FAB-500T UMPK has TV guidance?
Maybe tell them to open their eyes if they think that they’ll fly even remotely similar to each other?
6 Likes
No. I was just corrected. It’s a high speed release point variant. You can go like mach 2 when dropping it. I assumed the T was TV, but it was not.
1 Like
They see some inconsistencies in flight usage manual book №10SK and preferring learning papers that is based on flight usage manual №10 because “it more convincing” and “some numbers just doesn’t make it” in №10SK.
5 Likes
What kind of inconsistencies do they claim?
This would explain so much about why the first Flanker feels so jerky. If they’re insisting on information that’s meant to explain the T-10, not the Su-27, then we’re totally off on what they’re using.
LERX’s basically don’t exist at that point, vertical stabilizers are wrong. Pretty sure powerplant is wrong too.
4 Likes
They are just saying that half of numbers can’t make it without anything specific.
I remember only about climb rate of 300 m/s that too much for AL-21 on T10 and too few for AL-31.
3 Likes
So not even an explanation…
2 Likes
I knew there had to be something wrong with the FM. It flies nothing like the literature describes.
Makes you wonder what version of the T-10 they’re even working with. So much time went into testing the flight beds at TsAGI, and SibNIA did a ton of modelling. They knew before T10-1 even flew that the current LERX’s no longer had any affect on the airframe’s ability to achieve proper AOA. Both T10-1 and T10-2 flew with the AL-21F-3AI’s, so that’s a huge issue too. There were like 11 or 12 different T10’s before the T-10S even. What a sh*t show.
3 Likes
Our current version that they are using T10-15 as reference, because it was made in 1982 as the learning papers
1 Like
The use of T-10 book over Su-27SK book is not relevant to the discussion of the installed thrust as they are using the erroneous calculations for the installed thrust leading to it being too high. If they just went with the aerodynamics of the T-10 it would not be as bad, but they had to worsen the oswald coefficient and the specific excess power it not sufficient.
6 Likes
What was their excuse for not accepting reports on this again?
I remember it being “oswald efficiency is assigned individually to each part, not the entire airframe” or something.
Pretty hilarious.
1 Like
Excuses are meaningless, discussing what the excuse was is equally pointless. The community is being treated as though they do not see their lies and mistakes when it is obvious.
1 Like
-
Poor Blue 20 is missing her Vert-stab wing tips, my reference photos show her with standard wing tips.
-
So the issue is that we have a T-10S (Su-27, essentially) in game, but they’re using values from the T-10, not the T-10S. Again, I wonder, what early T-10 FM values are they even using? Not every early T-10 airframe even has the same shape.
How is it not? The early T-10’s had AL-21’s, that has to be a problem as well.
Early T-10 airframes are way different than the T-10S and suffer from horrible AOA, let alone none of the Flankers are really capable of stable flight without Fly-by-wire, so T10-1 for example going to be clunky as hell as it’s semi-mechanical.
Smells like T10-1 to me.
From discussing this all so far it seems like T10-15 (T10S) with individual Oswald efficiency to each part (possibly why flaps/flapperons and trim are all crap), remaining values are all all from T10 early model, and thrust may be modelled incorrectly as well.
Absolute sh*t show, like I said.
2 Likes
If anyone has something to add, you can suggest me changes to this bug report on Russian or even post your own comment there on English
I wish I knew what was going on on the client side enough to make a report, but everything seems normal as far as I can tell. I’ll do some more reading to see what I can figure out.
1 Like
This would explain why the basic airframe dimensions are off in the game files.
Which is why they are using erroneously calculated AL-31 installed thrust data from the other manuals. They are also not without flaws.
4 Likes
Okay. But the plane is supposed to have AL-31’s, so the thrust isn’t the problem per-se. If we had a T-10-1 or any other early T-10, it would have AL-21F-3AI’s. The T-10S has AL-31’s. So the thrust might be right, but the dimensions, weight, and thrust curve might be off. I don’t know what the data looks like behind the client, I’m not good at figuring that stuff out, but it sounds like we have a Frankenstein Su-27 and Su-27SM.
This also explains while it’s still a brick, the Su-34 must have a cleaner FM, as there’s less crap for Gaijin to confuse it with. Having the AL-31F-M1’s must be doing a lot of work for that model as well.
I haven’t flown the Su-33 yet, but I’d imagine it too feels like a better Flanker in the intense AOA’s and low speeds.
No, it is not. The thrust is wrong, intake losses are not as high as they should be. Excess thrust is compensated by excess drag.
3 Likes
I’m trying to understand what this means. Are you saying the intake loss should be worse on the Su-27? And that it’s compensated for by excess thrust from the dev’s modelling or when the afterburner is engaged? Are you saying that this issue, which may be essentially fixed/compensated for is then compounded by the problem of excess drag on the flight model?
Multiple early T10’s have different intake designs, and I’m not sure they all had intake ramps for different positions. So if we have a Frankenstein model for drag and other coefficiencies on the Su-27 based off of an early T10, not the T10-15, then the entire intake process is completely screwed.
I don’t think the game models intakes with different flaps for different positions on the throttle and air speeds. So that’s a problem too.
1 Like