Maverick Su-35S

Hello, Since I have been playing with the Su-25T in Lock On FC1, I was able to see that this plane had slats (leading edge fowled devices), but I never tried to investigate how they affect the aerodynamics of that aircraft and later on, on all airplanes in DCS. I am quite surprised to see that even today, even after testing the F-18, which I must confess that after the tests I've done at various AoA and Beta, it is the most well simulated airplane in terms of aerodynamics (better than any other supersonic fighter jet in DCS), reason why I personally congratulate the engineers who worked on it's FM. So far, from all ED modules, ONLY the F-18C correctly simulates an opposite roll due to yaw at negative lift (thing which I've been discussing for years that is missing for both the F-15C and the Su-27/33 also) and also correctly simulates the maximum lift coefficient at around 2.1 at 35 AoA as well as the drag coefficient at around 1.2 close to 90 AoA! But, the droops/slats and flaps that all these aircraft have, only seem to be there as a visual effect without affecting the critical AoA? The F-5 and the F-18 are planes that can fly with the leading edge devices forced in either retracted or deployed position irrespective of flaps position, but even after all these years the critical angle of attack does not vary with neither the leading or the trailing edge devices deflections. The trailing edge down deflections always reduce the critical AoA while the leading edge down devices will always increase the critical AoA. The overall amounts of increase/decrease of the stall AoA should depend on the types of devices being used. The only thing that seems to be simulated is the global Cm (pitching moment coef.) which becomes negative (for symmetrical airfoils) or more negative (for already cambered airfoils). So, only this has been so far simulated regarding the effects of the leading edge devices. I don't know if the drag vs AoA and lift vs AoA functions suffer any changes with leading edge devices deflection. With the trailing edge yes, this occurs, but I can't tell the same for the leading edge ones. Shouldn't the engineers that make flight models know aerodynamics inside out? How could it be that the critical AoA doesn't vary at all with slats/droops and flaps? I'm not the one to tell anyone how this must happen! I do know for myself! It's the obligation of those who make flight models to simulate everything that can be simulated, and this shouldn't be a tremendous task though..., to simulate the critical AoA variation with leading and trailing edge devices. I'm someone believes I don't say the truth, then step out and please correct me and prove that it's otherwise. Regards!

You are correct friend. That's true, I haven't tested without unlimited fuel because I couldn't even guess that yet another bug lies in there. Please read the above post and watch the new tracks and see how things actually vary depending on limited/unlimited fuel. As a short list of what's going on wrong with the Su-27 (that I and others personally consider to be abnormal, things which have no link or proof on the real plane's behavior) and yes..., also the list of what can normally be fixed by ED, unless they don't even want to look at it: -The reality unconfirmed negative pitch static stability margin (unstable) beyond -20 AoA which makes the DCS Flanker get into a wonderful negative deep stall where it settles at around -50 AoA -The reality unconfirmed relatively high static stability margin (highly stable) if the plane finds itself at fuel statuses between empty tank and some 10%-15% fuel and also between some 70% and 100% fuel. ONLY BETWEEN around 15% and 70%, the plane finds a bit reduced (but not enough form my perspective) static stability margin. So, it's kind of werid no? At first, with 100% all the way until some 70%, the CG is one position, then abruptly, NOT SMOOTHLY (see the track) the CG moves very slightly aft (increasing the max constant AoA by some 8-10 degrees) and then once again below some fuel percentage the plane's CG moves forward? Just by judging how the CG wobbles fore and aft when the fuel status only goes down, not up, everyone can understand there's something abnormal going on! -The reality unconfirmed static stability margin reduction once the plane is loaded with weapons (AA missiles for instance) or when the landing gear is deployed. With honest respect, Mav!

