Landing rollout

[BlueRidgeDx]

There are more important things to fix at present :)

 

I begrudgingly agree. There is so much to do that unless it's a critical problem, it will have to wait its turn. It will make it into the fix list sooner or later.

 

I have many pet issues I'd love to see move to the front of the line, but resources are limited and the devs are working very hard on cool stuff.

[Kroll]

I think you might be missing my point. I'm not talking about how the plane is used operationally. We're talking about the plane / flight model. I would bet money that the A-10 can stop way better in real life than it can in the sim. That being said I have not flown the A-10 so I really don't know. The only thing I didn't think about was the fact that the A-10 does not have reversers. That being said when a plane is design w/o them, the airplane will usually have some good brakes. The only plane I've flown without reversers is the Avro 85. The ref speed on that jet was about 122kts over the fence. It had huge brakes because it lacked reversers. With moderate breaking on the Avro starting at 80kts you could easily make a midfield turn off. That airplane was 93000 lbs. In fact most of the jets I've flown have a ref in the 120-145 range based on the weight of the flight. This is slow in my opinion. When you get into the 150- 170 range your cooking over the fence. So if Eagle were to add a little more cow bell, I mean brakes. The sim would have a better feel = better flight/ ground model. This is just my opinion. I may be wrong I'm sure there are A-10 guys on here that could clarify. Like I said this sim is awesome and I've only just scratch the surface.

[BlueRidgeDx]

'Cannot be a factor' in the sense of influencing the use and enjoyment of the end-user to such an extent that it renders the SIM unplayable iro specific scenarios etc etc.

 

Unplayable, certainly not. I think we're well past things that make DCS unplayable. If we're here arguing about the nuances of braking techniques for a minimum run landing, and the efficacy of brake energy limits, etc., then we're doing pretty good I'd say. :thumbup:

 

Granted, the inconvenience/irritation has to be addressed and it is: Just not as a matter of urgency.

 

Concur.

 

Edit: spellin'

Edited March 4, 2012 by BlueRidgeDx

[159th_Viper]

I would bet money that the A-10 can stop way better in real life than it can in the sim.

 

And you would be correct. We know it can and the fix is pending, ETA TBA :D

 

If we're here arguing about the nuances of breaking techniques for a minimum run landing, and the efficacy of brake energy limits, etc., then we're doing pretty good I'd say. :thumbup:

 

Indeed :)

[Kroll]

I have and that very documentation/charts are attached to the Bug report. Fact remains, an allegation that the aircraft feels like it's 'braking on ice' by a pilot who has not flown the A-10C will not make it on the bug report, not by my hand in any event.

 

 

 

You are correct and I did not suggest you do. In my statement I was referring to the time-line insofar as this particular bug is concerned, which has been raised a while ago but has not seen a lot of traffic, probably due to the fact that the relevant developer has a large amount to do in a small amount of time.

 

He accordingly has to prioritize and at first glance, this particular issue would quite rightly fall under the 'deal with if and when as per normal' category as opposed to the 'deal with it immediately as a matter of urgency' category.

 

I hope that clarifies my intent as above, obviously misunderstood. Apologies for being vague.

 

 

 

Eminently reasonable having regard to the fact that the Development team is Russian and we are a predominantly English forum. In any event, that is where us testers act as intermediaries between the Devs and the forum. I for one would not wish the duty on them of having to wade through the Bugs sub-forums to sort out issues.........Hell no.

 

 

 

 

There's always room for improvement, but that is besides the point.

 

 

 

The point I was trying to make prior to all and sundry engaging defensive was that yes, the issue is known.

 

The question is this:

 

Is the matter one of such urgency so as to engage the relevant developer in direct conversation, requesting him to forsake his current workload and directing him to address this specific issue as a matter of urgency?

 

In my humble opinion?

 

On the information provided currently, no.

 

Yes, I agree that it is not working as per the -1.

 

Yes, I agree that it falls short of what some might perceive as the standard that the SIM should uphold.

 

I am however cognisant of the fact that as far as priorities go at this stage, stopping distance is not that important and am thus, in the absence of more pertinent information/submissions, happy to see the bug run it's normal course through the bug factory and not engage the developer and request that he gets a move-on insofar as this particular bug is concerned. That said, it does not stop other testers from taking up the cause. I just refuse to be the one who stands up and demands a fix as a matter of urgency based solely on the fact that a fellow forum member stated that it feels as if it's on Ice.

 

I'll say it again: It works. It might not work as well as it can, but it does. There are more important things to fix at present :)[/quote

 

I didn't mean to start a pissing match here. I'm glad to hear you've got a fix in. I honestly don't care if it gets fixed or not. I was just making an observation based on my experience. I didn't fly the A-10 but I have flown about 90 different aircraft. When this sim first came out I thought the roll rate was way off. I noticed that others felt the same way. The roll rate was increased and its better. I'm sure the guys/gals that commented on the roll rate didn't fly the A-10 either. They were right. I just want to make this sim better. I did a brief look and I didn't see a bug list. I was just bringing it up to see if others felt the same way. I've got a call into a buddy that currently flies the A-10 because I'm curious. It is obvious to me that the landing roll is currently to long for a plane that has a Hersey bar wing, huge air brakes and a low ref speed.

[159th_Viper]

I didn't mean to start a pissing match here....

 

You did not.

