Landing rollout

[effte]

Are you guys adding objects at fixed intervals in the ME? I haven't tried that...is it precise enough?

 

Using the measuring tool, it's precise enough. That doesn't mean very precise. We should be able to add objects based on coordinates though? That way, it will be very precise indeed if you know your geodesy. If that's possible, and if there's interest, I could create a mission with very exact markers. Calculating geodetic points on runways is something I have more than a little experience of... :)

 

Cheers,

Fred

[159th_Viper]

effte - utilizing your track and taking control, herewith quick and dirty attempt:

 

Touchdown at 110 knots:

 

 

Dead-Stop:

 

 

I'll have a look at the numbers mentioned in previous posts tomorrow.

[july865]

1.clean - barley fuel

2.clean - full fuel

3.full load - with barely fuel

4.full load - full fuel

 

PeterP is feeding his plane "beer", sweet!! :megalol:

Edited March 4, 2012 by july865

[PeterP]

as long it can land .... why not ?! -where is the problem? ;)

 

(BTW: I'm a offspring off a very poor family .... and we always had to use whatever is around us to keep things going... - this also include that there was no beer left to pay me any English lessons!)

edit :

(I now had a closer look and asked two different dictionary's what to do...)

Try this!! - move the "e" of my "barley" just in front of the "l" - sorry again!

Thanks, july865 for pointing this out ! - I'm eagerly to learn and I will sure try harder next time.

 

1.clean - barley fuel

2.clean - full fuel

3.full load - with barely fuel

4.full load - full fuel

 

PeterP is feeding his plane "beer", sweet!!

Edited March 4, 2012 by PeterP
scrutinising myself once more

[july865]

@PeterP

you are well respected on these forums and i do hope that this was not insulting to you in any way, as it was not intended as such.

[Kroll]

Wow! Many responses. I'll try to answer some of your questions. This was just an observation over a period of landings maybe 100 or so. The A-10 is better on the ground than the SU-25T is in Flaming cliffs 2. With both of these though, there is a little bit of ice skating rink feeling. I know it's a sim and I'm well aware that it can never be compared to real life. I can land the A-10 fine. I don't blow out tires and all that stuff. I understand aero braking to save the brakes in real life. In real life though sometimes you've got to get on the binders and get the bird stopped. You really can't do that here. I cross the fence at about 125kts bleeding to 115 or so. All these landings were made with different configurations. For me when I play a sim I'm interested in the flight envelope of the plane and how it performs. I try to push things to the limits and thats where you find the flaws in flight models. I've been playing their sims from Flanker 1.0 and I've always enjoyed Eagle Dynamics flight models. I truely believe from my perspective they are the best at simulating real life flying.

 

How to fix this? I believe Eagle should just make the brakes a little more effective. Make the tires grip or stick a little better for the side load feeling. I know this is easier said than done. I know most of this might be on my end since at best I'm a weekend flyer who uses the "W" key. If it never gets fixed that ok too. This so far is an AMAZING sim!

 

Great discussion guys. I'm interested to see your data for the different landings Peter.

[Kroll]

This is a good brakes related thread:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1375574#post1375574

 

The comment of the tires blowing after hot brakes and killing someone. It is possible but most aircraft tires have fuse plugs that melt out if things get to warm. I'm not sure if the A-10 has them though. I think these comments above are great in seeing the procedures that they use and why they do them. All I'm getting at is that if your solo with nobody behind you. Can you honk on the breaks and make the a mid-field turn off crossing the fence at 125Kts. 125kts is not that fast. Crossing the fence in the 150-170s is cooking (high performance winged jets) though.

[effte]

Thanks, Viper. Not just me, then. 25 below speed and you get a ground roll which about equals the published figure for on-speed PLUS the 380 m air distance for an on-glide landing... didn't exactly give it three seconds after TD before braking either, right? Something is amiss, it would seem.

