FoxAlfa

Completely agree, also store pylon jamming and such

Pull 10+ G is bad, mkay? Jokes aside, I find current Over G modeling quite acceptable, you really need to do something stupid in heavy plane to break the wings. And yes, although in RL there would be probably a set things that would go wrong before wing brake (like INS, Radar, control surfaces jamming) if a RL madman kept going breaking up the plane would be quite possible. From things that could be improved is maybe sound could telegraph more what is going on... like frame banding sounds or such.

Hey, I would love too, unfortunately my 3D modeling and also C++ coding days are a bit behind me for now, too big of workload in my RL game dev work and child incoming... hopefully, once things settle in future, I would love to try grasping an DCS mod stuff...

Thank you for reply, I really hope you continue the work! I would love to see a MiG-25 as mod or module.

No comments on the JF radar range.... weird...

<64>Fox - MiG-29

Nobody is asking for it to brake under normal circumstances or where it is not supposed brake, and in DCS for sure you can easily get it in that range... high speed dive with high G pull per example

It is not about F-15, it is about consistency, ether you have them for all or for none. Limits have a tendency to get dangerous more and more you pushed them... I am pretty sure many RL jets won't see the wear and tear of DCS jets in whole lifetime... Pulling a great manevre feels much better when you know the limit is there, without it, pains me great to say, but flying the F-15 feels empty... and seeing people who fly it online just to cheese the mechanic hurts its DCS reputation even more. Again, I like I think the HB solution for F-14, each time you spawn in... a random number from a range is generated... you don't know what it is... but you know it is there and it is going to bite you if you push to far. It is quite a nice and simple solution without going too deep in simulating stress on the structure and other details needlessly.

You are missing the point of what I am trying to illustrate... I am trying to illustrate that F-15 like any other jet can be broken due to g... are you as F-15 maintenance person disagreeing with that fact? And that those limits need to be added in DCS since it would make it a better simulation. How it is up to ED, for sure I am not fond of fixed numbers. And don't get me wrong, nobody said ever it should be broken at exactly that limit... far from that, there are engineering safeties and for sure real plane can take way more... I am not even saying it can't take 12 g... because it can but there is danger in doing that... What I am saying that F-15 or for that fact any plane can't take continues -4.5 g to 12g to -4.5g transitions, things that no RL pilot would ever even think of doing, and that ED needs to add some way of stress simulation to the DCS F-15 since currently it is the only aircraft that doesn't have it.

Here are 3 more: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/60356 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/70223 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/121265

You keep ignoring the fact that multiple well documented cased of F-15 crashing due to structural failure with two I posted from 2002 and 2007 being best known.

The point of that line on the chart is for the pilot to be aware there is a limit and that is the exact intent why it was used there, and again I am using it to show that there is a limit. And I love to think that no body slapped that line there but used said books/criteria to place it there.

Of course it is not the primary use of that chart... there is no chart that shows how a plane brakes up when you do stupid s**t that you shouldn't do since it destroys the airplane. With that said, Sustain Turn charts are good display of the aircraft G limits.... especially since they are factor of weight, and axis are G-load factor and speed.... and there is nicely marked area called 'Structural Limits'. You can nicely see the F-15 at 44k lbs at sea level on standard day (15'c) can pull maximum of 8g, before Structal limit kicks in. With that said you can comfortably pull 12g in 60k lbs F-15 in DCS, and ppl keep defending it by using one time story of somebody bending the frame to somehow prove that it can do that constantly and repeatedly. If we applied their one-time rule, I guess 9x shouldn't be able to hit anything, but it doesn't work like that. I am for realism and standardisation of modeling, and if any aircraft has limits (and when it comes to Structal limits all of them have them) they should be simulated to some degree, and if people are trying not to get them added, is just because they think they can abuse them to get advantage vs other players in some way, and that always requires a response.

You are well aware you can do that in SP too... Full Eagle.... 11,12g continuously.... with weight were charts say it can do 6.5-7.5g... Also, ED stated it will be fixed... ppl here just like to delay the reality and maybe reduce the priority of the fix here by playing ignorant to the truth... You will enjoy the Eagle more once it gets that limitation... capabilities make a nice game, but limitation make it a good simulation I for one know that I am enjoy the Viper more without the omnivision radar

Yes, I agree, let ignore that 100+ F-15 lost in various training mishaps and structural failures and those 163 with flawed support beams because they are not brand new out of the factory jets.... let not kid ourselves.... pulling 12 g in F-15 is a serious thing and has caused deaths and there is number of documented fails... so it's not something you do just carelessly for fun... I like HB solution for F-14... each time you spawn there is random g fali point... sometimes it is 11g sometimes 21 g... so pull G at your own peril... so it is not like this can't be solved easy by a single random number generator and give quite realistic results. first transition is 12.4g to -4.5g to 13.7g... so yes more then 16g

There is pulling 12g's and landing with bent frame, and, we have as well many stories of Eagles crashing due to structural failures: https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna22593275 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/60359 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/60375 etc So lets pls put this myth of Structal indestructible Eagle, since it is starting to sound like communist propaganda... and then there is doing a 12g pull and then there is doing ~16g transitions continually

As far as I recall, it was an abomination of 9.13 cockpit with 9.31 outsides... and weapons loadouts and usages that were not even close to the real thing... so, I guess they didn't want something that arcadey in DCS and the workload was just too big and documentation unavailable to bring it to closer the real thing...

....yeah right. Hungary 1956 Prague Spring 1968 Avganistan 1979

This discussion is pointless, since your bottom line keeps shifting. Again, Hypothesis that 9.12 wasn't compatible with the R-27T or R-27ER is wrong since I gave you clear info from the manual that both R-27T and R-27ER are listed both in the weapon load and on the HUD (and no, I am not posting it here since of the 1.16). Like it was said lot of ppl have older manuals before the weapons existed or/and from air forces that didn't use or have access to the missiles, and they come to the wrong conclusion. If you follow the Russian missile thread you would have seen also that most of R-27ER range envelop graphs are from MiG-29 manuals.

Who is talking about 315, more so ever who has access to prototypes manuals if there is even one?

The hypothesis wasn't "aircraft is capable to carry a certain weapon before it exists".... the hypothesis was "MiG-29 9.12 isn't capable of carrying ERs and Ts", and that hypothesis is wrong. Since Warsaw pact allies in the 80's didn't have R-27T? Also, Soviets didn't give latest and greatest to the allies ether... since they had tendencies to invade them.... But again, hypothesis "MiG-29 9.12 isn't capable of carrying ERs and Ts" is wrong, we can go into details regarding Polish, Yugo, Iraq MiG-29 separately...

22 - position of the horizont 23 - position of the radar viewing zone

Exactly... per example export HUD has much less symbology also, per example also much less radar peacetime and wartime channels then the soviet ones...

HUD from the 9.12 manual... no jammer active indication on the left, for smart Aleks who are going to ask if it is not 9.13, nor it has section about using the Jammer... so plz update your information. If some army didn't field a certain weapon or the manual is before the weapon existed doesn't mean the aircraft isn't capable carrying it. Also I am pretty certain that some export version weren't capable on purpose

Here you go... also, the myth persist since most ppl have older manuals before those missiles.... if you have newer ones, you will see those missiles listed in payload....