MiG-29 AFM & trimming

What I was referring to is how exactly you'd implement it in the sim (ie if there's a button or lever to disable it like in the Flanker). Maybe they could have a generic "stick pusher override" button that simulates the pilot pulling with both hands?

 

As it's already done in the Su-27 AFM by holding down the wheel brake button, it will probably be handled in the same way on the MiG.

Um.....does L/D = n* T/W mean anything to you? :huh:

Rule of flight. But you missed the point on quote. When did someone had pilot blackout in Su27 last time? Thing just gets broken apart in midair like its Piper Cub. F15 operates in 12g zone repeatedly. In RL one guy did it once to save its ass and plane was written off .. no AFM for F15 any time soon because it perfectly dodges missiles that are already stupid enough to stick to single chaff. Mig29 is next to screw up but as long as it looks better now who cares if it's not SA capable anymore. Lets strip off RWR from F15 then.

 

Not smokey enough for DCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wqBacGjQM

Edited March 26, 2017 by jackmckay

I´m still dont get your point?

 

What exactly do you want?

 

A tactical dispaly on the Mig-29 that the REAL MIG-29 doesnt have NEVER EVER?

 

A Su-27 sustaining FULL RUDDER DEFLECTION over 600 km/h when the REAL MANUAL FORBBIDEN IT?

 

Or taking off with the front wheel on the runway exceding 320 Km/h when the manual says DONT DO THAT?

Rule of flight. But you missed the point on quote. When did someone had pilot blackout in Su27 last time? Thing just gets broken apart in midair like its Piper Cub. F15 operates in 12g zone repeatedly. In RL one guy did it once to save its ass and plane was written off .. no AFM for F15 any time soon because it perfectly dodges missiles that are already stupid enough to stick to single chaff. Mig29 is next to screw up but as long as it looks better now who cares if it's not SA capable anymore. Lets strip off RWR from F15 then.

 

Not smokey enough for DCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wqBacGjQM

 

Experience sufficient G load and you'll black out, same as the pilot of any other DCS aircraft. On the subject of the G-loading, the DCS Su-27 has maximum structural G loads (plus an in-built safety factor) that are very accurate to the real Su-27S manual. The Su-27 is not an F-15. They were designed for different purposes and with completely different philosophies. Missiles? All SARH missiles are poor at present, this is apparently being worked on. As for the MiG-29 AFM, we don't have it yet, so let's wait and see how it matches up to the handling notes in the real MiG-29 manual.

Rule of flight. But you missed the point on quote. When did someone had pilot blackout in Su27 last time? Thing just gets broken apart in midair like its Piper Cub. F15 operates in 12g zone repeatedly. In RL one guy did it once to save its ass and plane was written off .. no AFM for F15 any time soon because it perfectly dodges missiles that are already stupid enough to stick to single chaff. Mig29 is next to screw up but as long as it looks better now who cares if it's not SA capable anymore. Lets strip off RWR from F15 then.

 

Not smokey enough for DCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wqBacGjQM

 

You derail every single thread into a grudgematch that seems to exists only in your own mind. Stop it. It's rude and annoying as hell! This particular paragraph reads like it was written by a five year old, throwing a tantrum because his favorite toy doesn't work like he thinks it's supposed to.

Rule of flight. But you missed the point on quote. When did someone had pilot blackout in Su27 last time? Thing just gets broken apart in midair like its Piper Cub. F15 operates in 12g zone repeatedly. In RL one guy did it once to save its ass and plane was written off .. no AFM for F15 any time soon because it perfectly dodges missiles that are already stupid enough to stick to single chaff. Mig29 is next to screw up but as long as it looks better now who cares if it's not SA capable anymore. Lets strip off RWR from F15 then.

 

Not smokey enough for DCS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0wqBacGjQM

The F-15 doesn't have structural damage modeled yet.

Got the pop-corn, keep it coming :)

Glad you like It.