[159th_Viper]

Published data

 

As per A-10A dash one:

Air distance (normal Vref) 1270’ (387 m)

 

Flaps 0°/no speed brakes: 2200’ (670 m) gnd roll, LDR 981 m

Flaps 20°/Full speed brakes: 1650’ (502 m) gnd roll, LDR 890 m

Flaps 20°/no speed brakes: 1950’ (594 m) gnd roll, 1058 m

 

 

Amount of Fuel/Weight?

 

Edit: As it relates to the -1, that is.

Edited March 4, 2012 by 159th_Viper

[PeterP]

Amount of Fuel/Weight?

 

Effte uses this configuration in the landing distances.trk

 

[159th_Viper]

Yeah - I need confirmation of the numbers in the -1.

[sobek]

If you turn off the anti-skid and jam on the brakes, you're going to blow the mains within about 2-3 seconds.

 

sobek,

that has to be tried. Now, problem is - you should be skidding on the rims rather quickly, and they'll have a lot lower friction than the tyres...

 

 

How about invulnerability?

Edited March 4, 2012 by sobek

[effte]

Yeah - I need confirmation of the numbers in the -1.

 

In the first post - 37500 lbm GW. :)

[159th_Viper]

Just been brought to my attention that the matter has already been formally reported to the relevant Dev.

 

In the interim, kindly be patient. It is after all not that bad: If I can touch down at 330 knots and still get het stopped prior to running out of runway so to speak, it cannot be all shock and horror - she does stop :D

[Kroll]

Just been brought to my attention that the matter has already been formally reported to the relevant Dev.

 

In the interim, kindly be patient. It is after all not that bad: If I can touch down at 330 knots and still get het stopped prior to running out of runway so to speak, it cannot be all shock and horror - she does stop :D

 

Viper are you referring to the brakes being improved? That's great. A small tweak will go a long way to improving the feel of this sim.

 

Now let's talk about the mid air refueling and the multi player connection.

[sobek]

Viper are you referring to the brakes being improved? That's great. A small tweak will go a long way to improving the feel of this sim.

 

Well i guess what that means is that the relevant dev will take a look at it and if the criticism is valid, he'll improve upon it, if such can be done in a reasonable amount of time.

 

Now let's talk about the mid air refueling

 

What's wrong with it?

[159th_Viper]

A small tweak will go a long way to improving the feel of this sim.

 

How so?

 

Braking distance cannot be a factor as it has already been stated that operational jets have to roll to the end of the runway to be 'safed' prior to doing whatever else it is they do.

[effte]

If it feels like braking on ice, the fact that the runway is long enough for you to stop before running off the far end does not change that fact.

 

Besides, there are short runways where you will not make even the last turnoff. That will do suspension of disbelief no good.

 

Lastly, there are those of us who actually bother to check what performance we should be getting and note where the sim fails to deliver. Edit: Flying into the ground or landing downwind is even rarer than maximum performance braking in normal ops, but I don't see anyone suggesting it could be removed without detracting from the feel of the sim. :)

 

It's a known issue and will be fixed - let's leave it at that. We can argue whether it is an insignificant issue or not for weeks and it won't change a thing. You'll still be wrong, and it will still be fixed in due time... :P

 

Now, wouldn't the small amount of time required to prep a list of the known issues for public consumpiton be worthwhile, considering the frustration saved and the reductio of "XYZ doesn't work right" threads? One was started in the wiki but isn't maintained.

Edited March 4, 2012 by effte

[159th_Viper]

If it feels like braking on ice, the fact that the runway is long enough for you to stop before running off the far end does not change that fact.

 

In order to lend any weight to that argument, corroboration from real A-10C pilots will have to be gotten. I will not be preapred to forward that argument, however correct it might be, in the absence of first-hand testimony.

 

 

Besides, there are short runways where you will not make even the last turnoff. That will do suspension of disbelief no good.

 

Which ones?

 

Lastly, there are those of us who actually bother to check what performance we should be getting and note where the sim fails to deliver.

 

That has never been disputed.

 

Fact remains - It works now as well as it should (with the possible exeption of the short runways - I'll wait for your confirmation). Yes, as said, it can do with fine-tuning: That is however a matter of weighing priorities.....do you ignore other, more important issues to deal with another less important issue?

