Leaderboard

So, I was asked to provide track files, that seems to no longer be a requirement However, I had still made them, if you wish for me to provide them, simply ask. However, the flights did allow me to produce more information. I flew the huey at 6,500lbs, 7,500lbs, 8,500lbs, and 9,500lbs, each at speeds lining up with specific points on the torque performance chart in the manual, these were flown at TRUE airspeed, facilitated by the use of the true airspeed display in the F2 infobar. So there is no error in the data collection due to IAS inaccuracies. I then compiled the information onto a chart alongside the real huey's torque performance. here is that chart. The expected torque values have been corrected by the 2sqft drag factor of the IR suppressor. As you can see, we are underperforming by a fairly significant margin at higher speeds, and the loss in performance forms a very clear trend as you can see by the delta data at the bottom. However that is not the full set of data This is. Now, you're likely wondering what those extra bits of data are at the top end of the graph. Those are plots of the real huey with standard blades being pushed past its transmission limit, all the way to the maximum output of the engine, 1340shp. However you will notice that if you try to line them up with the real composite blade huey data, they don't form a smooth set of data. That is because the composite blades have higher performance than the standard blades due to being lighter. So, if you spare a little bit of your imagination, just for a moment. This is what I propose I didn't really know exactly what to do here, I could have just shifted the standard blade plots to the right until they formed a smooth plot of data, but that would put the huey at somewhere near 160knots at 6500lbs if you push the engine all the way. Instead, I opted for an assumption, while the new blades are higher performance, they're also lighter, meaning drag on the rotor is more of a factor, meaning a higher blade pitch likely produces more torque than a heavier rotor, coming out to what is actually a reduction in max power performance but an improvement in the performance at the transmission limit. Now, I'm sure there's some math in the composite blade documents that could let us just compute the real performance of the composite blade huey at that level of power output. However, I do not have the intelligence to do it. I believe this would be the math. null As for where that standard blade huey data comes from. once again, our friend from the original post On page 95 we have a velocity limits table As a reminder, the transmission limit is not the absolute limit of the aircraft, it can push harder to achieve max power performance, you are just risking damage to the transmission. All of these speeds are in true airspeed in knots. As a reminder, that table is for the STANDARD blades, NOT the composite ones. the data shown there is theoretically lower than it would be for the composite blades, however I do not believe that I have found similar data for the composite bladed huey, so we can only guess as far as I know.

I must admit I somewhat lost interest in the modular building concept once I found out I couldn't precisely place the infantry units. So I'm just going to share it in its current state. I may or may not continue development depending on the feedbacks. MODULAR BUILDING MOD PAINTKIT FOR THE GROUND & BILLBOARD

thank you for finding errors, nothing just goes away!)) HUEY engine is in the fixing stage now, and its model update will come out in a while PS about deleting any messages about Huey - I don’t know ... there were no problems, no instructions were given to delete something from messages about Huey. Maybe the moderators themselves decided and deleted something ..

K-300P Bastion-P 1.1.0 released! Changelog Version 1.1.0 Release version

Hi. I really thank @Rudel_chwfor the outstanding contributions he has been doing to the A-29B mod. Just a quick update: I'm currently working on a EFM version of the mod and plan to release it this month. The mod is compatible with 2.8 openbeta and can be obtained like it is explained above, using "Download Latest Release" on the readme. Sorry if the development speed is not up to some of you guys, but feel free to offer help and contribute like many have done. We don't need to create a different branch of this mod. After the EFM we will do the backseat 3d model and enable it. New features coming are Datalink, VOR, ADB, GPS/INS weapons, new FLIR with lasing capability, new autopilot and more. For other features, please post on github the wishlist because it is easier for me to keep track. Also a completely new cockpit and external 3d model is on the way. Sorry for not answering here before, but i changed my email address and forgot to update it here, so i wasn't getting any notifications.

i suppose the 8GB limit is not a *thing* anymore with the release of South Atlantic. Nevada is a very nice map to fly around I must say.

