Ironhand

Watched your trk and I see why you concluded what you did. It's interesting that, while in Enroute mode, barometric stabilization keeps you below the required altitude. OTOH, while in landing mode, it keeps you above the required altitude. You won't notice the latter, of course, unless you don't extend your landing gear and flaps. It's having the aircraft in landing configuration that causes the oscillations.

Thank you. I’ll download your trk as soon as I am able to.

Watched your track again and, this time, it played back differently. And I see what you mean. And that would be another bug, if that is, indeed, the case.

As Draconus notes, it was a design choice. The Su-27 is a huge aircraft, roughly the size of some regional commercial aircraft--a Yak-40, for instance. They decided to have it carry all of its fuel internally. Here's a bit about the internal workings and typical refuelings.

I suppose the answer might depend on the map you want to fly.

Just remembering wrong. You’re right, of course.

The issue with DCS is that they will NOT model something for which they do not have official documentation, either legally available on the web (released by the manufacturer to the public) or provided directly to them by the manufacturer. They will not "model" something based on photographs and a general description. FC3 had become the DCS foster child, still looked after (bug fixes) but no longer nurtured (added functionality) because it was the only way to keep REDFOR aircraft in the sim. And, since it was being kept alive, they decided to get some additional use from it with FC4. I'm fine with that simply because I've been in ED's Su-27 pits since the late 1990's and am happy not to give it up. But even though FC4 is not full fidelity, that doesn't mean that ED is willing to change what they use as data to model something. Whether FC4 or a full fidelity module, they will base what they do only on official documentation. That's something I can live with for selfish reasons. If you cannot, then you will be constantly frustrated.

In this, I partially agree. While I don’t usually feel like a target drone, life can be more challenging for a Flanker pilot. But, once ED decided to go the DCS route, the sim no longer had much to do with balance for several reasons, most of which ED cannot control. So unless they decide to create fantasy aircraft or weapon systems, it will remain a NATO advantaged sim.

Thanks for that. ED has been modeling that as the method since the early 2000s (?) even before they decided to add the PRGM window dressing on the HUD and HSI for the Russian FC3 aircraft. The fact is that, with those aircraft, you can make a precision landing on any ILS or PRGM equipped runway.

Finally had an opportunity to look at this. The lock isn't lost, I don't think. It's still there. It's even indicated on the HUD. What isn't indicated is the EORL that I think you're expecting. When that is there, you'll have range information. Without it, you don't. And that might actually be the issue. I took your TRK file and edited it to add 2 R-27ERs. Took control of your track after the EOS locked your target, engaged launch authorization override, and was able to launch the R-27ER prior to EORL showing up. That wouldn't be possible without a radar lock. TRK attached. BlackPixxel_HOJ_IRST_BUG-Reflown.trk

Sure. But you'll have to disable "G effects" to do it. Otherwise you'll black out and hit the ground before you can complete it. I took control of your "MiG-29 Damper not working 3" track. 7500m and 2000 km/hr. See attached. Split-S.trk

The damper is a part of the AFCS (SAU 451). The SOS-3 is simply the system showing you what your AoA and G are. It doesn't limit a blessed thing.

It's not. You're supposed to take manual control no later than 50-60 meters above the ground. But that's not the issue. The issue is the extreme oscillation you often encounter in the sim. In the real world manual do I not see an instruction to turn off Barometric Altitude hold prior to hitting the transition from Return to Landing mode when using the ACS in full automatic mode. So I think it's supposed to work as it used to in the sim, and still does, if you wait to extend your landing gear and, especially, your flaps. But, like I said earlier, maybe Flappie should ask the question.

And also from people who rely on the real world manuals.

That's because, as you note, the MiG-29 does not have a G-limiter. That's true both in the sim and the real aircraft. And, yes, if you pull too many Gs, bad things can happen like in your third track where you pulled 18Gs repeatedly. EDIT: That video you linked where the Canon camera was being tested for performance at 7 Gs. What was that supposed to prove, exactly?

Where in there does it stipulate that the damper limits it to those numbers? The G-loading chart is simply indicating the load limits for maintaining the structural longevity of the aircraft at various Mach numbers and altitudes.

