No more above 12G turns

[Frostie]

See this is confusing to me. Everyone wants "realistic" ... But not when it restricts their aircraft. And if it restricts their aircraft...they want all other aircraft restricted as well so they can maintain their advantage...

 

Have I missed anything?

 

It sound to me like the change prevents unrealistic maneuvering by Su-27 something that's apparently been broken for some time. Why is it suddenly assumed the F-15 flight model is inaccurate?

 

 

Sierra

 

Imagine that the transonic roll off issues on the F-15 in the past hadn't actually resulted in the wobbling but instead resulted in your wings snapping off. Then you'd understand where the line should be drawn, i'm all for removing crazy use of the S button but when you pull 5g in a roll and your wings snap off without warning some things can't be simulated correctly if only a portion of the features can be simulated.

[Frostie]

i have had no problems with the new flanker and i have seen many regular flanker pilots excel as well.

 

the people i see breaking their wings are always the same people.

you can force the eagle to break its wings out of spite all you want but it's not going to make you less of a bad flanker pilot who can't moderate his control inputs.

 

Judging by your posts you haven't a clue what you're talking about and rather choose to try and poke fires, so I suggest you go back to splashing the AI.

[karambiatos]

Looking forward to what ED is going to do about the wing breaking business, I can't accept that there is no safety system in place, word has it there is a pretty smart system that deals with it regarding weight etc.

 

Right now it is all down to the pilot between wings on and wings off, i'm sure if this was the case Flankers would be breaking some wings in the real world.

 

Or perhaps the wings don't snap off so easily, because as far as i understood the manual never really implies if you cross this threshold the wings fly off.

 

Also you can read the cy-27 thread in the Russian side of the forum there's plenty interesting stuff there.

[probad]

Judging by your posts you haven't a clue what you're talking about and rather choose to try and poke fires, so I suggest you go back to splashing the AI.

discrediting me is not enough to discredit the performance of all the other flanker pilots who smoothly load their planes and have no problems kinematically defeating 120cs.

 

if other people can do it and you can't, it's not the plane's problem, it's your own.

[Frostie]

discrediting me is not enough to discredit the performance of all the other flanker pilots who smoothly load their planes and have no problems kinematically defeating 120cs.

 

if other people can do it and you can't, it's not the plane's problem, it's your own.

I haven't said I can't do it i've highlighted the issue where there is no warning of impending breakage which seems unreasonable in the real world. If you hadn't come here with a chip on your shoulder you would have understood that.

[OldE24]

I haven't said I can't do it i've highlighted the issue where there is no warning of impending breakage which seems unreasonable in the real world. If you hadn't come here with a chip on your shoulder you would have understood that.

 

+1 it's not i have a problem with it breaking it's the no warning to the air frame breaking in some areas.

[esb77]

If at proper combat loads and speeds, it's not much of a problem. So in a sense, this is an issue that is entirely solvable with Russian style piloting (be a competent professional instead of a Westerner who thinks that the laws of physics only apply to other people).

 

There are a couple of reasonable complaints though.

 

In the game design sense, the FC3 modules are supposed to be a bit more forgiving for people who would never normally be allowed to touch the controls of a flying aircraft in the real world. So it's a bit out of place if the FC3 version of a plane has some parts of the envelope where it's even more likely to crash than the real thing would be.

 

In the realism sense, most accounts of the Su-27 describe the control system as having a force feedback element that while possible to override, makes it almost impossible for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the plane in large parts of the flight envelope.

 

So clearly in terms of pilot friendliness there's a bit of a gap in realism for both documentation of what constitutes safe operation, and the flight control system's ability to warn about or prevent going past the point of catastrophic overstress.

 

Personally, I could probably live with just better documentation, but a little work on the control interface would be appreciated by many.

 

"You can kill yourself by abusing the controls, but you have to work at it and it shouldn't come as a surprise," is the end state that I think would be a good place. Though the, "no surprise," part could be contingent on having read a revised manual.

[SinusoidDelta]

If at proper combat loads and speeds, it's not much of a problem. So in a sense, this is an issue that is entirely solvable with Russian style piloting (be a competent professional instead of a Westerner who thinks that the laws of physics only apply to other people).

 

There are a couple of reasonable complaints though.

