SinusoidDelta

I’m not going to argue on that subject. It’s OT and it’s a violation of the forum rules.

pK is the problem you are describing in some sense. The ER that missed the M2K in your tacview was a high pK shot. Yet it missed. Maybe there is some language barrier problem going on here but I don't understand your point. I'm not sure if you're implying my (and others) approach to MP is frivolous and without regard to survival. That may be true for some but that is not how I approach MP in DCS. Could you clarify?

Maybe try updating to the latest build? GGTharos tested on 1.5.7 and confirmed they are working. I don’t imagine people are going to revert to confirm this.

I do recall frustration with Aim-120C's flying past mirages quite a while ago. I quit MP entirely months ago though when tacviews showed they were missing high pK shots for any jet. I assumed it was netcode and it would be fixed eventually. To the original topic, is it merely R-27ER's? Or any missile regardless of seeker type? I think thatd be very telling.

That's the million dollar question. And that's what I was saying. We don't know. No one knows. You can't validate a model if there is nothing to validate against. Control surface deflections are tied to aircraft behavior programmatically, however, what we are viewing in DCS is an animation of the model so while that may be correlated to a behavior it does not imply causation for a behavior. The stabilizer keeps being single out too when there are multiple control surfaces deflected. The leading edge slats for example play a HUGE role in pitch response.

The su-33’s CG is also much further forward due to several factors. The screenshots show how much further aft the Su-27’s tail boom extends. The su-33 also has an increased wing area. Non-split flaps, larger slats. These are two different airframes. I wouldn't expect the take off trim stabilator position to be the same for both aircraft when they aren't the same aircraft. IIRC in level flight the flankers stabilizer AOA should be ~0. Yoyo would have to describe deflection rates response differences. I could make plenty of reasonable guesses as I'm sure many people reading this thread can. Unless what I’ve read is false, the Su-33 is a fully digital triple or quadruple redundant FBW This is unlike the Su-27’s which is partial analog FBW: Source: (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/products/planes/flanker_fc/?PAGEN_1=3 Referring to that link again, Now, recall the variables I mentioned in the su27fmoptions.lua. Match them to the FCS block diagram and chart above (the others are in the Link) I don't think it is essential Yoyo explain this to us. The dots are already there to connect. The lua is commented out, nothing seems obfuscated, we have the FcS diagrams and charts There's no reason you can't experiment with the values. I don't have any desire to edit the lua because I have no idea what the pitch response should be. No one does. If YoYo does, I don’t think he’s going to share that information. The Su-33 response ≠Su-27

Agreed. While it’s actually kind of fun to talk about how the AN/APG-63 should behave, the FC3 radar model seems to be a legacy item.

I think that’s saying the operator needs to reject the designated contact before mode switching will be allowed. It’s not saying the track memory will be discarded when the mode is switched.

Canards? I don’t see how pitch rate and pitch response of an aircraft with canards can be compared to one without. Would you compare pitch rate / response of the F-15 S/MTD to the F-15C for example? No. I don’t mean to debase your effort here Ironhand, I just don’t understand the relevancy.

Roger that. Thanks for clarifying.

That’s exactly what PBR accomplishes: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=193596

Regardless guy, let’s keep the discussion civil such that Belsimtek doesn’t regret making their presence known on hoggit.

You’re assuming tacview is accurate in reporting the lock, the sample interval is .25 seconds. If it lost lock in a time frame smaller you wouldn’t know. What was the miss distance as seen in tacview. I thought it was over 40 feet so larger than 11m. Also, if the distance to center is innacurate, shouldn’t we be seeing the Missile fusing (detonating) at a range even further away from the aircraft center?

Oh, wow! Well I'm glad my attempt to persuade you worked :lol: Gotcha, I didn't realize it was from the book! I'll dig into it. Wow! This is wonderful stuff! Airspeed data export shouldn't be a problem with export.lua. As you said though this is a minimum. For the F-15C (my first love) airspeed wouldn't be required, the FCS blends airframe load factor with pitch rate, and aircraft response is held constant throughout the envelope. For S&G's here's what the actual F-15 force feel characteristics look like from a NASA TP (You may have seen this before) Longitudnal: Lateral: For the Su-27, FFB is already supported, even stick shaker which has its parameters defined su27fmoptions.lua. IMHO, the modern jets would be the easier ones in terms of control loading Aircraft with "reversible" flight control systems (WWII aircraft basically) could be quite a challenge aside from a basic airspeed schedule like you said. Again, thanks for the details. This is a really good contribution.

The rcs isn’t .5 of the FC3 jets or that isn’t a factor? Again, did your radar break lock? I don’t know what else to say except that you should perform more testing and provide the tacviews so we can establish this is a valid concern. If it’s distance to center is wrong then this should effect all missiles not just the ER.

Maybe due to its .5 rcs compared to the FC3 jets. Also, did your radar lose lock? There’s no way for me to tell from the tacview.

Thanks for the detailed response. I thought it seemed like a rational consideration but you're obviously much more knowledgeable on this subject. I was only trying to say helical is more ideal than straight cut in response to the post above mine. I wasn't saying that geared power transmission is the ideal solution. If you say my previous post, I mentioned bellcranks. Good to know I was on the right track. Thanks, this is all great information. Could you share more images of the overall mechanism? It'd be much appreciated.

Did you lose lock on him? The second ER smacks him right in the nose. A few seconds after that you engage an eagle and wind up shooting his Aim-120B out of the sky with an R-73. His missile was basically dead at that point, mach 0.4. Then, 4 minutes later you bag another ER kill. I'm not trying to start an argument here but that single ER miss isn't the most improbable thing to happen in that tacview. Watch the engagement with goose. The first ER hits, the second ER hits the parachutist and then a 3rd ET hits the parachutist. What's the problem?

I do have some recollection of hearing that but can’t find a source. For the F-15C, I wish Belsimtek would consider a hand off to a third party developer as you described for the Redfor aircraft. I don’t see this happening though as the AFM is Belsimtek intellectual property which they likely wouldn’t give away for free. System updates for the F-15C would be nice

Roger that. I guess you’re aware then, those parameters aren’t in the su-27 fmoptions lua :( I’d like to think the coordinate axis conventions are common across all FM but have no way of knowing. Do you have any ideas on what the FCS variables represent in the su-27 lua?

The Su-27 was the module I noticed to be 2-3G lower than indicated. This was 3-4 months ago however. I don’t recall if the G reported by tacview for the F-15 or other FC-3 aircraft was accurate. +1 for the ability to change the time interval. If I might add to GGTharos wishlist, it’d be wonderful to “batch export” several desired telemetry values at a time to a single csv rather than exporting 2 each time and merging the files. Unless I’m mistaken and this is already possible.

No idea. How are you certain for the F-15? From the moment of intertia and cg values in the fm options lua?

I'm really not sure. It looks like the input damping for x and y is determined based on curve derived from load factor and dynamic pressure.

Yes, Yefim Gordon was the source I mentioned for the hydraulic information Unfortunately there is no data about the flight control system.

Now I think I'm getting the concern. I think the stick pitch damping parameters are located in FMoptionsSu27.lua