jackmckay

Thank You Elysian. I missed that post from 2 years ago. Obviously no published advancement in that direction still.

Putting aside the positive aspects of 'game' and good visual representation of 3d models of planes, cockpits and missiles the thing I'm most pissed off about DCS is learning curve problem. In general airplane evolution and lifecycle, each airframe starts from base model and evolves to more and more advanced and 'better' versions of same airframe. In airframe test phase, test pilots follows predicted behavior pattern of airframe and notices critical effects that degrades safety of operation. This critical regimes are noticed and then passed to the development team which finds solutions and corrections that eliminates dangers, either by aerodynamic or system advancements in model keeping in mind all possible unpredictable situations giving airframe enough margin of safety that standard pilot will never cross in regular operations. When model is safe enough, it is passed to the standard operational wings. At this process, fighter pilot learns to master the airframe pushing limits of both airframe and pilot itself. One thing is sure, airframe geometry is fixed and atmosphere properties are standard and interactive behavior of booth is set and unchangeable. In DCS things are very chaotic. Learning curve in DCS is not gradual advancement but very self destructive process. In RL what is learned it stays, here in DCS what is learned is doubtful and is prone to denial. So why bother having any learning curve if model degrades instead of evolves. It should be like in RL, models should behave worst than in RL and that means no superior abilities first, only after all aspects of behavior are standardized and unchangeable advancement is possible. That how things in RL works. Every RL aerodynamic model evolves to better because it is natural process of R&D teams and here in DCS you just don't know what awaits you next time you turn on DCS after update. That makes lot of time and resources spent obsolete. So should we wait for this sim to fix its models aerodynamic behavior, and I mean pure and basic aerodynamic performance and not systems functionality and interaction, and then start learning things that won't be denied or neglected in next update? What do you think? :music_whistling:

@probad What do you think about 'motivation behind this thread'? @buzzles Probably not. But If I would I'd rather start from advanced DX12 engine, procedural terrain, adaptive dummy model (same for aiframes as missiles) with integrated inertial matrix system, primitive CFD, ballistic motion vector correction, procedural damage model, frequency sensor behavior, RCS/TCS engine, multicore feature, HPC clustering, 40ms CPU cycle.. etc. Why I am asking is that I would like to see egg. RAZBAM making it for the sake of second opinion, and if it has clickable cockpit I would pay 50$. Maybe Su-30 variant?

Some guys wouldn't like to see clickable cockpit in SU27?

Guys, would you like to see third party edition of Su27 Flanker in DCS?

No info on update changelog about this new 'little nasty' feature. Why?

It should be Su27 variant. FC3 sucks.

FC3 Su27 is not right plane for DCS starter. ED tweaks it to be harder comparing to rival F15 which isn't modded long time ago. That's the fact no doubt about it. Starting from radar, missile guidance, missile performance, general and turn performance, artificial drag, damage model, wing break feature.. Su27 is like sensitive flower comparing to F15 which looks like made from meteor and that has nothing to do with real life performance of booth fighters that are very close to each other performance. ED has its own politics and it is not in favor of realism but 'wanna be like' bias and 'power balancing' feature. This are the words from LOMAC/FC1/2/DCS veteran here. At this point of 'target marketing' best choice would be to buy 'overpowered in any aspect' Mirage 2K that can grant you easy kills comparing to any opponent in DCS. If any ED lawyer here says this above is not true don't believe them because they are mercenaries playing along ED politics and not simulation credibility and realism. After all we are talking to the beta releases here so we all are kind of guinea pigs in DCS.

Hey, there could be a feature for each server IP like 'set server default freq', right? Like in real world VHF radio comms. People press one button to talk on emergency freq channel becouse they have cannel selector or preset channels. Don't tell me that every one has to set freq manually like in SRS because it's not true in RL. Many people don't like to exit game (Alt+Enter, Alt+tab) and select def. freq for SRS each time they go to spectator or on game crash? And it crashes a lot. And if there are too many people on 'coordinator channel' and can't talk they just shift to their own freq in another radio slot and there are more than one. It's like TS but with way much channels. I propose people to try that first and then conclude before judging this concept if chiribob has nothing against that. Anyway its just an idea and if someone have better one spit it. 121.5 baby. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_emergency_frequency

@Ciribob Thank you about explaining SRS features. I would personally like it this way: SRS -> connect to IP -> connected to server Set option: Set default action 'Spectator use' in general settings of SRS (public channel*/coordinator channel) *default Connected as spectator: You're in 'public channel' (talking to booth or single team) -- heres the catch -- this 'public channel' becomes 'coordinator channel' switched by button (United Nations button) or whatever default option is set in options In game slot: You're in 'coordinator channel' by default (talking only to single team selected) Channel selector/radio menu (talking only on desired channel/freq.).. etc. as usual. Sniper said and I have also noticed that my game crashes more often if using SRS. Preliminary observation, even I noticed that my DCS crashes more often after latest patch.