Hello again, I have only tested these phenomena using unlimited fuel only! Now I have tested the same things with fuel consumption also. Some things don't happen anymore but some still do. Of course..., abnormal things, cause almost nothing is normal so far! What doesn't happen anymore with unlimited fuel is that the CG is no longer trigger shifted by some negative AoA, but what still happens is the abnormal CG shift with fuel status. With or without weapons and gear, the CG's shift behavior only on fuel remains the same as it happened with unlimited fuel also. Between 100% and some 70% (I didn't have the patience to waste my time finding the exact value) the plane is more stable. Between about 70% and some lower fuel percentage, the plane is a bit less stable. Between the lower fuel percentage and empty, the plane once again becomes more stable O.o! How do you explain that? You can't, but the facts can! It's called: DCS and some people became too blind to recognize the problems in it! In the following tracks we can see how the maximum achievable constant AoA (which is affected by the CG and CP) with full negative elevator deflection will vary abnormally with fuel status, weapons loadout and landing gear position. In this track we can see how the max constant AoA will vary from 100% fuel to almost empty tank. First the AoA is merely around 35-37 AoA. This is not a Su-27 simulation, but some other fighter in the shape of a Flanker. After the fuel drops below around 8000kgf the CG shifts aft a bit thus the AoA increases by some amount, yet still not enough to simulate the very reduced stability margin of a real Su-27 or at least not by my expectation. Clean, the CG oscillates randomly with fuel status.trk In this track the maximum constant AoA is almost 10 degrees higher just because we have weapons loaded on the wings, which is opposite to reality simply because the center of drag should now be further down the plane's Z axis (if the positive Z axis direction would be considered towards the top of the plane) in contrast to a clean weight configuration and also the plane's CG should be a bit forward now (because the weapons all together have their CG a bit forward of the clean plane's CG). These 2 effects should only make the aircraft have a greater static stability margin (a thing that average people use to call: nose heavy) thus an even lower constant maximum obtainable AoA. Instead we have something called: DCS simulation, which once again simulates it's own kind of world apart from the real world, yet it dares to dares to say that it's realistic. Here it is: weapons loaded (which have a forward CG) and lower the drag center, but the result is an aft shift in CG. With weapons, the CG goes aft and still oscillates randomly with fuel status.trk As you've seen these, now the most delicious part comes in: the landing gear. Also with landing gear out, the CG goes aft.trk Reality: the gear out lowers the CG and shifts it a bit aft while the center of drag usually shifts towards the bottom of the plane more than the CG does. Result: an easily noticeable down pitching moment. DCS: the gear out may lower the CG (can't tell) but drastically shifts it aft while the center of drag either doesn't shift down at all or it's downward shift its very low. Result: an easily noticeable up pitching moment. Conclusion...: Reality is wrong and DCS is right! Now tell me that I'm wrong folks! Now I don't want to be impolite either, but I'm extremely sick of how I am treated on the forums when discussing serious flight model issues (most of the time) and being replied by people who still have a lot to learn about flight dynamics and aerodynamics which only makes me feel that I'm wasting a lot of time and patience for nothing..., because as I see the things are going..., these issues and others will NEVER be fixed because they see that the ratio between those who witness something wrong in the simulation and those who don't understand or witness anything is very low (the ratio might be somewhere at 0.1), so they are confident that they can continue on like this (stealthy) and only take people's money for something that they pretend to be realistic but don't provide solid answers to prove it, but just words and ask us to provide solid proofs (they throw the ball in our field) to tell that they're wrong and even if we'd do that, they still wouldn't accept it, period...! At least this is how I sense it! I don't brag about my own at all, cause I'm not looking for that or for any recognition. All I'm trying to do is to prove and bring out the simulation abnormalities that we see happening inside out with the FMs in DCS. Yes, there are many FMs which are simulating stuff with an intolerable error against reality. We can never talk about 100/100 realism in any simulator, as someone was trying to point out by contradicting me and other serious people (who are trying to prove what's wrong), yet that someone failed to recognize that in DCS (nowadays only...) in some cases the FM reaches just some 30-40/100 (60&-70% error) versus reality. Good day!

Then what if you accidentally extend the probe and want to retract it? Wait for 2 minutes to purge something that doesn't exist? In reality I mean, not in this game!

