Smith

Found a nice video where you can see what i m looking for. At 19:55 you can see how a suspension should look when landing. The suspension of a lot of planes in DCS look like that (Su-25/27/33, MiG-29, A-10, KA-50) but not the F-14 and F-18 at the moment.

Hello, are the scan files of heatblur available some where? i would like to download them.

With the new Update Heatblur changed a lot in this config file. I tried to make the suspension bouncy again and it worked with the main gear, but the nose stays very stiff no matter what values i change. Maybe with the new file there are other values relevant that i don't know at the moment. With the old config file it was very easy to change the spring and damping values and i could see the change take effect in the game. With the new file i can't change the spring and damping values of the nose gear. So i think i will wait until they finish the suspension update and then check it again for realisitc suspension behavior. Until then i will use the config file that fat creason postet with my tweaks for a bouncy main landing gear: Config.lua The changes i made to his file are: Line 94: I lowered the damping value of the main gear a lot, so that at touch down the suspension compresses almost fully like in the video I posted. I checked it with ACLS carrier landings and at about 54000 lbs weight. If i lower this value more the suspension will bottom out. If i raise this value the suspension will not compress like in the video. Line 94 Original: amortizer_direct_damper_force_factor = 160000 * 0.6, Line 94 Tweaked: amortizer_direct_damper_force_factor = 160000 * 0.13, Line 96: I raised the rebound damping value a bit, so that the plane doesn't bounce back in the air after touch down. Line 96 Original: amortizer_back_damper_force_factor = 160000 * 0.20, Line 96 Tweaked: amortizer_back_damper_force_factor = 160000 * 0.3, Line 155: This change is very important to achieve the behavior in the video fat creason postet. In this video when the pilot brakes, the nose suspension first dives in very far, and when the brakes are released it moves out again until it tops out and the wheels lift of a bit. There you can see that there is almost no weight on the nose wheel and the suspension stays almost toped out when the wings are swept back. The lower this value is, the more the front suspension is topped out. Line 155 Original: amortizer_reduce_length = 0.1, Line 155 Tweaked: amortizer_reduce_length = 0.03, Line 163: This value for the rebound damping is a lot to low. I think Heatblur wanted to achieve with lowering this value to 0.012 that the nose lifts off a bit after braking, but as i mentioned in point 3 this is because the front suspension is almost topped out and not because the rebound damping value is so low on the real plane. On planes you want a softer compression damping value so that the touch down is not to hard on the airframe. After the suspension absorbed the shock of the touch down you want a higher rebound damping value, so that the plane doesn't jump back in the air again. Line 155 Original: amortizer_back_damper_force_factor = 152000.0 * 0.012, Line 155 Tweaked: amortizer_back_damper_force_factor = 152000.0 * 0.18, So, as you see, its not difficult to make the suspension behave more like the real deal. The damping values should just not be too high. I hope Heatblur is adapting these ideas to the official update. Maybe someone finds out how to make the nose bouncy with the new update. I will continue trying to find a solution for this.

What is the max weight of a F-14 doing a carrier landing?

Sorry, in my video i should have written "Almost full compressin of main landing gear". Of course i don't want it to bottom out on every carrier landing. But from what you can see on the blury real life video, the main landing gear uses like 95% of the suspensiontravel on touch down and settles at about 70% compression. It looks like on carrier landings there is only like 5% left from bottoming out. This is what i tried to achieve with modifying the config file. A carrier landing is the hardest landing the plane can do without taking damage, so for this landing you need all the travel of the suspension that is available. When you land even harder than the allowed max sink rate it should bottom out and the airframe and landing gear should take damage.

