85th_Maverick

Welcome, man! First of all, thank you very much for also taking your time and passion to try obtaining some aerodynamic data estimations for the missiles in DCS (mostly A-A, at least...). I've been battling this for more than 1 year on a different thread and just thought that I'm fighting wind mills as people behind modeling DCS missiles didn't want to accept that how they've modeled the missiles (especially air to air), made them all have a way too great minimum drag coefficient (all the missiles decelerated like crazy before 2.7 version), a too low induced drag exponent power (most certainly well below 2) which made all missiles loose airspeed at a too low rate for a given instantaneous airspeed and AoA, and in the case of the AIM-120, also an incredibly high maximum lift coefficient (due to the lift slope itself, not critical AoA (which is otherwise correct at about 28-30)), as they were simply able to make almost 2 turns (720 degrees) in subsonic while chasing a target..., that's how much incredibly high lift slope and very little drag vs AoA that missile had. I have dedicated a good time (being an ex-aerodynamicist) in order to determine more realistic CD vs AoA and CL vs AoA functions for most missiles and I've even offered them a modified "missiles_data.lua" file, which has now been rendered useless in version 2.7, file which offered the most accurate missiles aero data (within the limitations of the flight model in DCS) ever seen in DCS, determined through a part CFD and results corrections. Basically, a missile is an aircraft with a very high wing! So, by definition, as the burner no longer contributes to the lifting force by the sine of AoA, it would turn much worse than any fighter at the same IAS as well as decelerate slower than that fighter for the same G-load. Although I hope that I've somewhat contributed/managed to "wake them up" and help them understand that their AIM-120 was having a very unrealistically high lift as well as minimum drag and too little drag vs AoA exponent power, the 2.7 version still gives this missile as well as most others, a way too great maximum CL and still..., a CD0 (zero lift drag coef) much higher than in reality..., at least for both supersonic and subsonic. For transonic, it's quite hard to determine an accurate value just by CFD (that's the most inaccurate part for the results), yet if they'd accept to use a gross transonic CD0 of double the low subsonic one, it wouldn't hurt the accuracy unacceptably much! So, my hope is, that if we can help them understand it and come with very consistent estimations (we'd most probably not have access to real wind tunnel tests data for AA missiles) and they'd accept it, they'd actually be able to make this sim make one step further in realism. Thank you and keep it up:).

Hi guys, I'm also trying to setup a 2 computers playground behind a router and whatever combinations I tried so far, all I get is :"Address unavailable"! My port forwarding is correctly set up as other online players seem to join flawlessly on my server and mission, but if I want to have a friend join the same mission from a second laptop connected to the same router, he's unable to do so. No matter if he selects the mission from the mission list (where it's visible to the whole internet and from where other people join) or uses "connect by IP" using either the local IP (192.168.100.30) or the internet IP, he only gets the same answer: Address unavailable. Any idea of what might be wrong? Thank you!

Thank you for your effort and replies guys! I just now wanted to make sure whether this is a bug or not, because after pressing SP and having the TGP point forward as I desire, the HUD vertical line remains stuck on the last waypoint, NOT automatically pointing where the TGP is pointing, and if I just slew the TGP around by just one tiny pixel, the HUD vertical line with the TD box instantly point at the TGP now. I just don't know if this is a normal behavior or not, cause it looks like a bug for the HUD indication. Anyways, at least I found a useful way to have my TGP point forward after all. Cheers!

Ok, I didn't quite explain it correctly and I didn't test enough to see that it actually always points forward, but..., with a bug (for which I agreed with "crispy12") that won't align your HUD indication with the current TGP orientation! After, let's say, you press TMS down and the TGP is slaved to the current waypoint, the vertical bar on the HUD (I usually use CCRP) is also pointed towards the waypoint. Now if you press SP, the TGP does point forward, but the HUD indication remains in an "apparent" random location (probably still stuck on the waypoint) and doesn't show you the square target designator where the TGP points at. The TGP is indeed now looking forward in SP mode, but the HUD indication is anywhere else instead of being slaved to the TGP. Only after you start moving the TGP, the HUD indication "wakes up" from where it remained stuck and puts the square TD where it's suppose to be. Does it happen like I say?

Copy! So it should point to the waypoint, but the snowplow mode is indeed erratic as Crispy12 confirms. It always points randomly whenever you re-engage snowplow mode by pressing SP. How can we remake the TGP point forward if we need to? Thanks!

