jackmckay

Do we have some functional TS address at least?

I didnt recieve any mail yet. Also TS address 37.59.10.136/wargames is not working?

good idea. but how about having dedicated mechanic (DCS: Mechanic) or preflight airframe inspection done manually, hyd. oil leak detection egg. nice features but in wartime birds must be ready for immediate scramble right?

Yep, Ciribob, we miss caucasus epizode. This Nevada is not much joy, sorry.

Good news.

How about some diplomacy at work. Let say that simmers would love to put hands on lot of new birds but since this RL vs SimLife barrier is getting thinner and lot of defense Intel is still classified (with a obvious reason) how about some modules development allowed based on year lock, let say 20 years back in time tech is allowed to be replicated in commercial sims based on declassified documents? And I mean that scope is not external model but mainly pilot interactive systems and features. Reverse engineering should not be scope of this agreement and that would mean that that module version developed this way is signed as not supported by official unclassified documents. Correct weapon engagement procedure is not really focus of flight sims, its more about war games, maneuvering and offensive vs defensive tactics which would, in theory, use this classified technology in just small portion of sim procedures - weapon engagement preparation, and I think that no hardcore simmer would insist on this to be implemented consistently thus endangering national security of any nations army. There should be some agreement beyond ED to make this "sport" safe of unreasonable restrictions.

Great source of Su27 info: https://pictures.abebooks.com/isbn/9781857802474-us-300.jpg Chapter 11.

...

@Sinusoid (m3 was typo, not energy concertation obviously) No problem here but when I post a book chapter before and get "Huh" that look like trolling. Maybe its all about language barrier here or intonation of written words. Nevermind, all good, dont get me wrong. My intentions are aimed to clear something out as everyone has different perspective about coorelation of engine power, airplane hydrailics and aerodynamic stability. I like people actually trying to recreate chart behaviour of FM in DCS to figure out some standpoints. Thats good. So lets carry on cos I found this very important topic that has huge impact on plane agility or entaglment in close combat environment. So, my source says that max instantaneous turn rate of Flanker (at sea level and at 8G) is 28º/s performend in RL. DCS doesnt have stick limiter that can be overriden by brute force so in this test plane has to achieve 8G by using Y(?) key. Right? That chart line looks like sustained turn rate to me (at R=500m). Can someone translate that from russian? Next issue: I'm not sure does actual speed of movement of control surfaces (in DCS) is directly coorelated to deflection rates or mean reaction time. That could be a problem here (what you see is not what you get) but, comparing those DCS videos from actual RL videos, faster deflection rate is achieved in RL eversince in DCS that deflection rate is reduced in few latest updates. What you think why?

300kg/cm3 is not 3000psi its 4267psi! Learn to convert units first then place trolly argument please. For a plane that has max instantaneous turn rate (28º/s) tail control surfaces moves too slow. Period. Its cripplled or can we say "balanced". Period. ED should fix that.

The hydraulic pumps are engine driven pumps (via a gearbox). Fraction is noted in percentage of engine power available and is usually less than 5% but depends on design requirements. Average pump looks like this: And if you want to know nominal pressures - check the in-cockpit gauges man or ask these guys: http://www.salut.ru/index.php (1st and 2nd question above have the same scope). Look man, lets be real, this plane must be very agile because it 1) has best max instantaneous turn rate (SL)º/s - 28,0(8,0g)SL in its class. 2) can do Cobra and 3) has 2x12.3T(vs Eagles 10.5T) static thrust engines .. and that means LOTS of power available even more(!) than any other plane in DCS except Su33. Put an average high efficiency hydraulic pump and you can make a Vegas Hotel water fountain type with hydraulic oil from power available from those two engines. Anyway Flanker is younger plane (than Eagle for example) so that means younger and more efficient pumps. You want me to calculate pressure drops in hydraulic piping? What are we developing here? Next, Su27 is up to 5% MAC unstable (limit α<24°). But let me explain Cobra for you so you get the point what are we dealing with: The key to the Cobra maneuver are four characteristics of the aircraft:� - High pitch agility: A huge so called tailplane 'volume' (relative area and arm), with the help of LEX vortex lift mechanism and longitudinal instability that allows dynamic pitch angles and α in excess of 100°. F-14/15/18/M2000 planes cannot reach these angles; �- Lateral stability: every plane is to a lesser or greater extent dynamically unstable directionally at α of about 20-40º, where the airflow begins to separate. Su-27 rolls-off here at 40° α. The essence of the Cobra figure is to quickly pass unstable α region (while the large inertia of the aircraft prevents the potential roll/yaw-off) and come into benign region of completely separated air​flow; �- Longitudinal stability at 100°+ α: because of the high pitch rate, the aircraft passes the point of max trimmed α (that is about 50-60º α), but the tailplane size and deflection pitch aircraft back to the initial α. The aircraft was designed with over-dimensioned tailplane (as a backup) because the static longitudinal instability was still unproved. - Stable engine operation at 100° α / less than 200 km/h IAS (earlier generation turbofans has about 20º α limit); Anyway, �Su-27 set new standards in fighter design and paved the way for super and hyper (up to �120º α) maneuverability (dynamic entrance into supercritical α - flight mode that permits a decrease of airspace needed for turn by 2 times .. and to achieve this (aside from other aerodynamic features and advancements) plane needs LOTS of hydraulic power available and it DOES. What is your standpoint about this issue here anyway? :music_whistling: Do you think it should be less agile and why?