I tweaked the config a bit more. Maybe we are getting there. I made a video that i hope makes it clear what i am looking for with a good suspension physics. @JupiterJoe I tried the EXTD/KNEEL with my config and the plane went up and down so i m not sure what didn't work with you. Maybe you can try my new config file. I think its already quite good. Maybe i can do tomorrow more testing as i don't have too much time at the moment. Config.lua

Oh thank you so much that you address this isue. I was waiting for so many years to have a good and bouncy suspension. I checked the file and it looks like you only changed the bounciness of the front suspension. I changed the values of the main landing gear a bit, so that they are compressing like in this video from 3:25-3:30: https://youtu.be/U2dYSDos2lI?t=205 [YOUTUBE]U2dYSDos2lI?t=205[/YOUTUBE] I will continue tweaking it a bit until i think its good. Thank you so much for this file Config.lua

Hello, i wanted to ask if it is still planed to rework the Landing Gear Mechanics. The F-18 Hornet should get an Updated Flight Model (the roadmap says it is already in internal testing). Will it happen for the tomcat too?

Look here, it will be part of the flight model update

I already reportet it: BIGNEWY said it will be part of the flight model review. I can't wait for it

In todays newsletter it was stated that ED usese 3D Scanning Technology to get good pilot bodys and animations. I would like to ask if this 3D Scanning Technology was already used to make cockpits, and if so, which cockpits were modelled with 3D Scanning. I could think of the New A-10C cokcpit, because it looks so good. Especially with the wrong modelled F-16 and Su-27 Cockpit it would help to get the complex geometry correct

Exactly that. I don't want to learn to land the F-18 on a carrier when i know that the flight model, touch down handling and suspension mechanic is wrong modeled

I just want a russian fighter, which can AAR and deploy guided AG Weapons. So Su-33 with gudied AG Weapons as FC3 level would do it. As far as i know, Su-27SM/SM3 seems to be missing the AAR probe, am i right on this one? If thats the case and we ever get a Full Fidelity Model of this SM or SM3 variant, then i hope they add the refueling probe as an option

This is just a smal thing, but i noticed that the cockpit of the flanker family is not correctly modelled. It is most noticeably for the location of the HUD. Su-27 real: Su-27 Exterior: seems to match real world pictures Su-27 Interior: HUD and Glareshield to far forward Su-33 Interior: seems to match real world pictures Su-33 Exterior: HUD to far forward, glareshield to far backwards Su-33 real: (don't mind the red box, i didn't make it) I know it is a lot of work for something small, but i hope it can be fixed someday. Especially for the Interior of the Su-27, as the position of the HUD is quite of, and in the cockpit you spend most of the time.

But i have to get very close to the targets to hit something, most of the times i get too close. I don't like to risk a multi million dollar plane. Flying into AAA and dropping ungided bombs with a multi million dollar plane is quite unrealistic for a modern war. I just would like to have the Su-33 as the russian multi role aircraft until ED makes a proper one, like a Su-27SM or something. For the moment the Su-33 is the only russian plane that can AAR. If it would have some simple and not overpowered AG capabilities i think it would be the plane of choice by a lot of people In the old Flanker 2.5 Days the Su-33 even had the possibility to use Ground Radar. I wish i could carry all that amunition, the Su-30 and Su-34 can carry. Sorry for sounding a bit stupid

I know that the devs are saying that its not realistic, but maybe, if russia didn't have a economic crysis in the 90ies and would have been able to modernize their aircrafts, the Su-33 might have had these capabilities. And as long as we can not have a capable russian multi role plane, i would really welcome it when the SU-33 gets some of the air to ground capabilities back, which it had in earlier Flaming cliffs/Lock On/Flanker 2.5 versions. I hope ED can give these capabilities as an option, at the moment the russian planes are so beautiful, but quite useless.:cry:

Downloading :thumbup::pilotfly:

Me not I mean ofcourse i would buy a full fidelity MiG-29A, but i really want a MIG or a Sukhoi that can drop guided bombs and missiles and can be air to air refuelled. So a MiG-29K low fidelity would be perfect. Or i also would like the possibility to get the multirole Su-33 back, like we had her in the early days of Lock Onand Flanker 2.0 (with the possibility to block it from Multiplayer because of realism). And for this MiG-29K or upgraded Su-33 i would be pleased when its just FC3 quality. I just want to do carrier operations with some air to ground capabilities and air to air refueling for the red side combined in one plane. The Su-33 gives me carrier and air to air refuelling but only very limited and risky air to ground capabilities. And the Su-25T gives me good air to ground capabilities, but no carrier or air to air refueling

