Will ED further improve existing fixed-wing a/c?

[Fox One]

First hello to everybody, this is my first intervention here.

 

From the beginning I want to say judging by the released screenshots and videos that I really appreciate what ED team is doing and the way Black Shark promises to be. There’s no doubt that it will be by far the most advanced and realistic flight sim available to the public in every respect, flight dynamics, avionics, everything and I’m really looking forward to fly it, just as everybody.

 

But I’m more like a fixed-wing aircraft enthusiast, and no doubt MiG-29 and Su-27 enthusiasts aren’t a minority. So we will have Ka-50 with ultra advanced flight dynamics and all the gadgets in the cockpit, but will be left with this caricature Fulcrum and Flanker nav system? Many improvements were done to the weapons systems and I appreciate that, Russian radars starts to look more like the real ones. Sure, there’s a lot still to be done. But I find quite incredible that the nav system is almost the same as in Flanker 2 – 2.5. In MiG-29 the Horizontal Situation Indicator doesn’t work like the real one in ROUTE (MARSh) regime even today, after so many years! On the HSI the wide needle (not the yellow one) should point out to the next PPM. Now there are flight manuals available, there’s also that Su-27SK flight manual, everything can be easily checked by anybody. In real Su-27 the HSI instrument is not PNP-72-12 (was in some early serial Su-27 with early-type “sting” with only 24 chaff/flare ), it is a PNP-72-16 with an additional index and the way is interpreted in nav regime is different from the MiG-29. I’m convinced ED team know very well all of this, but please, will we have to wait until we’re old to have not-so-sophisticated things like that implemented? Please, give us avionics improvements for Su-25,-27 and MiG-29 while we’re still young :)

 

Even to this day in RETURN (VOZV) regime the correct nav indication isn’t implemented. It should show the path to enter in the point of tangency at the 5 Km radius circle, etc like in the picture below. Also the director indication in the vertical plane in RETURN regime isn’t correct. Probably the developers will say this is not a priority, they don’t have the time to fix it. Yes, and building tanks and all kinds of ground nonsense is a priority!

 

I don’t like flying Su-25T. Maybe its flight model is very realistic, don’t know, don’t have the flight manual, but the standard Su-25 is vastly superior in performance and I really enjoy it. Sure, there are some issues, like the huge efficiency of the drag chute, I mean the speed drops from 200 to 100 in under 4 seconds, does anyone on earth think this is realistic? But is nothing that can’t be fixed. The Su-25T without any stores flies like a Su-25 with 6 FAB-500, so I prefer to fly the standard Frogfoot. But on the RSBN-6S nav system there isn’t any functional light-button, to be able to know what waypoint is selected, what airfield. Is that really so hard to implement? The Su-25T already has variometer on the HUD. It will be really so difficult to have that also on Su-27 in all nav regimes? Forget about angle of attack on real Su-27 HUD for take off and landing, but please could we at least have the variometer? Also in landing regime when instrument approach is done and variometer indeed appears, the pitch angle shouldn’t disappear!

 

I have noticed work is being done to new Su-25, -27 and MiG-29 exterior models, and they all look just beautiful, those planes will get what they deserve. But if the avionics and flight models will remain the same, this will have almost no value.

 

My question to ED developers. I understood that in BS the flight models for existing a/c will remain the same. What about avionics? Any improvements? Are there any plans for future implementation of AFM for MiG-29 or Su-27? Probably some questions were already answered in the past so I appologise for asking again.

 

Please don’t get me wrong. I respect ED team. I just want better fixed-wing a/c, like many other enthusiasts. I appologise for the length. Thank you for reading

[britgliderpilot]

ED will improve fixed-wing aircraft, but don't expect it in Black Shark.

 

 

That's not to say there won't be small tweaks, but there simply isn't enough time and manpower to overhaul all the aircraft.

 

 

And regarding:

 

Yes, and building tanks and all kinds of ground nonsense is a priority!

 

It must be stressed again that it isn't the programmers who are doing the building of the new 3D models. You're not losing any development to the new 3D models, so just enjoy them ;)

[GGTharos]

... And if you knew what was missing from the F-15, you would be crying - not just in terms of Nav, but other instrumentation too. :)

[3Sqn_Fudd]

.... there simply isn't enough time and manpower to overhaul all the aircraft....

