Ironhand

The switch isn’t animated but the commands do work.

Since it’s an aircraft, you’d expect it to be where the rest of the aircraft are discussed. So it stands to reason that people think that this is the place is for both. I discovered the -25T and the TF-51T dedicated forums quite by accident myself.

If you haven’t already, it’s probably time for a slow repair as MadKreator suggests. Prior to doing it, though, I’d rename the file you downloaded in the hope that the repair would generate a new “pristine” file for you.

Not sure why that file, of all things, would be hidden but… I don’t know how Win11 is set up but, if it’s anything like Win10, just set it to show hidden and system files. This might help: https://pureinfotech.com/show-hidden-files-windows-11-file-explorer/

That’s interesting. I have it and I don’t even know what you folks are talking about. So it should be there as part of the original installation.

??? The forum in which we are now conversing is for the Su-25(A). Even though the Su25T is listed as an FC3 aircraft on the DCS website, it has its own dedicated forum under the DCS World 2.8 heading (instead of here) due to its inclusion in the DCS World download. Of course, the distinction is lost on a lot of people and both aircraft often end up being discussed here.

Yes, she’s a rocket but, if you follow the manual, you shouldn’t be blowing tires. I think you’re joking but in case you’re not, during the takeoff run, lift the nose wheel off the runway when your speed reaches 230-250 km/hr and hold your pitch at 8-10*. The main gear should come off the runway by the time your speed reaches 260-280 km/hr—well before any tires blow. Your takeoff run should only be about 600-800 m long.

I know that’s how we refer to them here in the forums but it’s always been my impression that “Grach” was the Russian reference to the Su-25, while “Frogfoot” was the NATO reporting name. The reference applied to both variants. I could be wrong, though. On a slightly different note, as far as the “A” is concerned, that’s always seemed to be a forum convention rather than a real-world designation.

Those numbers were generated with your specified altitude of 5 km. Starting airspeed was 800 TAS (625 IAS) with 5 kg fuel each so that engines died soon after start of test with throttles pulled back to idle. My scenario was that you are gliding because you have ran out of fuel. No external stores on either aircraft for added drag. In the Eagle, the best speed for time in the air seems to be around 280 km/hr in the above scenario. 370-380 km/hr for best range. Those numbers are pretty much in line with what I’ve read the relationship should be. In the MiG, however, both best time and distance seem to be obtained with speeds in the 350-380 km/hr range which seems a bit odd. With engines at idle and enough fuel to make both aircraft of equal weight, my guess is that the F-15 will significantly outdistance the MiG-29 based on the pitch and sink rate numbers I was seeing. IIRC, the idle thrust of the F-15 in the sim is greater than that of the -29. If it’s sufficiently greater to make its pitch and sink rate numbers similar to the MiG-29’s, then it will definitely outperform it in glide. But that’s an experiment for another time.

The short answer is “ no”.

Best distance: 58 km in both. Best hang time for each: MiG-29: 7:50 over a distance of 57 km F-15C: 7:30 over a distance of 45 km

Do you mean lock the nose wheel? No. There is always either “low gain” or “high gain available.

Welcome and enjoy.

It is I. And I’m still hanging around.

Very nice indeed.

Not sure what to make of this statement. The real world aircraft does have and uses the ACS for route following, return (either after the last waypoint is passed or when the return button is pressed), and approach down to a height of 50 meters. So ED’s only decision was to model the real world aircraft in that regard. Of course, how the ACS accomplishes that is more complex in the real aircraft than what FC3 aircraft model but the end result (route following, etc.) is there. Just for chuckles I flew with the ACS again this morning with a 15 m/s crosswind component—the max allowable for the Su-27–to see how it would do. It handled it without any problems. Just had to keep my speed above 450 km/hr (which is the issue) until I took control over the inner marker.

Well…it used to work fine and still works fine at times in the present. The modeling of the tone announcing that you are within parameters and the bombs are about to drop is there as well. ED has always modeled CCRP for the Su-25A. It’s just become corrupted and needs to be fixed.

Are these missions that you’ve created yourself? Are they SP or MP? I ask because external views can be closed off through various settings. To be honest, though, I’ve never heard of only the AWACS being allowed through. Why would that be worthwhile anyway? In case you don’t already realize this, you can edit the TRK files to remove any restrictions. They are simply ZIP files with an altered suffix. Open them and use NotePad++ to peruse the files—there are two that contain the reference but I’m not where I can check which they are. Change any references to external views to make them allowed. (Obviously, if they are already allowed in then this is not the issue.) Another thought, does the problem exist with both the MT version of the sim and the old version? Finally, if you have a TRK file small enough, post it here and I or someone else can rummage through it to see what we can see rather than guessing at what the problem is.

I suspect that, as far as landing mode is concerned, there is something wrong with the simulation. I took a quick look at the real world manual and have seen nothing warning you about speed restrictions. That sort of stuff is usually given it’s own WARNING section so as not to be missed. If I was in the habit of using it, I’d probably use the ACS landing mode in bad weather, too. Just keep your speed about 20 km/hr higher (which you should do in bad weather, anyway) than the adjusted speed I mentioned above so that the system can react even more firmly. Don’t forget that it’s the trim system controlling the aircraft. I’d also probably take manual control prior to the inner marker.

I’m lost. What are these two videos proving or disproving?

“Wonky” is probably an apt description for the current implementation of the Su-27 ACS (autopilot). To be honest, I’ve seldom used the ACS myself in the past, preferring to trim and fly the aircraft, and use it not at all currently. Depending on what you are attempting to do, though, it works okay if you’re careful. For barometric hold, you need to be well trimmed. If you’re not, the oscillations you experience will be extreme. (Being within 10 m/s on the VVI is far from adequate.) I don’t mind the mild phugoid oscillations that you get once you’re trimmed, when not using the ACS. Assuming you are trimmed and at constant speed (but not too fast) both baro-hold and route following work fine (assuming the WP transitions for the latter don’t require anything extreme). When I experimented with it yesterday, the transition from enroute to return mode and the return sequence itself worked well. EDIT: (Inaccurate conclusion concerning landing mode removed.) The following was only tested on a PRMG enabled runway. The ACS landing mode does work-more or less-though much differently than it used to. Your speed needs to be above 450 km/hr as you leave the IAF. Once you pick up the ILS at 8km on the HSI, you can begin slowing down but stay above 350. Taking manual control prior to reaching a height of 60 m above the ground would probably be best. It used to be you could leave the IAF at slower speeds but that is no longer the case. The system is unable to adequately adjust to the sudden pitch down requirement as you start down the glide slope at slower speeds. As a result you quickly end up out of phase with increasingly severe oscillations as the system attempts to catch up.

So now I have to learn to walk on water?

Might be minor but still worth the report. Something is not right about the struts.

Then we mostly agree. Like you, I never notice a bounce in a good landing even though the tires leave the ground in the external view. In fact, it was Tin_Rat’s post that alerted me that it was happening at all. Definitely a fun aircraft to fly.