Maverick Su-35S

Good job!:thumbup: Long been waiting for those fixes!

I agree that flare and design types as well as the target's thermal dynamics widely affect the probability of loosing seeker track on the target, yet now I learn that AB won't mean too much difference and by what you say modern IR missiles use target shape comparison and other techniques to not loose target tracking. I have to admit that I don't know much about modern Chapparal, Avenger and newer manpad missile seekers and their tracking capabilities against different types of countermeasures, so the truth may lie somewhere in the middle of what I've said/thought and what the sim shows or maybe I'm not correct at all and the sim is actually much closer than what I suspect, but there's always a sense of doubt that I have to deal with! Thank you for picturing/clarifying things better, I was looking only at one or tow aspects when in fact there are indeed dozens which affect the final result, yet we hope that at least what can be done (what the simulator is capable of computing) will be done giving the real life information.

Hi, It's a very well known fact that the higher the output power (for props) or thrust (jet engines) always produce higher exhaust temperatures and thus a more intense IR signal. Although in reality the function (curve) between developed thrust, fuel flow rate and exhaust shapes which affect the infra red signature depends in a non-linear mode, in our DCS even if a linear function (gross) of output engine thrust alone (the fuel flow rate and exhaust shape being neglected) would make it brilliant in comparison to what it is right at this moment. I've tested that no matter if my plane's engines are in full afterburner or completely shut down (well before an IR missile is fired, so the engines are cold enough), the enemy IR missile will only be confused by flares alone. The DIRCM seems to do nothing or I hardly see it being modeled, while the IR missile is fired at my plane and chases it while the engines are completely shut down like if they were in full afterburner. My conclusion is that the IR spectrum has been very simplified in DCS, or to say, it sees all air targets no matter their engine thrust in the same way as vehicles on ground and the IR missile can home in on anything as long as it's alive and will only lose signal on flares or when being pointed at the Sun and nothing else. Will we see IR missiles and/or IR homing capabilities depend on more than just flares and Sun into the near future? A simple linear function of the targets engines thrust (in pounds or whatever) versus output IR signature can be a strong enough key to successfully have DCS aircraft evade an IR missile easier by throttling engines to idle and very difficult to do so with afterburners lit. Is it so hard to program such a think? Best wishes, Mav.

Ok but you said "OR", which led to the conclusion that it's either the speed or the AoA which causes flameout: "I can't sustain flight with pegged AOA any longer (not for long that is), the aircraft bleeds off speed or the engine flames out." For a bit of moment I was confused and I forgot that I also couldn't make it flameout due to high AoA only, but sorry, I got mislead to think that the engine also stalls due to high AoA when I replied. Indeed it doesn't flameout in the sim for any other reason than just the IAS going below a given value, but there's still a problem though! Why would it flameout when the IAS goes below "X" value when in midair, no matter the AoA (be it high or close to zero), if on the ground it doesn't flameout even at 0 IAS? What's the difference? If you know the reason why this happens, we would appreciate to know! Even with coordinated rudder to control your AoA the way you like can't beat the crude relationship between inertia and the aerodynamic reactive forces which cause the problem I refer to. The plane is still too sluggish in roll response, period. Over 600km/h? Well yes, the faster you go the less the difference between reality and the sim will get, that's very logic as the aerodynamic rolling forces/moments would be much greater than the rolling inertia, but that's not the correct way to determine the difference, right? Or are you just turning away from the facts that make you see the truth. That Lancer you saw doing that takeoff roll was done at no more than 500 km/h, 450 I'd say if you'd take into account that at 400 it lifts off and the pilot didn't allow it to accelerate quite much as he immediately pulled some good AoA climbing just prior to the roll, so he wasn't even at 500 km/h yet, but the rolling inertia is clearly very low in comparison to the aerodynamic rolling moment generated with full aileron deflection. The Lancer reacted quite similar to an F-16 in roll response. But our MIG-21 in DCS at 450 or 500km/h is nowhere near that. It accelerates in roll very slowly which proves that it either has too high moments of inertia in roll or simply the simulated aerodynamic rolling moment isn't high enough to be realistic. Also the maximum roll rate of the MIG-21 in DCS isn't as high as it possibly should, but maybe let's say the aileron's deflection is limited on the BIS at higher speed if that would be the case, cause if not it would mean that the variation of aerodynamic lifting forces between the wings due to aileron deflection isn't within an acceptable margin of realism. Sadly, the DCS's recorded track replays tell a whole different story and don't match what you've actually done during gameplay, so I can't provide an authentic track file here where a correct roll response comparison can take place between DCS's MIG-21 and reality's MIG-21 to make it more clear that the difference is huge, but if someone tries to replicate in the sim what is in the video can see the difference for himself with no further arguments needed. All the best!