 

ED... go public... we'll all invest ... :D

 

Edit: OMG... could you imagine an ED stock holders meeting?

[3Sqn_Fudd]

To the OP ....

 

Link the resources, whose to say that they're even aware of these points?

 

But I think Britglider is in the right ballpark

[Pilotasso]

F-15 will be tweaked and Su-27/33 along with it to match high altitude perfomance. Missiles will be tweaked as well to better reflect seeker perfomance, all this for Black Shark, while minor expect to have major impact in the way we play this SIM.

[olli]

F-15 will be tweaked and Su-27/33 along with it to match high altitude perfomance. Missiles will be tweaked as well to better reflect seeker perfomance, all this for Black Shark, while minor expect to have major impact in the way we play this SIM.

 

Could you give us your sources?

[Pilotasso]

Look 3 threads under this one, its self explanatory. The reading is extensive but informative of last minute tweaks. :)

[britgliderpilot]

F-15 will be tweaked and Su-27/33 along with it to match high altitude perfomance. Missiles will be tweaked as well to better reflect seeker perfomance, all this for Black Shark, while minor expect to have major impact in the way we play this SIM.

 

Last time I looked there hadn't been a statement on whether the Su-27/Su-33 were going to be reworked - has that changed now?

 

 

To the OP ....

 

Link the resources, whose to say that they're even aware of these points?

 

It's a possibility - ED have a truckload of information on various aircraft that they haven't had the time or opportunity to implement, but every bit of info that can be gathered is a good thing :)

[GGTharos]

ED has stated before that the priority of BS is the Ka-50.

 

As such, even though us Beta Testers like to hope things in our fave aircraft will be improved, and ED hopes they can do such things, it is as -always- 'pie in the sky'.

[Topo]

I'm happy for the Ka-50, and i buy it.

I will be very happy for the clickable pit/AFM for any others planes. especially the russians ones.

Upgrading all flyables to the Su-25T/Ka-50 standard, this sim must be THE sim; the only problem, IMHO, is the (developing) time factor.

 

Thanks to ED for the great job, and to Fox-one for the good point.

 

Excuse my english and hi all. :-)

[Shaman]

I think the most logical choice of aircraft that should be improved first would be Su-25T. Because it already has AFM, and latest visuals, it only lacks 6DOF clickable cockpit.

 

I'd love to see our fighters updated, but it doesn't look it will happen anytime soon, so there are no expectations from my side - I'll just go with the flow.

[VMFA-Blaze]

Ed has most likely begun to set up a new system for implementing a AFM that's similar to what's now present with the to the SU 25T And I'd venture to say that this includes clickable cockpits as well ..

I personally believe that Black Shark will be the culmination of all of the R&D that's been taking place since the release of Flaming Cliffs. The Black Shark simulation will be a template of sorts to be used for future Aircraft representation...

So from my understanding ED's fully concentrating on completion the Black Shark project, and once this is finalized a template of sorts will be in place....

 

And to loosely quote Wag's comments on this, the next choices will be based upon how much data is available before the next aircraft will be modeled...

With all of the posts that I've read concerning these things I expect that we'll see things begin to move more rapidly in future..

 

I really enjoy fixed wing simulation but who knows I might really enjoy a chopper sim even more.. There for I'm looking forward to Black Shark...

 

~S~

 

 

Blaze

[GGTharos]

Blaze has hit the nail on the head I think.

Basically, Black Shark is a huge development in terms of technology available to ED which can then be used to do other things after Black Shark is done with.

 

That is my interpretation of what I am seeing with the development of Black Shark.

[RvEYoda]

... And if you knew what was missing from the F-15, you would be crying - not just in terms of Nav, but other instrumentation too. :)

 

I AM crying ^^

[VMFA-Blaze]

Don't cry...:(

 

With the huge amount of data I hear is now in ED' possession.. there just might be something there to realistically present the F-15 in all of her true glory...

:lol:

 

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[GGTharos]

But not for a while, probably :)

[Weta43]

I think the most logical choice of aircraft that should be improved first would be Su-25T. Because it already has AFM, and latest visuals, it only lacks 6DOF clickable cockpit.