 

In the game design sense, the FC3 modules are supposed to be a bit more forgiving for people who would never normally be allowed to touch the controls of a flying aircraft in the real world. So it's a bit out of place if the FC3 version of a plane has some parts of the envelope where it's even more likely to crash than the real thing would be.

 

In the realism sense, most accounts of the Su-27 describe the control system as having a force feedback element that while possible to override, makes it almost impossible for the pilot to inadvertently overstress the plane in large parts of the flight envelope.

 

So clearly in terms of pilot friendliness there's a bit of a gap in realism for both documentation of what constitutes safe operation, and the flight control system's ability to warn about or prevent going past the point of catastrophic overstress.

 

Personally, I could probably live with just better documentation, but a little work on the control interface would be appreciated by many.

 

"You can kill yourself by abusing the controls, but you have to work at it and it shouldn't come as a surprise," is the end state that I think would be a good place. Though the, "no surprise," part could be contingent on having read a revised manual.

 

Right, you should be able to pull through the AOA limiter with 7lbs of force or something but that is modeled as the W key. Also, not all materials bend (much) before they break. High G high AOA with sudden aileron input wouldn't give a warning aside from a loud bang alerting the pilot he will likely perish in a death spiral before ejecting. If the FBW limited input to the actual printed overload figures, flanker drivers would be much more upset.

[GGTharos]

You shouldn't get a warning though, in most cases of aircraft flying apart that just doesn't happen.

 

To give you an example here (Which you sort of alluded to), let's look at a worst case scenario for the flanker:

 

With a fully loaded aircraft at M1.0 (so inside the most dangerous area), you are limited to:

 

139/30 = 4.63g for safe operation. (In case people are wondering what the numbers are, it's design limit in metric tonnes vs. the aircraft's gross weight in metric tonnes).

 

This means that the above 4.63g you may start damaging the airframe, which will lower the available safe g load (or put another way, it lowers the 'design limit' ... ie 139 starts shedding its value)

 

Now, in this situation with a pristine aircraft, the wings will break at 4.63 * 1.5 = 6.95g

 

Take the same configuration at 0.8M, where the design limit is 171 metric tonnes:

 

171/30 = 5.7g for safe operation and wings would break at 8.55g.

 

Note that this is the heaviest possible configuration, you've barely burned any fuel, and you're full of missiles and other fun things.

 

 

Now consider a 21t (the dogfight specification) aircraft:

 

171/21 = 8.14 * 1.5 = 12.2

139/21 = 6.6 * 1.5 = 9.93

 

 

... stay below M0.85 if you want to pull a lot of g, or above M1.25.

 

 

I haven't said I can't do it i've highlighted the issue where there is no warning of impending breakage which seems unreasonable in the real world. If you hadn't come here with a chip on your shoulder you would have understood that.

[karambiatos]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2774808&postcount=6590

 

Well if someone wants to help out, now they can.

[SinusoidDelta]

Help out with what? I don't think many people realize the level and frequency of actual technical discussions that occur on the 'other side' of the forum. The English forum could learn a lot from them.

[Frostie]

You shouldn't get a warning though, in most cases of aircraft flying apart that just doesn't happen.

I understand the theory of how the wings break, but currently in the sim when we approach these limits we don't have a tightening of the controls or vibration warning as is documented in the real world manual.

[IASGATG]

I understand the theory of how the wings break, but currently in the sim when we approach these limits we don't have a tightening of the controls or vibration warning as is documented in the real world manual.

 

The problem is we fly a sim though. There are lots of things we're missing that real world pilots gets. The ability to actually have the resolution of my eye vs my monitor would be much preferred over just about anything else.

 

We all lack that "flying by the seat" feeling because there is no tactile response. Whenever you speak to pilots about flying it's almost always about feeling. Remember the Luftwaffe pilot who was talking about the FW-190 a couple of years back? Sim nerds were asking him all sorts of technical questions, and the response to almost all of them wasn't "Oh the exact airspeed would be 652kph when I am at 7500m and the QFE is 29.64". It was "Oh, well I just did what felt right and what sounded right and went and did it." True in this case you could argue age, but you know you'd be being dishonest. xxx

[Deathbane]

Ive never had my wings fly off in this bird even in heavy maneuvering.

 

It makes me really wonder what you guys are doing with this aircraft, flying it like a UFO maybe:joystick:.

[esb77]

I understand the theory of how the wings break, but currently in the sim when we approach these limits we don't have a tightening of the controls or vibration warning as is documented in the real world manual.

