Pocket Sized

My impression was that reducing RPM decreased max power output which is why you'd want to keep it at full during a dogfight. If you need less than full power, or need to cool the engine, then decrease boost.

Even though it's a message telling us that they need to stay quiet for the moment, it's still good communication. Props to you Polychop!

There is no reason to run the engine below 3000 RPM in a dogfight. When you aren't trying to save fuel or baby the engine, leave it at 3000. (This includes takeoff and landing) I heard that low RPM + high boost can actually damage the engine but I don't know for sure if it's true.

Yes, I would believe them, because the answer is completely objective. As I've stated numerous times, I'm talking about the techniques used to create the flight model. Now that that's out of the way, let's put the "constructive" back in "constructive criticism." My advice to polychop: Follow in the footsteps of Leatherneck and be open! Talk to the community about the flight model, how it was created, and how it can be improved. It's much easier for us to give relevant feedback when we know what exactly we're dealing with. Even if it costs some development time initially, good communication = happy community. Even though VEAO's first module release was less than perfect, many people (myself included) still look up to them because they're very transparent about their plans to improve it. Of course, I don't know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, so there might be factors I'm not considering.

Again, it's an observation of how the helicopter behaves in game. If a developer decides to intervene and prove me wrong I will happily redact all of my previous statements.

They're both still helicopters though. All helicopters are controlled by the same physical and aerodynamic phenomena.

My argument is not that the Gazelle doesn't fly like a Gazelle. My argument is that the current FM is "script it from the ground up until it flies like a Gazelle," when it should be, "simulate the basic physics of a helicopter rotor, then tweak it until it flies like a Gazelle" The current approach will lead to a reasonably believable FM with time, but I still believe that time would be better spent developing a physics based FM.

They do have full access though.

There is no source. It's an observation of how the helicopter behaves in game.

....my point still stands. The Gazelle does not exhibit behaviors that are inherent to an aircraft being lifted by a spinning set of rotor blades. Period.

No, I don't know better than an instructor. If you strapped me into a real Gazelle and told me to take her for a spin, I'd probably be pretty shaky. I have no idea what you are referring to about the mountain flying, but that's a topic for another day. In case you didn't read my link, all other DCS modules simulate rotor physics by calculating the aerodynamic and inertial properties of each section of every rotor blade as they spin. The Gazelle feels and acts as if the rotor is just a thrust vector, the magnitude of which is proportional to collective position and RPM. Why do I think this? No translational lift (except for that generated by the fuselage and tail). No vortex ring state. Cyclic inputs produce angular acceleration as opposed to angular rate, which is nonsense especially in a helo equipped with SAS. The problem isn't that the helicopter feels different from other simulations, the way it flies doesn't make any sense. The FM doesn't need to be tweaked, it needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up to simulate the effects of a three bladed rotor spinning on top of the airframe. I absolutely hate talking about another person's hard work like this, but there comes a point at which there is no advantage to being subtle.

There are no limits for 3rd party flight models. The EFM interface is a completely open door for any force or velocity vectors the dev wishes to inject into the sim. (Source: Zeus from RAZBAM) Dimitriov, with all due respect, I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of DCS level flight and system models. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1774163&postcount=8 It doesn't take a real pilot, an engineer, or a genius to figure out how a helicopter should feel and behave. All of the information I have gathered (other simulators/modules, flight manuals, pilot reports, and general intuition on aerodynamics) agrees on how ANY helicopter should fly. I'll keep this short and to the point, but the Gazelle doesn't fly like a helicopter. It is painfully obvious how the FM is coded, which is to say, greatly simplified. I'm sorry but a set of thrust vectors and angular accelerations isn't enough if you want to even remotely mimic the intricacies of a real helicopter's flight characteristics. Forgive me if I offended anyone, but sometimes you have to look at things objectively.

Positive pitching moment is referring to the aircrafts tendency to pitch up as airspeed increases in the subsonic region. Once you have the plane trimmed out it will act as described in the paper.

This was discussed at length in another thread. TL;DR: SPAK freaks out on the ground as it is supposed to. As for your second issue: don't fly above M 0.95 on the deck unless you're running away from something that's trying to kill you.