Me, a car suspension engineer, anlysed the landing behavior of diffrent DCS aircraft and I found out that the planes bounce when the Nose wheel hits the bump stop of its suspension. But for most planes that is quite hard to achive, as you have to land nose down first what makes the the sink rate too high and the landing gear will just collapse. In the case for the MiG-29 there are a few things that make it easy to hit the bump stop of its nose gear: 1. Because the Nose wheel is very long compared to the main landing gear you need a quit good amount of AoA to keep the nose wheel away from the surface. You don't need to push the nose down to make the nose weel hit the ground first. 2. Springs are very soft compared to other planes. Even on normal landings the MiG-29 needs almost the whole travel of its suspension. So if you touch down a bit to hard you hit the bump stop of the suspension. 3. The Nose wheel of the MiG-29 only has a very short suspension travel compared to F/A-18 or Su-33. For some reason the MiG-29 hits the bump stop before it is fully compressed. Is this on the real MiG-29 the same? On the 3D model you can see that there is still half of the suspension showing, while on a Su-33 fully compressed you can clearly see that its fully compressed. I think that if the MiG-29 would have the whole supsension available it would not be that easy to hit the bump stop and the bounce would be gone. MiG-29 Decompressed MiG-29 Compressed: You can clearly see that there is still a long way to go. Is this on the real plane the same that it hits the bump stop already at this point? Su-33 Decompressed Su-33 Compressed. You can see that it uses the full suspension. Here is a sequence of a bounce when the Su-33 hits the bump stop. It happens the same as with the MiG-29, but you relly need to land nose down first, which even a bad pilot would not do: On the F/A-18 the Nose wheel just colapses when landing nose down first. i could not land hard enough to hit the bump stop without braking the nose wheel. Here is my testing session. MiG-29 Nose down bump stop bounce slow motion at 43:00 MiG-29 good landing slow motion at 46:30 Su-33 Nose down bump stop bounce at 53:20 F-16 session at 21:00 F-18 session at 57:00 I really like the landing behavior of the MiG-29. It feels natural and lively. But i think the nose wheel should either just collapse when hitting the bump stop after a bad or too hard landing, or the suspension travel should be looked over, maybe it is too short compared to the external 3D model.

Where did ED say that?

The F-14 is the first aircraft with which i managed to stay alive against 12 enemy AI (high and excelent) planes. The F-14 can really turn tight:

For me this is the most important part. Airfields are the main place to be in a flight sim so they should get special love. ED remade a few airports, like Senaki and Sukhumi Babushara and added a few new ones like Mozdok or Vaziani and the have nice detail. I don't ask for more. But why didn't they remake all airports to the same level? No one can tell that this would be out of the limits of the engine

I really would like to understand this, too. Even the F-18 by ED has wrong suspension while Su-33 is perfect. Every Aircraft should use the same Tyres, springs and Suspensiondampening model, just with a little diffrent values and geometry. No need to introduce new landinggear physics when there already exists a perfect one (FC3 Planes).

I felt the same thing and made a bug report as i didn't find a thread for this behavior: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=278642 For me landing is the most important part in a flight. For me it is much more important than some very indepht technically quirks in the systems- or weaponsmodelling. How can the rollout becoming too long? When i touch down on a normal landing i don't have to touch the wheelbrakes and i still come to a full stop on a normal airport like Sochi. I think this is too short rollout or am i wrong. The problem with Idle not giving enough thrust plays a big role here I really would like to know more about this too. How can it be that the FC3 Planes all have a good suspensionmodel and the newer released F/A-18, F-16 and F-14 are bit off in this regard. Is it possible to give some information what the problem is, as the SU-33 has such a good suspension model and also works on the carrier.

Here is how it looks now. I'm really satisfied and i don't think i change much now as everything works perfectly and i don't need more for VR As i said, the MFDs are just for the looks and that i have more buttons to map while in VR. It shall not represent a F-16 cockpit and at the moment i fly the Tomcat mostly with it :thumbup: