esb77

I don't have FC3, just the stand alone modules for the Su-25, F-15, and Su-27. The old training missions, or at least some of them are definitely MIA. Easy to confirm using a file search for the ".miz" extension. They may reappear or be replaced at some point. The Su-25T training missions vanished briefly before their most recent revision.

A relaxed stability airframe with damage to its control systems is not an ideal aircraft for safe gliding. In a stable airframe, flight changes are resisted, so the plane tends to self correct to stable flight. The airbus you cite as an example has a classic stable airframe design. In an unstable airframe, this does not happen, so the correct active controls must be constantly applied by the FCS and/or the pilot for flight to remain stable. If the controls are damaged enough so that this correction does not occur, rapid loss of aircraft control is the expected result. The Su-27 has an unstable airframe, the benefit is great maneuverability in combat. The downside is that control system malfunctions or damage are potentially unrecoverable situations. This is a common problem with advanced FBW combat aircraft. If the system is sufficiently complex even things like an airspeed sensor failure can cause a crash that may not be preventable by the pilot(s). The scripted behavior Ironhand describes sounds suspicious, and may well be improperly modeled. However, once the hydro was fully gone the plane would be uncontrollable in any case, so I'm not sure how much that matters.

So what mechanical backup system are you talking about? As far as I know, once the fluid is gone you loose all control authority, and I've never seen a source that says differently. I've seen lots of sources saying that the control system is purely FBW hydraulic, i.e. no mechanical cables for backup.

Not at all improbable. Overloading a tire and then subjecting it to lateral forces is an excellent way to rip a tire off of the wheel rim. You're trying to land at 168% of the base recommended weight for those tires. Adding large lateral loads to that is a bit crazy. You're not flying like a professional pilot. A professional would be dumping excess weight as fast as they safely could to get to an allowable landing weight. Try your experiment again with a gross aircraft weight of 12000 to 14000 kg. You should be able to land successfully if the plane isn't overweight by a huge margin. That would mean reducing fuel to about 800 kg and jettisoning 2000 kg worth of stores from pylons. Or keep the fuel and jettison everything on the pylons. Edit: In real life they wouldn't put a really heavy load of weapons on the plane unless they expected to use them during the flight. They're already accounted for as expended in the budget, so dropping them is a small price to pay for getting the airplane down in one piece. Saving the pilot is important, saving the plane is not quite as important, the fuel and weapons just go up in flames if you use them, so it's not much of a waste if you have to drop them to save the pilot or the plane.

I was curious about whether your loadout was too heavy, and couldn't find a definite answer. According to Sukhoi, the normal landing weight for an Su-25K is 11020 kg, and the maximum is 13200 kg. Your fuel and weapons loadout gives a gross aircraft weight of roughly around 18500 kg in DCS. The Su-25T supposed to be rated to take off about 2 - 4 tonnes heavier than the Su-25K, but even so, an 18000 + kg plane is probably over maximum allowable landing weight limits. Unfortunately I couldn't find official numbers for the T variant's maximum landing limit and the landing weight limits are not included in the manual. If you dumped or burned fuel until you were down to something like 500 to 800 kg of fuel, it should be much closer to a good landing weight, maybe even within the proper limits for a T variant. Edit: I'm pretty sure that the official landing weights for the 25T are greater than for the 25. I've never seen anything mention of improved gear though, so it's entirely possible that the amount of force needed to cause gear failure are the same in both variants. Without more official information I'd recommend always being extra gentle when landing the 25T.

Well, apologies for the tone. It was a tone for a pilot who didn't read manuals, not a tone for a gamer asking a simple question about a game. In terms of the crosswind significance the force on the chutes is proportional to roughly the third power of the relative airspeed. So IAS^3. That's a LOT of force at landing speeds. The chute is attached to the tail of the plane, so there's several meters of airframe acting as a lever that the chute is pulling on. It all adds up pretty quickly. I am a bit nicer than my posts sometimes indicate so for your benefit I present: and I told you to look in Docs, but really it's in DCSWorld/Mods/aircraft/Su-25t/Docs, so I figured I owed you the effort of going and finding the full text, since I pointed you at the wrong location the first time.

