Leaderboard

Обратил внимание что как-то мало миссий в городских условиях(если они вообще есть). Вот предлагаю мой вариант городских баталий. В этой миссии ваша задача поддержать наш спецназ при штурме телецентра, да и вообще повоевать в городе немного, поучавствовать в погоне за автомобилем по узким улицам и т.д.:) Рекомендуетса играть без ярлычков (так интереснее) Если найдете какието ошибки - отпишитесь плз. п.с. озвучки нету(только субтитры). если кому невлом озвучить-я непротив.:music_whistling: За грам ошибки тоже не пинайте, если найдете - лучше сразу выложите исправленный вариант.:smartass: Заменил на исправленный вариант от Namenlos + немного подправил миссию ( проверил - работает) + отодвинул архаровцев от вывески( хотя как по мне так они и там неплохо сидели:smilewink:) + Подправил миссию. Учел все пожелания изложенные в этом форуме. Вот вариант без ярлычков +Вариант полный (холодный старт с базы 50км до цели) чистый город.miz чистый город с ярлычками.miz чистый город полная.miz

I posted this elsewhere, but it kinda fits here, too, so... Sorry in advance for what must seem like a dissertation, but this is what I've learned about coaxial rotor flight dynamics. It may help to have a picture or model of the Ka50 in front of you while you read this. In a hover, the two rotor disks of the Ka-50 contra-rotating coaxial rotor helicopter are designed so that they produce the same amount of torque (due to drag) in opposite directions. The lower rotor actually produces less lift/drag than the upper rotor for the same relative airspeed, but since it is working in the higher airspeed downwash of the upper rotor, they match torque production at a hover setting (at sea level on a standard day, <yawn>). This designed so that minimal (ideally NO) yaw input is needed at a hover. During forward flight, this difference in lift production capability results in the upper rotor generating more lift than the lower rotor. The upper rotor rotates clockwise, so you get a net counter-clockwise torque from drag, thus the left yawing tendency at airspeed. This yawing tendency, left uncorrected, will result in uncoordinated flight which is messy and unprofessional. So, in a Kamov contra-rotating coaxial rotor helicopter, like the Ka-50, a Good Pilot, interested in maintaining steady-state coordinated level forward flight, will apply right rudder to counter the left-turning tendency of the upper rotor disk. In a conventional helicopter, applying pressure to a rudder pedal increases (or decreases) the pitch on the blades of the tail rotor, increasing (or decreasing) the lift they generate. The mounting of the tail rotor is such that lift from the blades directly translates to turning moment. So, pressing a pedal directly affects turning moment (aka torque) on the chopper. Unlike conventional helicopters, however, there is no tail rotor on the Ka-50. While removing moving parts from a design is usually a good thing, the function those parts served must be replaced by other parts, or else thrown out of the design. Yaw control is most certainly not an optional "feature" of a combat helicopter and the solution implemented in the Ka-50, while complicated, is quite elegant. In the Ka-50, yaw torque is controlled by varying the pitch of the blades of the two rotor disks. To yaw to the right, the pitch of the blades in the upper rotor disk is decreased which decreases lift which decreases drag which decreases the counter-clockwise (i.e., left-turning) torque it produces. If nothing else was done, the helicopter would yaw to the right due to the excess torque generated by the lower rotor disk, but it would also start sinking due to the loss in total lift. To counteract this, the pitch of the lower rotor blades is increased at the same time, increasing lift which increases drag which increases the clockwise (i.e., right-turning) torque it produces. The total change in lift is zero while the total change in torque is to the right. The process happens in the opposite for yawing to the left. This is all accomplished automatically by the helicopter control systems when the pilot stomps on a rudder pedal. This technique was apparently pioneered by Mr. Kamov, by the way. Unfortunately, that's not the end of the story. Due to a number of factors, including the fact that rotor blades are not infinitely stiff and thus flex a little, rotor blades slope upwards away from the rotor mast when the produce lift. This causes the rotor disk, which is essentially flat while making no lift, to form a cone shape, or rotor cone. In forward flight these cones are asymmetrical, even in single rotor disk helicopters, because of a phenomenon called "dissymmetry of lift". Dissymmetry of lift is caused by the fact that, on a helicopter that is moving, the rotor blades on the side of the disk that is moving in the same direction as the helicopter are moving faster through the air and thus generate more lift than the blades on the other side of the cone. More lift means more force pulling up on the blade, which means a steeper cone angle. Less lift means less force pulling up, which means a shallower cone angle. From the outside it looks like the cone is leaning away from the side of the rotor disk that is headed in the helicopter's direction. This side of the cone is generating more lift than the other (hence the handy-dandy "dissymmetry of lift" moniker) which creates a banking torque on the helicopter. In the Ka-50 contra-rotating coaxial rotor, the upper rotor is producing more lift overall, so although the lower rotor is producing a banking moment in the opposite direction, there is net banking moment to the right. So, in addition to the right rudder needed due to the differing torque production of the two rotor disks at airspeed, left cyclic is also needed to counter the dissymmetry of lift effect. Hence the left stick and right rudder we keep finding ourselves using to maintain straight and level coordinated forward flight. It's natural. And it's right. Now for the Dark Side: One of the cons of this design is that the cones of the two rotor disk system lean in opposite directions. This is because the two rotor disks spin in opposite directions. Although the upper rotor is a bit higher than the lower rotor, at a high enough airspeed, the two cones can cross, which, if you remember from Ghostbusters, is a bad thing: Dr. Egon Spengler: There's something very important I forgot to tell you. Dr. Peter Venkman: What? Dr. Egon Spengler: Don't cross the streams. Or rotor cones. Dr. Peter Venkman: Why? Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad. Dr. Peter Venkman: I'm a little fuzzy on the whole "good/bad" thing here. What do you mean, "bad"? Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light. Or your rotor blades clashing at high speed and breaking off your helicopter, sending you spiraling to the ground! Dr. Ray Stantz: Total protonic reversal! Or rotor clashing! Dr. Peter Venkman: That's bad. Okay. All right, important safety tip. Thanks, Egon. To make things worse, since the lower rotor disk is working in the downwash of the upper rotor disk, its coning angle is more severe than the angle of the upper disk's. In forward flight the top rotor cones a little to the right, and the lower rotor cones severely to the left, bringing the tips of the lower rotor closer and closer to the blades of the upper disk. This is not an unanticipated aspect of the design. Mr. Kamov didn't have a maximum indicated airspeed warning system put in his attack helicopter to keep pilots from getting speeding tickets - he put it there to prevent the pilot from reaching airspeeds that cause intersecting cones. The system doesn't, however, take into account rapid increase of the collective at high airspeed (increased pitch = increased lift = increased coning = see Egon's saftey warning above). Stomping on the right rudder makes the upper rotor disk cone less, but the lower disk cones way more, further reducing the distance between the two cones. Throw in some cyclic controls in just the right direction and voila, rotor blade salad and lots of paperwork! The solution is simple: avoid high airspeeds! If you have to move fast, limit climbing to very gentle rates and avoid strong cyclic or rudder inputs in any direction. If you have a need to climb, pull back on the cyclic first while holding the collective steady. The helicopter will pitch up and start climbing without significantly increasing the rotor coning angles. As airspeed bleeds off slowly introduce collective to maintain your climb rate, but keep the total collective input low until the airspeed bleeds down. There's probably a table somewhere to help real pilots figure out what sort of climb rates they can get at high airspeeds before the rotors clash, but experimentation in DCS: Black Shark suggests you can comfortably climb/maneuver at speeds up to 225 km/hr without coning problems. At 225 km/hr and above, more and more caution is needed with the cyclic, collective, and rudder inputs!

