159th_Viper

Tell you what - I'll slam you into the ground from 3 steps up and see if you walk away with all your limbs intact :chair: :P OK all jest aside, I just watched your track and no, IT'S NOT OK to slam the plane into the ground (and I do mean slam) going 415km/h and still expecy your landing gear to survive the impact: Not gonna happen. Do yourself a favour and use Min 'Vody runway, the longest runway in the SIM. Spawn in the air and practice your landings in accordance with the instructions in the manual. Again, it's not the SIM: It's all you. If you still have problems then let us know and we can help further. You however have to be prepared to at the very least do the basics right.

Pffftttttt hahahahahhaha :megalol: Oh so true :thumbup:

It can and it out turns amongst a good few others, the F-15, a fact specifically tested and confirmed by the USAF.

She flies at 120 knots - just how slow do you want slow :P

The Hail-Mary of gunnery :D Well done and well played :thumbup:

Exactly. I said all along it was a valve which applied necessary pressure to have a 'braking' effect facilitating a turn in whatever direction the rudder is applied. Nowhere was it stipulated that the brake is used, obviously common cause to the discussion I thought. Will teach me to assume the obvious I suppose.

Yes it's aligning to True North, typical of Russian aircraft. You're doing nothing wrong :)

It's no different: It's a matter of interpretation. I interpreted it correctly and you interpreted it incorrectly it would seem. Yes, one could pick apart the linguistics to suit one's particular interpretation but the explanation Weta proffered and I relayed at least three times now is correct, as confirmed by a member of the Dev team.

:megalol: OK then I tried. Still do not see what the issue is: Apply left rudder, valve applies pressure to left wheel and facilitates turn to left. Apply right rudder, valve applies pressure to right wheel and facilitates turn to right, all the above without touching brake. Apparently it is rocket science :D

See, I thought the quote was clear: The valve applies brake pressure to whatever side the rudder is turned towards, thus facilitating a turn with brake pressure via the valve without resorting to the main brake.

Courtesy of a fellow tester, Weta43:

This is true and the reason for my 970 pre-order. NVidia wins this round with a decisively crunching nut-kick at a price that I never thought I'd see NVidia sell for over here in the UK.

I, together with other testers, are talking with Novak in the process of getting the bug report resolved. As soon as I know something substantive I'll let you know. In the interim there is nothing further to do - let the matter run it's course.

He compared the current state of affairs, ie Mig under-performance with the apparent same state of affairs as it related to the F-15 of LOMAC era, possibly inferring that a singular cause could be a factor in explaining both airframes' lack of cruise performance. Cannot possibly do so if one has regard to the two factors mentioned, ie different Dev team coding and different Flight Model.

Seriously? 1 - Mig performance cannot possibly be compared to the F-15. It's not even the same Development team...... 2 - F-15C of LOMAC era is not the same as the current F-15C (SFM vs PFM).......A HUGE difference.

Say what? Have you missed the L-39 coming this year?

Reported. I'll update periodically as necessary with progress on the report.

That's what I am trying to ascertain here - I always presume that there is indeed something wrong (why else would someone bother to report it?) even though it does not necessarily accord with my findings, which is why I try to replicate member findings and post my own results. Doing so highlights my failures and possible those of others and helps me better understand exactly what the issue is and how to report it. In this specific instance there is as of yet too many unknowns, test aircraft parameters being but one. I definitely feel as if the service ceiling is way too low at present but then again that's just a feeling. Have not tested specifically - still hung up on the cruise speed at altitude allegation at present :)

Here's my track: Mig cruise 10 500m drop-tank and two missiles.trk Ignore the climb. I cruise at 10 500m AGL with a centre drop-tank and 2 missiles (R3-S) at a speed of 520km IAS. I then drop down to 10 000m AGL and cruise at 520km/h IAS until I get bored 12 minutes into the flight. Noted, there is a 10km/h difference slower than what the manual states. Not sure whether that is enough to establish a bug report. I'll request a second opinion.

OK just checked: Commenced climb at 12:01:35 and reached 10 000m AGL at 12:11:10. 9 min 35 seconds.

I don't think so. Was closer to 9 when I checked but I'll look again.

What we are lacking in this discussion are specific climb profiles.

Which is why I cruised at 10 500m AGL and not 10 000m AGL to pre-empt just this. Not only that, but I cruised at 10 500m AGL without AB at a speed of 580km IAS, a 50km/h increase of the manual excerpt posted. Accordingly stands to reason that, had I climbed to bleed airspeed to co-incide with the required number of 530km/h IAS , my altitude would have been even higher than 10 500m AGL, approaching 11 000m AGL cruising without afterburner. No, no confusion. I have an issue with this as well. I ran a quick test and managed to climb to 10 000m AGL (well, rather more than 11 000m AGL actually) without afterburner whilst adhering as close as possible to the numbers Tango posted: (takeoff using full reheat to 600 kph IAS * At 600 kph IAS, cancel reheat * Accelerate to 870 kph TAS * Climb to altitude at 870 kph TAS) Track: Mig no afterburner 11 000m.trk So no, in my humble opinion far from impossible. If you do watch the track kindly ignore the end bit - zoom-climbed to 14 000m AGL on a whimsy, irrelevant for the purposes of 'climb-to-10 000m without AB' illustration.

You cannot generalize - you need to investigate specific scenarios. You stated that it could not be done and I have disproved it. I will, as time permits, move onto your other specific allegations and deal with them one by one as opposed to generally and disprove them also, or not, as the case may be. I started with the cruise above 10 000m due to the fact that you bold-texted it in your results comment.

One thing I did do that may not be readily apparent is utilizing the SAU to ensure the aircraft is properly trimmed in order to eliminate human error in the trimming process.