I had to modify the paragraph with explanation before the 2nd track because I forgot that the CG shift now reverses when you have loadout and makes the plane highly stable after some AoA is passed, but I don't get why you don't understand this bug, because I clearly stated that only when passing above SOME AOA the CG moves like crazy back or forth (depending on loadout which is also abnormal)! In the 3rd track, after the first landing, at what speed did the plane started pitching up (raising the nose gear) with full aft stick (direct pitch control) and at what speed did the nose rise at the second time? Yes, the difference in speed means just one thing: CG shift. I've done that track just to make sure and prove that the bug is related to a CG movement only and not a CP (as it could've possible been the case). Because on the ground you now you have a different arm between the CG and the main landing gear, thus the more or less force is needed on the elevators to counter the stabilizing moments (the moments that keep the plane on the ground). By all you replied I believe that you didn't understand everything I wrote, but only partial! There is indeed a smooth transition of the CG due to fuel as you say and that can only be witnessed after the plane is respawned and you didn't yet go above X negative AoA, but next to that there's also a damn abnormal CG transition due to AoA. How do you explain that? That's what I've wasted a dozen of hours on to find out what's going on and why sometimes the plane is extremely nose heavy (worse than the F-15 or similar) and some other times it's static stability is what it's normally suppose to be. There are some magic fuel status values (one percent more or less and you have a very different stuff going on, the CG shifts dramatically, NOT SMOOTH) which depending on loadout and/or gear position and ONLY after getting past some "X" negative AoA, the CG abruptly shifts fore or aft. Again..., without loadout and between 12% and 59% fuel, the CG moves aft (where it should've been all along) instantly and only after passing through "X" negative AoA. With external loadout and between 12% and 72%, the plane's CG is where it should be this time, but this time, if for some reason you pass above some negative AoA, the CG moves forward. So this bug is quite complex, and YES, most of what's happening with the abnormal CG shift is a bug, only by a small amount the CG moves just depending on fuel, and that shift is small and looks very correct. Again, the CG doesn't move due to fuel (but just slightly, which is normal)..., it moves when the AoA is above some negative (through deep stalls effects) value. This is the problem. Regards!

NO! ED said it's correct, so they are the first who must prove that what they did is right, and only then I may come with my arguments and own analysis, but we haven't yet passed the first step. Even if I come with real charts and data they will still find another excuse not to listen and try to make me look like the wrong one once again, so it won't be it!

Very well said, yet although, we the buyers of ED products for our fun or to see how well the simulator is (my primary interest) are not necessarily have to be "always right" and there is where things should be put on the table, open the books, draw charts and with a professional attitude start proving right from wrong again and again, but no..., the attitude that we see from ED is...: "I don't think that ED has to offer any explanation for how it's being simulated, I don't think that ED should give you an answer..., I don't think that ED should even look at you...! From this picture, I'd rather realize that that ED has become some sort of god that eats his customers patience by trying to foul with their minds and won't give credible answers to anyone, no matter what. As a metaphor: "ED rejects the reality and substitutes it's own..."! Well, at least that's the way we see it more and more!

Wrong! ED can't prove their point with real aerodynamic data on the real 3D models with corrected wind tunnel data ((the uncorrected wind tunnel data is far from being realistic) and I know for sure what's wrong from right because I'm an aerodynamicist and at the moment I can only tell the Su-27's and other plane's FMs should still be considered a WIP, simply because some aerodynamic coefficients aren't correct and also because no airplane completely simulates the flaps and slats effects (although another thread is has been raised just for that topic). If you say ED should've closed this thread, then that means ED should also close their relationship with those who buy their product, thus their image will start to go down. If they want to follow your words, then they will be the ones to lose, not those who can see for themselves what flight simulator it's worth it or not, because day after day people start looking more for simulation realism rather than graphics, and I hate to think this is some sort of arcade flight simulator, cause I'd regret every cent that I've spent in it!

Coming back to the Flanker subject, our Su-27 in the sim can't reach the same angle of attack as the real jet when pulling full aft stick under similar conditions of compared to an airshow Su-27. The Flanker at airshows is able to pull more than 100 AoA with ease and without having to jerk the stick fore then aft in order to gain as much pitch momentum as possible to get an AoA as higher as possible. From level flight, our Su-27 can't seem to get the pitch attitude greater than 95 (+85 upside down more correct) or the AoA greater than 85..90. My guess is that either the elevator's lift isn't high enough (aside from the fact that the lift beyond stall becomes exaggeratedly low) or the CP doesn't move enough forward at positive AoAs. If one of these 2 aren't the concern why we can't get similar results to the real thing, then I let the "experts" here tell what's wrong, cause they can't deny what I'm saying as it's plain clear what happens. Regards!

Huh...!=)) Look man, don't embarrass yourself! I'm nowhere near the way you think of me. Don't be ridiculous, yet you may remain jealous and press enter too much after each paragraph! Love you too!

