jackmckay

I don't remember year of engine production but Su27 has 14500kN engine installed in third millennium. - does anyone knows drag coefficients of booth airframes?

Fixing an overperforming flight model and imposing a damage model is not a high priority. A higher priority is fixing something that could make the Eagle lose. :megalol: Absolutely! Theres some signifficant resemblence between north korea and ED. :megalol:

@OnlyfofDCS Not at all. I'm saying that FMs of FC3 planes should be treated equally on all FC3 planes. Right now Su27 is in high realism mode (engines are still underpowered-period) and others like F15 are in arcade mode(+12G) and that planes are direct opponents, best in class. What will happen to Mig29 if treated same as Su27. Another 'artificially degraded by too much realism in fleet of owerpowered SFM planes' airplane and further polarization between eastern and western forces in game. Mig29 already lost its vital SA scope - tactical display without any RL justified reason and against common design logic. I personally can adopt to any FM and gain high kill/loss ratio in any plane as booth as in Su27 as in F15 and I respect their designers and masterminds behind these ultimate machines and RL performance is not the point here in any fraction of my arguments here. The point is that difference between FC eastern and western DCS planes is way in the favor of western planes and is not even that drastic in RL. Rock solid statement. ED should make some law and order in field of flight dynamics, especially damage and overstress model and treat all planes realism simultaneously. Right now western modules are out of leash and no way close to real life as Su27 is. That makes DCS out of 'fair play'. If any module needs AFM right now that is the F15.

Offcourse, flanker had to be treated that way but f15 not. Why? I don't mind sticking to flight manual limitations as one in mig21 (they are challenging and I like it that way) and if Flanker flies that way in RL its fine by me but right now in MP if in air combat against eagle (or m2k) you have to fly against ufos. That's stupid and away from sport spirit we have right here. Concerning mig29 it had tactical display before and suddenly lost both tactical display and sideways looking IRST. Why? What, the developers were kind of stupid before and suddenly had been enlighted because some classified manuals got up somewhere? Like common logic was not plausible for mig29 as on Su27 even they both use same tactical framework, same equipment and originate from same era. And IRST angle narrowing is also stupid because HMS can tilt sideways but that same equipment in IRST mode can't. How convenient? Will ED find something extra on f15 or other modules and suddenly disable that feature because someone is concerned about overall performance of one specific module extrapolated from RL. This is 'simulator' and it 'simulates' RL right?

Rule of flight. But you missed the point on quote. When did someone had pilot blackout in Su27 last time? Thing just gets broken apart in midair like its Piper Cub. F15 operates in 12g zone repeatedly. In RL one guy did it once to save its ass and plane was written off .. no AFM for F15 any time soon because it perfectly dodges missiles that are already stupid enough to stick to single chaff. Mig29 is next to screw up but as long as it looks better now who cares if it's not SA capable anymore. Lets strip off RWR from F15 then. Not smokey enough for DCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wqBacGjQM

- you have THE privileged arguments by claiming that my arguments are not valid and not explaining one regarding fluid physics. OK lets start with roll rate for a start. Explain why F15 has double roll rate over Su27? I'm suggesting that there should be one physics to rule them all. Basic differences are in Cd, Cl, T/W, RCS/deg etc. Game engine itself should make flight dynamics charts (close to) RL valid without individual tweaking that lasts nx2mw. Of course mig29's MFD is just lifesaving peace of equipment used in case if HUD fuse burns out. Soviets have placed extra display instead of extra fuse - how convenient. 'Expensive waste' that gives pilot valid realtime SA? R77 capability and 2 targets tracking is limited weapons payload? Single target? Can't stop laughing. How about you reading some manuals, comparison charts and using pure deductive logic? I can send you links on many pdf documentation. That's just a nice and good friendly advice. ;)