Congratulations to the missiles flight model developers for their corrections worked in the 2.7 version. Step by step you realized that the drag coefs of all missiles, as well as the lift coefs were way too high, things that I've been talking about all along. Keep up the correct fixes. Thank you!

It acts exactly as if you have your Numpad 5 (or any other center view assignment) constantly pressed! The quick way around this crap is either to press ESC and go to Adjust Controls then exit or use your joystick view rotate buttons randomly until it frees itself up from the center view. It seems that only with the joystick it works, and not with the view rotate numpad keys. Very weird.

Well, does it matter? As long as it goes for that flare (that was actually the practice target) and there were no turning radius changes as the missile accelerated (thus it was flying at it's max AoA) which is clearly visible by the smooth and constant radius plume trail. The missile was turning as good as it could until meeting the interception course. It seems to me that these discussions go nowhere near being productive as I've already done about everything I could to make you understand that whoever modeled the new AIM-120 in DCS, is simply out of his mind (sorry to say this, but this is the truth) to let it have so little drag increase with AoA as well as such a tremendous lift slope.

Were you able to keep the DCS MIG-21 at around 20 AoA without having it's wings stalled (losing lift)? Again, I say this from a MIG-21's pilot experience (not me) who used the pitch attiutude and vertical speed indicator (held very close to zero) during the plane's wing stall. It was around +20 AoA. 15 AoA is what a Cessna 172's wing has as critical. A low aspect, high sweep delta which also generates some small intensity vortexes near the fuselage and which gradually dissipate along the leading edge, yet a bit useful to keep the flow attached closer to the fuselage, is a wing that has more than just 15 AoA as a stall limit. It's more than common sense for those who know some aerodynamics. All of these characteristics give the 21's delta wing a critical AoA of around 20-21. Take the M-2000's wings for example which are just close enough in terms of planform shape and still have a critical AoA going over 30. Don't imagine (without knowing anything) that the M-2000's wing or any other modern aircraft wing has some wonder making effects and the older wings didn't have. The general shape of the wing's planform is what gives more than 70-80% of it's overall performances, while only 20 to maximum 30% would be the airfoils designs that affect performances. The M-2000's wing can go a bit beyond 30 AoA before a pitch departure will occur, but it's limited by FBW to only 28..29 to avoid the departure. And no, it's not increasing from a 15 AoA (as you might believe or as LLC's mistake wants you to believe) to more than 30 just due to the leading edge droops or due to those small vortex generators on the inlets, which are not even ahead of the wing to affect it considerably and which were actually put there to increase the directional stability at higher AoAs. The most performant leading edge droops usually increase your AoA by no more than 6, while most help the wing with around 4..5 critical AoA increase. Compared to the MIG-21, the M-2000 can go slightly over 30 real AoA before the complete wing stall occurs due to both the effects of slightly lower aspect ratio and higher sweep as well as the LE droops + some benefit from the inlet strakes. So as I say again, that's no leap from just 15AoA, but from rather at least 20 as described.

It seems that after the latest updates I cannot return the TGP to point straight ahead using TMS down as it used to be. Now the damn tgp remains stuck on a waypoint and all I can do is to start moveing it around from the active waypoint, but I can't seem to be able to reset it to point forward anymore. What has changed to not allow the TMS down to bring it forward anymore?

Well, there are plenty of "Mavericks" all around, so..., we don't necessarily have to be the same person. No, I didn't hear of DEKA until they came to DCS and made the JF-17, so that's another "mav" that was useful to them, not me. Speaking of "maverick", that's how they call the people who test stuff that others don't. They're like putting their skin into the battle for others to learn. And like you said I also confirm by how the plane behaves in mid-air under all the tested circumstances that DEKA IRONWORKS have done a great job in DCS. From my opinion, the best we had seen so far, period!

Insane? Heheh! Do you consider me insane cause I've said that this aircraft is actually the best modeled in DCS? We can discuss why I consider it to be the best. I don't work for Deka, I have no connection with them whatsoever, I only admire their work and they own my respect for the flight model, NOT systems simulation, sounds, graphics and whatever childish delight that DCS aircraft have to offer. I'm all and only for flight models behavior.

Show me a fighter plane which deflects it's hydraulically actuated flight controls (especially the elevators) in less than 0.5 seconds from one end to another. If you can confirm it to me from a real specification then I'd believe you. This isn't a big issue, but it will be an exploit if the real deflection rates of the elevators lower.

