Maverick Su-35S

Coming up with new payware products is always more appealing than fixing/correcting problems left behind that should be ignored! And after the new stuff comes up, the excuse of not having time (interest) in fixing old issues grows ever more!

Take a look at this new one regarding the LLTV this time: And the Sun is in front of the plane! If not a bug, what then?

It's not real. Simple as that. Indeed in our sim we can't have a brake axis so to apply full braking in 0.1 seconds if needed as it probably is possible in reality, but I've just done a test for this purpose only and compared the constant maximum achieved braking deceleration of the DCS Su-25T with that from the real footage and in DCS it decelerates at a noticeable lower rate. But braking is not the only problem and I've addressed the second problem regarding the extremely fragile nose steering (and all sorts of apparently zero knowledge grinning tried to ridicule me about it) which easily breaks if you go over the grass or at the smallest bumb possible and also the main gear is a bit too sensitive and it can bend from forces as low as just from exiting a turn on the tarmac and the gear that starts getting compressed after finishing the turn gets bend...! This is absolutely ridiculous and I'll bring a track here to prove both once again. Hopefully, they'll try making it a bit more resistant as it should. Su-25s are made to takeoff and also land on rough grass terrains and not break. Also, if you look at the design of the Su-25s main landing gear you'll see it's similarity to that of an F-18 (and we know how tough that is as it can land with 4 fuel tanks and other weapons on the wings on the runway like on the carrier and have no damage to the gear). It's a very "shock absorbing" gear and it's also meant to have the Su-25 land on a carrier. Yes, there was once an incident with a gear collapsing on an Su-25 on a carrier. Design is one thing..., maintenance is something totally different!

Hi, Just a tip: From around 15km/h (what I'd estimate) it stopped in 2.2 seconds (probably at grip limit). That means it had ~0.8Gs of deceleration. Can the braking force on the wheels of the Su-25s in DCS, please be increased to more realistic levels? The braking system should have enough authority to lock the wheels. Those are not bicycle brakes. At the same time, the nose gear steering is so extremely fragile that even small bumps can break it. The real airplane's landing gear was built to be tough!

Although me and others have been trying to point out with many occasions on how easy it actually is even for fighter aircraft, not just grass takeoff dedicated aircraft, to drive over dry earth/grass and not have it get stuck in it in absurd ways or having an infinite grip when turning on it. Getting stuck is one thing, but having an infinite grip is more than annoying and ridiculous as it makes it very hard to takeoff or land if you happen to have the slightest slip angle during touchdown. You'll get a 180 roll flip in instant. No matter if we talk about wet or dry grass/earh..., the grip of it should be at least 3 times lower than that of tarmac. This isn't from my perspective, but from plenty of available scientific data findable on the internet. Not even the relatively poor thrust to weight ratio C-5 Galaxy gets defeated by "a quite wet" deep mud as real tests can show. Not to mention dry earth or grass, which would give a many times more reduced ground friction. Even the worst conditions prove a good advantage to the aircraft. When are we going to see such corrections in DCS? At least and most important is to give the grass/earth surface versus rubber tire a more reduced grip than that of the tarmac. For belly landing, such as metal versus grass/earth, yes..., the grip is higher in reality, but not for tires. Here are some references..., again: Later down this video, even Su-25s, L-39s and IL-78s didn't get stuck anywhere outside of the tarmac (which we get in DCS): I'm all for improvements, if they are of interest, NOT for mockery (which I get instead for trying to help correct things out) or unreasonable criticism! I just wanna make things get better, not worse (which is actually the goal of some around)!

I'd come with a better advise! Just pull 7.9Gs and keep it there no matter the short coming effects that will quickly go away and you'll find this the most effective way of both warming up and keeping a combat advantage by not needing to reduce that G. Tweaks, corrections in numbers..., that's all DCS needs almost all around. Cause most of the effects generated in this sim are a must/need for better overall experience and simulation but inputting the correct numbers (not exaggerated to any side) is more important than adding the effect. Just saying...!