You're missing the section in the manual where it explicitly states that for landings with significant crosswinds the procedure is to NOT use the drogue chute because it causes the plane to weathervane (turn into the wind). The chute in real physics is an aerodynamic control surface not all that much smaller than the wings that will try to point you directly INTO the relative airflow. That means that in a crosswind it's going to exert a very, very powerful pull that can exceed the ability of both the gear and the plane's control surfaces to counter. If you think you're going to go off the end of the runway, say on an 1800m runway that's icy, and for some reason you can't divert to a field with longer runway or one with a smaller crosswind component, you can try waiting until the last 500m or so to deploy the chute. Once you're below 100-125 km/h the chute is a bit less likely to pull hard enough to force you off the runway. It's also worth noting that if you're landing with a heavy load, you have to land faster (which makes the chute more of a problem in crosswinds) and you're placing an additional load factor on the landing gear, which of course increases the risk of failure. Basically your problem was a combination of multiple pilot errors: Failing to read aircraft documentation (Check out the manuals in your Docs folder in DCS). Failing to follow weight recommendations for landing. Failing to divert to a field with landing conditions appropriate for pilot skill level. Failing to follow crosswind landing procedures. Given those failures, if the plane was still in a more or less salvageable state, you actually did fairly well. Aside from making all the easily avoidable pilot errors that is. You also might want to learn how vector math works. Predicting crosswind components and how to correct for them is vector addition. Most calculus texts cover that, some trigonometry texts cover it, and of course you can always look it up on Wikipedia. At any rate the only bug is in the pilot training procedures. There's a reason they don't just hand out a pilot's license to anyone who walks into airfield and asks for one. Practice and education. The Su-25 can be a bit tricky in crosswinds because of its big tail fin and narrow gear stance (and improper chute deployment makes it a lot worse), but if you read the procedure and practice, you'll get it right soon enough. :thumbup: I'll also note that having a HOTAS or Pedal axis bound to the rudder really helps a lot when landing the Su-25. Keyboard can be a bit rough, as it lacks fine control. Edit: I did the math, and the wind would have been pushing you across (off) the runway at about 24 km/h, and the relative wind direction would have been 6.5 to 14 degrees off of the runway centerline depending on aircraft speed at chute deployment. Pretty much what you described.

If you're in a plane that's short on fuel in low vis conditions an instrument useful for flying IFR patterns is about as useful as aircraft avionics can ever get. Or to put it another way, since our lives and our hardware aren't on the line, we virtual pilots have some serious distortions when it comes to evaluating importance in aircraft features and flight procedures. ;)

If by FPM you mean decent rate in feet per minute, well the Flanker is organized in metric so it gives readout in m/s both on the vertical velocity indicator and the ascent/decent rate display on the right side of the HUD. If that's a typo for PFM (professional flight model), then be aware that the Su-27, Su-25, and Su-25T have fully developed aerodynamic models, while the Mig-29 and Su-33 do not.

Assuming you are not in the A-10 C and just forgot to turn on nose wheel steering and your plane is not damaged (check the hydraulic pressure gauges) the problem may be input configuration or hardware. It is not always the case, but the most common reason for strange input responses is having multiple controls bound to the same function. So check your keybinds and controller binds as a first step. Be very thorough, for example check mouse, stick, throttle, keyboard, etc. Some of the controls can be accidentally bound to things that you wouldn't normally think to check. Faults in the input hardware is probably the next most common cause. Once those have been checked and eliminated as causes it's time to start thinking about trying a repair of DCS, digging around in relevant LUA files, and possibly reporting a bug.

According to this thread it's W for the pullthrough of the soft limit. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154301 Of course, it's quite possible that there are multiple keybinds available for this, or that things have been changed in a recent patch. Lol, it's a thread by rami about the override function. So they already knew about it. Yeah, in that case it's just a matter of max instantaneous turn rate being, well, for an instant. That and being at the flight parameters for peak performance as shown in the relevant performance charts.

