Chappie

USS Donald Cook DDG-75 is an Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer which had its AEGIS shut down by an Su-24's jammer pod and lost use if target tracking on the pair of 24s. look it up...on youtube

Checked out the new Su-24 model already in a mission I made and noticed the pylon and ECM pod move laterally with the swing of the wings. I love the new model and hope ED provides some love to the Tu-95 which looks awful and whose props disappear at shutdown of the engines. For that matter, I hope to see all remaining Su-27 Flanker/Lock-On models updated. The Su-24 looks so good now that I am anticipating it becoming the next module. Particularly because of the Black Sea incident when a two-ship of Su-24s shut down the AEGIS radar and weapons on a U.S. Frigate and ran mock attacks on it while the crew wet their pants and became very demoralized ... hahaha! Go Russia! I'm American and thought the event was hilarious. So much for Russian tech... Hahaha

The Parable of Jane's A-10 and Flight Sim Development What happened to Origin products is characteristic of what happened to flight simulation in general... No one cares in Market driven by greed and profit. The only way to make a flight simulation that surpasses time and grows is to remove profit and greed from the equation by removing the publisher and having a parent company interested in your product and success. Or have deep pockets, strong interest in flight simulation, and offer a platform you upgrade and develop yourself. Two cases in point are TFC/ED and Lockheed Martin. Their products? DCS World and Prepar3D respectively. Flight simulation is considered a game by any but the most ardent supporter ... typically referred to as Fan Boys. This, the best way to gather development resources for it is crowd funding like Star Citizen did. Those most interested parties that want it put your money where your mouth is. This is becoming the best way to see flight simulations developed and simply remove the publisher and any middle man standing in the way. Deadlines, project among, development resources, training, and time become vested and shared between the supporter and developer. Unfortunately, this can also become a curse when abusing the trust of the interested party so contracts are nice things to have.

Su27 inverted depart is realistic? Good find and why so many have stated it is flat out wrong in the ED implementation. On any fighter aircraft that supports it, the pilot can disable the limiter without disabling the FCS. In fact, the manufacturer typically doesn't want the FCS disabled period and to only allow the pilot to exceed limits as they desire. F/A-18 pilots disable the limiter and yank the aircraft off the runway during demonstrations. They reenable it because flying around without it on is dangerous but flown at or below limit they are fine. ED's implementation is wrong. Flanker pilots doing Cobras are not disabling their FCS but its limits so they can yank the stick past AoA limit and Cobra. Those pilots need the FCS to control the aircraft as it is designed unstable and without such the aircraft is gonna flip over or do something crazy. As far as I am concerned, we are past the novelty of inverted deep stalls in the Su-27. This behavior is flat out wrong and should already be considered a reported bug. Matter of fact, when the F-16 is in a deep stall, what is disabled to get out? The FCS? No, the AoA limiter so you can rock the plane past the lit and get out.

Good friend pointed out to me that the Ka-50 and the SU-25T were never in service but they are in the game. What gives with that? Fact is, the Kh-31A has been associated with the Su-33 and should be an available option for ground weapons.

Here is the problem and why it feels scripted. The aircraft when stable about its lateral and longitude axies will suddenly and without explanation nose hard over on its own once the limiter is disabled. The Su-27 has fly-by-wire and operational limits applied for safety. Disabling the limiter does not imply disabling the flight system (Fly-By-Wire). Thus I should be able to disable the limiter and continue to fly within limits. This is not what happens and makes doing so extremely hazardous. Way I see it I am free to operate the aircraft up to and beyond the limits as I desire knowing beyond some bad can happen but that bad thing happens when limots are exceeded and not during straight and level flight.

That would imply a deep stall in which rocking the aircraft (think F-16) would be required correct?

MiG-25 or MiG-31 and Su-24 which received and update to its model recently.

A Harrier; Old but many conflicts and DCS doesn't have a VTOL fixed-wing aircraft yet.

I have seen the Weapon Officer's seat of the Mi-24 Hind that ED made so there is definite hope to see that made soon.

I want the F-14 for the AIM-54 and the abiliy to lock up 6 aircratt in TWS without having to STT any.