Sorry, I'm not teaching ED or anyone how to receive one's feedback, but only to look once again into the problem. Yes, a re-evaluation of the simulation, nothing else. It is indeed probably painstaking, but necessary to confirm beliefs and just equation estimations from facts. Ok, I agree with you that they may have experience, but what if the simulation still isn't right and there is place for better? Would it be wrong for them to re-work on the code? I personally do re-work what I've done over and over again UNTIL IT's GOOD. And I will make a new thread talking just about something that has been left un-simulated at all since LOCK ON FC1 with Su-25T. It's surprising that at their experience they've missed a very important aerodynamic simulation clue. It's about the leading edge and trailing edge devices and I'll start a new topic of this one later, because it's very important and right now NO PLANE in DCS has the right complete effects simulated for the slats/droops & flaps. Good then, bring them in here and let's discuss...: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3562596#post3562596 Let's hope so, cause I've seen a poor guy say a mix of incorrect and correct stuff regarding simulation (he was both right and wrong) and he was also talking about the Su-27 and got banned just for saying that he doesn't trust the FM. This is what changed my mind and made me say that! Regards!

Hello, Since I have been playing with the Su-25T in Lock On FC1, I was able to see that this plane had slats (leading edge fowled devices), but I never tried to investigate how they affect the aerodynamics of that aircraft and later on, on all airplanes in DCS. I am quite surprised to see that even today, even after testing the F-18, which I must confess that after the tests I've done at various AoA and Beta, it is the most well simulated airplane in terms of aerodynamics (better than any other supersonic fighter jet in DCS), reason why I personally congratulate the engineers who worked on it's FM. So far, from all ED modules, ONLY the F-18C correctly simulates an opposite roll due to yaw at negative lift (thing which I've been discussing for years that is missing for both the F-15C and the Su-27/33 also) and also correctly simulates the maximum lift coefficient at around 2.1 at 35 AoA as well as the drag coefficient at around 1.2 close to 90 AoA! But, the droops/slats and flaps that all these aircraft have, only seem to be there as a visual effect without affecting the critical AoA? The F-5 and the F-18 are planes that can fly with the leading edge devices forced in either retracted or deployed position irrespective of flaps position, but even after all these years the critical angle of attack does not vary with neither the leading or the trailing edge devices deflections. The trailing edge down deflections always reduce the critical AoA while the leading edge down devices will always increase the critical AoA. The overall amounts of increase/decrease of the stall AoA should depend on the types of devices being used. The only thing that seems to be simulated is the global Cm (pitching moment coef.) which becomes negative (for symmetrical airfoils) or more negative (for already cambered airfoils). So, only this has been so far simulated regarding the effects of the leading edge devices. I don't know if the drag vs AoA and lift vs AoA functions suffer any changes with leading edge devices deflection. With the trailing edge yes, this occurs, but I can't tell the same for the leading edge ones. Shouldn't the engineers that make flight models know aerodynamics inside out? How could it be that the critical AoA doesn't vary at all with slats/droops and flaps? I'm not the one to tell anyone how this must happen! I do know for myself! It's the obligation of those who make flight models to simulate everything that can be simulated, and this shouldn't be a tremendous task though..., to simulate the critical AoA variation with leading and trailing edge devices. I'm someone believes I don't say the truth, then step out and please correct me and prove that it's otherwise. Regards!

Does anyone know what is used for flight model developing? Cheers!