To put the TLDR first, our huey is underperforming by 3400lbs while being provided a lower available power than the real thing, and made slower than it's actually supposed to be at low altitude (which is where it normally operates) So what are my sources? Before that, lets start with a very simple summary of HOW WRONG the module's performance actually is. null Now, I won't act like that's the whole story with all the context, because it's definitely not. There are things like the transmission limit to take into account. But those sources, lets see them. Here are the 3 main sources, there are several other minor sources as well, however the majority of the data comes from these 3 documents. null So allow me to clarify something, our huey is one with a 1990s refit, it is the one with composite blades. You may have noticed, one of those sources explicitly mentions the composite blades in the title. That source is a performance profiling of our exact model of huey. Refits and all. Now, there's something else to talk about, the huey's operations manual. You might be familiar with this chart. This chart is useless. This chart doesn't tell us where the transmission limit is, it doesn't tell us how much engine power is being used to generate those speeds, it doesn't tell us ANYTHING. That chart is a significant misrepresentation of the huey's performance capabilities, because all that chart shows is a paper limit on the huey's speed. Vne, Velocity, never exceed. A scary term, used to define a speed you are to not exceed for assorted reasons. For the huey, the Vne is in place to keep the pilots from accelerating into retreating blade stall, nothing more. It's a paper limit to keep the pilots safe, it tells us NOTHING about how the aircraft performs. However, if you look at the bottom of that chart, "Data basis AEFA Project No. 84-33" Go back and look at top of the source that mentions the composite blades, that is AEFA Project No. 84-33. The data from that document was used to generate that chart in the manual. So before we go farther, how do we corroborate all our sources to make sure they're on the same page and providing us valid information. Cross checking. Take one set of data, and see if the patterns within it match the patterns in another set of data. We can do that. Here is the overall performance of a huey with the standard blades at 7,500lbs, derived from the data within the UH-1H flight profile performance handbook. Pay attention to the density altitude of 7500ft, you see where the yellow and red (transmission limit and power limit) lines intersect, that is where the engine can no longer provide enough power to max out the transmission. Now here is the hover performance chart from the composite blade document. Look at the rightmost line. "2ft IGE, standard day". You might have already noticed it. Incase you didn't. So our documents are in agreement, what do we do with this information? We start comparing it to the performance of our huey in DCS. Lets start with a more complete performance profiling of the real huey with the standard blades, once again, this data is derived from the UH-1H flight profile performance handbook. This data is for a huey with non composite blades. So there are multiple plots here, let me walk you through them. The first one that likely sticks out is the blue line since it's away from all the others, that is the Vne. The fact that it is placed lower than all the other data reminds us of the chart in the manual. I said that chart was useless, because as you can see by this graph, every single other plot of data performs significantly over what the Vne would have you believe. The next two that likely stick out are the red and teal lines. These are the performance of the DCS huey plotted onto the same graph, the red line abides by the incorrect EGT limit placed upon the module, the teal line ignores said limit and properly maxes out the transmission where it can. Next would be the green and yellow lines, the green line shows the maximum power the engine can normally push, regardless of any other factor, at sea level that would be 1340shp. The yellow line shows the maximum CONTINUOUS power the engine can push. This means the engine can run at this power setting indefinitely without much issue. And finally, the orange line, this line shows the safe limit of the transmission, specifically, 1158shp, or 50psi on the torque indicator. This is the huey's military thrust it can use this power for 30 minutes. This is not the LIMIT of the aircraft's performance, the transmission CAN PUSH HARDER, it just does so at the risk of being damaged. Yes, this means that, per this data, the huey should be able to reach 141knots in level flight. Something you'll notice, the teal line, our huey's performance, can't even reach the transmission limit at sea level. While, conversely, our huey's performance actually PASSES the real huey's maximum possible performance at higher altitudes. So, from this alone, you can see that the module's performance accuracy is not great. But that's not the whole story, that's just for the standard huey, and we haven't even gotten into engine performance per speed yet. We'll do that now. Here is a chart from the composite blade document, it shows the level flight performance in speed compared to the shaft horsepower generated by the engine to achieve said speed at a gross weight of 9500lbs at sea level in 15C temperature air, ISA conditions. On it, you will see a pink data plot. That is our huey measured by the same metric. 9500lbs, Sea level, 15C air temperature, ISA conditions. You'll notice that our huey isn't even performing as well as the huey with the standard blades, let alone the one with the composite blades. But first, how did I get the horsepwer data from the DCS huey, we don't have access to that data. Except we do. We are given the torquemeter, which when combined with the rotor RPM, we can derive the current SHP put out by the engine. As per our previously unreferenced source "Helicopter drive system load analysis". Pages 43-44 detail a formula to do exactly that, derive shaft horsepower from our torquemeter reading, and rotor RPM. Here is that formula. SHP=3.88*((10^-3*Rotor RPM)*((17.76*Torquemeter Torque)+33.33)) Now, you'll notice that graph shows the composite blades as being measured with the rotor at 314rpm, that's ok the difference in the result isn't exceptional, however here is a table showing the same data and including 324rpm on the composite blades. So, 639shp to push the helicopter to 100knots at sea level at 15C at a gross weight of 9500lbs. That would be 26.745psi on the torque indicator in the cockpit. As you can see by the pink line on the graph, however, we didn't even get close. We hit 36, possibly 37psi on the torque indicator at those parameters. Level flight, 9500lbs, sea level, 15C, 100knots. 36psi at 324rotor rpm, as per the formula, is about 845shp, over 200shp too high. Now, we can use this formula to find something dire. Lets make the huey as light as we can and see how it performs. 6100lbs, all it has is about 9 minutes of fuel Sea level 15C 100knots level flight about 30.5psi in those parameters. 722.8shp at 100knots. The real huey pulls 639shp in those parameters at 9500lbs. Our huey, at 6100lbs, is performing WORSE than the real huey at 9500lbs. Our huey is underperforming by over 3400lbs at low altitude. That is unacceptable. Interestingly, these high torque values also explain why we need an unrealistic amount of left pedal, which when combined with the incorrectly modeled tail rotor, brings about some interesting comparisons. So, now that we have the well documented performance profile from the standard blade huey, honestly, we could just use that one for our huey and it would be fine, the overall speed differences shouldn't be drastic, it'd be far more accurate than what we have now. As for why our huey overperforms so much at high altitude, I don't know. All my efforts were aimed at understanding its performance at low altitude as that's generally where players utilize the aircraft. I suspect it may be a combination of the engine not losing enough power at altitude and rotor mach drag not being modeled. However, for now, I believe this should be sufficient to warrant the developers looking at it. Please. Properly implemented, our torque indicator should actually max out at around 58.15psi while the N1% (gas producer) gauge reads 100% As it stands, we are using too much power, to generate too little speed, at too high of an EGT, causing us to have even less power. We are underperforming by over 3400lbs at sea level, it needs to change.