The rolling inertia seems quite high in relation to the aerodynamic forces which generate rolling moments for a given AoA, IAS and ailerons deflection. From my perspective, the rolling response time seems like almost twice higher than the real one. Why do you find it feeling good? You maybe like it, but it's far from real. Just visually compare (it's roughly enough anyway) the rolling response and rolling acceleration due t inertia of the MIG-21 flown by a real pilot in similar conditions as in DCS, and you'll understand that either the rolling moment of inertia of the MIG-21 in DCS is too high or simply the variation of lifting forces between the wings as the ailerons are deflected, is too low, because in DCS the 21 is too sluggish in roll response even at low AoA for a comparably high airspeed. Next are some real life videos that can give you a clue of how long it takes for the MIG-21 to reach full roll rate from zero. It takes at least twice as much time for the MIG-21 in DCS to get from zero to maximum roll rate for the same flying conditions. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-cEdwgYdAw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgkfSefPAjE I believe that the relation/ratio between rolling moment of inertia and rolling aerodynamic moments at a given IAS still isn't correct and still needs improvement, next to other issues this plane has at the moment. I don't want to sound bad or full of criticism, but almost always the truth hurts and I simply won't feel satisfied until it's finally done well (at least 90-95% of the real jet, 5-10% error). About the engine stalls at high AoA, I find it exaggerated as well! The real aircraft which was secretly tested by the Americans at Nevada never had an engine stall and they tried the best they could to make the engine flame out like their fighters at the time were encountering, but the MIG's engine simply didn't..., and that was not the BIS but an older variant of MIG-21, so how can the BIS in DCS flame out such easily if it's not intended just to make it look interesting? I don't find it right, but exaggerated to make some people think it's realistic.

You're right, the real AoA isn't going beyond 15 deg. for the MIG-21 which is not realistic, as even straight winged aircraft like the A-10 or Su-25 or L-39 can reach between 16 to 18 deg of critical AoA (before stall). The mig-21 should get decently to around 20 deg AoA before aerodynamics stall, but the devs must re-tweak it for that to happen. The 28-30 AoA indicated in the cockpit now corresponds to only 15 real AoA, but should correspond to 20+.

I hope they won't forget about the MIG-21's flight model and let it go on like this, because there are very important things regarding the simulation of the real plane's performance (which for now is too high in terms of lifting forces alone) and the ability to simulate an authentic dogfight with another jet. There's another thread regarding the MIG-21 flying at quite negative AoA in supersonic. Not even the in-game tested F-15 or Su-27 can do such thing, planes which have a lower wing loading than the MIG-21. There's still quite a lot of work from LN to get the MIG-21's FM reach ED's standards, from my point of view and I can only wish them what is best in order to finally achieve it. I don't want to look impatient, but I suppose that what anyone else wouldn't like to see, is that unfinished stuff would remain unfinished or get forgotten!

Is the issue regarding the lift produced by the MIG-21 at all angles of attack resolved? That would be great, cause nothing was solved for at least 2 years!

Returning to the topic: Why had Leatherneck brought down the critical AoA from 20+ to about 15? The landing speed as well as the minimum speed at which the plane still has 1G at critical AoA (so called stall speed) isn't different, which proves that the lift/AoA slope is steeper now, so this needs to questioned and answered. I consider the older flight model's AoA more true than this. Although some aspects were made better within the flight model, some have been made worse, so it still needs tweaking to make it right!

Maybe the one that I heard to have 1 degree might be a different custom version, idk., cause I can't yet find an example either of a MIG-21 having a wing root incidence different than 0 on the internet right now, but possibly there might be one, yet I just didn't find it very important that the wing might have 1 degree of incidence or zero. That difference isn't of much importance. There are other issues that are important which concern the topic here and other things like the lift slope of the MIG-21 and zero lift angle of attack of it, which are strange. Good day, and sorry for being too quick on the LOL by thinking that you were wrong in fact, cause it seems that I can't find a different example about it either, so I can't contradict you about the wing root incidence.

