Alfa

I didn't dispute your findings - just offering a possible explanation :) The Su-33 is heavier, has a different aerodynamic configuration(including larger wing area) and has a lower max G rating(8 versus 9 of the Su-27), so if its assigned with the same limiter logic and restrictions as the Su-27 in DCS, then the airframe might be overloaded at extreme conditions where the Su-27 survives. I looked at your comparative graphs(or the associated data rather), but IMHO there are too many differences in the conditions for direct comparison.

Maybe the Su-33 is just using the same limiter as for the Su-27.

See? ;)

I know - I was on the test team for both "Flaming Cliffs" and "Blackshark" :) . But the fact is that all the fighter aircraft ported over from Lock-on, had neither AFM or 6DOF cockpits in FCx until recently.

AFM/PFM is not a FC3 feature - it is in fact very much a DCS attribute, that ED has decided to port over to FC3 aircraft one by one(the MiG-29 doesn't have it yet). Same actually goes for the full 6 DOF cockpits - again really DCS features ported over to FC3 and, I assume, partly in order to lay the ground for upgrading them to full DCS level at some point. Secondly, I don't think you understand what I am talking about - my suggestion has nothing to do with what is "faster/cheaper", but with what is possible. Many of the more modern aircraft types that people would like to see in the sim just aren't possible to make to DCS level, but might be to a lower "game-play" level of systems aka FC3. In other words it might enable us to have something that we would otherwise never see in DCS and I personally find that a lot more interesting than simplified versions of what we already have.

Well there is your problem - "an awesome flight sim" is never going to be easy to learn :) It sounds like your friends(like most people) don't really have an interest in this sort of thing and therefore aren't willing to put any effort into it, but you are trying to get them to play it anyway....thats always going to be a dead end regardless of whether its FC3 or DCS. Besides, there are eight FC3 level aircraft and they are IMO even the most interesting types in the sim, so its not like you and your friends are left with nothing unless ten more are modified from DCS as the OP suggests. Moreover, if you read my last post again, you will see that I suggested FC3 being used as a way of implementing new aircraft types that cannot be made for DCS.

IMO if there is a problem with DCS versus FC3, is not with the difficulty level for the "end-user", but rather that the required level of documentation for making aircraft to DCS standard inevitably narrows down the pool of realistic candidates considerably - e.g. the call for "modern multirole red aircraft" often expressed on this forum is something that just isn't possible. Here FC3("DCS lite" or whatever) could be used for introducing new entries, for which there isn't sufficient documentation available for a full DCS module. But since upgrading the existing FC3 aircraft to DCS level is within the realms of possibility, I think the effort/resources would be better spend on this, rather than going in the opposite direction and downgrade DCS entities to FC3 level.

About those arguments - the first one has merits, while the latter is complete BS. If we "imagine those planes aren't classified", then why this inconsistency.. "Su-30(any version)" "MiG-29A/S" ..in the poll options?. An Su-30K may be doable in the same way as a "MiG-29A/S", while an Su-30SM would be just as improbable as a MiG-29K.

Ok I see what you mean - yeah the Tomcat is certainly in a different league in this respect.

I don't he meant it like that - just as a menu deck crew command to move the aircraft back.....in whatever way they choose :)

Radom airshow 2018 is 25-26th of August. Looks like there will be two at Duxford this year - the "Duxford Flying Legends Air Show"(quite appropriate :) ) 14-15 July and another "Battle of Britain airshow" in late September. Anyway, Europe has a "gazillion" airshows throughout the year - check this 2018 list: https://airshowinfo.hu/en/european_airshows/ Lots to pick from :)

Thats how it works on the real ship. More importantly - fighter radars only find things in the direction they are looking, while 3D search radars scan 360 degrees.

I think fergrim was referring to how things work in the game - not for the real ship. The Kuznetsov has a multitude of radars for different purposes. The ATC installation is just for that - managing air traffic control. The planar arrays are part of the Mars-Passat system, which is an "AEGIS style" installation, the top mounted rotating antenna is a Fregat-MA 3D surface/air search radar(standard on pretty much all Russian warships). These are the ones that provide "GCI service" and can be further augmented by the Ka-31 EAW helicopter, which has no direct connection with airborne fighters, but only serves as an "elevated radar" for the ship's control post. There is no single radar for ADS - the different AD systems each have their own target acquisition radars(and opticals), such as the MR-360 for each of the Kinzhal systems, while the Kortik system has both a command module(dedicated 3D search radar) and target acquisition radar/opticals on each combat module etc.

Not sure what you mean by "showing the HUD glass" - just the projection glasses, the lense or with data displayed? Anyway, attached is a photo of a Lot 18(BUNO 165174) cockpit - it should look very similar(if not identical) to a Lot 20 and even has the same "after marked" modifications(AMPCD and HMD) as the version being developed for DCS.

Yeah I was thinking the same - a radio command menu(like for refuel and arming) with extended options for deck handling.