I could find no reason why only two long range heaters are carried on the Su-27 and Su-33. Can the number be increased beyond typical combat operational load to whatever I desire? Can I load on every pylon except where the R-60 and R-73 go? Seems like such a waste of IOS use to lock a target and fire a radar missle because out of long range heaters.

Why is evidence required? Anyone can locate on the internet a picture of an Su-33 with the Kh-31A attached to the underside which is evidence enough. The MiG-21 can attach a nuke and there is no evidence it was ever used; this is the same situation and hence qualifies the Su-33 to be able to attach the Kh-31A and use it in-game much like the MiG-21 uses the nuke.

Haha

I don't have tracks but I have video taken which I have to review to extract the clips. As this video is taken online, I am ruling out by assumption a player lagging into me and others this causing us to explode.

Su-33 is a at form for the Kh-31A. Can we have this please?

This is factual and should be reported as a bug. The aircraft has a tendency to move while it should be stationary and I have observed movement of the tail up and down as well as shaking of the airframe and once my 109 started rolling backwards from a stop on the apron. This behavior was followed by explosions whereby my wings were robed, fuselage laying on the apron, and not a weapon or aircraft in sight. I have plenty of video of this as I use Action almost all the time I fly so there is quite a bit of evidence to prove that there is a problem.

Flaps don't pitch the nose down conventional aircraft. Flaps increase the mean chord line angle relative to the wind so application will result, initially an increase in pitch which is why one should pull power in a descent and drop flaps. Also, when flying with flaps extended even at four to six seconds of application, the nose had to be pushed down because, again, the chord line of the wing has changed and increases wing lift and drag. As for the animated direction of the wheels for flap and trim application, only matters what your flight controls have been set up with. Just remember to increase forward trim with flap applications.

I agree. Dora lacks longitudinal instability so I suppose it can be corrected in the 109.

Not a few times on that primer but 16 times to bring pressure between the mim and max marks is what you are missing.

Takeoff: Align with runway centerline, roll forward to straighten the tail wheel, lock the tail wheel, apply full right rudder, brig the stick all the way back, apply full power, and somewhere around 150 kms/he neutralize the stick and climb. For a crosswind takeoff, stick same as above but put it into the wind left or right commensurate with crosswind direction. As 109 speed increases during takeoff, adjust pressure. excessive right aileron trim: 109 engine produces torque and at maximum power quite a bit. Level flight requires stick adjustment especially at maximum power. This is a prop and engine so gyroscopic and torque affects are present. Breaking wings: Apply four to six seconds of flap application and your wings stall rather than break. This is no guarantee but point is the 109 is not a jet so don't go yankin on the stick. Instability at lower speeds: Keep speed up especially in the landing. A flat orientation parallel to the runway during landing with the mains touching first is important. Once the mains touch, bring the stick back to the hard stop to avoid fish-tailing and instability. I love the 109 and it has become my favorite prop to fly. It is not perfect but very good simulation. I look forward to what ED does with my favorite WWII jet the Me-262.

I reproduced this ... You didn't set your fuel cock to P1 + P2

All circuit breakers in; Prime 14 times; Start engine; Full power takeoff; Run engine at full power for an entire flight; no fuel issues

Here is a bit of advice... Always use the same approach speed which means have a consistent power setting, flap usage, and gear extension time. I will always pull power until 1000 RPM once at 300 km/her extend the gear. Right after that come full flaps and by then I am on the approach. Don't be so anxious to land it and don't three-point land it. Fly it until it simply doesn't want to fly. Let the mains touch first and then let the tail fall. Tail lock should have been set prior and then just tap breaks. Problem with 109 is narrow carriage which is why an Fw-190 three-point landing is not recommended because at too low a speed a narrow carriage is unstable.

I just finished a three day Agile Software Development training session. Good reinforcement of what I knew and cleaned up misconceptions. SCRUM, Sprints, Backlog, Product Owner, Planning Game, Retrospective, Iterative and Incremental. Appears to me ED uses a Waterfall Software Development Model and they may benefit from all or some aspects of Agile particularly the aspect of Unit Testing and Continuous Integration plus Feature Backlog.