 

And no - it's not necessarily an easy, quick-fix :)

 

 

Now, wouldn't the small amount of time required to prep a list of the known issues for public consumpiton be worthwhile, considering the frustration saved and the reductio of "XYZ doesn't work right" threads?

 

All the information needed is already there in the Bugs sub-forum. Frustration can be saved and reductions in threads seen if members will just search the relevant forums first prior to starting new threads.

 

 

Not busting your marbles - merely mentioning the contrary :)

[BlueRidgeDx]

How so?

 

Braking distance cannot be a factor as it has already been stated that operational jets have to roll to the end of the runway to be 'safed' prior to doing whatever else it is they do.

 

I'm not sure I understand how it "cannot be a factor", Viper? The jet either performs as it should, or it doesn't. In this case I've never specifically tested it, though it has always been my impression that braking is a bit "soft".

 

Rolling to the end is appropriate (and sometimes required by local flying procedures) when at home station, when carrying live or practice ordnance, or when heavy.

 

But there are also times when rolling out to the end is neither warranted nor required. For instance, on cross-country flights to other bases, the Transient Alert folks usually safe the airplane in the parking spot, assuming it's not carrying weapons or a hot gun. When landing at civilian airports there is no-one to pin the jets at all, so the pilots will do it themselves after shutting down.

 

When landing someplace with a 12,000ft runway and there's no arming pad at the far end (or there's no one there waiting for you), there's little point in trekking all the way down there when you can easily vacate the runway at midfield.

[badger66]

Right , what happens if your doing a formation landing and your lead screws it up in front of you ?

 

Or a damaged runway for that matter ?

 

I have never used the emergency brakes on the A-10C yet , so I dont know how effective they are .

[Jona33]

Right , what happens if your doing a formation landing and your lead screws it up in front of you ?

 

Or a damaged runway for that matter ?

 

I have never used the emergency brakes on the A-10C yet , so I dont know how effective they are .

 

Same effectiveness as normal brakes I think just activated differently if your left (or right?) hydraulic system fails.

[effte]

In order to lend any weight to that argument, corroboration from real A-10C pilots will have to be gotten. I will not be preapred to forward that argument, however correct it might be, in the absence of first-hand testimony.

 

Have a look at the dash one. If the official flight manual, used for actual safety of flight critical flight planning by the real-life pilots flying the aircraft, is not considered a solid source then what is? Note what it says on the very top of the pages concerned regarding the sourcing of the data.

 

It is the ultimate first hand testimony.

 

This manual contains the necessary information for

safe and efficient operation of your aircraft. These

instructions provide you with a general knowledge of

the aircraft and its characteristics and specific normal

and emergency operating procedures. Your experience

is recognized; therefore, basic flight principles are

avoided. Instructions in this manual are for a crew

inexperienced in the operation of this aircraft. This

manual provides the best possible operating instructions

under most circumstances. Multiple emergencies,

adverse weather, terrain. etc., may require modification

of the procedures.

 

 

Which ones?

 

Every time your LDA (Landing Distance Available) is between 890 and 1470 meters in length, you'll run off the far end if you follow normal landing procedures in the sim under the conditions used for my tests above (20° flaps/speed brakes), whereas you'd be able to stop in the real aircraft (if the flight manual which is, and it bears repeating, what real-life pilots use for their pre-flight planning of whether or not it is safe to land, is to be trusted).

 

Fact remains - It works now as well as it should (with the possible exeption of the short runways - I'll wait for your confirmation). Yes, as said, it can do with fine-tuning: That is however a matter of weighing priorities....

 

Fact remains, the simulated aircraft doesn't do what the real-life aircraft it is simulating does. If you call that a simulator working as well as it should, well, then we'll have to agree to disagree as it would mean a difference in view of what a simulation should be on such a fundamental level that it precludes ever finding common ground.

 

However, from past exchanges I do not believe us to be that far apart in our views of the world so it's all just words.

 

do you ignore other, more important issues to deal with another less important issue?