Don't know about the first item - good question. Aside from this particular issue, the flight deck is(as you know) a highly "orchestrated" place with lots of procedures and interaction with the deck crew and it will be interesting to see how and to what extend Eagle manages this aspect. For the second question though - this is done by handlers and is actually a rather cumbersome and slow process that involves tying the aircraft down to the elevator before it descends....so letting the pilot "drive" it down to the hanger deck would not be a realistic proposition.

:doh: The "K" suffix is a general export designation - the Su-27SK has also been exported to Vietnam, Ethiopia and Indonesia.

No it isn't. Another example: Su-30MKK - first "K" is for "commercial/export", while second "K" is for "Китай"(China). Su-30MKI - first "K" is for "commercial/export", while "I" is for "India"

Su-27S - Russian AF version. Su-27SK - export version of the same aircraft. Su-27UB - Russian two-seat combat-trainer version. Su-27UBK - export version of the same aircraft. Su-27PU = Su-30 - Russian two-seat interceptor version(modified -UB) Su-30K - export version of the same aircraft. Su-27K = Su-33 - naval version(in this case "K" stands for "Корабельный") But its correct that they all use the same basic N001 radar. The Su-27SM is an upgrade to the Su-27S and has an upgraded WCS and radar(N001VE), with an extra air-to-air mode for the RVV-AE compatibility and several air-to-surface modes. So Esac_mirmidon is right that a video of the Su-27SM HUD cannot be used directly for determining details for the "baseline" Su-27S HUD. Su-27M = Su-35 Originally fitted with the N011 planar slotted array radar, which has nothing what so ever in common with the N001. The N011 later formed the basis of the N011M "Bars" (passive phased array) radar - first tested on Su-27M/Su-35 prototypes and later installed in the Su-30MKI for India. Actually it does - the "M" suffix usually denotes either a new advanced version or a thorough upgrade involving advanced technology. The "K" suffix has been used both for denoting a navalised and an export variant, but as mentioned above the "K" suffix is incorrect in connection with the Su-35 - the original designation was "Su-27M". There is definitely a revolutionary change from the N001 to the N011 - they are completely different radars!

Yes but you are confusing cause and effect :) - the AKU-470 ejector racks don't have coolant for the IR versions of the R-27, because these cannot use ejector racks. Only two -T/ETs can be carried(any variant of the Flanker). There are only two pylons compatible with the IR version(s) of the R-27 - these are also the only ones from which rocket pods can be used...hence the availability of a dual rack for those. The two extra inner wingpylons on later Flanker variants are too close to the engine inlets for rail launchers(must employ ejector racks just like the fuselage stations) and again, the R-27T/ET cannot use ejector racks(-R/ER can use both types of launchers). So the maximum R-27 load is: Su-27: 6x R-27R/ER or 4x R-27R/ER and two R-27T/TE Su-30MKx: 8x R-27R/ER or 6x R-27R/ER and two R-27T/TE

It makes zero sense at all. The R-27T was designed to take advantage of optimal seeker acquisition range in tail-on engagements, while it has similar range limitations as the R-73 in head-on engagements due to the IR seeker. The R-27R was designed to provide optimal range in head-on engagements by combining SARH with INS+radio correction(i.e. launch range not limited to SARH seeker range), while it has pretty abysmal performance in tail-on. In a head-on engagement as described by the OP, you would have negated all advantages of the -R if you close into a range where you could realistically employ the -T first.

AFAIK the F-15 doesn't really have one and in the MiG-29 there is no separate switch to turn it off - it is just stick pull through. In the Hornet there is a paddle switch on the stick that allows overriding the limiter by pulling it at stick position close to full aft. Don't really see why overriding the AOA limiter should be less permissable in the Su-27 - aren't we confusing it with disabling the FCS as such(direct control)? Edit: what Esac_mirmidon said :)

Who is arguing? - I agreed with you that 30% fuel doesn't amount to "the same" for the two aircraft in question. But whether the same amount in kg is "fair" or not depends on how you look at it - e.g. what if I put 3500 kg of fuel in the Flanker and the same amount in the MiG-29...see what I mean? :) Anyway, as GG said, to evaluate the turning performance of a particular airframe, you need to compare it to RL charts and match the conditions used in those and not bring in the performance of an entirely different aircraft.

Thats true and, as mentioned, the large internal capacity of the Su-27 is in part down to a design decision not to employ external drop tanks, but... ...you would normally also try to scale the fuel capacity to engine consumption. The Su-27 has more engine power than the F-15C and thus likely a higher consumption rate, so it might actually need that extra fuel to achieve the same endurance. But for trying to evaluate the accuracy of the FM against official performance charts, it is of course necessary to assign the exact fuel state used in these.

Heh yeah - it sounds contradictory, but there is some truth to it and, as per Yo-yo's remark, it also sounds like thats exactly how it is regarded :) .