AeriaGloria

It is not practical in my opinion to have it like the “disable Microswitch by moving pedals from center” option, which presses microswitch only when pedals are moved 9% from center. And even if you made this deadzone say 1-2%, because when turning you often need the pedals close to center. Especially in left turns and the faster you go where flying straight might actually need left or right pedal depending on speed. People that fly with this setting often find the Yaw autopilot fighting them as they do a coordinated turn, making flying imprecise. They then use more pedal to turn then needed, leading to excess drag and lower performance. IMO however your setup, it should be selected to stay microswitch on before you takeoff, and only disabled when you deliberately want it so at certain stages of flight you want it to fly straight, such as quickly taking yours hands off the controls or eyes off the surrounding area. I currently have the “Yaw Pedal auto move” off right now with my pedals that have a foot pressure microswitch installed, because I do not want SDV-5000OA unknowingly trimming the aircraft the few times I used heading hold If I had FFB pedals that stayed in position, but had no foot pressure sensing microswitch, I would still need some other switch or button to switch modes if I wanted to fly like reality where Yaw heading hold is off 99% of the time and Stabilization mode is doing almost all my Yaw channel assist. However that would be the one case I would use “Yaw pedal auto move on” is with FFB pedals microswitch or not. Because then you could FEEL the SDV-5000OA trim the pedals, they would move and stay where you leave them so if trimmed you can just move them back. Center would always be center no matter how much they had been trimmed and you would always have full authority (since trimming works in game by reducing authority of the side that isn’t trimmed) But since FFB pedals are almost never used and not really made in scale, the whole working of “Yaw pedal auto move/SDV-5000OA auto trimming when heading hold runs out of authority” becomes a nuisance and something that hurts more then helps If everyone had FFB pedals, and with a microswitch, then people would probably have no problem understanding the use of the yaw autopilot because it would work completely intuitively, seamlessly, and perfectly. Since we don’t have that hardware, we have to struggle with needing to do things like have no pedal auto move because it hurts more then helps without the intended interface, or choose manual microswitch work because the default disable by moving from center mode is sub-optimal and something better yet automatic can’t be created since pedals aren’t made with microswitches On Ka-50 the PPR option that disables heading hold when pedals are moved from center actually makes sense because your pedals stay centered at all phases of flight, and don’t get trimmed. Not so on an aircraft who’s speed to pedal relationship looks like this

1. Yes, the hydraulic damper is able to move the pedals according to hydraulic force triggered by the autopilot system so that it can use the full authority of the anti torque control The only way for heading hold to work is pilot has to take feet off pedals or atlas more touch the top of the pedals. So only possible when pilot removed feet or uses only their heels. I think it is common misunderstanding to think the system works while pilot is using pedals for normal flight 2. A. I wouldn’t say it is needed to move the pedals for hover, but that I don’t think any pilot would really take their feet off the pedals and let the autopilot handle anti torque for takeoff or landing. Maybe to help hold once in position. Letting Heading hold take care of it also isn’t perfect because the nose needs to move left about 7 degrees before the Heading Hold is outputting maximum force. Again, I think it’s a misunderstanding that heading hold is there so pilot can take their feet off pedals for takeoff or landing. Is is there only for maintaining heading once already stable B. Our Mi-24 is a later model with larger anti torque rotor blade chord by about 12%. This gives it better Yaw control then earlier Mi-24D and 24V models. 3. Yes. Turning Pedal Auto move to off changes the Heading hold from having 118% authority + trimming to only 18% authority + no trimming. It is not harder to fly because SDV-5000-OA is only helping Heading hold, which is only needed to keep a specific heading, a function whose usefulness depends entirely upon your flying style. It has no function with the “stabilization mode” with microswitch pressed that actually helps dampen yaw, reduce ditch roll, and make maneuvering more smooth. It is most realistic with pedal auto move on and having microswitch in your pedals bound to microswitch. But understand that Heading Hold is almost certainly never used in takeoff/landing so pilots can take their feet off the pedals during the most dangerous phase of flight, and i would bet that many pilots go through whole flights while never using heading hold. If you are flying along a route, route hold is much better as it corrects for wind. Using heading hold by taking feet off pedals was likely good for allowing pilot to mess with some switch/knob or navigation, pay attention to some task and let heading hold keep the aircraft mostly straight. It is not something to actively assist you in all phases of flight at all times But that’s also part of being a simulator, some users use features much more then they would be used in real life; and some use them in ways they were not intended to be used, or use them differently because the implementation can’t be identical to reality (the “activate microswitch by moving pedals from center” giving the impression that heading hold that should assist you whenever you fly straight instead of having to be knowingly engaged in reality by lifting your feet)