What happen with 1st march update??!?!? Let me guess - fkin dealyed again?

As always dont assume you are getting a feature in a patch until you have seen the patch notes. thank you

You maybe didnt read the planned part of the patch status, plans can and do change. We just need a little more time for testing, as soon as we have a date we will let you all know. thanks

I wouldn't. To be honest, I do believe that in principle, a map couldn't and shouldn't be called "feature complete" when there are missing features in its modeled area. Just like the PG or the Georgian maps, that are missing quite a lot of features for example, but are still called "feature complete". I would buy a technologically improved version of a map tho, just like the Normandy 2.0.

Imagine a kid coming home from school expecting dinner only to meet the demise of mom saying "you won't be eating today, I will tell you why later"!!! PATCH TUESDAY blues

The size of the disappointment correlates with the magnificence of your simulation. And I am very disappointed... All good - if you wait 1 month for this day (and think about it every day), then a little disappointment is probably understandable. Although I fully understand that your plans can change and you want to release a mature product.

No, this isn't the first time the Huey's lack of performance has been noticed - there's a long thread from Jan 2018* discussing the problem ... ... and promises from ED it would be looked into. However ED's priorities shifted and nothing came of it. * In 2013 when I bought the Huey I noticed issues when trying to use the RL power available hover charts (similar to calculating rotation speeds for fixed wing) but initially put them down to lack of understanding on my part. Lack of power/engine overheating only became a significant issue in 2018 when EGT engine damage was implemented, by then I had a better grasp of the charts and how to read them, so was one of many who reported the mismatch between DCS and RL performance (note some threads/posts have been deleted/lost perhaps due to rule 1.16).