Flanker control surfaces move too slowly compared to 1)hydraulic power available regarding percentage of engine power fraction assigned to hydraulic pumps 2)has relatively more unstable design compared to other designs as featured in cobra maneuvers 3)inboard limiters/safety systems are designed to protect PILOT from hurting ITSELF 1'st then airframe that has reserve safety margins above pilots physical limitations 4)its a damn fighter and has to be agile as possible 5)holds significant number of world records and is proven to be one of the best (if not the best) WWR combat airplane in the WORLD! This is pure and unbiased truth. ED should look at these facts and reconsider its policy about flight performance of Flanker. NHF

Thumbs up for Vietnam. But recently discovered, ED buys complete 3D models and computes animations and flight physics on brought models. That's been done by them.

Mat skin, shinny cone..

Here it comes again. It looks like it is intended trolling of Flanker pilots by ED. Again. No justification in structural mechanic nor safety systems. In DCS this would snap the wing, in RL no way. Su33 has even stronger and heavier wing frame because of folding feature. Here it slides half of runway on wing .. hard hit (worst airshow accident RIP to all casualties) but wings do not snap. Did it broke on root? Sorry to pull this out but can you imagine how many Gs (spiked) these airframes had to sustain and wings still remained attached on. What a trolls sitting in ED.

Working on.. https://pasteboard.co/GOuOIhI.jpg https://pasteboard.co/GOuP0s7.jpg

Then why is it named Digital Combat "Simulator" if it doesn't "simulate" things right? Maybe it should be renamed to: "Digital Combat with Artificially Balanced Flight Physics"? :D

Allays comparing to Eagle as reference but..If someone says that Eagle is more pitch agile because of stronger hydraulics that doesn't stand at all because Flanker doesn't require that strong hydraulic to pitch up even it has stronger engines that can deliver more power to hydraulic pumps. Roll is actually more hydraulic power demanding because of wider weight distribution causing high inertial roll resistance. Flanker has closer CG to AC point so when these two invert it performs Cobra, nose pitch up, tail goes under forward.. and for that maneuver flanker uses less hydraulic power than more stable designs as Eagle itself so that means that pitch deflection rate depends primary on airframe design and secondary to hydraulic power available. In general, booth Flanker and 33 have to perform faster pitch deflections and that is very crucial in combat agility and performance of defensive maneuvers and there is also a question of how ED calculates neutral AoA cos it seems that some modules have higher AoA in level flight than they should. Flanker is entangled for sure. Generally, I don't care much about that, cos ED gives a damn, but take a look at this standpoint. Having flanker "entangled" means that all those brilliant Eagle/M2K/F14/F18..etc pilots won't be given a chance to prove their real skill and proficiency while playing against "entangled" opponent and that means no respect for pilots fighting Flanker in MP.

Switching to your post.

Just to add one important issue that sneaked past this topic: su27 has unstable design meaning that its cg is close to aerodinamic friction center, meaning that flanker is damn agile with less hydraulic power needed to make pitch deflection. Thats why it can do a cobra in first place. Roll angle depends on inertia force ruled by horizontal mass distribution, meaning single engined rolls faster. Developers have screwed it by reducing elevator deflection angle. Really screwed to make it easy target for everyone else. Its like horse with suspended legs goin for a race. Tha is damn inhuman an biased. And it makes me so pissed.