The F-15 doesn't need structural damage modeling because it's extremely difficult to actually break the airframe in flight due to the design of the control system. Sure, you can bend it quite easily, but the same thing can be said about the Flanker or MiG-29. We'd also need to implement the adaptive overload warning (the current warning is calibrated for a clean airframe at 9G).

The F-15 doesn't need structural damage modeling because it's extremely difficult to actually break the airframe in flight due to the design of the control system. Sure, you can bend it quite easily, but the same thing can be said about the Flanker or MiG-29. We'd also need to implement the adaptive overload warning (the current warning is calibrated for a clean airframe at 9G).

Sure thing.

 

But currently F-15s can do 14Gs at any speed over and over and over, with no consequence, and i doubt the weapons and fuel should be staying on the pylons at those Gs.

 

You can over G the flanker once or twice, but after that you will break the airframe, same should be happening to other aircraft as well, that have AFMs obviously.

Edited March 27, 2017 by karambiatos

Sure thing.

 

But currently F-15s can do 14Gs at any speed over and over and over, with no consequence, and i doubt the weapons and fuel should be staying on the pylons at those Gs.

 

You can over G the flanker once or twice, but after that you will break the airframe, same should be happening to other aircraft as well, that have AFMs obviously.

 

The real issue is that, if you wanted to implement a truly accurate over G model for the F-15, you'd have to get into some deeper systems modeling. The adaptive overload warning, hung stores after extreme overload, etc.

 

Also, the max attainable G varies quite noticeably with Mach number, altitude, and CG. It's actually pretty hard to reach that magic 150% load under most normal circumstances.

 

But again, we've strayed far off this thread's original topic.

Offcourse, flanker had to be treated that way but f15 not. Why? I don't mind sticking to flight manual limitations as one in mig21 (they are challenging and I like it that way) and if Flanker flies that way in RL its fine by me but right now in MP if in air combat against eagle (or m2k) you have to fly against ufos. That's stupid and away from sport spirit we have right here. Concerning mig29 it had tactical display before and suddenly lost both tactical display and sideways looking IRST. Why? What, the developers were kind of stupid before and suddenly had been enlighted because some classified manuals got up somewhere? Like common logic was not plausible for mig29 as on Su27 even they both use same tactical framework, same equipment and originate from same era. And IRST angle narrowing is also stupid because HMS can tilt sideways but that same equipment in IRST mode can't. How convenient? Will ED find something extra on f15 or other modules and suddenly disable that feature because someone is concerned about overall performance of one specific module extrapolated from RL. This is 'simulator' and it 'simulates' RL right?

That's stupid and away from sport spirit we have right here.

 

So basically your whole argument can be summed up like this: Some planes are better than others, and its unfair.

 

Can't wait for the Mig29 to get its PFM/AFM. jackmckay will cry me a river. :thumbup:

So basically your whole argument can be summed up like this: Some planes are better than others, and its unfair.

 

Can't wait for the Mig29 to get its PFM/AFM. jackmckay will cry me a river. :thumbup:

 

No. Some modelling is better than others. The F15/M2K FM is a poor substitute for that of the Su27.

No. Some modelling is better than others. The F15/M2K FM is a poor substitute for that of the Su27.

 

What does the F15C FM have to do with the Su27? Are they the same airframe? Not sure about the F15C, but the M2K has gotten a whole lot better with the last few updates. One overzealous turn in the M2K and "bam" you're completely out of energy. The other day I got into a turn-fight with a Flanker in the mountains, tried to get on its tail with a hard lead pursuit turn. Managed to get a Magic off the rail, he obviously saw it and flared hard, missile missed. I was happy because I was on his six, suddenly I checked my airspeed and saw that I was basically dropping like a brick. Tried to go nose down to get some airspeed, but it was too late and I was too low and I crashed into the mountain floor. Its the only jet I fly regularly, and it's definitely not a UFO.

 

I remember not too long ago how the Su27 could do 20+G turns, it was a pretty blatant problem in the FM, and it was eventually corrected.

 

As for some modeling is better than others, I don't disagree with that. I do however disagree with jackmckay's arguments and complete and total resistance to better advanced systems modeling and correct flight modeling in FC3 modules.