I have to contradict my above quote now because I've forgot (when I said that the elevator is shadowed by the wing) about the fact that the wing's wake actually reduces the AoA on the elevators while the LERX generated vortexes which still do occur even at negative AoA relatively the same as they occur at positive AoA (but probably slightly weaker), cure the flow over the elevators, and after all..., the negative deep stalls shouldn't normally happen neither in DCS nor in reality pretty much the same way as the F-18C also won't get stuck in a deep stall, unless it's a spin! I have watched a lot of footage of Su-27's doing tailslides and in all of them, from about 80 deg pitch up attitudes, after the plane pitched down while the pilot held full aft stick, the nose didn't drop below 80-85 pitch down attitude, thus the AoA also never dropped below positive 5..10AoA. How comes that our Su-27 maintains it's pitch down rate until the AoA goes well above -15 AoA and all the way around into a negative deep stall? Here's a footage of the Su-27 doing a tailslide. The negative attitude angle is lower than -90, most probably -80 by what the footage shows, thus the AoA should've also been no lower than positive 10 AoA: Somehow our Su-27 can't do it without having it's AoA go well beyond -20 AoA followed by a fabulous negative deep stall. The -20 AoA seems to be a negative AoA threshold in the FM where the CP starts traveling forward (towards the nose) quite much, thus violently pitching the nose down and getting you in a negative deep stall that settles somewhere at -55 AoA. I believe this should never happen to the real Su-27 even if the pilot would be using direct pitch control and would intentionally push a full stick forward and keep it there, because if he wants to recover by pulling back on the stick and keep it there, the AoA should certainly come back towards positive without too great hesitations! Even if I never flew it (I don't even have to) and even if I can't estimate with a high precision how much should the CP travel forward at negative AoAs on the Su-27,... if it is already known and correctly determined by ED how much it travels forward at different positive AoAs, it shouldn't be much different for negative AoAs as well and as a matter of fact the plane should find a bit lower static longitudinal instability with flaps/droops up at all negative AoAs. I think that there shouldn't be a rocket science to confirm what I say, it only implies a bit of more analysis and take all the factors into account and apply the correct logic/theory. The reasons why I find the negative deep stalls abnormal are as follows: 1. The elevators lift beyond stall is much too low. -The critical AoA of the wing will find an exponential increase as an inverse function of distance between a given wing's chord station and the vortex's core position. For instance, the critical AoA on different parts of the wing (tip, mid span, root) will find a rapid increase (exponential) from tip towards the vortex's core (usually close to the wing root). Thus for example, the F-18C's wingtip (between 90% and 100% of wing span) stalls at about 9-10 AoA (with droops up), but towards the root (approx. between 0% to 33% of wing span) the critical AoA gets as high as 70 AoA. 2. The center of pressure (CP) now suffers a forward shift as AoA increases (positive or negative) much more pronounced than on a non LERX wing (and especially a straight wing) and also more pronounced as the wing has a greater positive sweep and/or as the longitudinal distance between the geometric center of the LERX and the plane's CG or the wing's 25% MAC is greater (one could use CG or 25% of MAC as reference) as this results in a greater arm between the vortex's CP and the plane's CG or wing's 25% MAC, which affects both the longitudinal and directional static stability margin. In the case of the Flanker, indeed the ratio of distances between the vortex's CP and the plane's CG to the distance between the elevator's CP and the plane's CG is the greatest among modern jet fighters (greater than for an F-16, F-18C&E or MIG-29), which is the main reason why there is such a tremendous neutral point (CP on whole aircraft) shift with alpha (AoA) which means it has a high aerodynamic instability which translates as a high variation of longitudinal static stability margin with AoA. This combined with the gained pitch rate (which conserved as inertia) gives this aircraft the ability to overpass 100-110 AoA within ~1.5 seconds with ease, because, as I repeat, the whole plane's CP shift (or static stability margin variation) is very great compared to other fighters with LERX. Now as the vortex breaks up at some 50-60AoA (on the Flanker and MIG-29), above +/-50..60 AoA the CP starts moving rapidly aft, thus the generated aerodynamic moment tends to reduce the AoA to a lower value. The problem regarding the CP (on the whole aircraft) in the sim is that it's forward movement between about -15 to -40..50 AoA is much greater than for positive AoAs (between +20..25 to 50) and I personally do not agree with this. This plane's LERX was designed for improving the airflow over the wings (mostly the root) and upper fuselage at positive AoAs, not for negative AoAs. What I mean with this is that the resultant vortex that develops from the LERX should be undeniably weaker at negative lift or AoAs than for positive, yet still strong enough to clean/wash the airflow over the elevators, thus not reducing their effectiveness. In our sim, the CP travels much greater forward at negative lift and AoAs than at positive, which only suggest that the vortexes from the LERX are stronger for negative lift than for positive, which is absurd and also the fact that the elevators are completely shadowed by the wing (which is in contradiction to the vortex wash and the wing's beneficial effects) and have almost zero effectiveness. This shouldn't be the case, because like it or not, the wing itself acts as a leading edge device (which improves and re-energizes the airflow) for the elevators and also reduces the effective (felt) angle of attack on them while the LERX vortex also keeps a good flow over them. If is there anyone with a better knowledge please let me know where I'm wrong, but so far I disagree that the negative deep stall that we see in DCS with our Su-27 is valid. Regards!

It's in fact just as easy as keeping the stick full forward with the FBW active if the speed falls below some value or if you have flaps deployed. Just push the stick full and at about 1-2 seconds you depart.

Hi, We all know that the center of gravity (CG) of any aircraft might find a longitudinal shift depending on fuel status, but after some good hours and tiring patience that I had to take to see what happens and why do I sometimes get a pitch stable or unstable aircraft (and the difference is quite high), what I found is nothing else but a big time hidden bug! Here's what happens: Check the "unlimited fuel" option from the mission editor in order to not let the fuel affect the test for an accurate spotting of the bug: Between 1% and 11% and also between 60% and 100% (inclusive) fuel, clean wings and landing gear up, the Flanker doesn't behave at all like having a very reduced static stability margin at lower alpha and become statically unstable (negative static stability margin) as it's supposed to happen and the maximum achievable AoA (positive only so far) with direct pitch control is much lower than it's suppose to be (full aft stick barely keeps the AoA at 35..40) and is quite comparable to that of an F-15. No matter how would you play with your AoA at any given times through cobras, tailslides or the questionable negative deep stall, the plane remains highly stable. Somehow if the fuel status is between 12% and 59% (inclusive) under the same configuration (clean wings, gear up), if for whatever reason you go past "X" positive or negative AoA (lost my patience to find out exactly at what alpha), after the plane gets back to normal flight (lower than critical AoA), the plane becomes statically unstable above 20..25 AoA (20 AoA when the fuel is below 12% and 25 AoA when it's above 59%) as it normally should be by default. This bug shifts the CG too far ahead of the CP thus making the plane unrealistically stable after the plane is respwaned and only after the AoA goes past a negative or positive value above stall, the CG finally moves to where it's suppose to be by making the aircraft have a very reduced static stability margin up to 20..25 AoA and become statically unstable above that AoA, pretty possible just like the real plane also behaves. Here's a track of the FM behavior with clean wings: The Su-27's CG shifts to where it should be above some negative AoA only with clean wings.trk Now keep in mind what happens depending on instantaneous fuel status when the gear is up and the wings are clean and check out what happens with the CG when the gear is down and/or you have loadout. With gear down and loadout the fuel percentages where the CG instantly shifts above some AoA have changed. Now only between 1% and 11% fuel and between 72% and 100% the plane remains very nose heavy no matter how you play with the AoA and only between 12% and 71% it is less nose heavy by default and as it should be, but now after you pass above some negative/positive AoA (high values anyway) the CG moves forward, where it should not suppose to be and makes the plane incredibly stable once again. Here's a track of the FM behavior with loadout: The Su-27's CG shifts abnormally forward above some negative AoA with wings loadout.trk This weirdo bug is related to both instantaneous fuel status, loadout and gear position and it's also weird that just 1% of more fuel (ex: from 11% to 12% or from 59% to 60%) the behavior changes dramatically. Just 1% more or less fuel and the CG instantly shifts very much once you go above some positive or negative AoA. Proof that the Su-27's CG is shifted too far forward on each plane respawn until some AoA is pas.trk Now, another thing...! Of course that the loadout, gear, leading edge droops and flaps all affect the Cm vs AoA (pitching moment coefficient versus alpha), but not like this..., this is another problem that needs to be addressed because it is an exaggerated effect by how it's simulated and it's also opposite to what it should be! Normally the loadout, the gear, the droops and the flaps will all move the center of drag lower on the plane's vertical axis and aerodynamically the plane's Cm (pitching moment coef.) become more negative (nose down tendency), but what we see in DCS is opposite with gear down and/or weapons,... we see a Cm that becomes less negative (closer to zero) or even positive (above some AoA) when the gear is down and/or the wings have loadout. The effects of landing gear, LE/TE devices and loadout on the pitching moment should be reversed and not so great as they are at the moment! How does this happen? With honest respect, please re-check! Regards!

Spot on Jackmay, it seems that there are very few people around here to really and seriously understand flight dynamics and aerodynamics correctly and what is wrong with these simulations in DCS because very many misinterpreted this science and no one can easily better teach them now. They rather ban you and me and anyone else who contradicts them (ED devs) because you become a threat by trying to bring up what's true, but sooner or later people will realize the absurdities that develop right in the heart of a correct simulation. Because they (ED first of all, being the masters) don't understand what's wrong and believe that what they did is correctly simulated, won't listen to someone like you or me or anyone else who comes with detailed and correct analysis due to many subconscious reasons such as ruining their image...! But ED, may I ask you... who's fault is it because the simulation is wrong? Your customer's fault for finding and pointing out the mistakes in the simulation? You should be grateful that at least you can make it better, but no, you don't wanna listen because you think you already done it correctly, you put the hand before your eyes and no longer want to look into problems and just focus on new projects and leave the unfixed problems behind, some problems even staying in for good because for years they have been addressed and no one even budged to fix anything (ex: the A-10C's CCRP and LASTE problems that I addressed many years ago). If I were to develop my own simulator and someone would point out at something he considers wrong, I would assess the problem and re-evaluate my knowledge, because who knows, maybe I need to learn some more, maybe there's something that I missed or didn't completely understand throughout my years of knowledge (we're all humans) and If I conclude that there might be some truth in what my customer says, although I may indeed feel a bit embarrassed, I WILL DO AGREE with him and try to solve the problem together, because in the essence what matters most to me is the accuracy of the simulation because this will affect my reputation on the long term, not by trying to protect my image and by denying the truth which only may help me on a short term! But from what I experienced so far regarding the F-15's aerodynamic performance (which is definitely way off track simulated in comparison to the real jet's aero performances), I no longer believe that this will be corrected, because I can see the replies I get towards my efforts to prove what's true from what's false. I have my answers and I feel very hopeless to think that ED will ever get accurate aerodynamic models and data estimations (because they use equations from what I heard and not necessarily real charts) which will correctly simulate the CP (center of pressure) travel with AoA and CL/CD polars (CL&CD vs AoA vs Mach). Cheers!

Well, maybe I was too quick on the 2nd reply. Now it does it again...! This seems to be single player related only. When I get in a plane, vehicle or chose any other slot (maybe it does it even as spectator, haven't tested yet) and for any reason I press Lshift+R, a wonderful mission restart occurs! Deleting those folders I mentioned didn't do any good and again even if I have cleared the default mission restart key assignment from the General section at inputs, I still can't stop this from happening in single player mode. In multiplayer this bug won't occur. It seems that Lshift+R is forever bound to the mission restart function at the controls.

Ok, a temporary workaround (but not a fix for this bug) is to delete the input files from "default" (I also deleted the CA input files, but maybe it wasn't necessary) and other options files, then let the game rebuilt them at the next game restart, but I can't tell when this thing happens again. I have cleared the mission restart original assignment of Lshift+R and it seems there are no more unintentional mission restarts when I press this key combination, so for now it seems that the bug got "cured". Regards!

This may not be the appropriate thread but I can't find a more appropriate one to address the following stupidity! What on earth is the following: I can't play any mission because every time I press Lshift+R which is assigned as a function to different modules, the mission restarts? I went to controls and set another key combination for the damn "mission restart" command which by default is Lshift+R, and guess what..., it won't listen to any new assignment, it only loves Lshift+R :crash:. Even when you're in the main menu if you press Lshift+R you get launched in some random mission (usually the last one entered). This whole thing started once I was playing with combined arms and selected a unit, depleted it's loadout and pressed Lshift+R for the first time. It's like I've opened the pandora's box, because after that, every time I press these keys the mission restarts and no other function of any aircraft for which this assignment might take place works anymore because the damn "mission restart" function seems to be on top of everything once you press Lshift+R. What do I have to do now? Re-install 100GB of this game and remember to never press Lshift+R again when playing CA? Good day!

Hi, If you set your mission to have clouds they disappear once you cycle your external view onto different places on the map, for example when you press F2 and cycle the view to various aircraft around the map. If the planes you cycle with the F2 key are far enough from each other (enough kilometers apart, probably more than 100km) all the clouds suddenly disappear without re-appearing again no matter how you change your view anymore. The clouds remain unaffected after a mission start as long as you don't change your view to a place far enough from the previous. Regards!