 

You don't think the vanilla 25 would be the easiest - already has AFM, is a joy to fly (useful as a fast jet trainer), has a new ED build external model & the version modelled at the moment has less things to click than any other plane in the game therefore less work to make a 3D pit functional (again - simple & useful as a trainer - low workload compared to other Russian planes :-) - no radar for people to moan about, no HUD for people to complain about inacuracies in etc, etc...

[sp0nge]

Honestly the only thing I REALLLYYY want ED to do is give us a tool for adding addition A/C Slots, skin slots, etc. aswell as the cockpit modeling tools. :cry:

[Yo-Yo]

First hello to everybody, this is my first intervention here.

 

From the beginning I want to say judging by the released screenshots and videos that I really appreciate what ED team is doing and the way Black Shark promises to be. There’s no doubt that it will be by far the most advanced and realistic flight sim available to the public in every respect, flight dynamics, avionics, everything and I’m really looking forward to fly it, just as everybody.

 

But I’m more like a fixed-wing aircraft enthusiast, and no doubt MiG-29 and Su-27 enthusiasts aren’t a minority. So we will have Ka-50 with ultra advanced flight dynamics and all the gadgets in the cockpit, but will be left with this caricature Fulcrum and Flanker nav system? Many improvements were done to the weapons systems and I appreciate that, Russian radars starts to look more like the real ones. Sure, there’s a lot still to be done. But I find quite incredible that the nav system is almost the same as in Flanker 2 – 2.5. In MiG-29 the Horizontal Situation Indicator doesn’t work like the real one in ROUTE (MARSh) regime even today, after so many years! On the HSI the wide needle (not the yellow one) should point out to the next PPM. Now there are flight manuals available, there’s also that Su-27SK flight manual, everything can be easily checked by anybody. In real Su-27 the HSI instrument is not PNP-72-12 (was in some early serial Su-27 with early-type “sting” with only 24 chaff/flare ), it is a PNP-72-16 with an additional index and the way is interpreted in nav regime is different from the MiG-29. I’m convinced ED team know very well all of this, but please, will we have to wait until we’re old to have not-so-sophisticated things like that implemented? Please, give us avionics improvements for Su-25,-27 and MiG-29 while we’re still young :)

 

Even to this day in RETURN (VOZV) regime the correct nav indication isn’t implemented. It should show the path to enter in the point of tangency at the 5 Km radius circle, etc like in the picture below. Also the director indication in the vertical plane in RETURN regime isn’t correct. Probably the developers will say this is not a priority, they don’t have the time to fix it. Yes, and building tanks and all kinds of ground nonsense is a priority!

 

I don’t like flying Su-25T. Maybe its flight model is very realistic, don’t know, don’t have the flight manual, but the standard Su-25 is vastly superior in performance and I really enjoy it. Sure, there are some issues, like the huge efficiency of the drag chute, I mean the speed drops from 200 to 100 in under 4 seconds, does anyone on earth think this is realistic? But is nothing that can’t be fixed. The Su-25T without any stores flies like a Su-25 with 6 FAB-500, so I prefer to fly the standard Frogfoot. But on the RSBN-6S nav system there isn’t any functional light-button, to be able to know what waypoint is selected, what airfield. Is that really so hard to implement? The Su-25T already has variometer on the HUD. It will be really so difficult to have that also on Su-27 in all nav regimes? Forget about angle of attack on real Su-27 HUD for take off and landing, but please could we at least have the variometer? Also in landing regime when instrument approach is done and variometer indeed appears, the pitch angle shouldn’t disappear!

 

I have noticed work is being done to new Su-25, -27 and MiG-29 exterior models, and they all look just beautiful, those planes will get what they deserve. But if the avionics and flight models will remain the same, this will have almost no value.

 

My question to ED developers. I understood that in BS the flight models for existing a/c will remain the same. What about avionics? Any improvements? Are there any plans for future implementation of AFM for MiG-29 or Su-27? Probably some questions were already answered in the past so I appologise for asking again.

 

Please don’t get me wrong. I respect ED team. I just want better fixed-wing a/c, like many other enthusiasts. I appologise for the length. Thank you for reading

 

First of all: thank you for your kind words. Of course we will improve fixed wing airplanes in the next projects. We have valuable experience in avionics, nav, etc so it can be done in full accordance with the available data.