Still means you end up with an aircraft that has worse turn rate sustained and instantaneous, worse acceleration, worse climb, speed, G limits. I’m sure a lot of that is due to the weight. Would be interesting to test them both in DCS at equal weight Edit: according to CL’s chart here, Su-27 with about 25% fuel (2350 kg, Su-33 is 2200 kg heavier empty), still beats Su-33 by a good margin However perhaps it is tested without emergency power. In DCS.silver.ru the Su-27 still has advantage with normal AB Su-33 but with emergency power added the Su-33 actually slightly beats it. https://dcs.silver.ru/165-7175,34,168,turnrate

While there are many similarities, there is very little Su-33 documentation or information public, and there is no way to “test” its flight model except the few things that we know, that it’s draggier and then the Su-27 airframe and should have worse speed and sustained turn characteristics with positives in AOA control ability and slow speed handling

There many things they could add, G suit, SPO-2, increases air brake area, rear periscope. I also believe there was a canopy change that increased rare visibility that ours doesn’t have. Especially if these are ME option so we can have pre and post 1952 versions

Su-27SK is 570 kg heavier in empty weight then Su-27S due to reinforcement of landing gear and structure for higher takeoff and payload weight. So I would assume the Su-27SK manual turn performance to be slightly lower then what we would of expect from an “ideal” Su-27S flight model

I don’t have a chance to check your track right now, but I’ve gotten all modes to work for me. Is anything bound to AP disconnect? I can set minimum radar alt and it will recover, climb above, then engage barometric alt hold. In return to level flight, alt hold, it will dive a bit before maintaining level

ED, I’m sure a lot of people would love it if you created a n optional MiG-29A 9.12S with the newer C-101/102 computer for R-77 use and 14% more range, along with 2 degree more AOA. That way you wouldn’t have to make a new cockpit and external model like you would for 9.13S, a just a few files changes for loadout/radar/flight control

I tested this. I couldn’t fire and just turn on IRST and turn off radar However it would work if it automatically switched to EO/TP upon lost lock, such as notching Target would still be covered by radar lock symbol (in MiG-29), so radar still active, but HUD showing only TP/EO However, if missile was farther then about 2-9 km, it would not work. Sometimes it would acquire at 2-9 km then lose it right before hitting. Sometimes it would just never acquire. Sometimes it would acquire at 9 km and guide the whole way with TP/EO. Extremely random

This part of the AIM-120 paper that ED released when the FM was remade is likely what you want

I will give it a try!

Does this actually happen? It will guide R-27R when it says EO? in DCS? Still means there is little to no reason for “EORL/TPRL” mode

The reason for firing missiles in the track is to show via telemetry the alignment of the missile axis, which you can tell via even F10 is aligned 2 degrees below boresight in MiG-29/Su-27, but 4 degrees below fixed net/gun boresight in Su-33 I also found this LUA difference between Su-27 and Su-33, perhaps has something to do with it, and hopefully can help point to the “why” if it’s intended or not, the Su-27 LUA shows “0” for “elevation initial”, and Su-33 LUA shows “2” for “elevation initial.”

