Fox One

God, I hope is not that one. The Fw 190 model in that screenshot is terribly inaccurate, no way that model was done by ED. NO WAY!

Yo-Yo, should we understand that you have been working on modeling the system? :smilewink:

That's not a Fw 190. It's just a plane deliberately built to look like one (well almost...) and with a different engine. The last real Fw 190 with a radial engine was built in 1945.

Also, about 2 years ago (I guess) there was a topic started by ED searching for high-res US carriers pictures ... :smilewink: And I would also add that: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1482499&postcount=75

Since your list is so long, after you release the Buckeye maybe you could do a poll on the forum, smth like that: "Our current experience level in developing for DCS allows us for our next release to make planes X, Y and Z. What would you like next?"

Great post. I feel the same.

About roll rate, I just did my own research. he does some fast rolls. I downloaded the video to be able to do some frame-by-frame analyses, and concluded that when the roll rate was fully developed it was about 191 deg/sec. In DCS I was certainly able to achieve something very close to that when my speed was close to 400, and it is visible in the video his speed was high too. The A-10 flight manual says the roll rate is 130 deg/s at a speed of 300 and 200 deg/s at the same speed, with 40% speed brakes. On my test flight I tested those and I achieved values differing from that with less than 10 deg/s. Anyone implying that ED hasn't done its homework regarding A-10C performance in DCS definitely has no idea how incredibly silly that is. And actually kind of an insult to Yo-Yo and all the others ED scientists.

In that video from the moment he starts his takeoff run until he makes that abrupt pull there are precisely 42 seconds. I have done a test flight in DCS. Fuel weight 3,000lbs, gun ammo removed. Summer, standard conditions. Takeoff, gear, flaps, I keep the plane low just like in the video. After 42 seconds from starting the takeoff my speed was 278. With that kind of speed you can do a lot of things, especially if the plane is light in weight. I pulled the stick, the G initially spiked to about 5, then I eased the pull a bit. Velocity vector on 80deg, I did an 80 deg climb for no less than 3 full seconds, then I pulled gently, when I came up above in inverted position my altitude was 3,900 and the speed about 95 (sufficient for this type of aircraft if you do the pull smoothly while over the top). I kept the plane in horizontal inverted flight for a few seconds, then another pull, so in the end I completed a square loop, F-18 style :) Honestly, I don't understand why you say the performance is well below that of the real aircraft. When the weight is low, to me it seems that is pretty much as nimble as what I can see in those videos. Personally, I can't see anything in the videos I feel I can't do in a lightly loaded plane in DCS.

With all these 3rd party planes announced, covering pretty much all "very popular U.S. fixed wing aircraft", I was thinking what would make sense for ED to make: a "very popular Russian fixed wing aircraft" :D Su-27

Yes, but that might end up as some sort of second-class DCS. That ED is first-class is a certitude.

I would be very surprised if it's not multirole. Because the overwhelming majority of people on this forum have been screaming for years for a multirole supersonic with AFM and complex systems modelling. In Ka-50, A-10C and P-51 ED hasn't yet delivered that. I suppose ED cares about what people want. Now it would be about time for a multirole. If I would have to develop the first AFM for supersonic a/c, I would certainly chose a plane with a relatively simple shape, like F-104. To begin with F-18, maybe not the best idea. Except for the natural complexity of simulating supersonic flight with an AFM, the F-18 also has very complex aerodynamic interactions between LERX, wing, fins, etc. I imagine it's very hard to tune everything right and be able to get the entire flight envelope corect. You need really hard data for that. Or you can try with wind tunnel models experiments. For example, in F-18 in certain parts of the flight envelope if the pilot commands a roll, all control surfaces, LE flaps, flaperons, ailerons, stabilators and rudders will deflect. One can only imagine the challenge to build an AFM for such an aircraft. Speaking of F-104, is your signature a hint about ED's next DCS plane? :D

If it isn't, that's just fine with me. I said it before, I don't care if it's Su-7 or F-15. Like many others, I just want a supersonic with AFM. I want it, and I want it badly :D Here is why it will be F-16 or F-18: The F-14, -15 and -22 are developed by IRIS. AFAIK, those are all the "popular fixed-wing US planes" :P

Most people here know that, for example, the simplified hydraulics diagram from the flight manual usually is not gonna be enough for modelling a DCS plane at A-10C level. Also, think about FBW aircraft. ED could have all the pilot manuals they want, those are of little to no help regarding modelling FBW control system. They need to understand the logics of such a flight control system before they could hope to implement an AFM that will calculate for example the aerodynamic forces on any control surfaces, etc. I'm not saying the next DCS plane made by ED couldn't be the F-16, who knows, maybe the have the technical description manuals. But here is a little hint why the next DCS plane is highly likely to be F-18C :D This website http://www.chqsoftware.net/product_info.php?products_id=4469 for 949USD is selling a huge collection of technical manuals for most, if not all the essential systems of the plane. See what I'm talking about: http://www.chqsoftware.net/f18m.pdf

mvsgas, from this website http://www.flight-manuals-on-cd.com/ you can buy GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1 (weapons delivery flight manual) and GR1F-16CJ-1-1 (performance flight manual). GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1-1 is a classified supplement to GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1 and it will never, ever be available. Anyway 99% of the avionics are nicely covered in GR1F-16CJ-34-1-1. GR1F-16CJ-1-2 i'm not sure what it contains but the GR1F-16CJ-1-1 is already fully loaded :D. There are performance diagrams for both GE and P&W engines, also performances with conformal fuel tanks. Sustained turn anvelope diagrams for military/ max AB for any drag indexes. Highly recommended.

I really hope that happens. About third parties developing their own AFM, personally I have huge doubts. Not huge, gigantic. Even for a very-subsonic plane like A-10, right now ED is the only one that can do it. Anybody believes that, after "getting used" to ED's SFM, IRIS suddenly will be able to develop their own AFM for F-14? That's crazy. A supersonic plane with AFM is a great challenge even for ED. For me it's quite clear. Either ED will greatly help third party developers to bulid their FM (AFM), or there will be nothing but SFM.

This is just an example for people maybe less familiar with Lock On / Flaming Cliffs. Let's say you are in Lock On taxiing in an F-15 at about 15 kts. You do a sharp turn, and in the middle of it you suddenly release the joystick twist or rudder pedal input. The plane will stop from turning that millisecond when the rudder input is neutral, behaving like it's a small plane made of paper and not a 20 tonne or more machine. That's because it doesn't have any form of angular inertia modeled. Then you taxi on the runway at a pretty similar speed in DCS A-10C. Perhaps it's better to watch the plane from outside and from front. Do a sharp turn using full rudder input, and when the turning rate is greatest suddenly apply full rudder the opposite side. See what's happening? Yeah, that baby has plenty of angular inertia and it behaves like a big, heavy object should. Also look how the front tire gets dragged sideways untill the plane stops turning in the initial side and goes the other way. Look from the outside how the front tire gets compressed when you taxi slowly then suddenly brake. Look at the tires to see how the brakes work with antiskid on/off. Look how the shock absorbers work while taxiing & turning & braking. See how when you brake the plane will turn slightly because the front wheel is not on the plane's centerline. All this inertia and other complex stuff modelling happens all the time, on the ground or in the air. Nothing is scripted. This is the real deal. It just behaves the way it should. There is no other PC simulator in the world today that does this better.

I'm sure a quarter of century from now there will still be guys playing some form of F4-derived sim, claiming that it's still the king and by comparison everything else is lame :D

Both :D

YES !!!!!

Quite funny the way they brag in that video about how if you twist the throttle you change the gunsight's range... Yes, it's functional but totally useless :D In DCS P-51 it's functional, and we really need it.

Are the trees collidable? :P

Shaderhacker, I haven't suggested you should fly the entire glidepath at 120, but surely it can be done. The manual for the real aircraft doesn't say the approach speed, it just says to have 120 above runway edge. I also fly the landing approach a bit faster like you, otherwise I get bored :D I actually fly the landing approach while continually, slowly decreasing speed. But above runway edge I always have between 115 and 120. ALWAYS. If your speed there, right before landing flare is high you will land way too long. If you will practice landing on a short runway you will understand why this is important.

Shaderhacker, smooth landing :) This is just my humble advice - the first thing you should try to improve about landing approach is SPEED. Above runway edge you were having 160 - this is HUGE! There you should have 120, there's no need for more. Try to practice takeoffs and landings with 50% fuel or even less. If you're having difficulties observing the runway during approach try to come from a bit higher - not much, just a bit. Slowly you will become comfortable with barely seeing the runway just above the lower edge of the windscreen. With practice there will come a moment (at least when flying in good weather) when you will be 100% sure, you will have NO DOUBT that after the next landing the plane will be perfectly intact. Really.

Translation: the only bug is that in manual reversion when using pitch trim the elevator's trim tabs move in the opposite way they should, you were right from the beginning, thanks for wasting your time :D:D:D:D:D

So the pilot flies in manual reversion mode, pulling quite hard on the stick to mantain level flight. Then he tries to relieve some of that necessary force, his arm geting quite numb. And he uses the trim as he did thousand times, cause he remebers he read in the Dash-1 that in manual reversion the trims still work. And guess what? Instead of releaving some of the necessary force pulling on the stick, it actually makes the necessary force HIGHER! Gee, those Fairchild designers had some great logic, no doubt about that. It doesn't make any sense. If it was that way, i would just release a technical order for A-10 fleet to simply reverse the wires entering the elevator trim tab's motors! :D Really simple, easist to implement T.O. !!!!