 

The FM will be updated too to include the new features we use in Ka-50. First of all an engine model will be redesigned within the "Live Engine" concept.

If we have enough internal data for the engine, of course.

It's a good model but it requires tons of docs... :)

If we are out of these data we plan to implement the new modified hybrid table based model both for key AI-planes and flyables.

 

If we plan to model modern fighters the aerodynamics must be enhances too.

[Fox One]

Anybody interested, please watch this video:

 

http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/Guest/154/

 

In the end that Su-27 lands and the pilot doesn’t use the drag chute and makes aerobraking holding the nosewheel up as long as possible. See that airbrake is out also. From touchdown until it lowers the nosewheel it takes 21 seconds. Do the same thing in LockOn and time how long you can hold the nose up. You will be able to keep it 13-14 seconds with airbrake in, with airbrake out about 12. Let’s see why this happens.

 

In LockOn Su-27’s aerodynamics characteristics are reasonably correct at low altitudes. The difference in the above example is mainly because the planes with SFM have zero idle thrust, a thing deduced by me experimentally.

 

In real life when Su-27 lands the nozzle is in fully closed position, NO MATTER what rpm the engines have anywhere between idle-military. This is done to have as much clearance as possible in case the pilot goes too slow during flare and makes a hard landing, fully compressing the shock absorbers. It is to avoid the nozzles hitting the runway. Also in case of landing abort when pilot advances the throttles, because the nozzles are already closed will permit thrust to build up faster (as explained in AL-31F book page 292).

 

It is not clear (to me) what signal causes the nozzles to close during landing. In AL-31F engine technical description book (airwar.ru) it says only that “the signal comes in landing case, when the a/c is still in the air”(page292). After this signal the engines automatics won’t let the nozzles to open, ignoring the governing laws that normally positions the nozzles in flight according to various engine parameters. IMO the nozzles closure is done either when the gear is lowered, or when the flight control sys switches to takeoff-land regime. In the video you can see how the nozzles opens seconds after touchdown, the right one at about 200, the left at 150-170 (my estimation about those speeds). Have no idea why they don’t open simultaneously. The nozzles opening during landing run is necessary to decrease the landing length. The AL-31F idle thrust is 250 Kgf (same book) with the nozzles opened, with the nozzles closed evidently the thrust is higher. Nozzles opening signal probably comes at a certain indicated air speed.

 

Any chance such things will be implemented (this decade :) )?

[britgliderpilot]

That's a whole lot of info! :)

 

 

Any chance such things will be implemented (this decade :) )?

 

. . . if you mean before 2010 . . . . I'd guess, on a pure gut feeling, the answer would be no.

 

I have no doubt that it WILL come - ED's attention to detail on the Ka50 is mind-boggling, and to my mind the Ultimate Goal of a Russian flight sim developer is the Perfect Su27 Sim. When they get around to lavishing the levels of attention they're currently giving the Ka50 to the Su27, it's going to be simply beautiful . . . . .

 

But first, Black Shark needs to be finished, and intermediate projects need to be dispatched.

 

There's no official plan that I know of, but the general signs are that the next project will be something other than the Flanker.

 

 

In the meantime, hang around, enjoy the Ka50 and whatever the next projects turns out to be :)

 

Be careful not to overanalyze the SFM, too ;)

It's not great. At the time of Flanker 2.0 it was pretty damn good, but much more information has come into the public domain since then . . . . it's just a shame that little time's been available to develop it further since then, time's mostly been devoted to the aircraft that will sell the game. A-10, F-15, published-specified Su25T/Ka50 addons . . . .

 

 

We don't know the speeds from that video clip, guesswork may be inaccurate.

Engine thrust may also depend on throttle position - remember the Su27 has a split throttle, it's more likely in the real world to move them slightly differently than exactly the same.

[Fox One]

 

We don't know the speeds from that video clip, guesswork may be inaccurate.

Engine thrust may also depend on throttle position - remember the Su27 has a split throttle, it's more likely in the real world to move them slightly differently than exactly the same.

 

 

I agree, but IRL the engines are reduced to idle right before tochdown, or immediately after it, so both engines should be at idle no later than 3-4 seconds after touchdown. There's no reason to keep an engine above idle MANY seconds after touchdown, so the fact that one engine opens nozzle many seconds after the other cannot be justified by different positions of throttles.