Based on the plane's 4 important moments of inertia and aerodynamic forces simulation all around the AoA and Beta combinations according to the flight conditions. As an AE I can assure you that this aircraft, followed by AJS-37 from Heatblur, F-5 from Belsimtek and F-16 from ED have the most realistic flight models that DCS has witnessed so far! The rest still need corrections! When I see how a plane behaves in any flight sim I can tell quite well where the problems are based on my years of experience and knowledge. I know sound arrogant, but I don't brag or anything. For me, what's important is the truth. When people ask "how would I know" that something is wrong or right, there's my answer: years of experience and correct understanding! I'm glad to know you guys and I'm open to discuss about every aspect regarding an aircraft's behavior (especially aerodynamics) and symptoms, so that people understand where I'm actually right or wrong, and not some guy with hidden interests or something.

Hi Grimes and everyone, Well, I've sorted it out in the end and it wasn't the latest update that causes this but certainly an earlier one. It is a MOD called "ME coalition modification master" found on DCS's site which allows you to modify coalitions for an already built mission which causes this issue. As far as I remember, in 2.5.5 this worked without problems, but now it won't work anymore for both the stable and Open Beta versions. Probably the mission coalition changer mod must get updated as well. I admit that I didn't re-check for an update of it recently as I wouldn't guess that this might cause it, but I'll try to see what happens with the latest ME coalition modifier from DCS USER FILES. Thanks! Regards!

And? Can't it be "upgraded" so to speak? As you've talked about Falcon BMS, well, we both know that it uses tables (the calculations were done elsewhere, not in-game) which are being read during the simulation and if the right numbers are already in there, it can provide a simulation as realistic as you can ever get. XP11 (as an example) uses a combination of initial values tables and does further determinations during simulation. DCS's model does determinations (similar to XP I suppose) but with fewer functions that cannot cover all the needed effects. I personally consider the data table model (but filled with correct numbers) that BMS uses as among the best modelling techniques. Copy that! But still, I'll wait to see the day when passing through the transonic region, the shock stalls in and out and the Mach drag rise in and out effects would also be included. BMS already did it. Proof? I wasn't expecting that from you! Haven't you ever heard of these effects? The last sentence of the previous paragraph is a hint (BMS)! Same answer as for the earlier paragraph! If you never heard of shock stall effects, then at least you should've heard of Mach drag rise! They haven't inputted that data from out of their "back" and please stop being dishonorable and do some more learning then! They do for sure...? Show me how you'll make "your" aim-120 vary it's drag in the transonic region. I'll be pleased to see that you can do it without altering the actual model from the "missiles_data.lua" file. Very nice graph. There you go! So it seems we can do it if we truly want to...! But again, relating to the earlier paragraph, show me that you can do it with your aim-120 or any other missile using just the file that we talk about. A very valuable chart indeed. The lift curves are very credible as they include all of the effects that we've talked about and for different Mach numbers. If they would've shared the reference area for those lift coefs, much of our general puzzle would also prove what direction we're going into! I copy, but are the Russian missiles navigation logics that dumb or they're not yet implemented in DCS? After all, as I say again it's unfair that the AIM-120, AIM-7 and 54 benefit from the loft which can almost triple their maximum flight range compared to a non-lofting condition. Exactly! In that condition, we should no longer be playing BVR Su-27 with it's damn dumb R-27ER vs F-15/16/18 with AIM-120C if we fight against a similarly skilled player. Most PVP should start turning into western vs western jets or eastern vs eastern, otherwise, the unfairness gets even higher than it is already! You'll probably say: "Well, you now have the JF-17 with PL12". Indeed! So this will probably turn more like into a pay to win credit instead of having things realistic and fair at the same time. Oh, I see then! I didn't waste much time to see the whole truth, maybe it's not for us to know anyway, but I'll take your word on it that the AIM-9X is very flare resistant in the real world. Ok, if you say that the electronics of each missile starves of electrical power after a given number of seconds with a 100% accuracy (not a second more or less than written in there), then the maximum ranges of the missiles are mostly based on just that rather than maximum flight range due to the aerodynamic performances. So basically you can say that the longer range of a missile variant is achieved by having it's brain still powered for longer and less due to aerodynamic improvements. Makes sense, but, really, that little battery life does an A-A missile has? As far as you can tell? From the fact that the DCS F-18 can fly as fast as Mach 1.14 with MIL power? From the fact that the DCS F-18 will outaccelerate everything in the vertical, being just slightly ahead of the M-2000 which also has a crazy engine thrust at both full MIL and full AB? Even the maximum speed at high alt is much higher than what the real F-18 pilots can confirm. What are we talking? Who modeled the DCS F-18's FM simply got too much drag on it at every AoA. So my guess is that in order to compensate for the very high drag that he obtained (CFD + whatever other methods), he has tweaked and increased the F-18's engines thrust so to make it reach some credible speeds, but simply created a monster in terms of turn rate, subsonic speeds acceleration and as such vertical climb speeds. The F-18's T/W ratio is much higher than real. You can verify that for yourself, you don't need me for that! Same goes for the M-2000. In fact, the M-2000, if you'll be able to have it fall on it's belly close to 80-90 AoA (I can do this every time), you'll see that it's CAS (outside view IAS if you will) is incredibly low, which leads to the conclusion that the drag function simulated for the M-2000 shows a very high drag at higher AoA. Usually, most modern fighters fall close to 70-90 AoA towards the earth at some 120-140KCAS. Indeed the wing loading plays a good role, but how much of a difference will there be? Our M-2000 falls in that condition as slow as 60KCAS or 110km/h. What a hell? Even a skydiver would fall by it with 80km/h more=))).