 

It's a spirited discussion, that's all, frequently necessary to get to the nuts and bolts of the matter at hand :)

[effte]

I am however cognisant of the fact that as far as priorities go at this stage, stopping distance is not that important and am thus, in the absence of more pertinent information/submissions, happy to see the bug run it's normal course through the bug factory and not engage the developer and request that he gets a move-on insofar as this particular bug is concerned. That said, it does not stop other testers from taking up the cause. I just refuse to be the one who stands up and demands a fix as a matter of urgency based solely on the fact that a fellow forum member stated that it feels as if it's on Ice.

 

No suggestion regarding the priority to be given to the issue, by you, by ED or by any other tester, has been made as far as I can recall - certainly not by me. The issue was pointed out for the information of the devs only, as a service.

 

"Hey, this is broken, have a look at it sometime will ya?"

 

Nor have any claims on anything being amiss been based on the feeeeeeel of any forum member. They have been based on what is pretty much the end-all, be-all as far as aircraft performance goes - the official performance document and hard data.

 

(I'll admit to ice being an exaggeration though - data corresponds better to a rather wet runway.)

 

I respectfully suggest you're the one with the AN/APS-13 activated here. And you're still wrong... on the interwebs! If you push it I'll requote my own quoting of me! :D

[159th_Viper]

....The issue was pointed out for the information of the devs only, as a service.

 

"Hey, this is broken, have a look at it sometime will ya?"

 

The issue was reported and as a consequence known about long before these two threads were started. In hindsight, the only mistake was not confirming that the issue has been reported in the first thread already. I'll persevere so as to not repeat that particular mistake again.

 

No suggestion regarding the priority to be given to the issue, by you, by ED or by any other tester, has been made as far as I can recall....

 

You will not recall - priority is assigned/governed in the Bug Tracker system.

 

We as testers can to a certain extent 'push' the issue in the tracker system based on the level of urgency perceived by the reporter and/or another tester, alternatively engage the developer in one-on-one conversation regarding the issue. Obviously goes without saying that this privilege that us testers have is to be exercised very carefully and only upon careful forethought - all the ducks in a row, so to speak.

 

 

I'll admit to ice being an exaggeration though - data corresponds better to a rather wet runway

 

Yes, that is quite correct and as stated in the bug report.

 

 

I'm sure we can all agree that we both agree :)

Edited March 4, 2012 by 159th_Viper
Clarification

[Inseckt]

Sorry to chip in here, I don't have nearly as much relevant RL experience as others that are commenting, but if I may say so, I think that the brakes is not the real issue, it's grip.

 

When anti-skid is ON, it exercises authority over braking input, not allowing braking to overstep the threshold for "locking" the tires, the point at which the grip can no longer support the amount of braking, right? Given that the sim where simulating better grip, that threshold should also move and allow more braking action, so it just seems to me like grip is the underlying issue.

 

Decreased grip could perhaps also explain the sideways instability that some mention.

 

Just my 2 cents for what it's worth... :)

 

cheers!

[Kroll]

I spoke with my friend about the brakes on the A-10. Use this information however you want. The aircraft will fly a ref at 130kts. Based on wt add 2x the fuel. So 2000 Lbs of fuel ref would be 134kts They fly the final with 40% boards to keep the engines spooled up for the go around. At touch down full boards. The boards alone will push you forward in the seat. He said they are like auto brakes 3 on the 737. They rarely use the brakes because full boards are more than enough. He said many times they must add power for the next exit which is about 3000-3500 down the rwy. When they use the brakes they are a bit grabby. The brakes are good brakes if you wanted to use them.

 

Anyway, I'm happy with the sim I don't care if it gets fixed. I post his thoughts on the breaks as a reference of what the real jet really does.

[Jona33]

Just to add something, slightly OT I know but...

 

If you're restricted to only using W as brakes there is another way. Use modifiers and set your throttle as brakes in the axis commands. It works well for me. Just remember to set your throttle to idle before releasing the modifiers. This was done in game. No profiling in other programs.

[effte]

The issue was reported and as a consequence known about long before these two threads were started. In hindsight, the only mistake was not confirming that the issue has been reported in the first thread already. I'll persevere so as to not repeat that particular mistake again.

 

Something good came out of it then.

 

Regarding the brakes hitting the friction threshold, have a look at what the brakes are really doing using RCtrl+Enter. They seem to be operating as an ABS system, pumping rather than modulating. That will do the braking efficiency no good, so I still suspect the A/S. Definitely a tricky one to get right, I'd say.

 

Cheers,

Fred

 

(Now I'll prowl the forums for some other issue to keep Viper awake over ;))

[Inseckt]

How fare this issue nowadays? Do the 1.2.2 version have -1 consistent braking? Or is this still on the "to do list"?

 

I have been away for a while, and I think maybe braking feels easier now, but I can't be sure...

[WildBillKelsoe]

You'll want to keep airspeed between donut (green) and V (yellow) not ^ (yellow) as your TVV points at the runway threshold.

 

Landing starts 5 miles out, 2000 feet at 140-160 kts.

 

When at 100 feet above runway threshold, speed should be 130 and let the TVV slide down while also reducing speed incrementally. Flaps at 15° and speedbrakes at 40 percent. About speedbrakes, just look at them and once they bob out from the ailerons, leave them.

 

As you flare, reduce speed to idle, slowly raise nose to 1 degree pitch and apply speed brakes. As the rear wheels screech, keep holding a 1 degree attitude and open brakes to their fullest. around 90 kts, apply differential tire brakes and rudder to align nose with centerline (step on the ball), then at 70 kts engage NWS (insert) and brake again. If done properly, you should come to a full stop halfway down runway length.

[Inseckt]

yes, there are several techniques for a more rapid deceleration, but I was wondering about the status of the known bug in traction and or braking-efficiency as per this thread...