From all that you've put so much effort in presenting here, can you show us how close is DCS to this...? Everyone can test what's actually "simulated"! If not "warmed" up, if you start pulling 9G (with the onset you get on the instantly deflecting flight controls simulated for DCS FC3 F-15C) and hold it there, the simulated pilot blacks out uncontrollably in only 6 seconds as if he would "not expect" to do maneuver. If you "warm" up the simulated pilot, under the same conditions, he blacks out in 11..12 seconds, but if you go to 7.9..8G (no matter how fast or slow) and keep 7.9 to 8G, although the screen may initially become full black, the simulated pilot never actually blacks out, he's full in control and after a couple of seconds the screen comes lighting slower and slower up to a very good amount and you can circle at that G forever. At 8G, not "warmed up" you fly forever and "warm through", but at 9G, "warmed up", you are 100% dead in 12 seconds because with the newest updates and "corrections", when the pilot faints, he gets a miracle power and starts pulling the stick better than ever, not slipping it out of his hand or at least release all the pressure on it as it would normally happen! Hasn't anyone tested that except me? A real trained pilot is suppose to never black out (that's too much already), but mostly get some gray out or green vision in no less than 15 seconds, indeed with a G-suit on, but on a vertical G testing chair (no reduction on the vertical distance between head and toes or on the unwanted effect). You can never get to that even in the F-16C in DCS which simulates the same G effect as all other fighter jets.

So you're referring to a bug or something, not like as if you want a dead/destroyed ship which doesn't take damage anymore, to physically disappear! I was afraid you were asking for some absurdity to be implemented. The bugs and stuff that doesn't make sense should be treated though, such as what you saw about the trains sinking their axles here in there on the map, but that's probably a less important detail that they must fix. There are more important simulation issues like flight models (that I'm personally obsessed to have corrected) and other obvious simulation versus real world concerns that are still waiting a solve, so only time and effort will tell!

Exactly..., let's hope it won't lead to that worse direction, because I don't know if anyone here has thought about (maybe it had, I didn't read all of the replies here) pointing out that the range of the S530 missile is limited to an operational range of 50kms to a head on target for a given launch speed and altitude of the shooter and target simply because after X SECONDS the seeker loses target (either a SARH signal loss high probability or simply the seeker battery dies) and that's why it is only limited to that distance and NOT because it can't physically fly or keep the interception on the target beyond that range as if the drag would be that high that it can't reach further than that! Not few were the cases when during tests, the missile would keep flying with still acceptable speed/Mach remaining on it's trajectory very much far ahead of its "operational range". So yeah, if it COULD actually keep tracking it's target as far as it's aerodynamics allow to keep up with it, it would definitely do so! Speaking of witch..., the thing is that even after the latest aero corrections updates (at least 1 or 2 years ago I suppose), most if not all of the AA missiles are still suffering from higher than expected drag in the low angles of attack area (0 to 5 AoA) while at high AoAs the drag is actually too low and the missile keeps it's speed in very tight turn like it's a glider. A simple and irrefutable proof to the too high drag at low AoAs can be shown in the following track where a draggy loaded J-11A while flying with engines shut down and with the airbrake fully deployed is still decelerating at a lower rate than a R-27 or R-77 (for the R-73 and R-60 it is much worse as those missiles are like airbrakes in the air after engine burn, even when flying at 0 AoA). R-27 & R-77 too high drag.trk

He wants more...!

Maybe I don't understand it, but do you want the ships to physically disappear once they are simulated as dead? I mean don't you want it to stay there like in reality if the water is shallow enough to not have it sink very much? Why would you look for an unreal world? After you know it's dead then why would it bother you if it just sits there? Doesn't make much sense other than trying to distort reality in order to make it lower skill easier and physically see only the ships that are still active.

A pay to win legacy can make it possible!

Yes, but the difference is very low and yet for the worse in terms of maximum AB thrust! Verify it yourself! The early yet afterburner problematic -100 produced some 200+lbf compared to the later overhauled 220. o7