The Su-27 can pull 9 gs or possibly a bit more (which is more than most pilots can really handle). There is a "soft limit" in the FBW system, that on the real plane you can override by just pulling back really hard on the stick. I believe that this is modeled in DCS only instead of pulling harder on the stick you press the wheelbrake key. There's a thread about this floating around on the forum somewhere. This is a separate function from disengaging the ACS in order to do airshow stunts like the Cobra. edit: As a lot of others are pointing out though, there's a difference between instantaneous max turn and sustained max turn.

Read your mission briefings and look at the map in the briefing very carefully! There are triggered units that pop up out of "nowhere" but the majority of enemy air defenses will have a rough location on your briefing map. It makes life so much easier. You can do things like just fly to your target on a route that completely avoids 75% or more of the air defenses. Or if you insist on taking foolish risks, it at least suggests where you should start popping flares in self defense. It also helps if you decide to clear the air defenses before going in for your attack run. The MANPADS are really hard to see, so knowing their general area is a gigantic help in finding them so that a Vikhr can be dropped on their heads. If you do your own SEAD, make sure you positively identify every unit in a group before getting within 8 km or so, or else fly a pass at 7 to 8 km to bait a SAM launch that's long range (and therefore easier to avoid), and then swing back around and kill whatever is parked or standing where the smoke trail started. It helps a lot to learn the shape of the various IR SAM units, being able to pick the SAM carrier out of a column of APCs is really useful. Use terrain, IR SAMs can't see through hills and mountains any better than radar guided ones can. For the Su-25T flying above the engagement range is pretty useless most of the time. The weapons available in DCS generally won't hit reliably if you're that high up. It also makes you and easy and obvious target for medium and long range air defenses. Generous preemptive flaring, and throttling down the engines are both pretty effective in DCS when it come to spoofing IR SAMs, as long as you also maneuver. The fundamentals are planning and observation though. Used properly, they can be so effective that you don't even need any countermeasures. The other nice thing about planning and avoiding the SAMs is that you don't waste munitions that you could be using for your primary mission. That said, for the default campaign, unless it has changed significantly, it's not a bad idea to have 90-100% of your countermeasures loadout be flares. Most missions don't have enough serious radar threats for chaff to be of much use.

There is no Mig-29 forum, as there is no separate Mig-29 module. Both the Mig-29 and Su-33 fall under the general DSC:Flaming Cliffs 3 forum, at least until they get their own stand-alone modules in the way that the A-10A, Su-25, F-15C, and Su-27 have. The best we can do is hope that happens soon, and use the forum search tool to look for Mig-29 as a keyword.

This sort of thing is almost always caused by a problem with input hardware configuration. Most often due to more than one input being assigned to an axis. Clear the axis controls for the aircraft module in question and then reassign, and it usually takes care of the problem if you remember to do it for all of your input devices: mouse, keyboard, stick, throttle, pedals, Track IR, etc. Rarely, it is a problem with the physical hardware. Worn or misaligned sensors in a stick, sticky key on a keyboard, that you can troubleshoot by plugging/unplugging one controller at a time to see if there's a correlation with the problem. You can also check the ground level wind speed and direction in the mission editor, or just test in different missions. Extremely unlikely to be the cause, but more likely than a bug. Of course, a bug is possible, but it's pretty much the explanation of last resort in this case.

Convince 100 million people to purchase and download DCS World and all of the modules. Then it will be commonly downloaded. :thumbup: This is a consequence of security software that uses user behavior statistics as a "risk predictor". Anything with an insufficient number of downloads triggers a flag, unless the publisher contacts (and pays) to get on the "good list." They have other stronger warnings that pop up if a program is a KNOWN security risk. You could scan the file for malware if you're still worried. I expect the result will be, "nothing dangerous was found in this file," though.

Blueflag Registration for round 4 Faction preference: Redfor (I know the geography flying from the North a lot better). Callsign: Auger Aircraft: Su-25, Su-25T, Su-27, Mi-8, Redfor CA ground units as JTAC/Driver.

