stefasaki

That is an asymmetric loading test conducted at high altitude. Shouldn’t happen with a clean aircraft and low altitude, as it’s now the case in DCS. It’s a typical airshow maneuver, which never resulted in a deep stall to my knowledge

Something drastic definitely happened, I came here specifically to check if anyone else noticed it... I went from comfortably avoiding any IR missile, including -9X's, with careful positioning and flares dispensing to dying consistently and unavoidably to IR missiles. This is breaking all my missions, please ED do something.

We’re not talking about the famous AOA-roll here related to syncing issues in MP, this also works in SP.

I think it’s a delay in the tracking logic. They did talk about introducing a delay in tracking some time ago, likely almost a year. I bet it works since then, even though I discovered it only a few months ago. Then it would be working as intended, or they need to tweak this delay.

I won’t be home for a few days but I do have a video on my phone if you can’t wait. Works perfectly even in single player, it’s just harder to pull off.

This has been an issue for quite some time. A 9g loaded roll will trash a head on AMRAAM even without using chaffs. It’s simply not needed. Works best at high altitude and speed against any AMRAAM with whatever energy, it actually works better if the missile is above Mach 2, so that it will be g-limited while maneuvering. I’ve actually been exploiting this glitch for a while, I was hoping that no one would report it it’s been a fun trick to master.

Hello, I've been having this issue since the 2.9.7 update even though no one else seems to be noticing it, or maybe it's just my pc for some reason. Anyway, enemy AI reacts to Fox 2 missiles in BVR fights unrealistically, dumping flares as soon as the missile is launched (again, beyond visual range), even though they could not be possibly aware of the launch. For those who have been here for some time this is nothing new, it's a recurrent issue that some DCS builds have. This bug basically renders the R-27ET useless in a PvE environment. Is anyone else experiencing this problem? If it's a widespread problem it'd be nice to have it resolved swiftly (as ED did multiple times) as it's a pretty bothersome nuisance. I could provide a .trk but I'm pretty sure you are all familiar with the problem. Thank you and keep up the good work!

I understand that this airport is very far from important areas and it's not even easily shown in the F10 map, however there's some beautiful terrain around and I love to fly there. Well, since the last update, there's trees in the middle of the runway and what used to be a river just before the runway is now a river colored hill. Aerodromo O'Higgins has a similar issue, albeit less serious: some trees are very close to the runway and I am pretty sure that's not the case in real life. I don't think these issues have already been reported but I do apologize in case they have. Keep improving the map and happy new year! below two screenshots for reference

It’s most likely at ISA +5 which is the standard dcs day. However temperature does not have an effect on the eagle in the game and its performance is mostly consistent with a -10 day on the charts. This also explains the mach 2.606 max speed that we have on a clean eagle in the game. The eagle’s flight envelope is accurate enough I think, there are much bigger differences for other airframes. It would just need a dependency on temperature (which has a huge influence)

Please turn down the passive aggressiveness, I was not attacking you in any way. I just gave an example about fatigue in aluminum, the main material for fighter jets. I just stated the fact that if something breaks at X force after about 10^5 cycles then it should break at 2X at the first cycle (18 is the double of 9 and forces on the airframe scale linearly with g's if the weight and configuration is the same). @Spurts Yes I was implying 10 cycles per hour, seemed reasonable for a fighter jet... I guess it depends on what we agree a cycle is. My comment was merely there to put numbers about fatigue stresses, it is not directly related to any aircraft but it applies well to a wing spar for instance. If we were to consider 10^4 cycles then the ultimate strength should be about 30% lower than the original.

The fatigue limit is always lower than the static limit. For aluminum it is halved after around 10^5 cycles, which is typical for an airframe life. This means that if an aircraft breaks up at 9 g's after 10^5 cycles then it is should be able to withstand 18 g's when it's new. This is an over-simplification of the problem but it should give you an insight.

We were comparing missiles with similar aerodynamic configurations, for which wing loading becomes the main difference. Comparing the standard case and the "variant" is pointless since their nose cone is very much different and as such this assumption cannot be made. also the "variant" is lighter and the geometrical wing loading (considering the body) is not that different

Any end of the year news about this? Things got horribly quiet lately and I am definitely looking forward to fly this mod...

There’s another thing though which could limit the AMRAAM performance compared to the AIM-9 aside from the higher wing loading (I’ll try to do rough calculations to get some numbers about this as soon as I can): that is trim control. On the AIM-9 both surfaces are producing positive lift when in a turn, due to the CG being in the middle, while on an AMRAAM the rear wings most likely just provide trim control (likely a downforce as the CG is forward of the main wing but could also be a small positive lift if the nose cone develops a strong enough force). This further decreases the effective lifting surface of the missile. It’s true that the max AOA of the AMRAAM is likely much higher than that of an AIM-9 but in my opinion it should not be enough to compensate for the difference in effective wing loading between the two missiles (at very high AOA the lift coefficient curve is almost flat for low aspect ratio lifting bodies). I stand by my opinion that the max lift coefficient seems overestimated in the game by at least 15% (up to 50% for worst case scenario). Of course we should have a real manual with experimental data to confirm this, as at the moment CFD’s for highly separated flows are definitely not reliable, even with industrial level resources (read this as “do not try to do this CFD at home”) @nighthawk2174 Just checked the geometrical wing loading (considering the area of the whole planform) : the aim-9 "variant" has a 26% lower wing loading compared to the aim-120C. If you account for the fact that the rear surfaces likely just provide trim on the AMRAAM, the difference in effective wing loading reaches at least 40%. This also means that for a specified lift coefficient and velocity the resulting g loading of the AIM-120C should be at least 40% less than that of the aim-9 "variant". Even agreeing that the AIM-120 is certainly capable of a higher max lift coefficient, this difference cannot be in the order of 40%.

Ok, first thing first: a missile doesn't reach 40 g's at 1100 kph as you stated before, that wasn't logical at all. The true value at 1100 kph and 10 kft according to your graph is between 10 and 12 G's which is definitely a more reasonable number. Then there's the original case: mach 1.3 at 3000 ft. Let's do a simple correction about the air density and your graph should still be useful. Rho at 3000 ft is 1.11 kg/m3 while at 10000 it becomes 0.9; therefore we can assume that your graph times ~1.23 should yield a somewhat correct value. The "variant" stands at roughly 25 (the line is closer to 30 but the graph is logarithmic) which is therefore corrected to 31. Now, since this value is around 15% less than what happens in the game, we can say that the model is in fact overestimating a bit. Then there's the fact that your graph is not about an AMRAAM but refers to an unspecified AIM-9. To believe that this graph is somehow valid for both, we'd need at least their wing loadings, which for most Sidewinder variants it should be lower than that of an AMRAAM. This in turn would mean that the expected max G at a specified Mach of an AMRAAM should also be lower than that of such AIM-9, i.e. less than 31 g's at mach 1.3 and much less than what happens in the game. Let me know if you have an actual wing loading number, we can only keep speculating otherwise. If that graph happened to be for an AIM-9M (surely not an -X) we can expect a wing loading which is about 30% lower than that of an AMRAAM, a value which would linearly correct the max G to 22 G's for my original test case. This is the value I'd actually expect from an aim-120c at 3000 ft and mach 1.3.