Hi to all, I present to them the state in which my new project is, is a slightly ambitious project, and the one who knows perhaps someday is seen by us inside the BS or in some of the Series of DCS. Good gentlemen the new project in which I have embarked in these moments, after looking for all the information that I could have found on the topic for different routes, it is the new acquisition of Spanish Army Aviation “Famet“, together with France, Germany and Australian Army Aviation and this one is the new helicopter of attack Eurocopter Tiger, in this case I have praised myself for the one that I have closer that it is Eurocopter Tiger HAD, but good you will try to do four variants that exist today of the Tiger, that are, the German variant the Tiger UHT (Unterstützungshubschrauber Tiger), the French the Tiger HAP (Helicoptere d'Appui Protection), the Spaniard the Tiger HAD (Helicóptero de Apoyo y Destrucción) and the Australian the Tiger ARH (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter). I put a series of Render of the Tiger, the project is very young, and a lot of work stays that to do, so that to give completed the process of modeling, but good already sees something and wanted to share it with you, and with the hope that I have said before when the model should be finished it is possible to include inside the series of Sims DCS. These render are the different aspects for the one that the model has spent for the time being. The current aspect of the project. I hope that they should like this project and good anything that they see does not hesitate to comment on it but remember that a lot of modeling work still stays. If it finds information, interesting linkage, photos, etc, on the Tiger, they will be well received. They can continue the development of the project in this link. http://www.cruzdesanandres.com/foro_v2/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=5447 A greeting and good hunting.