As a matter of fact Tacview shows that the AIM-120B with a Cy_k0 (lift slope) of 1.5 is basically turning slightly better than the AIM-9X which has 0.9, completely proving that "Stefasaki" and I were right all along when we've mentioned that the AIM-120 has greatly exaggerated lift! So you might start wondering why on Earth would have they ever needed to build the 9X when you already have the AIM-120B which turns at least as good as the 9X? This is very ridiculous and from what I get, you still don't want to accept it! I know..., it's the pride/image, but for me, what's more important is the truth! We must also take into account the fact that the 9X should find the Cy_k0 value set to approximately 0.59 in order to match the real missile's turning performances, not at all as high as 0.9 as it is set by default! Thus, if the 9X would have it's lift slope set realistically to a Cy_k0 of ~0.6, the current AIM-120B would out turn it by far, further proving how unrealistically well it turns! How much of a proof do you guys still need to understand that the AIM-120's new lift has nothing to do with reality..., in fact it's some more than 2.5x greater than real! Here's the comparison using the default aero data using both the track file as well as Tacview: [ATTACH]239599[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]239598[/ATTACH] And for the second phrase you mean about an 9M that is set to 2.5 as "Cy_k0", when a more realistic value of 1.875 should be used for it? Coupled with a maximum attainable AoA of the 9M, which if it's only of 0.13 rads (7.5 degrees AoA) as set by default, it makes sense (as I've already posted earlier) that an AIM-120B and C can out turn an AIM-9M during engine burn if all of the data within the equation is carefully put together, but as their engine dies out, the high 29-30 AoA of the AIM-120C still turns somewhat worse than a 7.5 AoA AIM-9 due to the much higher weight to surface area ratio (whatever reference comparison) of the AIM-120B/C vs that of the 9M. The 9M still finds it's 1G minimum speed below that of an AIM-120, so the 120 is still a less maneuverable missile than an 9M for no motor thrust conditions. Haven't I detailed about this already? Overall, it's the fins that provide most of the lift at any AoA before the flow separates. Yes, again, the main factor contributing to having the airflow still attached is the vortex system that "washes" (my term) most of the missile's body and whatever it finds in it's path, including the fins, but it's the fins that make this effect valuable, until, of course the vortexes start breaking into themselves above some point (AoA). Don't you think that the rest of the missiles which don't have the ogive cone shape don't have the vortex system on them as well? Cause you're saying as if that cone alone provides most of the lifting properties for the missile! Wrong, and I don't get it where do you get that idea from! The cone does increase the vortexes diameter and intensity, but not as great as you would otherwise imagine from what the over-exaggerated maximum lift of the new AIM-120B/C leads you to believe! Even the fuselage of any airplane, including an airliner if you will, generate/start a long streak of vortexes as the airflow lines travel from the high to low pressure areas, but depending on the shape of the nose and any other vortex generator elements (such as the MIG-29's nose spike design or the F-16's generators on the radar's radome), their intensity will grow a bit, but can never be as great as those generated by a LERX for example which can be many times more intense. It's simple mathematics that through the usual lift equation prove that your new AIM-120C (for example) has it's maximum lift coefficient above 2.2, for a reference area of 0.123m^2 (conventional area taken similar to that of a plane). Wow! Well that's the maximum CL of an F-16 at 35 AoA at Mach 0.3 (usually the best lift Mach for fighters) for it's conventional area of 27.87m^2! So, how can this be? A proof it would be when you can actually see more data that can confirm the little data that we have from the footage! I'm pretty sure that the angles or distances were different than what we try to wrongly predict through the little video data, which leads us to try injecting some monstrous lift into the AIM-120B and C in order to validate something that we can't simply cannot see using only that little data that we have in the footage. Ok, we have that T that you talked about which tells the moment of launch, but I don't see a real range from which that missile was actually fired, except for the target's range relative to the artificial horizon bars on the radar display and some timings that we can calculate based on the audio range calls which may be quite different for the time they were given. The reason why I believe that the F-16 has either shot at that MIG-25 from some much lower angle displacement (not 15 degrees up from the plane's nose at 2.5nm, closing that fast) or indeed from that angle displacement (so the radar antenna indication wasn't faulty) but from a higher distance, is because the missile has to turn like wild in that very small room and this leads me to understand that we misinterpret the footage data which we call "proof" and that an AIM-120C has a lifting capability greater than that of an F-16! This continues to be nonsense, sorry! For me, using that footage with so little data to model missiles lifting performances, more by imagination doesn't look professional! Again, you don't have a proof of how the missile actually turned, using just that little video footage data and we have both tested that even with this crazy and very exaggerated AIM-120B lift, it still misses by flying behind the arget if we try to launch it from even 2.5nm (more room than from 2nm as you initially said) and from +13 deg radar antenna up (less than +15)..., so again, something is wrong in how we interpret that footage, taking us back to the beginning! No non-thrust vectoring missile, especially a BVR optimized one can ever turn like the new AIM-120 does. Do you want to actually make it happen that the AIM-120B will hit the target from those exact