Just to be sure, have you tried the tests with manual fuel regulation?

That's a core DCS issue. When your airplane reaches a certain damage threshold (ie losing a wing) the game considers you to be dead/nonexistent. It prevents AI from engaging you after you've been fatally damaged. Problem is, this "dead" trait carries over to the map and comm menu. In the L-39 I believe it is triggered by losing as little as one wing tip, which should probably be changed. Re: Discussion of engine damage modeling. The engine should not explode or fail if you run it at 106% for too long. IRL you can run it at takeoff thrust for an hour without any apparent issues, but the engine will need servicing or replacement much earlier in its life. The EGT should not increase over time, it will stabilize shortly after RPM does. However, there is one glaring inaccuracy that I've seen in ALL dcs engine modeling: Hot starts! IRL, if you feed too much fuel into the engine during startup it WILL overheat and it WILL severely damage the hot section. In the L-39, throttling up while the engine is starting will result in a very high EGT and associated warning but no engine damage.

The laser mav was removed for legal reasons related to the A-10C alone. Also, wow. That's a lot of firepower for such a small airframe!

Try turning on manual fuel control, it increases dry thrust considerably. (and doesn't appear to exceed any engine limits at low altitude)

The exact methods used for coding an EFM are up to the developer. (Hence external flight model) This is why the quality and feel of EFM's varies so much.

With a date! I've heard from numerous devs how the FM is structured (ie every part of the plane gets its own flight model) but none of them have ever shown the actual code involved. I'd love to see a few dozen lines of the FM code from the Mirage, or any plane for that matter. (You can't do this in the game files because the FM's are compiled)

It's something deep rooted in the compression/control stiffness code. I noticed similar behavior on the spitfire when going backwards mid air (thanks to a stupidly strong wind) so it seems to be related to ground speed or true airspeed. Sadly I don't think this is very high on their priority list as it doesn't interfere with the FM as long as you're moving.

This applies to the L-39, P-51, Bf-109, and Fw-190 as well as the Spitfire, but I decided this is the best place to post it seeing as the spit is still in development. I totally understand why the controls get stiffer with airspeed and how the current implementation simulates this (clipping control surface deflection range as a function of airspeed and pilot strength). The old way (formerly on the 109 and still used on the MiG-15) made joystick movement correspond to a certain stick force in game. This led to much smoother controls at high speed because all of the joystick's movement range was usable at all airspeeds. Currently, as airspeed increases, the usable range becomes smaller and the controls become more sensitive. So why was the old behavior scrapped in favor of the clipping we have now? Yo-Yo?

I imagine this would be a feature of the upgraded Caucasus map. Off topic: I'm 99% sure that OP's image caused me to have a nightmare in which I was trying to take off in a MiG-15 but the runway was so curvy that I got flung into the air, stalled, and crashed.

Yes. It seems that the actual engine performance is more or less bang on (when manual fuel is used) but the fuel control is throttling the engine back much more than it should. I connected the dots and realized the afterburner likely has a similar fuel regulation issue. The acceleration and thrust is accurate at low altitude but at high altitude the afterburner goes into hyperdrive. 0.9M climb performance actually INCREASES with altitude due to less drag, almost as if the thrust isn't falling off at all.

So I've been thinking and I believe I figured out why the afterburner seems to over-perform so dramatically at high altitude. First off: the core engine fuel control is bugged. It should be aiming for a fixed EGT (or EPR?), leading to a very slight decrease in RPM with altitude. Currently, the fuel control is decreasing fuel flow too much as altitude increases leading to a large drop in RPM, EPR, and thrust. I think the afterburner has the exact opposite issue. Fuel flow isn't being regulated with altitude anywhere near enough. If you climb to 10-12 km (manual or auto fuel control) the afterburner will accelerate you unbelievably fast. Way faster than it would at sea level. I'm not sure how the afterburner fuel flow is regulated IRL, as the burner is far too hot for a temperature sensor. Perhaps it's based on tailpipe pressure? Or maybe it follows a predetermined profile based on altitude/Mach? I'll see if I can get in touch with somebody who knows.