Depends whose wings broke off first. It is well known and documented that Russian planes loose their wings on daily regular basis. Western one don't have that problem because they are (hellou) obviously superior and can compensate its pilot population idiocracy. ED wins man. In RL things are contrarily of DCS perception - quite tightly bonded to aerodynamic performance limit and pushed to the edge of pilots body (and missile performance ofc). Also, guns on Sukhoi's are taken from long range sniper rifle so pilot must turn off the engines and hold its breath to gain crucial stability while positioning itself for a shot. On every F's in DCS guns are supereffective and perform like steel buckshot equipped shotgun, almost fire and forget feature. Very neat features, right? Real unbiased Sukhois are, unfortunately, still far away from light of simday.

Hell Yeah. This is what I meant. Didn't know about his thread but from my perspective that was the ONLY way to make quality FM away of HPC or cluster computing. Interpolation of table charts gained by CFD processing incorporated in realtime engine is mother of serious flight sim. Condition that is a MUST is that every module(missile) has to be tested on same CFD engine settings to give correlated and comparable results. Looking forward to see what CaptSmiley has been done up to 100 pages of posts. My rig: i7 3970X(50GB/sec transfer), 32GB RAM, RAID SSD 512GB(2x256), QuadroK4000, TeslaK20C(2TB/sec transfer).. its CFD GP-GPU HPC configuration.

(This should go directly to engine developers, not module developers strictly) Everyone would appreciate leap forward in kinetic physics and fluid dynamics engine capabilities as current state is not satisfactory for anyone except casual and rookie players. Putting scope on MP, sensor raytracing and RCS/TCS signatures processing, missile guidance, countermeasure resistance need imminent upgrade. Terrain proximity LOD phasing, collision and damage engine is next on list. Lets face it straight forward, all we have is good graphics DX11 engine and fancy shiny 3d models with nice cockpit interior and good sounds but what is really missing is unified all-applicable physics behavior as every damn flying object has two basic components: geometry and aerodynamic forces as result of stable/changed geometry configurations in interaction with propulsion force. Inertial and ballistic behavior of models is first to start with - I mean unified and not tweaked and tuned for every model individually as then we wouldn't have cases of MP lagging and egg. cases of drastic difference of braking force generated by almost same air-brakes cross section like in M2k and 25t as least has 10% effectiveness of first one. Unified flight physics is must, rest is smoke and mirrors. That is the way to gain some respect in SIM world of today. At this state of game, putting another module in engine is not so enthusiastic option in my case as brief look back on history of DCS looks full of unfinished product starting from physics engine itself. Right now this looks like being in Ravell shop with every lack of adrenaline as there could be armed X15 in hangar with no soul in it. Once again - PHYSICS!

Flankers strong airframe holds together two extremely powerful engines (in its class) and thus has lot of hydraulic power available from it's sources. Max angular speed (rate of elevator rotation) is constant and only diminished by hydraulic-aerodynamic pressure battle results on elevator surfaces. Wont broke off either in case of over-deflection because it has been balanced in wind tunnel tests to feather itself on no input and also must sustain very high loads for a very long time. Elevator axle is last to broke off from plane (same as undercarriage) so when looking all aspects of plane systems Flanker should deflect its surfaces safe and crazy - in flight.

Good combat guide Verde. There's also some more things that needs concern. Low level high mach number is very tricky to maintain so careless hit and run (especially run part) is very dangerous because of engine stall at M1.1 and that's why one needs to tune nosecone position to the right place which is not easy part. Air relight is also a tricky part because one needs to maintain glideslope of speed above 550, set idle and hit ignition (for a few seconds, not to burn the medium). By my PO issue is the 2nd stage burner and sluggish acceleration comparing to other similar airplanes (M2K, Viggen) that accelerate way faster and have no problem maintaining low level high speed. Also effectiveness of Aim9 on F5 is kind of better than R60 because least has lust for flares while 9 goes for 21s tail even if swarming flares and engine on idle. In Nam scenarios 9 was way less effective and prone to failures and even today in case of 9X recent failure in Syria that missile is overrated here in DCS. Nevertheless, even unfinished Fishbed is still dangerous in right hands especially if one has good SA and knows all aspect of plane systems. And against F15 it works fine too but its more of case of being backstabber rather than being true adversary. Synchronized pack of 21s is the best option. Also to mention spectacular feel that Fishbed feeds back with its rugged style in all systems. You got to love it. Check this 2nd stage dual takeoff in less than 20 sec: ..