 

He is basically arguing a return to SFM and "game balance".

Edited March 28, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

@OnlyfofDCS Not at all. I'm saying that FMs of FC3 planes should be treated equally on all FC3 planes. Right now Su27 is in high realism mode (engines are still underpowered-period) and others like F15 are in arcade mode(+12G) and that planes are direct opponents, best in class. What will happen to Mig29 if treated same as Su27. Another 'artificially degraded by too much realism in fleet of owerpowered SFM planes' airplane and further polarization between eastern and western forces in game. Mig29 already lost its vital SA scope - tactical display without any RL justified reason and against common design logic. I personally can adopt to any FM and gain high kill/loss ratio in any plane as booth as in Su27 as in F15 and I respect their designers and masterminds behind these ultimate machines and RL performance is not the point here in any fraction of my arguments here.

 

The point is that difference between FC eastern and western DCS planes is way in the favor of western planes and is not even that drastic in RL. Rock solid statement. ED should make some law and order in field of flight dynamics, especially damage and overstress model and treat all planes realism simultaneously. Right now western modules are out of leash and no way close to real life as Su27 is. That makes DCS out of 'fair play'. If any module needs AFM right now that is the F15.

How many times you need to read " The real Mig-29A/S never had a tactical display"?

 

Its a frontline short range interceptor guided by GCI, using the HUD and the ADI with the Lazur system.

 

PERIOD.

All FC3 planes are basically "work in progress". The F15C will probably get a few more FM tweaks, as will the Su27. Problem is that these are very low priority fixes for ED & Belsimtek (AFAIK they are responsible for the F15C FM) as the FM works properly in 99/100 cases. Like Su27, the F15C will get its overstress model and damage model fixed. It will just take time.

 

Belsimtek is currently stretched thin, additionally they are helping ED with the Hornet which is most probably in crunch mode right now.

 

We were supposed to get the Su33 and Mig29 AFM by now. They are still missing in action. You don't see anyone complaining about their flight model do you? Yet they fly like arcade toy planes in comparison to the F15C and the Su27.

 

Fact of the matter is, that with its FCS logic the F15C will ALWAYS be easier to fly than the Su27. Even if they get the FM to 100% of both birds, the F15C will still have the edge in most of the flight envelope. Not because it's a superior airframe, but because for most people, it is much easier to control and fly. Remember, most people are not aces who fly on the very edge of the envelope.

 

As for the Mig29, Esac mirmidon is completely right. Eagle Dynamics is striving for MORE reality in our FC3 modules, not LESS.

Edited March 29, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
spelling

Jack, if you read the real flight manuals for the F-15 and Su-27, you'd see just how different the two are.

 

The F-15 isn't necessarily "a better airplane," it just has greater static stability margins, a more sophisticated control and hydraulic system, more powerful engines, and a tougher airframe.

 

These differences are depicted with reasonable accuracy in the simulation. It's not made up, the Flanker is genuinely a more difficult aircraft to handle. Same goes for the MiG-29. Different countries, different design philosophies. Period.

 

The F-15 isn't necessarily "a better airplane," it just has greater static stability margins, a more sophisticated control and hydraulic system, more powerful engines, and a tougher airframe.

 

Depends on the version though. It only got more powerful engines with the introduction of the F100-PW-229(from ~ 1989 IIRC) - prior to that it actually had less than the Su-27.

Depends on the version though. It only got more powerful engines with the introduction of the F100-PW-229(from ~ 1989 IIRC) - prior to that it actually had less than the Su-27.

 

"More powerful engines" was a bit of a misnomer; I should have said "better propulsion system." The intakes and airframe allow for care free handling of the engines and a higher top speed.

 

Also, does the Flanker have low bypass engines like the Eagle, or does it use straight turbojets? If the latter, then the Eagle (theoretically) boasts higher fuel efficiency as well.

 

But let's not get sidetracked, the point of what I'm saying is that yes, aircraft are "unbalanced" in reality and in the simulator.