There are several techniques, I'll list them in order of importance: DO NOT OVERLOAD THE PLANE FOR THE MISSION PROFILE PRIOR TO TAKEOFF! This accounts for 100% of your landing with a heavy load problem, but DCS doesn't include crew chiefs or commanding officers to yell at players when they do it. As a result overloading planes is one of the most popular stupid and unrealistic mistakes you see people making in DCS. If the mission calls for burning the fuel and expending the stores, then the loss is already factored into the budget. Replacing the plane and/or the pilot because the pilot ignored the maximum landing weight limits is generally not in the budget. Dump fuel. This is the cheapest way to lighten the plane. Jettison stores. More expensive way to lighten the plane, but still a lot cheaper than trying to fix an airframe that deformed due to overstress or treating a pilot injured in a hard landing. Increase landing speed. Helps some, and on a medium length runway you can push the 25T up to around 300 km/h + whatever the headwind is without problems, but this is really a step to use after the above methods have already been employed. The autopilot exercises it's authority mostly by operating trim settings. If you get the plane trimmed and throttled so that it stays on glideslope with little intervention before turning on the AP then it's very well behaved when it turns off. If you fly a poor approach and the AP has to do a lot of work to stay on glideslope, or if there are strong or variable crosswinds, then there can be rather extreme trim settings when the AP turns off because it does not automatically reset the trim to a neutral setting when it reverts to manual control. This is when the plane can act like a horse or bull trying to throw a rodeo rider. In general I like to turn the AP off at least 2 km out from the runway threshold.

So I never actually answered the question. I set up a mission I named Arcata Rules IFR training with a 150m thick fog bank with 75 m visibility, and a 100% cloud layer from 1000m to 2000m. Goal was to follow waypoints set up to resemble navigation by radio beacons and fly from Krymsk to Mineralnye and land. I did quite nicely until on approach to Mineralnye when I had the first nice controlled flight into ground that I've had in quite some time. So despite this being intended as a worst case scenario training mission, I'd have to say I'm not proficient. I thought to my self, "wow, I can barely see enough to taxi (very unsafely), I'd have to be sort of nuts to try takeoff," especially without knowing that there's an airport and a divert point with better landing conditions available. I still took off despite this, so no, definitely not proficient. I navigated over 400 km, primarily using time elapsed, heading, and TAS in non-flyable conditions, but a proficient pilot would have gotten out of the plane, closed the cockpit canopy, and gone to wait for better weather conditions (or edited them in the mission editor in this case). 0 modules, even the Su-25T which I have more than 400 hours in. Re: the mission name, if you've lived in the Pacific Northwest and experienced the coastal fogs you know why I named the mission after a town on the Northern coast of California. Probably should have named it Arcata - ACV IFR Training.

The problem is that you didn't define proficiency. Are we talking ability to accomplish mission objectives. Are we talking would pass a flight test with a qualified instructor pilot doing the grading? Are we talking good enough to meet the standards of a first world military force? Depending on the standard the lack of a zero option is pretty significant.

The problem with the performance data approach is that the data points available are actually pretty sparse. The bulk of the flight envelope is interpolation between those data points, and will give poor results if anything interesting is going on in terms of aerodynamics. A math modeler or engineer would tell you that this sort of model is adequate for, "well behaved regions of the flight envelope," where a high degree of accuracy is not needed in the output. It's the cheapest and easiest sort of model to build, but in most respects accuracy wise is going to be the worst option available unless you stick to the very strict constraints on where it produces good results. The blade element model that the AFM/PFM uses the physical attributes of the plane that can be filled in more accurately and more fully than is the case for most performance charts, and then if the parameters are pretty accurate and the aerodynamic model is good, you have reasonably good output over all or almost all of the flight envelope even in varied conditions. Basically ED is using the best model possible given the current constraints on user computing power, available aircraft data, and financial constraints. A full CFD would give more accurate results (with accurate aircraft data) but that's so computationally intensive that even aircraft manufacturers limit their use of that sort of simulation. I doubt most of us are ready to play DCS at one or two frames per day for the sake of accuracy.

Most or all of the manuals for the ED aircraft modules recommend linear response curves for X, Y, and Z axes as being the best simulation. However, it's important to consider that a plane is not just a FCS software package, there's also a physical interface. So unless your stick is the same length as that of the plane being modeled and gives the same proportion of command input per unit displacement, the linear curves may not be the most useable setting in DCS. For a modern FBW with a pressure sensing stick (like the F-16) there rather pricey mods that you can add to a TM warthog or similar stick, where the linear axes might be a very accurate representation. However, for most of the aircraft modules in DCS World a stick with a longer handle than most gaming sticks and a smaller maximum angular displacement (but greater physical displacement from center) would be the number one thing on the wish list for a better control interface. You can get handle extensions for the TM Warthog, and I think also maybe some CH sticks, that at least partly solve the, "my control stick is too short," problem. Still imperfect though, because the degree of the stick's maximum angular displacement is designed around the assumption of not having a long handle. In practice a lot of virtual pilots find that adding 5-25% curvature to the pitch and roll axes depending on their plane and the traits of the controller that they currently use helps a great deal in making the planes more easily controllable if aiming for high precision and accuracy. Unless you custom build yourself an exact replica of the stick on the plane you're interested in, and custom software for its control response, having the input-response data from a real plane is going to be of limited use in improving your sim experience (If you do it post plans, cause a lot of people in the Sim-pit subforum would want to try it if your method fit their budgets). The more practical approach is just to play with the axis curves until the plane feels good to you with whatever stick you happen to be using.

All of the more modern MBTs in DCS can survive multiple hits to their frontal turret armor. To be sure of a kill you need at least 4-5 direct hits with 120 or 125 mm rounds. On the other hand with the Russian 125 mm AP rounds it's also sometimes possible to get a single hit kill with a frontal aspect shot on an M1, but it is not reliable. Hit from the side or the rear though, and 70-110 mm RPG or cannon rounds from the Russian APCs and IFV will often produce single round kills, especially if you hit the rear of the hull and set the engine on fire. I think engine fires are probably easier to start and more lethal in DCS than in real life. It's all about employment. If you shoot the strongest part of the tank, it's much more likely to survive than if you shoot it somewhere else. As long as your ground units have something heavier than anti-personnel or anti-aircraft weapons, they should be able to kill M1s effectively if they're in an advantageous position. Getting the AI to fight intelligently on the other hand, is often an exercise in frustration unless you're willing to do a lot of work.

A bit of clarity on the Mercury LLTV pod and the TV guided missiles. The Mercury pod enhances what you can see on the CRT display in the plane's cockpit, but does nothing at all to enhance the ability of the camera in the missile's seeker head to see in the dark. So it is basically of no benefit at all with the TV guided missiles. For the laser guided munitions, the missile will do its best to fly to the location being illuminated (or ride the beam if it's a Vikhr), and so the visibility from the LLTV pod is very useful. However, sometimes the improved visibility isn't enough to make the plane's computer happy with getting a lock. In this case, just stabilize the target box with respect to the ground, and then manually slew the center of the box over the target. It works just as well as a lock, though you have to keep slewing to stay on a moving target. Also be aware that the guidelines in the manual are not perfect when it comes to sizing the targeting box. Often vehicles recommended to be targeted with a 10 m size will lock much better if the box is sized to 8 or 9 m. I normally center the box on the target and adjust until the box is just a few pixels wider than the image of the target on the Shkval screen. It's a noticeable improvement over just using the recommended sizes.

You've got a mission briefing and a map, right? So make a flight plan. Where would you put AAA or SAMs if you wanted to shoot down an aircraft attacking the target? If those places offer good concealment, either have a plan for not going in until you've got them neutralized, or consider a route that involves mostly going around their area of engagement. Often the campaigns put air defenses in sub-optimal spots. Compare to the Inta Humar combined arms multiplayer missions where the ground forces players try to maximize the sneaky and evil when it comes to shooting down the F-18 pilots (there's a mod for the F-18s). Often in the campaigns it's actually a bit easier than it would be with a multiplayer tactical commander who's well prepared and serious about scoring aircraft kills. The nice thing is that the AIs are completely unable to plan, so you have a 100% planning advantage when going up against them. Remember to use it. Unless you run out of gas, are under time pressure, or might run into more serious threats along the way, there's no reason not to go around the long way if that will get you behind a target without overflying air defenses. With the Ka-50 you can fly right above ground level so using terrain LOS can be very powerful. Just remember that while trees screen AI units from your view, the trees are transparent to them and can be fired through as well. You need either ground or buildings if you want to protect yourself with cover.