I was testing things recently and found some stuff at odds with the manual for the DCS Su-33. According to manual for both, in fixed net, the “x” should be where to aim missiles for Fi0 mode. However this “x” is 2 degrees above the actual center of the missile lock zone in Fi0. In addition, DCS MiG-29 and Su-27, which share many elements including Fi0 mode and fixed net alignment, have the missile axis/Fi0 lock zone centered on the fixed net “x,” and the gun aiming at boresight 2 degrees above at the center of the fixed net However in DCS Su-33, the fixed net is 2 degrees higher, with fixed net “x” not only 2 degrees above the Fi0 missile lock center, but the gun and fixed net boresight is 4 degrees above this missile lock zone. It seems the HUD artificial horizon is two degrees lowered in Su-33, and the gun shoots much higher in the HUD symbology. The missile axis in both DCS Su-27 and Su-33 is 2 degrees below the boresight/AOA=0 line, but only in Su-33 is the gun and boresight of the fixed net 2 degree above true aircraft reference line (AOA = 0). This can only be explained by the HUD Symbology not only being tilted either 2 degrees down or 2 degrees high depending on the mode, but the gun being tilted 2 degrees higher then DCS Su-27. As far as the manual and everything I have read about Su-33 the structure of the gun mounting should not be different (as well as looking visually identical), and the fixed net should have the “x” in the center of the Fi0 missile lock zone. Either the gun really is tilted 2 degrees up and fixed net with it, or there is some error with how these are lined up. I understand if this is intentional and not communicated in the manual, but I wanted to make sure it wasn’t a bug or an error and if there is any reason for it to be this way Here is a track, thank you missile-gun-axis-test.trk Here is also 3 pictures of DCS MiG-29, Su-27, and Su-33 at low altitude and high speed over the ocean, with less then 1 degree AOA and level flight, while firing the gun with fixed net. You can easily see how the Su-33 fixed net is tilted 2 degrees higher along with the gun bullet trajectory, they are two big so here is a google drive link https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10eVF7tHxP3hu8HEVrB05oqpiwoFLaMlu

I’m afraid to watch it. This guys videos feel like the a Wikipedia.mp4 with multiple doses of “how awesome can I make this sound without going into any depth whatsoever”

Not in DCS with EO lock. It’s not simulated that laser range is limited to about 3 km, and it needs 0.25 hz radar pulse above that range to get range (KVO mode mentioned by IH), only updated every 4 seconds. In game, it is as if laser has infinite range There are two lights on right hand instrument panel that turn on if radar or IRST is locked, though I am unsure if both can be on at once IMO, EORL has only one use case in game, in close combat mode search. While searching in close combat, It can use both and will lock with whatever gets lock first. In lock mode it seems to not matter other then not telling you which is primary sensor. In either RL or EO mode, if lock is lost and secondary sensor has lock, primary sensor switches. IRL this is different, I believe Ironhand can correct me, but I don’t believe there is a way to have a “both sensors looking and first to lock works” There will consistently always be a “primary/leading” channel/sensor and “Secondary/Slave” channel/sensor If secondary gets lock first, depending on mode, it will not shows lock but only cue primary sensor until it gets lock then display it IRL, As IH said, this primary or secondary sensor is often chosen by position of selected mode, radar illumination switch, Laser designator, weapon selection of IR or radar missile, or gun mode activation But in game it is entirely done by only selecting radar on/off or EO on/off

Wouldn’t that be using Mfi-55, or it optional?

What they had said was 1. Interviewing active duty Mi-24 pilots said that the YakB was not very useful as a gun. And the P was vastly preferred. You can also see this in how the P models have outlasted the V in greater numbers in both Russian and Ukrainian Service 2. they had also said that yes, both pilot and CPG can use the Gsh-30-2K while flying but as you correctly said, the CPG cannot use the gun and fly at the same time. The gun can be locked to boresight and used by the pilot with CCIP the same way we can currently with the GUV pods So yeah, the P was chosen because its firepower makes it more useful and desirable to many in DCS, and they thought it could be fun for CPG also, but I really think that’s just to justify the decision. In the end I believe it was really just about firepower https://stormbirds.blog/2021/01/09/new-dcs-mi-24p-information-translated-from-russian-interview/

Not to mention, since it’s descended from Tu-16 turret, it also air to air modes AND, it can be used for a pseudo CCRP bomb mode, where CPG points at target, and using radar altimeter and correct bomb ballistic input will drop bomb at correct spot provided Pilot has done drift correction The CPG can even choose to use barometric altitude data manually put in, or offset the radar altitude to adjust for any known terrain elevation changes in any air to ground mode

Very helpful! I have read every MiG-29 weapon employment and technical manual I can get my hands on and no answer. So thanks a lot. Kindve the whole reason we are discussing this in the first place. Not trying to disprove any point just saw it and thought maybe it could be explained. Good day!

The memory mode at gimbal limit doesn’t seem to work well (if at all) here

Wow, impressed they had the SPO-15 upgrade

Happy to have your experience here!

Yes. I might be exaggerating. Some of the electronic ones can definitely get to me though. 300 pages of which contact connects to another contact? Sometimes I have to tap out temporarily lol

Someday I hope to make a holy pilgrimage to a real Mi-24. I’ve just tried to find any manual I could and translate and read it. Every book. Anything on the internet. Boring maintenance books (one tells you the exact gear ratios of the autopilot!), just a lot of study