HWasp

Look at the landing from 0:45 This clearly shows the elevator movements. Maybe we could even estimate the exact height at which the horizontal stab enters the ground effect and needs a lot of nose up input to counter. I would agree, that in comparison to this video, in DCS this effect seems to start early. But I am quite sure it is the same thing. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3958512&postcount=141

Maybe these are separate issues, who knows...

Also in slow motion (1/4) during a mil-thrust take off keeping the exact same elevator deflection, that is just enough to get me off the ground gently, and producing a near 1,0 G path in ground effect, produces around 1,7 G pitch up after the plane climbs above 20m AGL (pitch up starts to increase around 10m) It is interesting to play around with it in slow-mo.

" When the first F-18 fighter […] was flight tested at Patuxent River, it became evident that the airplane would not rotate at the predicted speed. This made the field performance of the airplane unacceptable. The problem was traced to an error in the calculation of aerodynamic forces in ground effect. This is particularly severe in case of a low placed horizontal stabilizer. As a result there was insufficient down-load capability to effect early rotation during the takeoff ground roll. The problem was fixed by toe-in of the rudders. A squat-switch on the main gear biasses the rudders to deflect inward while on the ground. This creates enough positive pressure over the aft fuselage to effect early rotation. This fix, although impressive, came at a price. All flight control software had to be revalidated. Also, the squat-switches represented additional system complexity. " https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/19214/why-are-the-f-a-18-rudders-deflected-in-opposing-directions-during-takeoff/35867#35867 This is about the F-18, I know, but I think this is connected, the ground effect reducing elevator effectiveness, creating nose down moment.

I've done a little research, and this is what I have found: Fuel: approx 800kg 1. Flying out of ground effect straight and level with gear and flaps and with speed of 280ish km/h AoA is approx. 10 degrees. For elevator deflection see the screenshots. 2. Flying IN ground effect straight and level with the same config with speed of 280 (274) km/h AoA is the sameat 10 degrees. Elevator deflection is very different, as you can see on the screenshot. This was not during a flare, but straight and level flight at that altitude with time slowed to 1/4 What this shows me is that, since you can fly the same parameters with the same indicated AoA there (and pitch is the same), the is currently no inverse ground effect trying to suck me in the runway, but also not much the other way around (of course this whole thing is quite inacurrate on my part) On the other hand, there really is a strong pitch down tendency there as you can see with the increased elevator input.

This PFM has changed a lot since release, but for me it seems, that with the current latest beta, most problems are gone. It is sensitive in pitch, but without that nasty ground effect bug present, it is no problem, if you fly a stable approach and are in trim. Those, who didn't fly the plane in a while, should try it again now.

I did notice it, was really annoying, but seems like it is gone in the latest open beta! :) Edit: Seems like it is gone from the Hornet as well, so that might be connected.

Instead of this useless rant, you could have used that time to pick a problem, let's say pilot G tolerance, and test it against another plane for reference. Post the results with a track, and if there is a large difference to let's say the Su-27 or F-15, than you already have a valid bug report. This would take like 10 minutes. If you whish to achieve anything with your posts (given IF there is any real bug), you should take a slightly more intelligent approach to this.

Try using the S-24B rockets. Those can be fired quite far away, are accurate and effective. Don't wait for the hits just aim, fire and turn away. If you are in AAA range make an additional control input like a bit off roll into the turn, so that you flight path is more unpredictable.

Huge swarms of new F-16 pilots with TWS and Amraams but no IFF at all... No, I don't see how this could ever cause any problems. :) Seriously, some kind of placeholder IFF symbol anywhere, like a little F on the edge of the HUD or any other convenient solution will not disturb the immersion of 99% of the users, but will make the plane potentially usable for MP day one! I will certainly avoid flying on the same team with the F-16s until some kind of IFF solution is implemented.

I would consider steali... khm copying parts of the M2000C external soundset for the 21 as it is the best pre- F-18 external fighter sound in game. That one even features that characteristic boom as burner ignites (at least the 21s I've seen flying had that boom, but may have been a maintenance issue) For me the most important general external sound characteristic of a jet fighter is that ground shaking thunder. This is not an airliner or an A-10... comeon give us some proper fighter jet noise! :)

Great idea! And since we are at it I'd like to have: - radar elevation and azimuth command keys (not simply hotkeys to the jester commands but a sort of fine direct control.) - IFF key command! - break lock command - Display range command In short it would be the best to add the level of control of a FC3 aircraft radar through key commands to the front seat, in my opinion.