The concern that the date would be postponed was very present. But after nothing was heard until today, I firmly assumed that it would work out. Too bad, I had now already privately freed up my time for the patch and testing.... On the one hand, I would find it nice if the postponement of a patch that has been announced for over 1 month would be communicated a little earlier, on the other hand, I very much hope that the short-term postponement on the last mile is a sign that the patch will be published only a few days later then!?

Alphabetic order?

Heatblur about to drop a surprise in the next update

NAS Fallon and NWS China Lake are Naval Air Stations that are visible on the NTTR map, but only at lower resolution satellite imagery--no details--can't land there. Fallon in the extreme northwest and China Lake in the far southwest. I think they would make useful distant airbases for longer range missions. China Lake has some target ranges like the NTTR ranges. I'd also like to have Wendover airport, just across the border from Nevada at the edge of Utah's Great Salt Lake basin -- way up to the northeast, off the map right now. It has long runways and a good sized ramp. It would make a great distant base for the map, I think.

MODULAR BUILDING MOD PAINTKIT FOR THE GROUND & BILLBOARD Installation: Drop the "Modular Building" folder in C:\Users\%username%\Saved Games\DCS\Mods\tech\ Ingame, the building elements can be found under "Static Objects -> Structures -> MB - XXX"

Please support me:

Thanks! Great list, I see lots of potential therein. Yeah, I like SAMs so... most probably. I've spent a lot of time trying to figure out how to implement a selective loadout. It's easy enough for aircraft. And to a lesser degree for ground assets. But naval assets doesn't seem to have the same possibilities in this regard. That's why I have the different loadouts for ships as separate versions of it. But as soon as I figure out how to do it for naval assets, I'll implement it. Haha! Thanks!

You don't have to guess: they've announced the delay less than a day ago. It's unfortunate, but plans are plans. Now we can only hope that they really just need "a little more time" which is hopefully less than two weeksTM. It would be also nice to have a peek to the planned feature list for this patch at least draft level, but I think it won't happen.

I don't use this as argument, I simply explain the why. I agree with you that it is confusing at first glance and I had hard time to name things that are very abstractive. I well know Apple strategy, they make software that do few things and don't let choice to user, in order to be simple for common users. OvGME was like that in some way (and many users told me: "I want to be able to do that, and that, and also that..."), Open Mod Manager opens potentialities, give more freedom and become confusing (and now, users tells me "why so complicated ?"). But I admit that the current design is not optimal, I know this is not optimal from the begining, since I myself had hard time to names things and organize menus and parameters dialogs... I completely agree, I still open to suggestion, especially to properly name things... but it is now too late to completely re-design the software. But I can change names and modify menues. I care of, because I know the problem. I know the Linux world, where many software lake of proper UI/UX. As I said, for Open Mod Man, I had hard time to combine "freedom" and "easy to understand/learn"...

Add Iraqi MiG-21, Mi-24, Gazelle, later Su-17, MiG-23, NATO Tornado IDS, A-6E, A-7E, Mirage 2000 took part as well covering U-2s

Therefore, I will repeat what I said:

Let me show you my 3 entries to the DCS Mosquito livery contest, and tell you a bit about the background of these aircraft and the people who flew them.

SH-60B by Xag (UH-60L submod) K-300P Bastion By Currenthill

LOL Not planned, feature complete...right

Waiting for Iskander-K and -M A list of ideas/wishes for inspiration: Aegis ashore SM-3/SM-6/Tomahawk loadout Tochka-U (SS-21 Scarab) Iranian Fateh SS Missile Chinese DF-16 SS Missile Chinese long range radar JY-14 Soviet/Russian long range radar П-14 (Tall King) LORA ("Long Range Attack") - theater quasi-ballistic missile produced in Israel. Any russian or soviet intelligence collection ships

Actually, I expect them to be able to do both: develop new modules, and maintain current ones. I’m glad that HB didnt forget items that were promised.

