Maverick Su-35S

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!

Proved to be wrong? At what? Where did you get that from? Is it right that if someone is out of the discussion for a while someone like you can freely say whatever they like? The FM of the Su-27 (and this one has a lot less problems than the F-18's FM about which I've also talked a lot seemingly for nothing and people try to ridicule me in their blindness) has strange CG shifting aft and forward (affecting the plane's attainable constant AoA with full elevator pitch up deflection and thus lift to drag and turning ability) at some exact amounts of fuel. I don't remember if I discussed it in this thread or another, but only ONE GUY was able to understand what I was talking there and took the decision to confirm what I was saying, while 99% of all others were trying to say that I was wrong. It's not uncommon that the majority is actually wrong...! Sorry, this is the reality! I have only come here with some at least minimal information (some being proven and unaffected true videos, some being engineering researches with fair calculations, not nonsense like you believe). If common sense isn't enough to tell that we have a loose goose in the flight model, then we'll try to work it out starting step by step from what we already know. If you have a problem taking the time to assess and consider if something is wrong, but NOT BIASED like you are or sick of life or whatever, let others try and look into the problem, be it even tiny and nicely discuss it with proven facts and important data while trying to abstain from insults. Is it right for you that way or not? That guy truly deserves respect, unlike you for your kiddish mockery!

Toasting me with what? Your arrogance seems a little out of luck as the F-18 is even worse at the FM related to what we were trying to discuss here. Welcome to the party not coming with a beer, but with a hand on your but!

The answer is...NO, it is an issue regarding the M-2000's lift coefficient + engine thrust tables. As I've also tested many years ago (still not fixed correctly to this day and probably will never be if you and I don't seem to care about it). 1. @ 28.5 AoA, the M-2000 aerodynamically produces a 1.65 in terms of maximum lift coefficient (one of the most important numbers for tight turns and low radius) as opposed to the real aircraft's almost 1.3 maximum lift coef at that AoA. So it already overperforms in terms of lift. Just the fact that it can do a Split-S with 50% fuel in roughly 500m turn radius says enough. In a horizontal turn it will obviously be much lower somewhere in the 400m margin which is absurd. 2. The engine thrust is overrated for both MIL and full AB exactly as it was initially left that way. It's a DIY test to compare it in DCS with the F-15 or F-16 which have a correct forward acceleration and you'll see how good it accelerates and keeps up with them and even outaccelerates them in the vertical like a rocket, thing which is totally abnormal considering it's real thrust to weight ratio which is very low for modern fighters, around 0.7 with regular loadout versus above mentioned ones which have it near 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Mirage_2000#Specifications_(Mirage_2000) I'm already sick of this subject so I'll let you judge it on your own! This aircraft needs big attention from those who modeled it's FM as well as it's flight controls system which turns out to have erratic behavior in various conditions as the following tracks can provide: M-2000 maximum lift coef if now 1.65 instead of initial 1.9, but still far from the real maximum 1.3 at 30AoA.acmi M-2000 maximum lift coef if now 1.65 instead of initial 1.9, but still far from the real maximum 1.3 at 30AoA.trk Copy that! Thanks a lot for this info;). Sorry for your misinterpretation, but I'm actually very constructive in telling what's wrong. I'm respectful and looking forward for the benefit of DCS, NOT it's drawbacks as people like you and other actually tend to think. The way I'm treated by some who don't want to listen, verify or learn is actually the one non-constructive, sorry! Thank you as well!

I like how people like you throw all sorts of statements out of their own imagination with little knowledge. Deltas not stalling eh? Well, you've said "stall speed". Well, for the sake of what you understand, actually no other wing has a stall speed, because the stall has the only correct definition it was born with at the beginning of aviation, not the derived and wrongly understood definitions that they teach you at flight school! If you have some basic knowledge of aerodynamics, what is a stalled condition by definition? Let's see your answer! Now, an F-18 can maintain 1G even when flying as slow as 80 KCAS (yes, at a lower weight) and of course can slowly maneuver in roll-yaw at the same time, but your wannabe M-2000 lover can't do that without going constantly under 1G when flying below 100KCAS even if being 2 seconds away from fuel starvation. I'm talking facts not biased imagination! The F-16 can also hold 90KCAS for the same condition, again with better handling characteristics even than those of the F-18, not to mention how well above those of the M-2000. Indeed the delta wings (including those of the F-16) perform a bit better (not tremendous, but it counts) at higher and higher altitudes due to small details with big effects, such as the Reynolds number which favors the deltas and provide a somewhat increased L/D ratio compared to denser air, but I don't wanna go off-topic for these details.

You didn't mention anything about the engine! Did you manage to windmill restart it from 200KIAS or glided home?

But speaking of witch..., I've just done a short test in DCS again (latest beta version) and "voilà"..., the F-15C at exactly 37000 (locked the fuel to unlimited in mission editor), the F-15C at sea level, at Mach ~0.5 and ~14.5 AoA has not 5.2..5.3 Gs as it should, but 5.9 which is a considerable difference to the real plane. Again and again, proofs show that most of our jet fighters in DCS require FM overhauls once in a while. For the sake of DCS's reputation, not for me...! F-15 higher than normal turn rate performances (probably lift vs AoA related).trkF-15 higher than normal turn rate performances (probably higher than normal lift slope for given drag vs AoA).acmi