Airhunter

The video literally shows the control inputs during the famous cobra maneuver Have you even watched it? You HAVE to push the nose over quite forcefully to break the alpha. And no, the plane won't ever nose over and enter an inverted, unrecoverable stall where, for some reason, you lose all elevator authority even though it's not masked by the airframe. This is indeed a flaw in the FC3 flight model in that particular regime. You can believe me or not, that is completely up to you. I've talked to a couple active duty Flanker pilots and they both have tried DCS (from pre 1.5 and up). The FM and FCS have serious flaws and there isn't a flight regime that would cause losing control of the aircraft - that was literally the primary goal and design of the Flanker's FBW system - ease of control for your everage russian, low hour pilot. How people can belive that DCS and especially the arcady FC3 level aircraft resemble their real counterparts accurately and are the pinacle of flight modelling is beyong me. It's a videogame, slightly more on the simulator spectrum. If people point out inaccuracies in various modules that are blatantly wrong then it's kind of up to the developer whether they want to adress this or not. Some contantly tweak their FM's and flight envelope models, because they really care, some simply don't, because they don't care. Point being, it's a game, enjoy it for what it is, even the PFM's have flaws if done poorly. That doesn't mean however that one can't adress and fix the obvious game breaking stuff. As a sidenote, in the ral thin you never ever want to disengage the FCS, ever. Cobra is performed in normal law with all sytems operational. If you turned the system off any external or internal impulse could render the aircraft unflyable and uncontrolable.

Trust me, it's not him, it's the f-ed up FC3 flight model bs. Here's a cockpit view of said maneuver showing proper control inputs. Timestamp: 1:18:59

Also, look at the AOA indexed, it's very dim during the day. Lights seem washed out etc.

Interesting how this wasn't communicated to anyone.

Lighting and more importantly the various anunciator lights illumination is still pretty terrible. Not even close to what it was on release. It's either overly washed out and bloomy or barely visible.

Would be cool if we could have the zulu time of day on the HUD hidden by default and not have to turn it off manually each time we hop in the jet.

Doesnt happen IRL, like, ever. Thats what the FBW is for. And even when you end up on your back recovery is very easy. If thid behabiour was the case the world famous taislide and cobra would not be possible.

Very nice! May I ask what was causing it?

As for this statement: With landing (AUX) flaps extended the operational limit is 0 to 2.0 G's (in both roll and pitch). With maneuver flaps extended the limit is 5.2, non rolling. So congrats, you broke the jet. Said scenarios, speed and load factor regimes you mention are way outside the envelope and have no real performance data for them (because nobody ever went there). Somehow if I bust those limits (not nearly by the magnitudes you mentioned), running the latest open beta of DCS, the flaps will jam, (asymmetrically in the worst case), something else will break or snap and render the jet useless. I wonder why.

You haven't answered my question regarding your background (you probably don't want to either). What chart (document page) are you referencing for your tests specifically? How are you getting the telemetry from DCS and how are you flying said tests? (Please dont tell me you are using an external autopilot like that other guy). What hardware are you using? (HOTAS setup). Last time I checked going anywhere above 12G's will damage your INS and break the jet, wings will snap at 13 and you'll be a mission kill either way. If you somehow manage to pull 18 G's by an abrupt pull on the stick for a fraction of a second then, well that might be a DCS-ism and has literally no use whatsoever in any imaginable scenario of flight envelope. Even certified full flight simulators the NAVY, other militaries and civilian operators use, usually have a descrepancy of around 5% compared to the real thing, even with a full proper control loading setup with AFU's. Keep in mind DCS is a desktop simulator and apart from the visual and aural feedback there is no way of feeling load factors on both the jet, your body, flight stick loads (in the case of hydromechanical systems) or various other aerodynamic factors such as buffet, sideslip and atmospheric influences. Even with said knowledge and posession of the mentioned performance data stated in the perf. manual and your conducted tests on sustained rates and G's, how would said knowledge be applied in any useful and most importantly, consistant manner? Are you now a god of DCS BFM and can beat anyone in any plane at will just because you have a perceived 1,5-2° advantage? Or do you simply live in your little theoretical world with numbers, making yourself believe that? Lastly, the "haha, hihi and huhu's" only show your level of maturity and seriousness. Nothing personal, just an observation.

May I ask what your background is? Genuinely curious for various reasons. Which charts are you using to compare this to? (navy ducument designation please).

Your point being?

Yep, I have my shadows on the highest setting and it appears normal.

These are the only values I could find. After checking some other manuals and pilots notes this seems generally ok though. A turbine speed of 85-90% seems to be the norm on final.

Whats the MLW?

Was 2000 liters this time. I get that you shouldnt land heavy but I'm fairly certain that a clean 21 with just 2000 liters of fuel wont exceed max landing weight.I've landed with 3000 in the past and it was mostly fine. Your weight shouldnt have too much of an effect on pitch and power settings.

As of these latest changes (currently 25th June 2020) the Mig seems veery draggy in landing configuration. I've done a few flights on the persian gulf and nevada and it seems like you need 90 to almost 100% of N1 in order to maintain 360-340kph with a reasonable descent rate. Not the 75-80% that are mentioned in the manual.

Doubt it, if anything we'll have a significant drag reduction in most areas and better, more energy conserving guidence, which in turns extends the maximum range and increases energy retention. The main goal of this CFD treatment is for the missile to be believable and not hit a brick wall at certain speeds or do irrational guidence corrections all the time. Don't expect it to be able to compete with AMRAAM's or Phoenixes but even a marginal increase in reliability would be very welcome. The biggest issue with it is the fact that we only have arcady and very simplified FC3 platforms to launch it from, which is some cases may be a good thing (fast target acquisition and reaction time) but sometimes can be a bad thing as well (losing lock too easy based on aspect or radar going for chaff). It will for sure be interesting to see the results. I do hope we can all the main missiles reworked by the end of the year (R27, R77, all AIM-9's, AIM-54 and further improvements to the Sparrow and Amraam).

Just let Jester manage chaff, he usually does a fairly good job. And ideally you dont want to rely on chaff usage for radar threats...

I dont think LOFT is fully implemented yet.

It's been like that since forever. I reported that to HB a while ago, they aknowledged but are waiting for ED to finish the new missile API. The C shouldn't really ever go for chaff. Huge seeker and pretty good digital electronics.

А вы эту статистику откуда взяли? Всех пользователей ДКС спрашывали? Миг-29А/С/М или Су-27С/П еще как под кликабилку сделать можно. Некакого грифа там уже нет, есть даже приватные пользоватили в США.. Просто надо взятъса за дело, пособирать нужную инфу, льотний состав и еще проще чем какой то хорнет или вайпер выйдет.

This affects all missiles other than the amraam.

Its planned for the Hornet this year, so who knows.