You mean above, not below. It makes sense that the hydro-mechanical system was built so that the ratio between stick deflection and elevator deflection drops as airspeed increases for the fact that the critical AoA also decreases as airspeed increases since the airflow becomes compressible (above 300km/h). So after +300km/h, the compressibility factor of the air starts increasing rapidly and so the critical AoA that can be achieved drops up to transonic airspeed where a shock stall effect also becomes present for all known airplanes, then the maximum AoA slightly increases back through supersonic up to some value when the Mach number gets 1.2-1.3, then again starts decreasing as airspeed continues to increase. This is the aerodynamic reason why the achievable AoA needs to be reduced as airspeed increases, as a means of making keeping you clear from the critical AoA first of all and secondly to not allow for too high G-loads that can result. Nothing's wrong with the simulation in this area so far.

LOL! 1 degree? 1 degree equals nothing compared to what happens with the real critical AoA. +/-1 isn't a big deal! 15 AoA instead of 20 is a big deal as it affects the whole lift/AoA derivative (slope). Don't want to contradict you now, but I later found out that it is indeed +1 degree though and "Frederf" was right. I've talked to a real MIG-21 pilot and he told me that the wing has 1 deg. of incidence at root. That guy knows the 21 by the book and also confirmed me that the real critical AoA is around 20 for no flaps and slightly increases with flaps using boundary layer control. Good day!

You couldn't be more right!:thumbup: This is the problem that the devs should re-look into, cause I've talked to real MIG-21 pilots and they also know that for the indicated 33 AoA in cockpit, the plane realistically reaches a plus 20 AoA on the wing AND even if passing beyond that the plane may get a roll-off (fast snap roll due to one wing stall) but then quickly recover (roll rate becomes null quite shortly) then continue to be very docile as the AoA continues to increase beyond stall with slight lift loss (didn't say how much). So, the lift loss should also be not as dramatic as it's in-game right now, where the G-load still drops below 50% of the value before the stall. I guess the lift (and of course, G-load alike) should remain somewhere between 80-90% the maximum achievable, not just 50%. For short, we should be looking for a higher critical AoA, lower G/lift drop beyond stall. Let's wish for the best!

I've got you now. Indeed the lift/AoA slope is higher than normal, at least from the way I see it. The way it's modeled right now seems more like an A-10's lift slope (it isn't necessarily that, but it looks like), just with the difference that at a 0 (zero) angle of attack the lift is close to null as it should. The FBW kind of response felling is more probably related to how the hydro-mechanical elevator deflection is being modeled in DCS in correlation with the flying indicated airspeed (related to dynamic pressure). Only experimental tests could reveal how the elevator deflection would be limited according to the dynamic pressure at which the plane flies. My biggest concern for now is the critical AoA level which seems way too low. All the best!

LOL! I didn't check to see how old that post is, but hey..., that means it's even worse the fact that this ugly feature still persists today! Cheers!

Sorry I forgot to quote you're message in mine, but you probably got notified! There's the track! Good day!

This is an unrealistic feature for the nose gear of this robustly thought and built aircraft. It can't have this kind of fragile nose gear, common! You can land this plane in a field (on grass) in real world as the Russians really wanted it to be able for such operations, but the devs. made the nose gear steering act like a thin wooden stick that snaps in a split. It's not the nose gear itself which seems realistically tough/robust, it's the steering that breaks up for no big reason! It breaks up too easily. It's like you'd just touch it with a finger and it breaks! Doesn't feel like a Su-25 steering mechanism toughness! No other aircraft in game has this kind of fragile steering feature, none of the other which could be more fragile otherwise! Please make the steering non-destructible unless the whole nose landing gear collapses first, cause it doesn't have any logic sense for the nose gear to fail that easy. Here's a track where, after making an off tarmac excursion at high speed you are happy to still be alive, just to turn around and at quite very low speed you try to get back on track, when this happens: Su-25's 1 milimeter steering mechanism.trk You get quite pissed off to see that happening. You managed to tumble and on the grass and survived even after landing on grass where the main wheels and gear are fine to just not be able to re-put the front tire on the asphalt anymore, cause when you do that you won't have any steering anymore. The main gear has no problem in the most tough conditions especially after the odd simulation of the tires jumping instantly on the tarmac, but the nose gear steering alone is what breaks off for good.

Same problem here. It's a random bug probably, cause it doesn't seem to be related to the type of mission, loadout or anything else. After some random respawn, the ENR becomes non-accessible and you can't follow waypoints anymore. You just have to keep on respawning until ENR shows up again. It's all random and frustrating!

Grom's targeting pipper repaired! Let's hope it stays now...^! Good job guys!

