SU-27 AFM = SU-33 AFM?

Cuz FSX is 100% Real.

Doesnt sound like he is looking for real, just better use of the FF... I kinda get it, but I dont know that it would fit into ED's game plane, maybe it could be modded somehow....

Agreed, but mixing Realistic Feedback with Generic Haptic Feedback would just conflict/interfere with each other.

I dont think there's Stick Feedback when landing these types of aircraft, nor is there "Runway" feedback in the stick when taxi/take off roll/landing roll.

What he wants is the Haptic Feedback of the entire plane shaking pushed into the Flight Stick, which is unrealistic.

Unless there's a rumble servo in the base of the stick, and Separate code to push rumble forces to the stick.

Most realistic thing to do would be to turn up the bass, and put the subwoofer under your chair or buy a "Buttkicker" which would simulate general air frame vibrations when landing or rolling on a bumpy runway/taxi way.

at first ,sorry for my poor english:( and i know fsx and dcs cant be compared. i just wanted to get feel or understand the landing bump effect on joystick. i know this is not happening on real aircraft but i have no ffb pedals and i am not flying on real fuselage,only way to feel this on joystick.

am i landing soft or hard? all i wanted to feel this effect.

thank for your attention.:)

in DCS if you Land Hard You'll hear it and see it.

Thanks for that thread! I was wondering about the Su-27/Su-33 flight dynamics differences too.

I've read somewhere in the forum that the new Su-27 AFM won't make its way in v1.2.7 (release) but that info (from ED staff) may be outdated.

And that video is really exciting: I'm currently training with the Su-27 and the landings feel scripted and too forgiving, especially when you land one of the wheels a bit hard.

For comparison, here's what we have with a real Su-27:

Pretty close!

Great work from ED! :thumbup:

I've read somewhere in the forum that the new Su-27 AFM won't make its way in v1.2.7 (release) but that info (from ED staff) may be outdated.

Patches are feature frozen before they ever reach the public. So no Su-27AFM in 1.2.7.

Hi, good render ! !!! great job again !! ^^

In the video post 11 , it's not a total AFM Su 27 but a AGM ( advanced ground model ), from take off and landing ?

DCS Players Just make new acronyms for everything....lol.

I was typing this message using an AKM, That's Advanced Keyboard Model.

Ground Interaction is Part of the AFM.

Thanks for that thread! I was wondering about the Su-27/Su-33 flight dynamics differences too.

 

I've read somewhere in the forum that the new Su-27 AFM won't make its way in v1.2.7 (release) but that info (from ED staff) may be outdated.

And that video is really exciting: I'm currently training with the Su-27 and the landings feel scripted and too forgiving, especially when you land one of the wheels a bit hard.

 

For comparison, here's what we have with a real Su-27:

 

Pretty close!

Great work from ED! :thumbup:

I think YoYo's landing was better, that pilot almost tail smacked the runway at least twice. But YY almost went off both sides of the runway... but lets just say he was showing off the ground interaction :p

OMG! That vid was amazing. Can't wait to play with the new AFM. It was awesome to see how yoyo used the entire airframe as a air brake to slow down enough for touchdown.

All that movement going on with the horizontal stabilizers, is that all from pilot input or some sort of deflection going on? Also I noticed there was none in yo-yo's video, but nevertheless still very good progress. Continue to press on ED!! :thumbup:

Its a WIP, its possible some of the animations need to be redone, there really isnt much info on the video itself, so we really dont know, but it did seem that animations were disconnected or something...

I hope they add more to the airframe vibrations. Its little details like that which makes things stand out. :D But yeah...more than anything...can't wait for the flanker. My most anticipated DCS update over anything else planned this year.

Canards give the plane negative pitch stability, that is a pretty significant change.

Really? I've never heard that. The GA designs I am familiar with used canards because they provided both stability and lift, i.e. no downforce on the tail needed for positive stability.

Really? I've never heard that. The GA designs I am familiar with used canards because they provided both stability and lift, i.e. no downforce on the tail needed for positive stability.

Less downforce on tail needed for a certain amount of AoA equals less stability. Take the thought experiment further, if you need zero stick force, you are in equilibrium, make the canards even bigger and you will need negative stick force to hold that AoA, you then have arrived at negative pitch stability.

Another way to think about this: A plane with only canards and no tail will react exactly opposite to an AoA increase. In a conventional plane, AoA increase means also more force upwards on the tail which serves to mitigate the high AoA situation. Now think of canards, where an increase of AoA means an increase in upwards force on the nose, which increases AoA even further and so on which leads to an uncommanded departure if the pilot or a control circuit does not decrease AoA of the canards.

Of course if there are control surfaces on the tail the overall stability might be positive depending on the position of center of gravity, the wings and the control surfaces. However every surface shifting the center of lift forward will have a negative impact on stability. If canards far forward of the center of gravity are your only pitch control surface, you will need a FBW control steering them or it will be unflyable due to strong tendency for uncommanded pitch departure.

All that movement going on with the horizontal stabilizers, is that all from pilot input or some sort of deflection going on?

Pilot. It's one of the limitations of desktop simulation at the moment; you simply don't need to make all the little corrections in a sim that you do in reality.

I'm not sure if this is because the dynamism of real flight (gusts/turbulence etc) hasn't been fully captured yet, or whether it's there but less noticeable when you're not in a real cockpit.

Pilot.

The Su-27 does have FBW, so most likely that is not all coming from the pilot.

Pilot. It's one of the limitations of desktop simulation at the moment; you simply don't need to make all the little corrections in a sim that you do in reality.

 

I'm not sure if this is because the dynamism of real flight (gusts/turbulence etc) hasn't been fully captured yet, or whether it's there but less noticeable when you're not in a real cockpit.

I'm always amazed at how much stick movement I do when landing an aircraft in RL. I mostly fly sports planes and aerobatic planes which are quite light and sensitive to wind gusts.

The interesting thing to note is that you can literally feel the wind gust / turbulence on the stick before it affects the flight path, as the stick becomes light on either side and therefore I sort of naturally anticipate the wingdrop by moving the stick "where it feels empty".

Don't know about the Su-27, but I'm pretty sure the F-18 has a force feedback system that lets you feel the aircraft in the same way, if not I'd consider that a disadvantage. You react much faster to what you feel with the stick than to what you see / feel once the aircraft is already fully experiencing the turbulence.

The F-18 deals with the wind gust for you. No force feedback AFAIK.

This.

We do have dynamic weather, but I don't know to what (qualitative) extent it simulates real turbulence.

Also, usually some of the augmentation system stuff can be turned off - eg. when the landing gear in an F-15 comes down, you lose the automatic 'hold 1g' CAS function, so now the aircraft nose is allowed to wander in pitch through your throttle and speed changes and you have to correct for this manually.

I'm not sure if this is because the dynamism of real flight (gusts/turbulence etc) hasn't been fully captured yet, .

The F-18 deals with the wind gust for you. No force feedback AFAIK.

Yeah that can be, but it does have force feedback in order to give the pilot a feeling of the aircraft, also known as artificial feel. You can read up on it here http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADP002709 ;)