Aerial Combat Engagement and Performance Rules Omitting in DCS (A.C.E. P.R.O.): In what way are that (official) charts above implemented in DCS and are they valid for booth planes? - They are absolutely denied in DCS because of Su27 artificially degraded (augmented drag etc.) and because F15 module is in SF zone (+12G). Can we determine absolute differences in any chart segment in % between each? - Based on charts above, RL differences are in range of 2-5% in general. In max speed aspect in favor of F15 (supersonic regime), and sustained turn rate and climb in favor of su27 (subsonic regime). Su27 has better T/W ratio too. Is that seen in DSC? - No. It only complies on Su27 (AFM) but poorly simulated, structurally and performance downgraded. Does it make DCS playable (enjoyable) leaving pilot skills and focus essential in aerial combat? - No. Uneven and unfair differences between modules makes F15 (M2K) plane does all the job by itself. Will (AFM) model gonna be implemented in Mig29? - Probably yes. That means Mig29 will suck in future as Su27 too. It has already been unjustifiably left without essential peace of equipment - MFD datalink capability and has fixed IRST (which suddenly becomes sideways movable in HMS mode), given dark smoke trail for easier spotting even RL engine smoking occurs only on RPM change, range excessively shorten..etc. Does DCS have unified physics applicable on all planes evenly? - No. DCS leaves freedom of choice to the outsourced developers without flight performance and RL chars match comparative verification tests. How many FM DCS has? - Now we have SFM, AFM an PFM that all represent different physics approaches instead being models of interaction fidelity giving pilot more insight on systems functionality and detail of operation. More FM models to come as new modules keeps coming. How much DCS is 'Simulator' at current stage of development? - 40% and drooping.

I would like to enlight ED too: http://www.angelfire.com/falcon/fighterplanes/texts/articles/twr.html

And you justify your complete denial of my claims by your own pure RL experience and many accumulated flight hours on every single airframe implemented in DCS and also many more hours spent on wind tunnel tests and design verification? By claiming that general physics incorporating rigid and unified forms of ballistics, kinetics and fluid dynamics (that should be standard for all modules) as tool for verification of module behavior at basic primitive level being primal feature introduced in software that has 'simulator' in name you found obsolete? That's kind of 'arcade game' level. Mig29 has lost its vital feature and whole purpose of MFD that has become SFD (single function display) playing expensive, green colored HUD repeater that would only be useful in case of malfunction of HUD like its gonna fly in between rain of bullets. I first would scraped off that display as unnecessary weight and left if on tarmac. ED forgets that su27 and mig29 used same electronics components that are part of bigger network jacked to EWRs and AWACS grid. Because some ass in developer team said it has only repeater Fulcrum is now 3gen fighter? Get serious.

Mig29 is story for itself but let start with Su27 which is obviously artificially crippled to make game more 'balanced' even its direct western counterparts don't suffer from 'advancements' like AFM and are artificially supercharged and free of special physics modelling like artificial drag augmentation, significantly decreased roll rate, undepowered engines, limited turn rate, nonexistent structural G resistance, augmented fatal sensitivity to any kind of missile/bullet hit, augmented missile drag and deterioration of missile's sensors, guidance and range. Just to add that Soviets obtained Sidewinder that was stuck unexploded in tail section of soviet MiG during Korea war but in DCS they never fail and same replicas used to be part of Mig21 arsenal (R13M1) are way under its original version despite being hardcopied. So A380 'heavy' is closest model to the Flanker as we see today in DCS. Even A-A kill ratio on Su25T is better than one on Su27. So why would anyone in the world wanted AFM for mig29 in this example of 'special' treatment? There's been enough that ED have returned Mig29 in 60' era by limiting MFD datalink feature to HUD repeater only. ED probably rely on western sources of Mig29 documentation obviously missing AWACS support feature that has never been sold to other countries like East Germany or Poland. I don't see the reason why should some planes from FC3 package receive any kind of 'special' flight model except the 'closest to the real' one which would make all planes swim in same sea. This is not the case in DCS because developers are kind of confused what is actually real so they let other outsourced teams make their own 'special' physics that's applicable both on their own airframes and missiles. That means that rules are not the same for everyone so don't be surprised about being disappointed by gradual and subtle stripping of vital components and best features of Su27 as of MiG29 too despite other teams modules already over-the-limit abilities. Guys in ED seems to forget that Flanker is world champion claiming and holding 40+ world records in aeronautical achievement and that MiG29 implements same aeronautical features just limited in scale and range. I used to enjoy booth planes too but just now I'm really dissapointed by DCS in general and lack of it's 'simulation' features. Obviously they think that simulating cockpit look and model and parts animation is enough to call itself Simulator. Ballistics and unified physics behavior model is reserved for some next generations to come. I'm really considering refunding on this deception.