Perhaps they've made some changes, idk...! Good day!:thumbup:

Same as "Frederf" described, you can even go past critical AoA at higher speed if you like and it's normal what the AoA indexer shows. There are 2 reasons why the AoA becomes lower as airspeed occurs though, when pulling the stick: 1. There is a hydro-mechanical feedback on the stick which makes the stick stiffer as the aircraft goes faster in order to not let the plane reach critical AoA that easy. This is available for many airplanes, civilian and fighters alike. 2. The center of pressure (center of lift acting on the whole aircraft) starts to move towards the rear as the airspeed increases. The faster you go the more rear the CP goes, which makes the angle of attack that you can achieve for the same elevator deflection (if you could hold it) become lower and lower. The slower you go, the opposite happens. These 2 reasons makes the critical angle of attack become harder to reach as the airspeed increases. Try this: Go at a high altitude, pull the stick until you reach critical AoA indicated in cockpit and try to hold it there, then go in full afterburner while descending fast in order to be able to increase speed. You will see that the indicated AoA starts to decrease the faster and faster you go even if your stick might remain in the same position or the elevator deflection hasn't changed. Still, you can stall the wings by trimming as needed then sharply pulling the stick from low initial AoA. This is realistic and normal. You can't do accelerated stalls (going past critical AoA at airspeed that give a lift/weight ratio higher than 1) below 600km/h? You initially said that you can't do this past 600, but neither below? The pitch trim vastly affects the elevator deflection limits by shifting the elevator deflection limits more up or more down when the stick is moved in pitch. So the total elevator deflection is a sum between the deflection given by the stick and the pitch trim. Stick + trim = final elevator deflection. If you trim the pitch to a more nose up position you'll see that you can go past beyond stall AoA at any speed, from 10/km to 700+km/h after you pull full aft stick, especially when doing it sharply form an initial low AoA. Indeed the more you increase speed the lower the achievable AoA becomes, but you can still stall it even higher than 700km/h, not just 600, if you trim the nose quite up then sharpy yank back on the stick, you'll make the plane overshoot the critical AoA for a split moment and cause a wing to stall. This is not a plane on rails in any circumstance and flies realistically. How would you define such a behavior? I would define a plane that flies on rails a plane that doesn't give a correct dynamic in motions, for instance the lack of correct moments of inertia simulation, aerodynamic forces and moments not varying with airspeed in a correct way, scripted flying behavior (programmed to behave in a certain way no matter what, which defies reality), lack of oscillations around axis when full sharp inputs are given the rapidly put to neutral. If one of these happens, you may call it on rails, but so far I personally couldn't find any of these happening in latest patches, so the plane flies like the real one, except for the critical AoA which should be at a higher value, not just 15 as it is now. High sweep delta wings generally have critical AoAs higher than 20 even without slats/droops, so this might be the only problem so far. I've already explained why there's the difference in real AoA and shown AoA and this is a realistic behavior reflecting how the planes were built those days. They didn't care those days that the vane would deflect more than the real AoA at which the plane flies as they didn't care as the corresponding 33 AoA in cockpit corresponds to a real 20 AoA of the aircraft. Now it's 15 only and I bet it's wrong, but anyway, the difference between shown AoA on the cockpit indexer and real AoA is something normal. All the best!

This may be the new plot, as the critical AoA is now strangely low at about 15 deg.AoA. Initially it was at 20, so the function was different in the past, and I suppose, more realistic. Indeed, the function might be linear as you experimentally determined it in game and this is a good case, cause for other aircraft it ain't mostly linear. Good job!

Glad we two have a common understanding about general aerodynamics alone. Indeed the lift drop beyond stall AoA should be nearly symmetrical to how the lift slope developed before it, but even if not necessarily symmetrical (when strong vortexes are generated by the wing root leading edge portion), the lift drop should be very smooth until the vortex actually breaks apart. The NASA F-18's HARV lift/AoA charts and real life aerodynamic tests using tufts is a good source of information: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SViiqylV0lA Although this topic is about the real MIG-21's critical/stall AoA, the following video is very interesting: All the best!

Sadly, I feel the same at the moment! ED and Belsimtek seem to be the only guys to master an FM and make it realistic or PFM level. Maybe it's not my right to talk about it, but I hope the other third parties will also be able to learn from ED how to work out their FM's to make them PFM. ED should guide/teach them to achieve that, IMO. Happy new year!

Just look how clear these images are in comparison to the shared images of the topic: In the past, the A-10's TGP and SU-25T's LLTV were able to make targets look very similar to this video, but now..., it's a total mess, we can't see anything with the naked eye unless we are 1km away (which is pure death), we can't find anything on TGP infrared and LLTV either, we can't fight. What should we do? Use labels? The model enlargement is broken now too. I'd rather not play a mission at all than use labels to spot what should normally be easily spotted.