Exactly man! Although you didn't get into details as I will right now in order to convince the following quoted negativist that you are not wrong when comparing the F-15 without LE devices with other modern jet fighter which have that and the answer is pretty simple although I must detail it for the sake of correct understanding! When extended, the effects of leading edge devices (slats, krueger and droops) are as follows: 1. Increase the critical AoA by having the airflow gain a greater kinetic energy (take it as inertia) over the low pressure area of the wing (normally the upper side for conventional LE devices) and get prone to deceleration and subsequent flow reversal/separation at a higher AoA. This can be seen as a prolonged lift slope before the stall AoA is reached, but the lift slope also finds an amount of increase (CL to AoA derivative slightly increases). 2. The CD vs AoA curve will have greater drag coefficients throughout the AoA range but the most pronounced increase takes place as the AoA gets closer to zero and negative as premature stalls will start to develop on the lower side of the leading edge device before the airflow meets the lower side on the leading edge of the wing. An undesired recirculation area develops between the leading edge device and leading edge of the wing either at the slot (for slats) or at the hinge (for droops) at low AoAs and high leading edge devices deflections. For this reason the leading edge devices control system is designed to follow a deflection versus AoA law in order to achieve the best lift to drag ratio at every given AoA. Although both the lift slope and drag curve increase with AoA (the drag increase being more pronounced at lower AoA as I repeat), the lift increase percentage becomes higher than the drag increase percentage at AoAs anywhere usually higher than 40% the critical AoA and all the way up to critical. So from 0.4 to 1.0 times the stall AoA, the L/D ratio actually has an relative increase compared to a wing without leading edge devices present or extended. Now, yes, the slats will give the highest increase in both lift slope, critical AoA increase and lift to drag increase and, while the simple droops will give a smaller increase, but it's there. Due to the increase in L/D ratio, the airplane equipped with such devices will always have a better constant turn rate compared to the same aircraft without them or having them retracted as even 1,2..3 degrees per second of constant turn rate difference can be achieved depending on devices. The increase in critical AoA will otherwise greatly impact the difference in ITR even by almost double. Speaking of top speed though, there is available documentation regarding the F-86 Sabre with leading edge devices versions and without them. The LE devices versions were more capable in turning performances as well as taking off and landing behavior and also performances, but the versions without LE devices proved to have slightly better acceleration and top speed. The same goes for the F-4 Phantom where the non slatted versions exhibited lower critical AoAs as well as a feared and almost unannounced (little to no symptoms) wing stall and subsequent "nose slice" phenomena which was basically a violent uncommanded and unable to counter yaw generated mostly by the nose of the F-4 as the vertical tail had less effectiveness (along with the rudder) which rapidly reduced the directional static stability (up to becoming directionally unstable), hence the subsequent yawing moment. The non-slatted version, like the F-86, benefited from a higher top speed and a somewhat better longitudinal acceleration. As Jackmckay said, the F-15 was purposely made without LE devices (learned from the F-4) in order to have a much cleaner and smoother leading edge, thus benefiting from a given amount of drag coef reduction especially at low AoA. The leading edge devices, no matter how well the technology has evolved, will always generate an uneven contour where the device meets the wing in the retracted position. That small bump that the air finds in it's path is still enough to create some unwanted pressure waves which create a drag coef increase at all flight regimes. What the man obviously wanted to compare to the conventional F-15 was not an F-86 without LE devices as you might want to say..., cause yes, the F-86F-30 which doesn't have them actually might get a better constant turn rate against a LE devices equipped M-2000 or F-18E or MIG-29 due to the combination of very low wing loading combined with a good lift to drag ratio and good enough thrust to drag ratio in the same equation, but a normal F-15C without LE devices as he strictly referred to will indeed never prove the performances of a modern jet fighter (not F-86F-30) in terms of turning capability (rates and turning radius). The M-2000 has a maximum lift coefficient increase of about 70% over Mirage III (which had about 0.75 as a maximum lift coef after all). Regards! I can see you're happy playing LoL type games that may only fit your character...! Why bother trolling on a flight sim forum them?