It's not up to me to prove. You claim it has a G-limiter. If you have a source, please provide it. OTOH, download the German Mig-29 Manual (in English) available on the web and refer to pages 1-67 and 1-68.

I watched the MiG-20 TRK files and you fail to control your G loading, since the -29 doesn't have a G-limiter as the Flankers do. That's not the damper's function. That's why it's not referred to as a G-limiter. It's there to keep AoA, pitch, and yaw within acceptable limits. You can especially see it attempting to do just that in the 3rd track as it repeatedly tried to neutralize the stick as the limits were exceeded.

@Flappie Here's the TRK file I posted above but, this time, I take over prior to where I had lowered my landing gear and leave everything alone. Notice how smooth the transition is. This is done with Nav, Auto, and Baro Alt hold selected on the ACS. A simple pitch down to start down the glide path and, then, none of the oscillations that occurred when the landing gear and flaps were extended in the original TRK. I lower the landing gear part way down the glide slope without so much as a wobble. Later, I extend the flaps. All is well until right around 1 km out, when the system suddenly commands an unnecessary pitch up at which I disengage the AP and land. That pitch up with the flaps extended should not have happened. Nor should the oscillations occur when the gear and flaps are extended from the start as they were in the original track. Also notice that in both tracks, the AP kept me above the glideslope rather than exactly on it. That's another, separate issue. Flanker AP Landing Test PRGM-Mozdok-Late Gear&Flaps.trk

LAlt+6 is route following without altitude control. It simply keeps you pointed at the waypoint or, in landing mode, the runway centerline. You climb or descend based on your throttle setting. If that is how it now is meant to work, then there's no issue. I suppose you should ask. OTOH, Landing Mode had always, in the past, been done with Barometric Altitude hold engaged, what you get with the "A" key. The combination brought you smoothly down the glideslope. In my testing, that works most of the time, if you keep your landing gear and flaps stowed. Using either the "A" key or "LAlt+6" with "LAlt+4" (route following and barometric altitude hold both engaged) works equally well. It seemed to be the extension of the flaps especially that really screwed things up.

This has been going on for a long time, perhaps since the introduction of the PFM. Maybe before. At any rate, the ACS Landing Mode is mostly broken, often leading to severe oscillations in the pitch channel that make landing impossible. I've attached a TRK file demonstrating an attempt to land at Mozdok. There is no wind in the mission. I approach the final waypoint and some of the Return Mode using what the sim refers to as "Route Following Mode" (LAlt+6) alone because I want to stay at roughly the insertion altitude for the glidepath. If I had used "A" or had added "BaroAlt Hold" the AP would have added some extreme altitude changes to confuse the issue after the switch to Return Mode. Once Return Mode commanded the altitude drop to the glidepath insertion altitude, I add "Barometric Altitude Hold" (LAlt +4). Lowered my landing gear. Lowered my flaps. Hit the glidepath insertion and the oscillations began and got worse. Eventually, the system directed me back to the mid-insertion point and things got even more exciting from there. I've tried landing on 4 of the 6 PRGM equipped runways--the default runways for Mozdok and Krymsk and the similarly equipped runways at Kransnodar Center and Maykop. Not all of the runways yield similar results. For some reason, I seem to have much better luck landing at Maykop. Also want to mention that 100% of the time, on the occasions that the system works without extreme oscillations, the system holds you above the glidepath. Flanker AP Landing Test PRGM-Mozdok-Fail2.trk

Are, by any chance, stalling the airframe?

Yes. I wasn't fully awake yet, when I wrote that. I was lost in the units.

In the F-15C, it's the ADI that gives you the ILS bars. In the Russian birds, it's the HSI rather than the ADI that has them. In both, they don't come alive until, magically, at 8 km (4.3 nm) from the runway. Fast forward to 9km from landing. At 8 km from the runway, it'll magically come alive even though the HUD says it has the localizer and glideslope beams dialed in right from the initial transition from Return to Landing mode. The same thing is happening with the ADI in the F-15. Flanker AP Landing Mode Test Maykop.trk

Ahh. Thanks for the explanation.