No, not yet. When they publish the fixes that are being worked on, then, hopefully it will get there soon. About the feelings part: You need BOTH the hard data and the feelings part to get an aircaft simulated right. All the fine little details cannot be read off a chart or the manuals, that is just impossible. That is why, in my opinion a developer needs pilot input for both FM and system developement. There is a reason why HB and ED is working with pilots. I can understant that finding a Mig-19 driver is close to impossible, but then still it would be important to get someone, who has some flight experience on anything that is at least a high performace jet. Sure a lot of sim products have been developed without that extra, but looking at the F-14 and F-18 you can see that it really pays off (at least for me the customer:)) It will be the same problem with the Mig-23. I'm 100% sure that if Razbam would get one of the F-14 SMEs involved in that developement, it would have a very positive effect on the FM. Who knows, maybe they will be interested about their old enemy.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=234339 Here, so no one gets lost. :)

They should open the hangar door at some unexpected time, or else all the update servers will crash under the load as the crowd jumps in at once. :lol:

I think one of the causes of not being on comms (for me certainly) is not having a human GCI most of the time. I don’t like to sit in front of the F-10 map instead of flying and the majority doesn’t as it seems... When someone is doing it for the common good, more people usually tune in. That seems to be the same on other servers like BF. How to make being in GCI more rewarding? Honestly, no idea.

NO! That is not what I have suggested. Couple of competent F-14s would wreck the other team even with sidewinders only... Then the remaining few would leave. The regular missions should stay 2. and 3rd gen only. Having an event, when a coordinated MiG-21/19 team would take on F-14s, now that’s an other question. That would be fun. But that could only work prearranged with coordinated teams with GCI and such.

:thumbup: Understood, and just to be clear, what I was suggesting was just a temporary special mission for the initial tomcat release frenzy. I would never want to upset the current main Mig-21 vs F-5 theme!

Come on! I have already tried to persuade You to change to rear aspect missiles only way back in October: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3668965&postcount=334 You said: No! Turned out to be fun in the end. :) Believe me: prehistoric Migs vs F-14 guns only dogfight is the way to go! :lol:

Regarding the F-14 release: What do you think about having a very simple, special guns only dogfight mission F-14 vs Mig-15/19 and of course the mighty Mig-28? That could be something interesting. Trying to gun down F-14s with a Mig-15 sounds quite fun to me. :joystick:

Is there any chance to let us have a look at some of that documentation you have, strictly limited to the absolutely relevant information? Since we, the customers are always (and rightfully) required to present real world data in form of manuals and charts to back up our bug claims, I think the same should apply to the developers side to make things clear! If that is not possible, I can understand, but in that case I would really like to know, what particular effect/feature is present in the simulated RD-9 that causes the engine thrust to suddenly increase that much in such a short RPM range. Again I am not saying it's wrong, just that it's very different from what we have seen so far, and therefore I am simply interested. Thank you!

We have an F-5E in DCS that is considered a high quality and realistic product. That plane features the GE J-85 single spool 9 stage axial compressor engine that has a certain behaviour that is more or less in line with all the other jet engines in DCS World Now we have the RD-9 single spool 9 stage axial compressor engine in the Mig-19, that for some reason behaves totally different, than the J-85 and also all the other engines in DCS World, and other sims and IRL (okay, okay I only know the CFM-56 and that is quite a different construction:)) My question, again is how can the RD-9 suddenly jump from not producing almost any thrust at lets say 9500 RPM to producing huge amount of thrust at 9800 RPM while the nozzle doesn't even move? Even if it's not a bug I would like to understand this behaviour. This is study sim after all isn't it?

Why this plane so slow goddamit?! :lol:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80T00246A061400380001-8.pdf Well, the CIA manual says, on page 33: "Caution1: It is permitted to increase thrust on both engines at the same time up to 10000 RPM"... otherwise one engine at a time during engine runup. So that is a limit, rather than minimum taxi thrust. on page 39: brake check: 74. "The brakes must hold the aircraft at 10000 RPM" So again it's a limit, according to this at 10500 they can not guarantee that the brakes can hold the plane. That is very different from minimum thrust to start rolling :) I think that there might be a gross misinterpretation here somewhere...

So, here is a track about that: Brakes off / burner off idle to 9500RPM, there is not enough thrust to move the plane 9500-9800, it starts to shake a bit, like something is about to happen 9800-10000, suddenly all the thrust is there! Note: look at the nozzle position and the EGT! There is no change there. Just to be more clear I have also tested nominal and mil thrust in the track, so that actual nozzle movement is visible. There is certainly none between 9800 and 10000RPM. I cannot think of any reason why an engine could behave like that with no indication on the instruments either. I mean RPM is almost the same and EGT is almost the same, then where does that sudden great thrust come from? MiG-19P Throttle response.trk