SinusoidDelta

I can’t help with regards to motor choice. Backlash will always be existent with spur/straight cut gear mechanisms and any gearing system in some magnitude. Helical gears would be more ideal. Another topic I haven’t seen discussed here is force sensing in addition to a force feedback. Without force sensing it will never be a proper closed loop system. Strain gauges are very cheap and a bridge can be placed almost anywhere on the Control stock and calibrated. Then programmatically the force being applied to the stick would always be known. This has the obvious benefit of detect hands on or off stick but also when interpolated with stick position can deliver a proper moment reaction force in a continuous loop.

I tend to disagree with you there. I own a VKB stick and have nothing but positive things to say about them. They may not be as active on message forums but the end products have had zero quality issues AFAIK. Also, their NA sales distributer and forum member RRhode is very helpful and excellent with communication between customers and VKB headquarters.

I don’t own a Virpil stick but could the clanking you hear/feel be eminating from the springs under load? Sorry if I’m mistaken, I’m not sure how the springs are attached in the Virpil mechanism.

Yes. I concur at least. :)

The divisiveness within the MP community over the last year or so has become intolerable. I’m so tired of hearing the term spamraam. The same arguments over and over.

I didn’t mean to drag the thread OT. I think good old fashion mechanical advantage through gearing and/or linkages (bell crank maybe?) is the most feasible FFB technique.

Hopefully the hyperspace model is accurate. I’ve always suspected the Falcon wasn’t the only ship capable of a sub-12 parsec Kessel Run.

Still, 8000m isn’t really “high”. Think more like 11,000m

Regarding telemetry, accuracy of the aircraft load (G) in the past releases was innacurate. Is this still the case?

I agree in that adequate centering force would require a lot of power. Here’s some food for thought regarding magnetic FFB: http://www.engineeringmatters.com/EngineeringMatters_Project_FFB.pdf http://www.engineeringmatters.com/EngineeringMattersBrochure_joystick_techspec.pdf This is a complex design, capable of 10 ft*lbs of force at 200W.

Based on the available ITR data, the FM seems damned close in turning performance with the limiter. The load limit line can be exceeded if you're careful and know what your jet weighs. Also, the chart doesn't display turn rates at very low airspeeds, where the flanker can do some real wizardry.

I get it, now worries. Where is your source? Please provide one. It displays ITR. This assumption that visual control surface deflection rates correlate precisely with maneuverability in DCS which then also correlate to real life visual deflection rates vs maneuverability has been wrong from the start. That's what I've been trying to explain.

Yeah, I don't see a problem here. ITR seems reasonable. I did an overlay in a hurry, however Tacview telemetry is inaccurate so aligning for airspeed and load factor vs the hand drawn chart posted above is just about useless. Now try with the W key...

Roger that. What is the fuel load on that chart?

This has been discussed in depth in several threads. The ground reaction model is definitely in need of some re-work. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=166382 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154775 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=166855 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=162079

Very high mach, very high altitude is the only means of possibly succeeding at a BVR kill.

That would be much appreciated. Post the tacview and I’ll make some plots. And if you could, test with both full and 50% internal fuel.

Excellent idea compiling all this data and translating it! A wild guess but T_inertial could mean the missiles control vector is the missile’s inertial acceleration during the boost stage. Guessing further, being = 0 could mean complete and immediate control of all three (x/y/z) acceleration components while the motor is burning. T_break could define acceleration control when missile lock is lost. T_end could be the same parameter but for the terminal phase. Again, Im only guessing here and likely wrong.

I'm not trying to make trolly arguments. Not everyone is your enemy. I'm actually trying to understand the problem here ok? Making blatantly insulting comments like "learn how to xyz before" are very immature and contribute nothing towards any possible solution. The axial piston pump you are showing is a fixed displacement pump. Commonly a variable displacement type is used, which is nearly identical except flow and pressure is regulated by changing the swash plate angle. I'm not sure which the Flanker uses but I'd lean toward variable pump. The 210kg/cm^2 = 3000 psi figure I referenced from the Su-27 Warbird Series book by Yefim Gordon. (Note that hydraulic pressure is measure in force/area i.e., unit^2 not unit^3, maybe a just a typo on your part.). Regardless, I checked the the Su-27SK FM it seems Gordon's figure is low but the pumps do not operate at a static 300 kg/cm^2 : So, working pressure range of 260-300 with flight controls operational as low as 100kg/cm^2 (In imperial units, this is 3698 - 3982 psi / 1422psi lower limit). Now I don't mean this as in insult, I respect your dedication here, but all of the above hydraulic data is superfluous. You say the max ITR is 28deg/s. I assume that means your concern then is that 28deg/s ITR is not achievable in DCS. Yet I haven't seen a single estimate as to what ITR we are seeing in DCS from anyone in this thread (please note that I'm not singling you out here). Has anyone attempted to measure ITR in DCS? Wouldn't you agree that's the most logical starting point?

The Flanker hydraulics operate at 3,000 psi, same as the eagle. I don’t see the relevance of that though. I honestly lost the point of this thread somewhere. What is your stance? What is the performance issue you’re trying to illustrate?

Regarding the first question, if I’m understanding correctly; the roughmet workflow has dedicated, independent channels for the PBR material properties where as the specular workflow converts the specular map channels contrast to create metalness/roughness properties. The spec workflow isn’t precise and the results are hard to predict.

You’re right, I checked the -1 earlier. They should be deploy at approximately 240kts and auto retract if you exceed 250kts. I haven’t tried to replicate the issue OP is experiencing yet. Anyone who has feel free to chime in.

It almost brings a tear to my eye that nearly all the switches, buttons, connectors, arguments, etc. exist but are linked to nothing. Even if it's not full fidelity couldn't at least the main comm panel be used for radio Or the MPCD contrast/brightness toggles Maybe someday...:cry:

The CG and aerodynamic center being located so far aft makes the Su-27 unstable in the pitch axis. That large pitching moment being generated must be countered via control surfaces to simply keep the nose from climbing out of confrol (aka statically stable). I don’t think using deflection rates on the ground make an accurate reference point as there is no airflow, thus no airspeed input nor aerodynamic force applied. Is the flankers pitch or roll rate lacking in DCS? Is ITR lower than expected? That’s the resultant of this deflection rate concern, correct?

This. NWS disengage in the IRL F-15 unlocks the nose gear so it can swivel 360 degrees - for maneuvering during towing. It differs from how it’s implemented in game.