Cmptohocah Great job man. That RWR is useless when using illumination. Can't see a sh_it. As you said its 15 minutes of work but game developers are constantly being deaf to logical requests from users. I think that this issues are not available in ED's real simulator (TBF) and that there things work perfectly.

Let me add you my perspective of how things should work regarding SARH missiles and countermeasures stacking mechanism. In general, having main launch platform onboard radar as missile guiding device using DataLink communication for sending missile guiding instruction data is rock solid solution for target tracking system. The only two ways to deflect missile is missile guidance jamming using ECM or main radar chaff overcluttering. ECM is still in state of questionable functionality and has no or little viable purpose in DCS even it has vital defensive role in case of SARH missile engagement. Referring to target lock acquisition, airborne radar is relatively safe solution for target lock and guidance role for its size and energy available but is naturally prone to RCS confusion. This chaff confusion mechanism is meant to work in that way that every chaff cloud should have its relative RCS and according to chaff cloud overlapping instances along radar beam line countermeasure should be more or less effective. In general this is pure geometrical issue since chaff cloud is spherical object with fixed RCS that looses RCS density by growing in time while it gradually falls from a sky. That means that no host radar should ever lock to single chaff cloud dropped in a line perpendicular to guiding radar beam thus misguiding SARH missile to that object because of single chaff cloud low RCS. This happens regularly in DCS. That could only be true in case of IR missiles and flare as one has higher temperature than non after burning nozzle so its logical for IR missile to follow that countermeasure. In SARH and ARH missile cases chaff cloud stacked along radar beam line should create enough RCS to make homing radar mislead by overcluttering or sticking to fake RCS reflection. Thats how things should work. In DCS countermeasures are still in flare only mode regarding of missile guidance and behavior type.

I respect your opinion and you can always say what you want but it's my everyday experience in MP and many Flanker pilots will come to that conclusion sooner or later. I ain't rookie and being in DCS story from LOMAC age. Well if we stick to R27 part only and its sensor and drag problems and when combined with lagging, over-reaction to minimum amount of countermeasures and refusing to follow locked target, this is just part of bigger picture for which I pulled out all other combat aspects of Flanker. Part in which R27 is just useless missile at this state in (BF) MP and I stand behind this line with my years of MP experience in DCS and personal observation. That doesn't mean it won't be fixed in some point of time. I sure hope it will but right now its very broken and with it is the rest of Flanker too.

This makes a lot of sence. I would add to that regarding aggregated artificial drag coef.(Cd) the problem is very obvious on Su27 for the reason of having 10 missiles comparing to the 4 that m2k carries. Thats why m2k can accelerate faster and it seems that it's missiles aren't affected by this artificial Cd and that's why Flanker bleeds energy so fast as it feels like flying with drag chute constantly opened. Eagle has many missiles too but combat performance of AIM7 is way better than R27R and it can relock target easily compared to R27 if at all. One thing is also very strange refering to Flanker - it still has problems with FCS and 'free' mode because its wings still snaps easily even clean and with less of 2T of fuel left and now rudder fails too so there's no way of using it's famous combat manouverability in dodging missiles. We add high fatality of every single missile hit (even stinger) and I can only (but hate to) conclude that someone in ED is core Flanker hater. What else? There is no more (any) traces of G in it's Greatness and we all know Flanker is real-life performance champion. R27 story is just last nail in it's coffin. I ask why and whats the point of all that?

Well, whole DCS comunity has most powerfull rigs on planet and if we could interconnect to the grid we could make CFD runs as smooth as butter and over in a days at acceptable level of details. BTW OpenFoam is free.

Hi all. I haven't read all the comments but topic is right on bulls eye. I'm constantly flying on Su27 in the MP and most of time in BF and I'll try to explain my POV on real MP situation. Since M2K was introduced things got kind of strange. First, m2k FM was so overrated in that way that was given 'god mode' in all combat aspects regarding acceleration, turn rate, missile effectiveness etc. That's fine for rookies but not real. So it took some time for pilots to master m2k. And they outperformed all other and even dethroned mighty eagle. So developers degraded m2k a little bit. So it's now like 'fixed' (but ain't). Story comes to interesting part regarding R27s and I'm referring strictly to MP like my BF case. If you're lucky to find hot CAP fighter on radar (even if you see it visually and point radar at exact elevation, changing modes and modifying range - you won't lock it closer than 40-50km), being solid locked target unlocks and disappears without obvious reason (even in MED mode) and then you have problem finding it again (VS mode locks it again but isn't it little bit too late for SARH now) so this is No1 downgrade of Flanker - bad sensors modeling. Next, you're being fired on with some high-g missiles like AIM7s, that's fine but even if I fired my R27s (E and T) and deflect in moderate(!) maneuvers I can't deplete AIM7s energy because it flies like on rails and my chaffs are useless in 99% of time, but my energy bleeds so fast that after few moderately aggressive maneuvers I become siting duck flying 600kmh struggling to accelerate again even Flanker has 24T of thrust available. Raw physics says that it is harder to stop heavy object than light one in same density medium and we know that Flanker is really HEAVY plane. So this is No2 downgrade of Flanker - bad energy preservation. The only thing that helps against western missiles is hiding behind hill and breaking the lock (m2k missiles are kind of unrealistic super ramjet so this won't be enough in many cases), even 3-5 secs after being hidden behind hill my RWR is still red hot. not big deal but kind of odd because you're not sure if you have enemy lock still on. But this is interesting. You have M2k or F15 in pursuit and locked, good attack aspect and in good firing range, and it's flying steady, as soon as you fire missile (any) target starts lagging and your missiles miss (my ping is 50-90) but even if target is not lagging and is chaffing and flaring in 90% of cases 27s miss. The only missile that hits is 73 but only in 20% of cases. So this is Flanker downgrade No3 - extremely unreliable missiles. I had a case of chasing a single enemy and firing all 10 missiles and none hits because of whole arsenal over sensitivity to countermeasures and lag. This renders Flankers completely underrated and ineffective fighter plane even it's engines are the most powerful jet engines in game, flight model extremely maneuverable and also R27s have the largest flight command surfaces. I have done some tests too and I found that that most problems come from missiles kinetics when attached on plane (and when airborne too) because they drain energy too fast and when equipped it feels like having enormous parasite drag. It's very odd especially if you find that effectiveness of R27s in MP is like 5%. It feels like Flanker is equipped with firework rockets. My opinion is that performance of eastern technology is severely underrated and effectiveness of western planes and especially missiles is in great advantage because of all this mentioned above. The proof case is M2k story. Is that real? Below are two charts and one max acceleration test (clean). PS. Viggen is on steroids :).

1: altitude contrail - if planes engine doesn't contrail then missile engine shouldn't too. Look at that on specific video. 2: missile smoke - solid propellant rocket engine is specific chemical reaction process and product of burning is trail of reacted solid particles left behind rocked engine flight path regardless of being smoke or smoke-less type. These particles in humid air act as could seeders so trail visibility greatly depends on air humidity(besides temperature) which is ( I presume) not simulated in DCS. 3: missile performance - every missile even at terminal glide phase performs series of aerodynamic maneuvers and each high speed/high G turn should produce missile's wingtip vertices and mist similar as high speed turn does on plane wings. :: Conclusion: Missiles should have trails especially if they perform hard maneuvers; atmosphere property greatly influences trail visibility as one can't be invisible in any circumstance.

Is there any effort regarding ED team to advance terrain generation and mapping as in example: http://www.outerra.com/procedural/demo.html. Other sims are already implementing this feature in game engines. Another question: Is there any way to vary tree height according to base elevation. Could there be some way to add forestation layer random height bias?

Procedural terrain in DCS? Is there any effort regarding ED team to advance terrain generation and mapping as in example: http://www.outerra.com/procedural/demo.html. Other sims are already implementing this feature in game engines. Another question: Is there any way to vary tree height according to base elevation. Could there be some way to add forestation layer random height bias?

Finally :thumbup: I'll drink in that name! :drunk: (Russian style)

Darkfire, thank you for doing actual tests in game. I appreciate that regarding of outcome. :thumbup: Other important issue regarding damage model of A side top class fighter in DCS is lack of same feature implemented on B side top class fighter as ostensibly equivalent opponent. That should be at least minimum fair enough to keep people not giving up of DCS experience because of this situation. :bye_2: From my point of knowledge in aerospace design philosophy I can state next: Sukhoi utilizes blended fuselage wing concept also known as blended body in not so radical phase though. Anyway lift force fraction generated by fuselage is quite large and there is no actual accessible data proving amount of overall lift fraction generated by fuselage itself. This means that we do not know how stressed wings actually are in tight turns without testing that at least virtually. I mentioned early that Sukhoi philosophy regarding plane operational demands implements minimal field maintenance and that means higher safety standard than western counterparts. I said previously that by my personal experience in mechanical engineering Russian aerospace FOS is around 2.5 in global but depending on structure element it could be as high as 5. Pure example of wing strength of Su-27 is executing Cobra maneuver at 500+km/h in AoA of 90deg. This same maneuver stresses the wing extreme high up to the limit of elastic deformation and this maneuver could be done without permanent damage to plane's structure repeatedly. Wing failure expected by accumulating stress is kind of resistance to fatigue test and should be properly done by continuous high load cycles during prolonged period of time but since in DCS we take fresh factory rolled planes every time it is very unlikely that new plane will develop lower fatigue resistance. Overloading structure up to point of wing break should always befall after 12G because this G-load is G-LOC limit for even the best and the most G-resistant pilots. It's very hard to break the wing of a modern fighter and first one to break is the pilot itself. If some people don't know how planes fly they should just imagine giant vacuum cleaner on top of plane's upper surface and that means that plane actually hangs on low pressure air bubble that is controlled by airspeed. It there are no extreme differences in pressure gradient on top surface regions of plane lift surfaces there could be no high shear stress generated load on plane structure and everything is in fine balance and compensating various types of loads, even rotational inertia and inertial couplings of various components that have resistance to directional vector change, because everything is rigidly tested and every behavior is predicted. Flight manuals are written for pilots to protect pilots from damaging own health primarily, then for long operational use and safety of structure itself as is inspected by maintenance crew on ground. No air force in world will ever allow top fighter of that performance as Su-27 to ever enter it's operational service with design feature of brittle wings before breaking the pilot first in any circumstances. That just won't pass for this type of airplane. ... I'll keep digging for actual test data of Su-27 family wing to find exact point of wing break... :pilotfly:

Its actually same factory. But you're right, best example would be if we could have wing breaking point data from real wing test committed at TsAGI institute. I asked them but yet no reply.

Su-26 FOS 1,875 (12G) ..if design G limit was 9 then FOS would be 2,5. Russians have higher factor of safety as seen on this example. I'll look for more and paste here.

Quote from Sukhoi Company regarding high performance airplane (not-Su27 though): ..In static tests the airframe reached a breaking point under a load of 22.5g. The aeroplane's aerodynamic performance does not make it possible to achieve more than 18g in flight. The operational 12g limit imposed is due to human physiological capabilities. End of Quote.

I completely agree. Its a speculation based on MY feeling accumulated over some time spent in DCS community. I have legit right on that. @probad this tread is seen by 7k people now. People still read it.