Как запустить LockOn на Windows 7, может котонибудь знает... Какие возможности? Помогите....:helpsmilie:

FWIW, I've been running Win 7 64-bit for several months now and had little or no problems after ATI has published an officially supported graphics driver. And it's in RC stage still, there's quite a bit of time for improvements until the release in October... Looking forward to testing that 64-bit executable.

Tags: Su-25, Groznyy, Adler. Timing — 11:34. http://video.yandex.ru/users/kuslin2/view/10/

Хм...Значит в финальной версии поменяли.Раньше такого небыло некаких пустышек не делали рисовали сразу Кстати вот:Пока в ЕД не сделали нам ипалубник, оморячил акулу:)Ну и немного переделал тимплей.Сейчас думаю поверх каких окрасок её ставить.

It's yellow not all, but many, for example Ka-50 with no 25 (witch was served as "base model" for DCS developers) now using as "laboratory" for some devices for Ka-52 as far as I know

Как всегда только для пиндосов, а по русски что нибудь будет?

A bomb?

I've already read about the NTSB NYC99IA231 incident. This incident had no relation to any lightning strike, direct or indirect. http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19854&ntsbno=NYC99IA231&akey=1

Ага ! Дискуссия пошла :). USSR_Rik Здесь тема про беспредел кажется. Народ хочет сменить карту, Народ хочет кикнуть нарушителя правил с сервера, ServMan позволяет сделать и то и другое. Разжуйте как это сделать и в онлайне меньше будет нарушений. и вам не придется давать ответы на дурацкие вопросы нормальных вирпилов. Вмешательства в код нам и не нужно.

Well, if you'd care to read the links I gave earlier, you'd see my evidence. But I guess NTSB isnt a valid source?

some harrier clips and screens next ..stay tuned

True, but non of those planes were at FL350. A decompression at those alt would have been much, much worse. It seems you're just arguing from a theoretical point of view while in fact there are quite a few incidents where lightning did cause damage to the aircraft. Now most of those incidents have been at lower altitudes, so a serious decompression hasn't really been a problem, but it proves that airliners are not, and to quote you, "bombproof" when it come to lightning. 99.9999% the aircraft that are hit by lightning makes it home in one way or another, but it doesn't mean a serious accident cant happen due to lightnings. I suggest you stop looking in textbooks and read about real life ;) It's usually less predictable

New info - debris is not from AF447 More: Debris 'not from Air France jet'

Самое ценное качество ServMan'а - это то, что человек взял и сделал его, показав возможность и путь другим. Он просто воспользовался заложенным в Акулу потенциалом, не вмешиваясь в код.

Comanche 3 was my favorite :) Dirt, if you want to get some Comanche action, there's a sim out there called EECH, http://www.eechcentral.com/ teaser video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpA5IV5uLgg watch this and enjoy. watch in HQ if you like. i make my screens and movies as real as possible ......:>) real videos here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmYwmkt56wE

You just dont stop do ya, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1039609/Storms-sweep-Britain-leaving-trail-destruction--theres-come.html The other is from America and is on one of the american news websites and was even on TV, I am sure you can find it if you look and the picture where the lightning entered via the top of the wing and then came out of the bottom of the wing which is INSIDE ( not necessarily the inside you think it is, but inside nonetheless, since lightning isnt meant to penetrate the outer skin which not only did it do but it also penetrated the lower outer skin aswell ) an aircraft is on pprune, it shows you the damage that was caused also, melted control rods that had been through such force that they were rendered useless, if you search pprune and other places that deal with passenger airplanes I am sure you will also come across the same pictures. So I have already told you where they are, go and find them for yourself. And the part where you say and I quote, "I believe you" the thing is, YOU DONT BELIEVE ME AND YOU DONT BELIEVE ANYONE HERE who's opinion differs from yours, if you truly did then you wouldnt be making such a drama about it like you have. Now Please, make a new thread if you wish to continue with "Vaults Theories On Plane Safety" as this thread is about a missing plane and its been destroyed by a lightning, well I was going to say debate, but its been more of a forced opinion by yourself. http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/avaition_losses.html