 

I've misplaced my copy of the Su-27 manual (and it's EASC myrmidon's translation which I occasionally have trouble deciphering the technical terms in Spanish), so I should ask if anyone with a copy that they know they're reading correctly knows:

 

In the transsonic range where the Su-27's structural limits are the easiest to exceed does the control system trigger the stick feedback warnings before the aircraft reaches a dangerous level of loading? If so for what aircraft weight(s)?

 

After all it's possible that the designers assumed that the pilots would combat maneuver only in certain speed ranges and therefore only need the warnings in certain speed ranges.

 

At the speeds and weights where the Su-27 should be fighting to maximize the advantages inherent in its design it's just hard to overstress the plane short of flying into something. So what's the envelope of, "acceptable mild airframe abuse," that actually triggers the stick to, "fight back," against a pilot trying to fly into the suicidal part of the flight envelope?

 

If people are serious about playing the realism card on either side of this argument that's critical information to have.

[jester_]

If people are serious about playing the realism card on either side of this argument that's critical information to have.

 

They aren't though. Some people are just mad that they can't turn off pitch control and do a 180 on a dime in the Flanker anymore.

[mvsgas]

I understand the theory of how the wings break, but currently in the sim when we approach these limits we don't have a tightening of the controls or vibration warning as is documented in the real world manual.

 

Because I do not have a force feed back stick, I tend to fly with control indicator (pressing Right control and enter) While flying like that, you can see the limiters, at leas that is what I think they are (the brackets on all the axes). If I only move the stick to those, I stay close to the limits (as long as I fly within the load out limitation sated in Esac_mirmidon's manual) If I pull a bit harder, the aircraft will shake.

 

Now, since I do not have the Real world manual you refer to, are those close to the indication you see the pilot should get? Keeping in mind that since we do not have any physical input, we have to rely on visual and auditory clues.

 

I am not trying to change your opinion, I am simply trying to understand the Current version of the SU-27 flying characteristics withing DCS with yours ( and anyone else) experience with it.

Edited May 12, 2016 by mvsgas

[Sierra99]

Imagine that the transonic roll off issues on the F-15 in the past hadn't actually resulted in the wobbling but instead resulted in your wings snapping off. Then you'd understand where the line should be drawn, i'm all for removing crazy use of the S button but when you pull 5g in a roll and your wings snap off without warning some things can't be simulated correctly if only a portion of the features can be simulated.

 

Frostie that I can understand...But the fact there is an issue with the Su-27 that's causing "wing off lights" has nothing to do with inaccuracies with the F-15 flight model as implied by some of the other posters.

 

Sierra

[karambiatos]

Help out with what? I don't think many people realize the level and frequency of actual technical discussions that occur on the 'other side' of the forum. The English forum could learn a lot from them.

You could oh, i don't know read flankers post.

[Martillo1]

Fortunately it seems that the combined F-15 + AIM-120 system is easier to operate than its Russian counterpart and leads to get easier kills, so proud Eagle riders keep supporting DCS. For my part, the more realism the better.

[SinusoidDelta]

You could oh, i don't know read flankers post.

 

I did read it? I wasn't meaning to be condescending. Flankers post doesn't translate well, I don't know what he's saying.

[Ironhand]

I did read it? I wasn't meaning to be condescending. Flankers post doesn't translate well, I don't know what he's saying.

 

Unless I'm misunderstanding it: He has someone knowledgeable that he can tap concerning this issue of the wings coming off. He wants to make a graph or chart but needs data such as airspeed, mass, Gs, etc of each occurrence that he can then present to this person(s).

[DarkFire]

Is Flanker looking for track and/or tacview files relating to wing loss? I'd be happy to deliberately use up some airframes for the purposes of science :)

[Ironhand]

Is Flanker looking for track and/or tacview files relating to wing loss? I'd be happy to deliberately use up some airframes for the purposes of science :)

 

Seems that he is.

[Frostie]

Frostie that I can understand...But the fact there is an issue with the Su-27 that's causing "wing off lights" has nothing to do with inaccuracies with the F-15 flight model as implied by some of the other posters.

 

Sierra

 

I guess they're perturbed by the fact that an unloaded 50% fuel load Flanker breaks its wings at 9g when at mach whilst an F-15 with full load and 3 bags can do 14G at mach with no compromise to the airframe or stores.