Now, I only want to get back to our general but duplicated subject (F-15, then back to the Su-27 regarding lift perforamnces), cause I'm not hear for low minded polemics but to discuss stuff at a higher level and won't stop until I can convince you that the unmodified F-15C/A's maximum airframe's lift (not lift generated by engines thrust) coefficient is around 1.2 at low Mach and nowhere near as high as 1.6. I wish it could be that high, but the known physics can't allow it. The same issue I've raised about the M-2000 as well and some progress was done in the right direction but only half-way. The Su-27 has abnormal center of mass shifts aft and forward at various fuel %. For this reason only SOMETIMES the DCS Su-27 has close to areal Su-27 turning and attainable AoA performances, but most times it has them far lower. The negative Cm (pitching moment coefficient) range of the Su-27 in DCS anywhere between around -20 and -60 AoA is too high. Again, someone will say: NOOOOOOO, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, NEVER COMPARE ONE PLANE WITH ANOTHER, NOOOO NOOOOOOOOOOOO and stuff like that! Well guess what? I'm going to do exactly that without the "feeling" and "thinking" of some that it is unprofessional or not coming from an AE's point of view. The comparison to KNOWN things is A RELIABLE REFERENCE AND BENCHMARK for anyone with good logic and common sense when they need to see how far off or close to something normal one thing would be, and even for an engineer who just won't take things for granted, it's still a good practice to try to compare one thing with something similar or close to it in order to see how things are going! That is of course not the regular way to do it, but when you lack data for subject A while subject B should be similar, you can take it as an alternative to see the big picture, NOT to use it as an identical reference, but something which should be close! I don't take things for granted as well (despite some who have their own beliefs about me), so no, when I make a comparison I don't throw it without thinking enough of it first! The F-16 which has at least as great aerodynamic and static instability in pitch which compared to the Su-27, happened with some occasions in real life to depart in pitch either towards high positive or negative AoA above stall limits (YouTube is again a very reliable and good asset of information, whatever some narrow minded won't accept) and always came back below the airflow reattachment AoA (must mention that physically the AoA required to reattach the airflow over the low pressure area, the AoA must go well below the stall AoA, so getting to just 0.5 degrees lower than the stall AoA won't be enough to get rid of the stall) without much pitch dance effort. The same goes for the F-18. The same goes for the MIG-29, both in reality as well as they are currently modeled in DCS for this aspect alone. These are all fine and don't inexplicably remain stuck at some negative AoA when the elevators are deflected fully negative (that means full pitch up deflection). What in the world is going on with the DCS Su-27 that besides the abnormal forward CG shifts at various fuel percentages which makes it abnormally stable in pitch at positive AoAs, even with that abnormal forward CG if you ever go beyond -20 AoA the plane starts pitching down like crazy as if the whole horizontal empennage disappears (I exaggerate) or it's lift becomes close to zero all the way up to some -50 or -60 AoA where things kind of get back to normal. When the CG is where it should and the Su-27 can reach some higher positive AoA (yet still not as high as the real thing), it becomes virtually impossible to bring it back from -50 AoA without dozens of pitch up/down dances. Also ED's DCS F-18C has a bad habit to go and stay an in inverted deep stall like a big coil spring is pulling and keeping it at some high negative AoA whenever you have the flaps out and also happen to push the stick beyond a low negative AoA. The Cm in the aerodynamic center gets too much negative on the F-18 with flaps out. For this reason when taking off with it, even at full aft stick, you will barely lift the nose wheel off the ground cause the whole plane already lifts off at quite an abnormally high speed. You can't lift the nose wheel up as soon as for any regular jet fighter by far! Mover (a guy invited to try the DCS F-18) should be a good source of telling this, not me, I only "feel" and "I think" and I'm the most unreliable source of info or opinion when it comes to noticing something abnormal, but at least you should ask him! Simply you can't reach the real AoA in the DCS F-18 with flaps out. Simply the flaps on the DCS F-18 create an exaggerated pitch down moment. Yeah, I know I started taking a corner to talk about other important jet fighters FM issues which otherwise must be related separately, but I just wanted to remind them.

Thank you for your unbuyable sarcasm! I don't posses some special abilities, you guys that I contradict with on the other hand prove lower than expected abilities it seems! Bad luck to you or who else thinks that I'll corrupt my character as a trade for letting myself be heard! Yes, I'm quick to counter someone missing or understanding something and you can also be sure that I won't let mockery related to me or anyone else who proves to have a decent/mature discussion get away easily. I respect you exactly the way you respect me. You can see my actions as a reflection of yours. I don't give up fighting back. This is me..., sorry!

Why had my last message replying with some good data and personal proof (degree in aerospace engineering) to what you've nicely provided in this list got deleted...? There was the exact graph that someone else has also posted regarding the F-15's turning performance and guess what, it's like "in your face..." proof that the DCS F-15 is overperforming at turn rates in DCS! And I've also got a warning about "classified info" but someone else also posted it and didn't get the same "punishment". What is it that is tried to be accomplished in this manner? Here are the links to those data again...! It's irrefutable on the internet, I couldn't make up those charts! Now I kindly ask "BIGNEWY" to take away that penalty on me as this data is "VERIFIABLE" in it's all sense. This is becoming ridiculous folks! My regards!

He probably has fun telling the truth! Did you actually read what that man said?

Jx coef in HUD for determining acceleration? That means you consider the thrust minus drag? What if the drag is also too high? If you'd want to analyze the "static thrust" parameter alone in a sim to not be affected by drag you'd really want to know your exact weight, start a climb from as close to sea level as possible at critical AoA (for lowest radius) and go perfectly into the vertical at zero G while reducing thrust to idle to not climb too much from sea level altitudes then go to full AB such that when it comes on your airspeed will be close to zero (get used to do it right) so that you could simulate a static thrust on the plane and if you have set a plane weight which matches the engines thrust, then you should be having the plane's X acceleration close to zero. The weight force is your engines thrust. Tweak the weight of the plane and redo the test until it equals the max AB thrust into the vertical near zero airspeed close to sea level. Now..., you don't know how to calculate a lift coefficient based on the lift formula? Here is how: (Weight * lift axis G load) / (0.5 * velocity^2 * ref. area). Do that using actual sim data and you'll get around 1.65 and at lower speed even more than 1.75. It's not my words, it's the numbers, go check them out. Here are 2 good fresh tracks: 1.65 for DCS M-2000 CL max not 1.4, not a realistic 1.3.acmi DCS M-2000 maximum lift coef of 1.65.trk Regards!