 

I think it is glaringly obvious that I don't. You'll never find me saying anything of the kind, so please don't suggest I do. In fact, allow me to quote the very post you replied to:

 

It's a known issue and will be fixed - let's leave it at that. We can argue whether it is an insignificant issue or not for weeks and it won't change a thing. You'll still be wrong, and it will still be fixed in due time... :P

 

And no - it's not necessarily an easy, quick-fix :)

 

Nor have I made that suggestion - the ease with which an issue can be fixed depends entirely on the complexity of the programming containing the flaw. Trust me, that is a fact I'm painfully aware of... do not ask me how many weeks you can spend trying to pinpoint a problem with a simulated turbo prop engine, because I'm still trying to make myself forget how I know... :)

 

All the information needed is already there in the Bugs sub-forum. Frustration can be saved and reductions in threads seen if members will just search the relevant forums first prior to starting new threads.

 

Really? If it is that easy, please point me to the thread where a developer or a representative of the developers recognizes this issue? Perhaps the links are in the bug tracker. If I had set it up, they certainly would be. However, that's not accessible to users and the forum search functions are not the greatest tool there is for finding references to a particular issue you are having.

 

That's the core problem when it comes to bug reporting here. Problems are raised in the bug forums and elsewhere, but there is usually no response from the devs. If there is, it can be darn near impossible to find even through extensive searching. Eventually, after the frustration and the complaining threads (with associated badwill, even though I honestly don't think that's much of an issue as ED rightfully have a pretty solid reputation which won't be tarnished easily), someone with bug tracker access steps in and says the issue is known.

 

I understand the situation of the devs. They have jobs to do, and spending their time sifting through these forums shouldn't be too appealing. Frankly, I much rather have them working on the code than in the forums.

 

That's where a cleaned up bug list would be an elegant solution, keeping the users happy and off the developers' back, letting the devs work undisturbed. We'd know not to worry about the issues we see, and ED would not have to worry about issues they are working to resolve being dragged around in public, or the badwill of being perceived as unresponsive to customer complaints when they are in fact hard at work resolving same complaints.

 

ED have a devout testing staff. Some representative of said testing staff could surely spend a couple of hours picking out the items from the bug list which are noticeable to the users and listing them on the wiki, after running it by ED for approval? Wouldn't take too many hours away from the flying. Testing done right is 80% about hard work, being systematic and documenting anyway, so the time spent is only a 20% loss... :joystick:

 

 

Cheers,

Fred

[159th_Viper]

Have a look at the dash one....

 

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.

 

However, from past exchanges I do not believe us to be that far apart in our views of the world so it's all just words.......I think it is glaringly obvious that I don't. You'll never find me saying anything of the kind, so please don't suggest I do. In fact, allow me to quote the very post you replied to....

 

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.

 

That's the core problem when it comes to bug reporting here. Problems are raised in the bug forums and elsewhere, but there is usually no response from the devs. If there is, it can be darn near impossible to find even through extensive searching.....

 

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.

 

 

That's where a cleaned up bug list would be an elegant solution, keeping the users happy and off the developers' back, letting the devs work undisturbed. We'd know not to worry about the issues we see, and ED would not have to worry about issues they are working to resolve being dragged around in public, or the badwill of being perceived as unresponsive to customer complaints when they are in fact hard at work resolving same complaints.

 

ED have a devout testing staff. Some representative of said testing staff could surely spend a couple of hours picking out the items from the bug list which are noticeable to the users and listing them on the wiki, after running it by ED for approval? Wouldn't take too many hours away from the flying. Testing done right is 80% about hard work, being systematic and documenting anyway, so the time spent is only a 20% loss... :joystick:

 

 

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 :)

Edited March 4, 2012 by 159th_Viper
Linguistic Catastrophe

[159th_Viper]

I'm not sure I understand how it "cannot be a factor", Viper?.

 

'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. In that case it would be of paramount importance that the issue be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

 

Currently, it amounts to, in my opinion, to nothing more than an inconvenience/irritation and does not affect the use and enjoyment greatly.

 

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