"More powerful engines" was a bit of a misnomer; I should have said "better propulsion system." The intakes and airframe allow for care free handling of the engines and a higher top speed.

 

I don't think the PW engines have anything on the AL-31F in terms of "care free handling"(e.g. watch "Bell manouver") nor that a slightly higher top speed(M 2.5 vs 2.35) is down to the engines, but rather to differences in airframe design and philosophy behind them.

 

Also, does the Flanker have low bypass engines like the Eagle

 

Yes - you can read more about it here(manufacturer page):

http://www.umpo.ru/Good27_16_2.aspx

 

But let's not get sidetracked, the point of what I'm saying is that yes, aircraft are "unbalanced" in reality and in the simulator.

 

Yes but there is a difference between "unbalanced" by design and "unbalanced" due to choices(of versions) made for the simulator :) .

Ok, i shortened the quote to emphasize what i meant:

- ....because of Su27 artificially degraded (augmented drag etc.)

 

Rule of flight. But you missed the point on quote.

 

I don't think i did. If the Flanker has augmented drag, then how come you can simulate the performance charts from the manuals for given loads with such a precision?

 

The F-15 doesn't have structural damage modeled yet.

 

It doesn't. And think if you ask the Eagle drivers, they would be the first to want one. For multiple reasons.

 

The F-15 doesn't need structural damage modeling because it's extremely difficult to actually break the airframe in flight due to the design of the control system.

 

Following on a quote by GGT in that "other" topic, i can't say that the Eagle doesn't "need" structural damage modeling. It does. But it probably needs more is accurate simulation of it's control surfaces and hydraulics, so it can't actually reach those 14g on a whim. If we have it my way though, i'd want both.

 

Offcourse, flanker had to be treated that way but f15 not. Why?

 

Now you just make it like there is a global conspiracy to make the Eagle the best plane possible. I am willing to bet some of my spare internal organs that the Eagle community in DCS probably wants more realistic (or IMO in better words more authentic) Eagle experience, then you give them credit for.

 

That's stupid and away from sport spirit we have right here.

 

And this is where i think the origin of our different views originates. War is not, never was, nor should ever be considered a sport. Maybe it's the hard line simmer in me speaking, but when i fly i expect and desire my own machine and that of the other side, to be as close as possible (and allowable) simulated to the information available to us in the manuals and experiences of those that flew it (them). Heaven's forbid should DCS turn into some kind of convoluted MMO with people shouting "OP", "nerfed" and what not........ or am i too late to express this sentiment? :huh:

 

No. Some modelling is better than others. The F15/M2K FM is a poor substitute for that of the Su27.

 

You are right of course. I can't tell for the Mirage (as i neither own it or fly it), but the Eagle is lacking in many respects. And i don't mean just the fancy clickable cockpit.

 

Depends on the version though. It only got more powerful engines with the introduction of the F100-PW-229(from ~ 1989 IIRC) - prior to that it actually had less than the Su-27.

 

If i'm not mistaken, the version we have in DCS is the 229 powered one?

If i'm not mistaken, the version we have in DCS is the 229 powered one?

We have -220s in the sim.

 

Officially there aren't any -229 equipped US F-15Cs unless they're hiding something (which I doubt).

 

Nobody IRL has stock, from the factory -220s, though, as far as I know.

 

There's an account on F-16.net of somebody trying to tune a -132 *below* 34,000lbf on a test stand in AB. Now just think about the other F100s and F110s for a second. ;)

We have -220s in the sim.

 

Officially there aren't any -229 equipped US F-15Cs unless they're hiding something (which I doubt).

 

Nobody IRL has stock, from the factory -220s, though, as far as I know.

 

There's an account on F-16.net of somebody trying to tune a -132 *below* 34,000lbf on a test stand in AB. Now just think about the other F100s and F110s for a second. ;)

LOL, and that is what 3 hours of sleep per night, 3 nights in a row gets you:doh:

 

I kept reading that 9 in the 229 as a 0. :doh: