Stearmandriver

Funny how subjective this is. I find the DCS Spit's ground handling to be completely ridiculous. Nothing about it feels like an airplane to me, and I've been teaching in taildraggers for years. The only two "warbirds" I'm familiar with are the Stearman and T-6; both trainers obviously, but the T-6 is starting to get in the ballpark of the actual warbirds. The DCS P-47 actually feels a little like a T-6 to me, and anytime a sim plane reminds me of flying anything for real, I consider that a win ;). Until free week here, the only DCS warbird I'd tried was the Spitfire, so I've been REALLY glad to try the P-47 and discover they're not all that bad haha. The Spit is just weird; it's like there's a complete lack of inertia to me. Just really unnatural on the ground. I really hope that the upcoming Corsair feels more like the Jug!

Ah, don't know about that, I've never tried it.

ICLS has worked with full flaps since day one. Dunno why aircraft config would make a difference?

Interesting... now we're getting somewhere! I'll try those conditions out tomorrow, but thanks for the research.

Cut pass, no Bueno, but take it with a grain of salt as the LSO's pass grading is a little borked right now. You have to "trick" him by beginning a power addition before touchdown or he'll grade you EGIW (eased gun in wire, supposed to mean you made a significant power REDUCTION in close to avoid a bolter), and that almost guarantees a cut pass. Grab the mission called "Bankler's Case One Recovery Trainer" out of the user files section. MUCH better pass grading, will really help you improve.

One day maybe we'll have waypoint steering mode and this question will be moot. One day, maybe...

Thanks. That seems to be what's shown in the HUD cam footage from the viper, and is exactly the same thing I've occasionally seen in the Hornet. As far as I know, it should be impossible to cage the HUD in A/G mode, but that seems to be what's been happening... and it makes a lot more sense than an IRS mis-alignment that affects the bomb fall line but no other attitude or position data!

Day one purchase for me... hope to see it soon! (But I get it, it'll be ready when it's ready ;).)

Yup, looks like this one is down to technique (my issue anyway, don't know if the OP had the same problem). Track is attached, but it's pretty clear that for me, the variable was not aircraft speed but the speed at which I applied the rudder input. Even from a dead stop, if I jab the rudder quickly to the stop, the NWS does not like that and disengages, even though it is still annunciated in the HUD. But a smoother rudder input seems to work every time. NWS_high_disengage1.trk

I'll get a track of this one today, it's fairly reproducible. Started maybe a couple updates ago; dunno if it was a change in the aircraft or my technique. Both are equally possible ;).

I've had a problem with NWS several times now after a trap: flaps half, fold the wings, toggle NWS to high and it's like the NWS disengages instead, even though it's indicating high, making it hard to get out of the gear in time. Anyone else seen that? Related to OP?

Here's an interesting thing that may or may not be related: today I was watching Mover's video of the HUD footage of the viper pilot evading 6 SAMs in Desert Storm (at 13:26 if interested), and I saw exactly what we're seeing: his CCIP line extended down to the right at a good angle in wings level flight. The only thing I could think of that would cause this (minus significantly uncoordinated flight which we can probably rule out) is wind, but that should be accounted for by shifting the VV... unless the HUD is caged. His HUD looks like it might be caged (based on the VV being in the center, I do not know the viper systems at all), and looking at the screenshot I caught of it on page one of this thread, my HUD looks like it might be caged too, for the same reason. There's no ghost VV though, but this was a Liberation mission and they're rarely if ever zero wind, so unless I happened to be lucky enough to have a straight headwind or tailwind, you wouldn't expect my VV to be dead in the center of my HUD where it is. So: can the viper cage the HUD in air-to-ground mode? The hornet shouldn't be able to, and I just tried a quick test but couldn't make it happen... but I wonder if this bug is somehow related to a combination of actions and mode switches that allows the HUD to cage in air-to-ground mode?

NineLine, thanks for checking this out. I agree that I've not been able to duplicate this recently either, but I wanted to ask about changing the tag of the thread to Correct as Is. I know we've discussed a few different issues on this thread, but my original one was about the "crooked" or offset CCIP line that sometimes happens. If you reference my post here on page one of this thread, you can see a picture. The plane is in about a 35 degree dive, almost wings level but slightly banked left, so if anything the CCIP line should be slightly tilted left. And yet, it's tilted significantly right. The bombs were pickled on the power plant and missed FAR left. This isn't correct behavior, is it? Can you think of anything on my end that could have caused it? (Warm start on carrier, AINS alignment displayed, switch in IFA). I honestly can't see how it could be an INS alignment problem without the attitude instrumentation being wrong as well, but maybe I'm missing something. Thanks...

I have seen this several times... I'm in the US. Finally decided to flip on a VPN with a server in Ukraine... and my download jumped from 1.2Mbps to around 10Mbps. Something was obviously throttling my download, and I verified it wasn't my ISP. So if the throttling wasn't on THIS end...