OK, but how fast is moderate? I mean, from my opinion there shouldn't be any reason to lose track of the laser at all. We understand about the Vikhr, but now all laser air to ground missiles (except the S-25L) have the VIkhr's limitation of losing track if the laser slews more than "X" degrees per second? What about the S-25L? That poor tech missile has no trouble following the laser even if it were slewing at almost infinite degrees per second. So, are you with me? There's definitely something not suppose to be happening. For me, this is only a problem of how the missile's laser tracking is modeled in DCS and I doubt that the real KH-25L or KH-29L would lose track if the laser or the skhval (which the laser is slaved to) is slewed at it's maximum rate on the real plane. If in reality it would've been the case we see in DCS, I'm pretty confident that the engineers would've found a solution to this by either not letting the slew rate go past "X" degrees/s where the lock may become vulnerable or re-work the missile's systems until the missile stops losing laser track due to slew rate. It would be embarrassing for the real pilot to see his missile go dumb just because he slewed too quickly. This can't happen in reality, although DCS might want to let us think that way. I mean I wish I could agree, but I won't until this limitation would be confirmed by real military personnel (pilots, engineers) who had experiences with the KH-25L, KH-29L and S-25L. Kind regards;)!

Here, in this track we can clearly see that both the KH-25 and KH-29 laser missiles lose laser track once the slew rate goes above a certain value. Indeed, I have also found that these missiles don't lose lock until the slew is above some rate, yet that rate seems quite low to me and I guess it's quite close to that of where the Vikhrs also lose their track on the laser. KH-25L and KH-29L lose laser track above some slew rate.trk The missile that still follows the laser like a king no matter the slew rate (seems to have no limit to this) and still manages to "crawl with one hand" is the winning S-25L. This missile follows the laser no matter what until it self-detonates if it's unable to steer fast enough to align itself with the laser's designation. I doubt that the S-25L has anything special. Normally the KH-25L and KH-29L should be higher tech than the S-25L, so I suppose something is still wrong and I doubt it's regarding the S-25L. Cheers and regards!

Hmm, that's interesting cause just now I've tested the KH-25ML, the KH-29ML and the S-25L and except the S-25L which still remains locked to the laser beam no matter how fast you play with the laser slew, the other two lose lock and go ballistic instantly after I start slewing the laser, even if I move the pointer 1 meter away from a target to any direction on the ground these ones lose lock on the laser and fall. For example, it was very hilarious to see the KH-29L listening to the laser which was pointed at a tank without a lock because I fired the missile from a higher distance than the shkval was able to lock onto (further than 10km) and immediately after the shkval acquired the target the KH-29L instantly started to fall although the laser didn't have to move too much to correct it's position when the shkval acquired that target. So, just for the tiny adjustment to the laser made by the shkval, made the missile lose lock. Can you provide a track of your KH-25ML and KH-29ML fired from Su-25T's and how they follow your laser flawlessly? Thanks! Kind regards!

Thank you very much Frederf! Appreciate your effort to put these aspects into detail. So now I know the Vikhr has a limitation in following the laser beam if the beam moves quicker than "x" deg/sec or finds high orientational accelerations. Got it! Yeah, I knew about how it was designed to maneuver through constant rolls and thus constantly oscillate it's maneuvering fins to correct the trajectory, but still, following the laser beam is the problem (and now I've learned from you), otherwise even if slowly maneuvering, if the lock on the laser wouldn't be lost this missile would've had more performance in combat. Yeah, the Tunguska might be a good example of keeping the missile follow (be slaved) to the laser no matter how sharply the laser gets moved, but all other ground vehicles using laser missiles behave the same. You've just read my mind!:)) I was also wondering if that might be possible in the end! Ok, so now I've got it with Vikhr, but what about KH-25ML when fired from the KA-50. From just one or 2 tests that I've done (so I definitely have to test it more to confirm) I have the impression that the KH-25ML fired from KA-50 also loses track on the laser beam once it's quickly moved. It simply doesn't want to follow it anymore and not re-acquire track on it again, while when fired from the Su-25, the missiles seems to listen to the laser no matter how you play with it. Again, I must retest this to confirm, but that's what I apparently witnessed. Cheers and regards!