conditions of altitudes difference, angular difference, range at the moment of launch, speed of the target and that of the launcher? Try to add some 50% more lift slope than that crazy 1.5 which is already written in the file and you'll obtain the absurd at even greater levels! It's simply ridiculous, not real! Why have we shut our common sense, logics and good knowledge for the sake of stretching something absurd from that incomplete data which only drags us into blind beliefs? What missile? The very high wing loading AIM-120B/C which now turns almost as good as a much lesser wing loading and T/V AIM-9X??? Is that a real performances comparison? There's also Tacview that proves it, not just my calculation based on what is inputted in that file or how the missiles behave after these absurd modifications. After the analysis that I've done I concluded that the AIM-9X is also having some 50% higher lift slope than it should and the AIM-9M also has some 33% greater maximum lift, but the AIM-120B/C is the master of all, having almost 3 times greater lift slope compared to what a real one should have. Again..., not with the video, lol! How many times must I repeat? But I'll do it every time if needed if I say one thing and someone replies that I've been saying another. This isn't honest! There is something wrong with our interpretation of that video and according to the replies, it seems that there's also something wrong with our interpretation in general! Agree! With some very limited numbers and symbols that we try to use and say that the puzzle is complete, when in fact the bigger pieces of it are still missing! Well..., like I've said and keep on saying! There you go! Again, common sense and reality should not confirm something absurd that we consider true based on the very limited data for which we fill in some of our imagination data (absurd inputted lift values) just to make it work! That's not professional analysis! You must take everything into consideration if you want the truth out of it, not just one part and leave the rest away, as your interpretation and result can lead you directly in the wrong direction. Very good picture of tested AIM-9M with an AIM-120 nose cone and very good that you showed it. So the very small fins that you talk about are only the aft fins, but the canards are identical. Indeed the no fuel CG is a bit forward on the modified model, but compared to the great reduction in lift of the aft fins + the nose cone's more intense vortexes, the center of lift has now moved much greater forward than the CG. This ultimately leads to greater achievable/sustainable AoA alone which squeezes more lift down the lift to AoA slope. If the initial AIM-9M barely reaches some 7.5..8 AoA (if that's real according to the missiles_data.lua file), this one could go past beyond 20 (my guess for now, no analysis). So, this non-TV missile will indeed get a somewhat greater lift through the higher vortexes intensity (greater lift slope alone, besides greater AoA) and through the greatly higher achievable AoA even if the overall aft fins area is reduced (hence the accountable greater wing loading), the missile will turn somewhat better. This makes a lot of sense and by using just this example you can understand that the AIM-120 gets most of it's aerodynamic lift (excepting the lift through thrust) from the great AoA that it can sustain through the help of the cone's vortexes, helping the fins offer more lift before the flow actually starts separating. As I repeat, usually the leading edge vortexes generated (by anything that generates them, LERX, high sweep sharp delta wings, small vortex generators, etc.) behave such as to progressively increase the lift to AoA slope (the CL function having some higher than 1 exponent of AoA), but it's not something incredibly great even for the best cases (LERX) and as such are less progressive for the nose cone example. Most of these nose cones benefits are for greatly increasing the stall AoA, besides a relatively low increase in the overall lift vs AoA slope (if linearized, cause it's otherwise a positive curve on various AoA ranges). Yes, let's keep in mind that the much greater thrust to weight, much lower wing loading and much greater maximum AoA AIM-9X shapes about the tightest turn (smallest radius) among modern air to air missiles and that the newly modified AIM-120B/C from the latest updates which has more than 2 times greater wing loading and some 5 degrees lower AoA during burn time, turns almost as good as the AIM-9X! Doesn't this make you wonder which one doesn't turn right, the 120 or the 9X? As I repeat, they both turn better than they should, but the AIM-120 a whole lot greater than it should. Now, we've mostly debated on lift in the latest posts, but what about the drag? All of the default missiles have the drag due to lift (or due to AoA) coef very very low. It was as hilarious as I've never imagined to see an AIM-120 do a 270 turn on me before it actually started falling (when it reached some 285km/h at very low altitudes)! As I've meticulously calculated and re-calculated the drag to AoA of most of the missiles that I've modified and shared with you to test them, they now lose speed more accordingly. I still get the feeling that they still decelerate a bit faster than they should (the Cx0 still being slightly higher than it should) at very low AoA (such as flying straight) and still quite slower than they should close to critical AoA, but due to not wanting to make it look like I'm exaggerating (although I'm not), I've left them like this..., with a slightly greater low AoA drag and not great enough high AoA drag! I agree that it would be more plausible if the missile has to turn at it's limited or critical AoA to turn towards interception from a higher offset angle rather then from lower offset angles or if the target is just ahead and changing it's course while the missile is only constantly keeping it's interception course (case which you probably consider from that footage). Yeah, this wasn't the most useful missile's maximum turning performance from the maximum lift coef. point of view, but rather from the maximum G-load pov.

There are videos talking about these effects with both the F-16, F-18, whatever airplane gets at those high Beta low AoA angles. Only a few pilots get to test such conditions and those are test pilots. If you find me one that can talk about this and probably he'll make you understand that I'm right, I'll be waiting! I'm not trying to make a fuss out of this small gap, after all, I say again, this is among the best ever modeled in DCS, just behind the JF-17 which truly nailed it!

Guys..., your answers have nothing to do with what I'm talking about! I'm talking about rolling moments generated by high Beta angles at very low AoAs, aerodynamic angles at which the flight controls have almost zero effect, the resulting wing rocking and momentary roll effects that should take place just due to the lift difference between one wing and another at those angles..., effects which are completely non-existent, what a heck is so hard for you to understand? For the sake of your FBW (which again, has nothing to do with the subject here), take the JF-17 which is pretty comparable to the F-16 from aerodynamics and flight dynamics point of view or even any other fighter, including FC3. Except for the F-16 and F-18, all other aircraft exhibit more or less correct uncommanded roll-off effects at any Beta and AoA combination. I say more or less because airplanes like the Su-25, L-39, MIG-19 and MIG-21 don't correctly reverse the rolling moments to rudder input above a certain low negative AoA with zero ailerons input (a different story), but at least the rest of the airplanes in DCS show somewhat natural rolling motions at very high Beta and low AoA. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about and hopefully you'll get what I'm talking about: See that sharp throw-off in roll? That's one example. You can't see this with the DCS F-18 and F-16. Every airplane exhibits this! This is not something specific to X plane, but to any plane. Here's another high beta low alpha which throws the plane into a momentary roll until both wings lift gets even (when Beta gets momentarily through zero to make both wings lift close to equal): Just make the DCS F-18 do that nice roll-flip and you'll find out!

No, it's zero possible that the roll control surfaces (directly commanded or by the FBW) have any effect at those angles, especially in roll! Maybe I've forgotten to say that with the ailerons at zero or at whatever deflection there are simply no rolling moments taking place above some Beta (side slip angle) and AoA combination. Don't mix what the flight controls system logics do and what the aerodynamic effects on the whole plane including it's surfaces do in a way in which you may consider one taking place because of the other, because above a certain limit, only the developing aerodynamic effects become primary! For instance, the FBW will try to prevent (as well as it can) the AoA or Beta from exceeding a given value based on angular rates or different input combinations, but..., once past the departing limit, the flight controls surfaces can't help the aerodynamic forces, hence moments effects that continue to evolve no matter how much those controls would deflect. From there on, the aerodynamic physics follow their laws. It's similar to having your car skidding at a 90 deg angle! Would it matter how you steer your front wheels (considering that your rear wheels are spinning at a similar rate as the front, to not vary the grip)? The difference would be just zero! Do you think that at 90 Beta (such as the case that I've talked about earlier as you simply fall straight on one wing) with the airflow attacking your leading wing from above or below, will the flight controls have any effect? Furthermore, the ailerons and elevons are going to be exactly parallel with the airflow (the anhedral of the elevons will indeed generate a very slight pitch down (not towards the Earth), but still with zero roll effects), so no effect would occur on them even if you'd deflect them at 90 deg. As for the rudder, yes, that's the only thing that will increase or decrease the yawing moment that tends to reduce the Beta to a trim value, as the rudder deflections are now mostly varying the drag, not the lift on the fin. The aero roll due to Beta are simply absent above some combinations with the AoA and the same goes with the F-18.

There is one single thing that surely remained..., the deflection rates of the control surfaces, other than that, I tried and tried and couldn't find aerodynamic & flight mechanics issues with this aircraft, so I say it again: it's remarkably well done!

I know!

Hi, I don't know if this thread covers the Open Beta issues as well, but after the 10.06.2020 update, when loading the mission editor, it sucks at "Terrain graphics init: 97" on every map. You have managed to reduce the loading time for entering the sim, but something seems to have broken up for the ME now!

Excellent job DEKA IRONWORKS team! You have done something unique in DCS...! A completely correct done flight model all around the angles of attack and beta combinations. Followed by the DCS F-16, DCS AJS-37 and DCS F-5, the DEKA IRONWORKS JF-17 is at the top when it comes to flight model simulation realism. I've thrown and tested this plane through a lot of AoA and beta situations and it never failed to impress me with how good/real the responses/reactions were. I have no words to say! Hats down to you boys! Another product that's worth more than money can buy! Regards!

Hello ED! Very good job with the F-16! Even if ED has used the NASA's free document "TP 1538" which contains most of the important real aerodynamic data for the F-16 or not, one doesn't have to be a real pilot in order to be good at identifying right from wrong through experience and knowledge. The pitching moments versus AoA and versus elevators deflections at different AoA are right! The rolling moments versus AoA+Beta for various flaperons+elevons as well as rudder deflections (up to the limit which the ARI allows you to deflect the rudder outside of the FBW's inputs) are all right! And most important, the maximum lift coefficient and lift and drag to AoA are spot on, not exaggerated or underrated. From the aerodynamic forces simulations all around the AoA and Beta angles, this plane is almost 100% nailed and I'm very pleased with what you have achieved through it.:thumbup: From how I see it, for how well it's flight model is done compared to the other jet fighter aircraft, it's not expensive! There is only one thing left to be done, which is the addition of the missing rolling moments versus high Beta for different angles at which the wings meet the airflow. For example, if you climb at a 80 deg. of pitch up and let the plane decelerate with idle throttle, up to say 200KIAS, then roll right to any bank angle between 20 to 95 degrees and simply let the plane fall with it's right wing towards the ground, normally the plane should start getting a leftward rolling moment, higher or lower depending on actual angle between the airflow vector and the wings planes (the F-16 has a small anhedral). I guess that due to the lack of aero data, the sim cannot model any rolling moments from those conditions! This same thing happens with the F-18 as well as the plane can literally fly with one wing forwards at some crazy 50-90 degrees of beta and no matter how the airflow attacks the leading wing, there is no roll occurring. I wish that sooner or later this gap will also be filled for these three fighters. Most other planes have this effect nicely simulated, but these 3 don't! Besides the missing high beta rolling moments, the F-16 is one of the finest simulated in DCS! Thank you!