Interesting. Al-Azraq's video is not what I've seen; tbh, I don't actually see a problem in that video, that looks like normal behavior to me. What are you seeing that looks wrong? I mean yes the bomb misses but the impact is close and you're aiming for a small target. The problem I was talking about involves the CCIP line extending downwards from the VV at an incorrect angle; most noticeable in level flight when it does not extend straight downwards but instead off to the side. This results in really significant, outside-the-margin-of-error misses... but it's not reproducible for me, in any way I can figure out. Thanks to everyone for looking into this though.

That... sounds like a bit of work that the dev is being paid to do, and I'm not. I'm not ED's quality control ;). But I'll help when I can and get a track when I see it. The angle seemed exaggerated with pitch. This particular example was not very pronounced; I've seen it where the CCIP line is 45 degrees off in straight and level.

The problem is that this is very intermittent for me (and I can usually only fly a few missions per week and am often doing something other than CCIP bombing). But I'm actually going to have more time than usual this week, and Liberation 2.3 is releasing, and so I'll work a couple dumb bombs into whatever loadout I'm carrying on every mission I get a chance to do, and will definitely save the track if I can make it happen.

Thanks. I knew about the nose and track pointers, but did not know the airplane symbol was supposed to rotate. I've seen it often enough that I suspected it was though, so I wasn't sure that was a bug. The crooked CCIP line definitely is, and I will definitely save a track the next time I see it. There are enough pictures and videos (including my own screenshot earlier in this thread) to prove it exists though.

This may or may not be related but I've noticed it several times as well: the airplane symbol on the HSI rotating with cross wind instead of remaining oriented straight up. In this photo, the wind is blowing hard out of the north, so a right quartering tailwind. Is this a bug, or is there something I don't understand about the airplane symbol on the HSI? (You'll note we're in AINS so the INS is aligned correctly and using GPS).

Looks like a little misunderstanding between speed and angle of attack. Yes, if you're flying an airspeed and you roll into a steep bank, your angle of attack necessary to maintain that airspeed will increase with load factor - and load factor increases with angle of bank. Thus, a wing will stall at a higher indicated airspeed as load factor increases (for instance, in a steeper angle of bank). Remember, an airplane can be stalled at any airspeed, in any attitude, at any load factor (except zero g). The one constant is angle of attack. A wing stalls at its critical AoA, and that value never changes (except if you reconfigure the shape of the airfoil with flaps or slats). This is why directly flying AoA instead of speed is so useful - speed and load factor become irrelevant. As long as you're flying a correct AoA, you cannot stall the aircraft. You'll notice even in DCS that if you make a 45 degree bank to final while maintaining correct AoA, your indicated airspeed will increase quite a bit. You can see that if you maintained a fixed airspeed instead of AoA through that turn, your AoA would increase dangerously close to a stall. This is why I said above that I never understood why we didn't use AoA more in civilian aviation, though we're finally starting to. Even in general aviation, there are a number of low cost AoA indexers now available. A friend and I teach an upset recovery syllabus in a super Decathlon and I've suggested to the owner that he put an AoA indexer in the plane so students can see the relationship between all this. I think it would really benefit people.

Until it doesn't. This bug is a lot more intermittent than just depending on what position the INS knob is in. Mine has been in IFA every time I've seen it.

Why would the risk for stalling be huge in more than a 30 degree bank? In PA mode the FCS just maintains a given AoA, right? So if you're trimmed for correct AoA it should maintain that. Critical AoA does not change with load factor or anything else, that's what makes AoA such a great parameter to use compared to air speed. Or are you saying the FCS is incapable of maintaining AoA in steeper banks? Honest question; I'd never heard that before. ... None of which is to say that you should need a steeper bank in the pattern. "Flight path marker", "flight path vector", and "velocity vector" are 3 synonymous terms I've heard in real life. There are probably more, depending on airframe and what the avionics manufacturer wants to call that circle ;).

Haha oh well, it was worth hoping.

I was wondering: is there any way to store a sequence of actions in the mission editor, to be used in subsequent missions? For instance, in my Liberation missions I like to add an S-3 tanker on standby on the carrier, to be launched with a radio item. This is easy, but takes a few minutes to first create the aircraft then add the couple triggers. It would be nice to be able to automate this process to some extent. Does anything like this exist?

Thanks... I made a couple tests last night myself; warm starts from a moving carrier (the scenario I've seen problems). Worked fine both times for me too. The only idea I currently have is: when I've seen these problems, it's always been in a DCS Liberation mission. Fairly complex missions multiple front lines, many flights starting immediately at mission start, no culling. My machine seems to handle this ok - I rarely if ever see stutters or frame drops below about 50fps - but I wonder if all the scripts firing at once at mission start, with all the performance demands, are somehow bugging INS alignment or something else? TBH, I'm wondering how this could really be attributed to an INS alignment problem in the first place. All other attitude instrumentation and position data seems accurate, so how could ONLY the CCIP symbology be affected by an INS misalignment?