SRS is not simple as TS is. SRS kicks you out on game crash (and they are often lately) and also on instant kill so you get banned from SRS easily. On TS you stay constantly. There should be feature on SRS to auto load general comms channel by default action, something like lobby channel. Then SRS could be more useful so player is about to setup extra freqs (for CAP or CAS etc.) and not base (lobby) one. Guys, what about life balancing feature?

.. and intensive game crashes on various events (missile hits, change from regular to gci slot, etc.) Gamemasters, could you take a look at this idea called 'life balancing feature'? - egg. 20xRED(80lives) vs 10BLUE(40lives) could become 20xRED(80lives) vs 10xBLUE(80lives) meaning that each BLUE could have 8lives and each RED 4lives, - base factor is one side max life count. that calculated in dynamic form means extra lives given to the side that has fewer players. Fair enough?

ED please check airbrake functionality on Su25T. Everything is fine except airbrakes as they don't work as they should. Could be a bug of some kind.

As I said before, drag is exponential of speed. That means that airbrake effectiveness is exponentially increased comparing to flight speed. Booth are fighting weight inertial and weight ratios is not exponential as speed vs drag are. Gliders are slow, so slow that you can put you head out and catch raindrops in air. Not case with jets, especially if your landing speed is around 250km/h and approach speed around 350. Non streamlined surface must produce drag, lot of drag and lot of force. That means visible declaration, not just indicative (if so). Not satisfied with airbrake effectiveness at all. I'm speaking of -5m/s final that has very little difference with or without airbrakes. Try that yourself.

zhukov, lets look at airbrake functionality first, it supposed to slow down the airfame by increasing drag coefficient significantly. that's why rugged airbrake system with its powerful heavy duty hydraulic systems is installed at all. Secondary, using airbarkes on Su25T in DCS DOES NOT effectively induce enough drag more than simple high AoA turn would do, so from engineers standpoint this DCSed airbrakes are simple waste of hydraulic power and more increase of overall weight and airframe complexity. It looks like dcs does not simulate fluid at all because this kind of airbrake behavior one would expect only in solid vacuum. At normal landing (-5m/s) approach airbrakes are not effective at all so drag coefficient is not used in speed correction calculations. Even full flaps and airbrakes open does not slow down Frogfoot at ground roll without applying brakes. Just check forward projection (crosssection) area increment. This just doesn't make sense because Frogfoot is not a train - it flies. Empty weight is around 10t - Mig21 6t but look at drag coefficients of two, one is subsonic high lift attacker other is high mach interceptor and air brake area is kind of similar. Remember that drag is exponential of speed and relative to air density. Frogfoot should decelerate just by reducing throttle. DCS math is wrong on this one.

Count failed missiles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b16tEPfuvU=13m20s

That quote are words from US fighter pilot evaluating East German MiG-29A. But anyway, right now roll rate is five times less than should be according to your chart. Also, I noticed that issue when flying at 1k m ASL.

At high subsonic speed mig29 has a roll rate of 15-20 deg/s. ED please correct that. Quote: "The Fulcrum’s maximum roll rate is 160° per second. At slow speed this decreases to around 20° per second". Link: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/429073-Pilot-evaluates-MiG-29A-vs-F-16C-Forums

AoA vs Cd. STR is too linear. Non lateral AoA axes fluctuations do not effect energy loss right (if any). On the other hand, structural damage by over G does not exist and thus eagle can sustain 12+G ITR. Way out of chart spec according to AoA vs Mach limit.

Su27 radar loses lock too easily regardless of EOS on and proper mode. Highly unstable comparing to other fighters.

Not at all. Still much work has to be done.

Great job Ironhead. Good scientific approach on case. All we need now is hit-counter and numbers in charts. Next I would like to see Pk on maneuvering targets and ECM effectiveness booth on SARH and ARH missile groups. And also it could be great if we could have charts with general data for each missile like geometrical data, weight, initial speed, Gmax, seeker cone angle etc. to compare missiles. Also, good option would be if we could have some Cd/AoA charts for each missile but that's the CFD problem case. Also I have some questions regarding the way SARH missiles are fired in initial phase. Do they drop, turn and fire engine or drop, fire and turn? Most SAMs use first case.

Su25T airbrakes are not functional.. and that aerobatics movie is speeduped on incams.. its sluggish like old dog..

Noooo, eagle can fly and land without a WING so overstressing it doesn't hurt at all and it has titanium tires. Actually twin seater can split along centerline in midair and in that way you have 2 fully functional half-eagles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_AL-31