No, been tucking my head down for months lol. Not fun, hopefully there will be a solution some day!

NTTR 2.0 and pay ?

Honestly I only skimmed this, but as a Huey pilot she does feel a little weak to me and the tail rotor authority is a little lacking. But I can’t be bothered to break out the charts and really dig into the weeds. In my opinion she’s close enough and the autorotation performance feels shockingly right. My biggest complaint is that we don’t have a weight and balance and performance planning options. We should have a weight and balance graph showing our load and way to calculate HOGE/HIGE in game. How are we supposed to be able to plan a mission without this? How many troops can I take? How far can I take them? What altitude can I drop them off at? No idea. It would also have the benefit of putting the performance accuracy question to rest.

New screenshot with a better view of the AI Zero in action (from Facebook):

definitely +1 I would like them to extend towards Mountain Home Air Force Base, but i guess thats too far for them...

As someone who has spent their life writing software and managing and leading software development teams, I always find this thread amusing. While schedule is important the old adage "people will remember it was wrong long after they forget it was late", still applies. We'll get it when it's ready:)

Not Saitek, a homemade one, (like the Slaws), by a guy fram Latvia(?). It looks really good. He just happened to chose an identical name for it. I agree though, using curves on my MS FFB2 messes up things. Will eventually try to mod it with an extension, but I feel it won't really help with the Mossie as I have a 40cm extension for my Warthog. It's better but I really have to use small inputs. Cheers! Sent from my MAR-LX1A using Tapatalk

Best stick for the Tomcat is a Tomcat stick. I use the VKB gunfighter III with 100mm extension and their Tomcat stick. Worth every penny. Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

That's right, NAS Fallon is outside of planned high fidelity area. Not funny, not my decision, but it's true.

My question was a bit sarcastic because personally I don't believe we'll see it in the first half of this year, maybe in the fall. Well, unless ED would like to make a surprise. However, why they postponed this patch and without giving a date to when, I don't know. Maybe it means that there was actually supposed to be something bigger than just patching bugs. I havent idea.

So what do you want me to say then? Those weapons are clearly coming since they are important parts of the F-15E, but my guess is as good as yours. But if you want to know what I think, I think they will appear sometime after the release in to early access but before the first "CTU" because they are more important for the module and its users than Sniper pods and JHCMS. I have seen no indication when those CTU´s will be delivered in relation to the release in to EA, it could be a few months, or two years away. It doesn't even say that those CTU´s are a part of EA. Look, mr Serious, nobody here knows anything. We´re only guessing and hoping.

Спасибо за развитие красных поршневиков. Как обстоят дела с Ла-7? Когда можно оформить предзаказ и ранний доступ?

Sorry, but that is incorrect. Tanking from the pit was not a problem; even as a WSO I was able to do it. During normal refueling, the WSO watched the boom and could tell the pilot when he was in the proper fore/aft position; once connected, he watched the "barber pole" marks on the boom and kept the pilot in the correct positon with trend information - much more accurate than the lights. Remember the director lights were made for big aircraft - bombers and transports. There is a funny story about an F-4 crew that wanted to play a joke on their tanker; the WSO (who was pretty experienced) setup his flight jacket so it looked like he had his hands up on the canopy bow (where WSOs usually kept them) while he actually flew the jet - you can't see the back seat controls from a tanker; meanwhile the pilot also had his hands up on the mirrors, occasionally waving at the boomer. So from the boomers perspective, it looked like the F-4 just flew itself into position and refueled, unassisted. I REALLY wish I had a picture of that! Vulture

WIP of the DCS F-15Es avionics bays open: By Metal2Mesh (Twitter)

Friday's update of BO-105P

New shots of WIP Sinai map:

DCS: J-8II Q&A

Since we now have the hornet, adding Fallon and NAS Lemoore where the West coast Navy hornet squadrons are stationed only makes sense. Plus the flight from Lemoore to Fallon is gorgeous over the Sierras. Please please ED! It would make for much more of an immersive experience for virtual squadrons to conduct deployment workups from Lemoore into nttr allowing for that transition into a hostile region like Caucasus or PG