Dr_Arrow

It works this way in real bird, however it decreases engine N1 (HPC) speed not up to 42% but up to flight idle. Minimum ground idle is 56%+-1.5% N1 and flight idle can be higher as it increases with altitude according to original technical manuals.

:thumbup:

Certainly not :) Good luck approaching at 160 km/h below stall speed :) The yellow mark shows the speed for rotation during take-off. Approach speed is around 250 km/h (full flaps+gear down), flare at 200-210 km/h, touch-down at around 180 km/h.

I completely agree that you will never get the same level of control using a digital input like an analogue. However even when you use digital input, it does not work like no brake (0) - brake (100). When you press the digital brake it takes some 2 seconds to go from 0 - 100. So if you briefly tap the digital control you can simulate light press on the analogue brake and it goes to around 20%, if you hold the digital brake longer it simulates full push. I can steer the simulated L-39 this way absolutely precisely without any problems probably it is even more comfortable for me than having it mapped on a toe brake. Having it mapped on an analogue toe brake differs much more from real life than having it mapped on a digital button on the stick, as far as my RL experience goes.

On a standard Su-25A you cannot even combine S-13 and S-8. You can fire them, but they have different ballistics and the WCS can be programmed only for one rocket ballistics. So you could theoretically fire both of them but the S-13 or S-8 would fall not where the piper aims. Unless you fire them in Setka mode. Other problem is that also pulse generator can be configured only for single rocket type (B-8 needs 20 pulses, B-13 only 5 pulses). Of course newer upgrades are more capable in this, but Su-25Ks from the eighties had this limitation. The same goes for bombs, you never combine FAB-500 FAB-250 FAB-100, because the WCS can have only one bomb ballistics programmed.

Of course you can hang all pylons and the aircraft will fly with them, I was just trying to show what are the common loadouts used in RL operations. I have several friends who worked at Su-25s when our airforce operated them and have asked them about operational loadouts. I also have manuals and there are also some nice books for example from A. Mladenov about Su-25A and its operational use. You don't want to be heavy and draggy in combat, if you want to increase firepower you increase the number of aircraft participating in a mission. You can also review current videos from Syria, where the loadouts are usually very light.

Sorry, but these are not operational loadouts - actually quite far from it. It is rather a diagram of what can be maximally hanged and combined on the aircraft, moreover combining A/T/TM with some really theoretical loadouts. For example R-60 missiles are very rarely used on Su-25A.

:thumbup:, great approach - I just want to advise you that you cannot combine two different rocket types for one aircraft, there is a limitation of the ballistic computer and also pulse generation settings/hard-point settings. The same applies to bombs. You can however combine bombs/rockets, but it is not used much in practice. From what I've read and talked to RL pilots, the most common operational loadouts were (1980-2000): 2/4xS-8+drop tanks, 4xFAB-250/4xRBK-250+drop tanks, or 2xS-25/4xS-24 + drop tanks, 16xFAB-100+drop tanks.

this has also helped me

I am amazed by the rough stick work during take-off and landing in the last video.

Lino, I also thought so - but it is not the case, the beam is the same when the aircraft is in the air. Look here please for situation before landing, the landing light does not help at all (55 metres above the ground): http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=153027

Well, also your screenshots show that it makes no sense to use the landing light in this implementation as the landing beam is not only narrower but even a bit shorter than the taxi light.

Autopilot in Su-25T does not work correctly when SL pressure is different than standard 760 - which it nearly always is when using dynamic weather. I've tried to report it several times, but it gets overlooked, try to look here for explanation: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=150622

I am still stuck at 100-200 Kb/s, reverted to HTTP update.

I've already seen it in another Su-25 take-off video and thought it was just some oddity, but now it seems like some procedure. It is strange, because doing something like this in the sim would probably crash the aircraft and the flight manual also does not mention something like, do one stick whirlwind once airborne :joystick:

After some 5 hours on a 100 Mbit optic link, I am still only at 661 MB, now downloading only at 100 kb/s with only 38 peers while uploading at 1-2Mb/s, I think I won't be able to update today :(

It seems that the landing light in my L-39C has narrower beam, however it is as long as taxi lights. Landing light should have much longer beam. The problem is illustrated in following screenshots: Taxi light, wide light beam: Landing narrow light beam is too short:

Thank you very much for your answer and great work with L-39 Yo-Yo :thumbup: The stick work in L-39 during take-off can be seen nicely in this video:

Thanks Yo-Yo, I just wonder if this does reflect real life stick movement in L-39 during takeoff :)

I think that 2.0 will be released as beta and 1.5 will be shifted into a stable version at approximately the same time.

After flying 60 patterns in 1.5.0, I also thinks it is different, it requires less back-pressure on stick during take-off rotation, as well as landing during flare.

I can imagine that this could be solved by creating special invisible training weapons (no 3D models) with no warheads. Those weapons would fly and be modeled in the same way as the real weapons. Upon impact however the sim could register hits, but no damage would be done. Afterwards using the already implemented trigger system you could force AI to return to base after hit or switch off radar after being hit by such invisible weapon with no warhead. This probably could also be modded. No AI work required.

I have tried mapping an axis to the toe brake, however I have to say that having mapped a digital button works a hell lot better on my joystick. It is a paradox but a digital button resembles also a lot more how the system operates RL. If you press a foot for a brake it will never be as quick and precise as when you operate the lever with your hand IRL (I tested it), therefore in my opinion putting the brake axis on a toe brake is counter productive and makes things much more difficult than in real life. I can taxi L-39 with digital brake absolutely precisely without problems, with the toe brake I am not able to do it at all, or very sloppy. Of course the best solution would be to have an analogue brake lever on the stick.

Level hold autopilot and all altitude AP channels in Su-25T are bugged, if sea level pressure is different from 760. The AP always thinks that SL pressure is 760 and therefore thinks you are higher than the actual altitude if the pressure is lower and vice versa. I am sending a track illustrating this behavior. Weather tab setting 730 HG SL pressure. Aircraft setting - 3000 metres ALT. 1. At beginning of the mission altitude shows 3270 m 2. Correct altitude meter by setting sea level pressure to 730 -> Altitude meter shows correct 3000 meter altitude 3. Engage Baro alt hold AP 4. Baro alt AP descends to 2730 meters (it thinks I was flying at 3270 and commanded descent to 3000) 5. Engage level flight mode AP at 2730 meters -> AP will descend another 270 meters 6. Engage baro alt hold -> AP descends again. AP basically operates correctly only when SL pressure is 760. This affects also landing channel and in dynamic weather AP is completely unusable and therefore problematic for many people. Track illustrating this behavior is attached. I hope it gets finally corrected. Su-25T_AP_BUG.trk

The landing was indeed very nice with such a heavy aircraft. Really good job :thumbup: Just a food for thought. We don't have to care about landing weight, but for example for Su-25A the RL manual is very strict in this. It is absolutely forbidden to land the aircraft with total weight exceeding 13 300 kg, such landing is allowable only in emergency and all weapons that are jettison-able have to be jettisoned. The manual moreover states that landings with total weight more than 12 200 kgs are allowable only in rare cases and can form only 3% of all landings, if this number is exceeded the aircraft has to undergo a major overhaul. These numbers are maybe slightly higher for the T-Frog, but reading the manual changed the way I operate the aircraft and load it up. We simmers often demand the most precise flight models, systems, graphic representations, but often operate the aircraft in a manner that would be unimaginable in real life :)