Yeah I did read about positive lightning on the Nasa database http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/lightningmech.htm according to NASA they're very common in all thunderstorms and they state "It makes up less than 10 percent of a storm’s lightning strikes and typically takes place at the end of a storm" so considering on average every commercial passenger airline is hit by lightning at least once a year it must mean that 10% of the US fleet of commercial passenger airliners encounter positive lightning every year, according to this 2003 US Statistical Abstract of the United States 2003 cencus http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/001573.html there are 7,900 airliners in the US? so 10% of 7,900 = 790, so statistically 790 aircraft have encountered positive lightning with zero losses, so if airliners are unable to withstand positive lightning where are the 790 crashed airliners?, there are none. NASA states "It generates current levels up to twice as high and of longer duration than those produced by a negative bolt". Even NASA say it only has "the potential to cause more damage". If 10% of aircraft were at risk of crashing from positive lightning no one would fly. Would you take a 10% risk on your life?. Somethings wrong here, the numbers just don't add up. Even the FAA have nothing about positive lightning being terminal to all airliners. I searched there database using Google. http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=positive+lightning&oi=navquery_searchbox&sa=X&as_sitesearch=faa.gov&hl=en&tbo=1 The Pan Am 707 that crashed in 1963 was a lesson well heeded by Boeing, it had virtually none of the saftey systems that modern airliners have now, when Boeing retrofitted the 707 with the new saftey features no more 707's were lost to ESD. AFAIK it's the only airliner to of gone down because of ESD. Every circuit and piece of equipment that is critical or essential to the safe flight and landing of an aircraft must be verified by the manufacturers to be protected against lightning in accordance with regulations of the FAA. The reason why pilots report radar and flight instrument loss is because there located under a GRP radome that is outside of the protection of the Faraday cage. It's not me who's saying that it's impossible to get electricity inside a Faraday cage, Faraday, Gauss and many other respected people say that not me, you're disagreeing with them. I'm only reiterating their words. "all electricity goes up to the free surface of the bodies without diffusing in their interior substance". It's GRP like I said before GRP is a poor conductor. Please can you post the link to this thread. Please post the links to the webpages these pictures come from. I believe you and I'd like to see the pilot's account of what happened, is there any chance you can send me the link to his webpage, and if possible can you show me the webpage where you stated that "I have pics of lighting strikes that have made a hole in one part of the aircraft and then came out the opposite side, burnt straight through exterior/interior walls". He's talking about planes from the 40's - 60's. He doesn't mention any modern day airliners, AFAIK the only airliner lost to ESD was in 1963 when the saftey systems were primative compared to todays airliner as I already stated earlier in this post. The real Coup de Grace is actually in the paragraph below his statement.

That's a normal position. But well, UAE have shown a slightly different attitude towards Pantsir. They proved to be a very loyal customer, patiently waiting for years till all the troubles of this system are solved. And that's the country with a really wide choice.

Поймал "птичек"... :D

Anytime Baby!

There are a group of RPG's in instant action if you get too close to the factory they usualy shoot unless you wait a couple of minutes in which case th Mi's will kill them.Thair right next to the factory which has two tanks and a barracs surrounding it i usualy hover high and far away and get rid of them with my vikhir

Замахнуться можно на всё, тока в джоях кроме эргономики ручки логитеч ничего не добилось (не всерая на мыши-клавы-рули). В джоях логитеч- ГАВНОтеч полное. Если ктото из производителей (что пипец как врятли) сделает контраллёр с СУПЕР ФИДБЕКОМ, сам первый куплю такой джой. А продавать гуано по цене 300 евров - это полный пипец. Вот ссылка для мыслей: http://sukhoi.ru/forum/showpost.php?p=1247737&postcount=7

No proof. Also, small detection radius means that the radar is detectable at small radius. At 40 km HARM will not burn the entire charge and will be detectable by EOS. Anyone who knows what do two-stage missiles differ from one-stage by.

My latest skin :thumbup: Edited in Photoshop

You have great talent for 3D modeling (and maybe few more hiden ones?) The Tiger looks really good :thumbup:

Great Hierro ¡¡¡ Keep working on this awesome model. ED-DCS take a minute to think including this awesome mod in future patches-modules. IMHO it deserves it.

ohhh. today will be the day. . . :-) you make me happy. thanks in advance beczl. sa-2/3 missile locations were to find around every russian airbase in the warsaw pact. so it would be a very nice add on, also when they are only static and cannot fire any missile. just for eye candy. and therefore you are the specialist. ;-) i love your works so much, keep it on!

Вот мой вариант напольной системы. Механика металическая на подшибниках. Жаль нечем сфотать более качественно.

На 6тыс у меня знакомый летчик забирался на Акуле. Впечатления не сильно приятные - высотно-компенсирующего костюма нет, кровеносным сосудам становится не по себе и внешний вид пилота заметно меняется. По ощущениям - "как на табуретке сидишь на огромной высоте" - машина вокруг перестает ощущаться. А динамический потолок в своей формулировке сохраняет "и при этом остается возможность вертикального набора высоты со скоростью 0.5 м/с", т.е. 5500 не является строгим пределом.