers. FBW is only a salve, not an ultimate solution- especially if performance is intended to be left available to the pilot.

Uncharted 4? Watch Dogs? The Division? And that's just within the last year. Speaking of which, how many times was No Man's Sky delayed? And how much content did it promise, and was missing? Seriously- you're not helping your argument.

No, it's not. God's G is 1G. The most God's G ever effects your aircraft is 1G. Doesn't matter how much you pull, how little you pull, where your nose is pointed, where your center of gravity is- it is *always* 1G. What destroys your aircraft is radial acceleration- how much you put on the stick. When you turn with gravity, the radial rate of your turn is increased by up to 1G. But purely the *rate of turn*. The actual load on the aircraft is the G you invoke with the stick. Ergo, if you are inverted- with your lift vector pointed straight down, and you pull a 5G 90 degree turn to nose straight down, your nose will rate as though accelerated by 6G as it is assisted by gravity, but the actual load on the airframe remains 5G. Conversely, in a 5G 90 degree pull up from level flight, your nose will rate as though accelerated by 4G as it is degraded by gravity, but the actual load on the airframe remains 5G. Every manual on air combat for the last 70 years has shown the energy egg. If you don't believe the laws of physics, there is nothing else anyone can tell you that will make a difference.

Which is totally why they haven't shown anything of it except for a passing glance in a Tomcat video, set up a forum for it, posted significant screenshots, etc, etc. Discussion is not an announcement. Speaking of product announcements, we're still waiting with baited breath on yours. You know, to show everybody how it's done.

We'll all wait while you develop something worth cash under the expectation of hitting your promised release date, then have a laugh ridiculing you when you not only fail to meet it, fail to give progress updates regarding it along the way. So, champ- what's your pleasure? What are you going to make for the rest of us to spend money to see if you know what you're talking about? PS: it's also rather amusing LN hasn't formally announced, nor is providing normal promotion of the Viggen, for expressly this reason. And even that isn't good enough.

1. It's not speculation at all, given the USAF's claims of incompatible IFF (invalid) and overland radar performance (proven invalid). 2. How many currently operational USN Bug drivers, in both flavors, do you know to speak about USN doctrinal employment of the AIM-120D? Because I've got a whole stash of them, and they'll tell you that the reason Navy, for it's part, wanted the range was doctrinal against a particular nature of threat. Don't ever confuse your perception of what is expressed by a force is the nature of it's actual intent.