Can't you read the title? And also can't you see the edges of the airframe? The Su-35 has a modified airframe also. This is a Su-27 with no thrust vectoring man and this is angle of attack it can reach, well above 100 degrees AoA even if the pitch attitude goes some 20 more degrees over vertical due to inertia and the plane slowly finds a climb and overall the AoA reaches easily more than 100 degrees if not 110. Due to the whole and long discussion which sadly appears to be useless, not because I couldn't provide enough starting evidence, but because people just don't want to accept the fact that something is indeed in need of fixing and correcting. I trust that Yo-Yo, a man that I've had lots of overall constructive technical conversations will find the time to actually look into this manner. If not him then someone else who eventually accepts that things can be changed for the better of this airplane's simulation and any other around which has solvable (it only depends on wanting to solve them) FM problems.

Why are you trying to say things that I didn't say? I've only shared a youtube video (what else better proof can you get other than a video which provides quite very accurate data for our discussion) and because you can't deny that what I say is true, you try to put words into my mouth! Is this the way you deal with others as well? When you can't answer, you try to unfairly put words in their mouth? When did I say "feelings"?

That 1.6 CL max of the Eagle is not aerodynamically generated by the airframe alone. Perhaps you weren't (and hopefully not still be) aware that the value of 1.6 is due to the engines thrust at the test AoA. Substract the lift generated by the engines and you'll get roughly 1.2 as a maximum lift coefficient on the Eagle at the real stall AoA of around 20..21 degrees. Is there anyone who can ask an actual F-15 pilot to try and give us just a simple data, such as a picture of the HUD when turning at critical AoA (he must ride it and know it for sure) to see the actual IAS or CAS (we can do the corrections easy), actual fuel status (to correctly determine the weight) and G-load. This is all we need to get the maximum lift coefficient (the weight, an indicated speed reference and actual G-load). THAT'S IT..., that simple, but no one was ever able to do that yet?

You can believe what you like, yet be very wrong! Now, getting back to the main subject, doing more correct research of data is the first key to successfully correct what is to be corrected in the FMs and it's doable. Only the negative attitude persons don't want that!

Well..., and if they only want to believe in CFD alone and are very convinced that what they get from it is accurate, why not use the "same hired guy" to work on other defective FMs or actual fixed wing aircraft? Look..., I know I'm being highly targeted for daring to say "defective FMs", but this is the truth. It's not a crime to have it that way. Nothing is 100% accurate in simulations, but for a sim bragging about itself, it should be at least some 90% and sadly only some FMs are well above that, while some, without any exaggeration are well below 60%. If we want to be good we can be, otherwise it's very easy for anyone to turn bad! A bit upset, aren't you...?! Just look behind bro..., the "PROOF" that you want doesn't come from those who you copy the same words from, but from what I've provided in the beginning! What is so hard to just go at the initial pages where most of the discussion wasn't off topic?

Sorry to ask and answer to your off-topic statement, but what do you have anyway? I have finished the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering in 2013 and two years later I also had my Master's degree specialized in flight dynamics. In the near future (if time will allow) I'll continue through Phd regarding the implications of high energy vortices (such as those generated from LERXs). This is the truth about myself. Do you want the proof of what I've said? No problem, I'll share the phone number and whatever info you and anyone else might want in order to confirm where I worked in 2015 and what specialization. I don't like going off-topic for something like this, but you're the one asking for it! I only want to discuss about unsolved problems which I only hope that one day someone will take care of and solve them and want to do it like anyone else would correctly want to do it, which is... in a professional manner as much as possible. I totally agree with you bro..., looks like we think the same way though for whatever reason we seem to be on opposite sides. How much is there needed for what we've already discussed? I mean..., is it that a zero proof? You want to say that all the effort that I've put along with "jackmckay" is zero? If you say that, then the problem is totally different from trying to solve things, but a proof that you actually don't want to recognize the problem, which is far off from what I can do!