MaverickF22

Sorry i reported lately..., Nope..., the launch override was off in my condition, and that's the reason why i had a blinking LA symbol, otherwise it would've been solid, as you told..., but the missiles blow up in both of these conditions! I don't know if Molynia has some super-duper techniques to defend itself from ARM missiles like it does (perhaps playing with the emitter or something), and if is so..., why only Molynia, or is it a bug related to this ship alone? Have a good day, Cheers!

That cockpit panels shaking appears randomly or is triggered by some inflight transitions, ex: going from a very low to a very high airspeed or vice-versa! As i see, it isn't necessarily related to blades stall (vortex ring state), where you think it would mostly be found...! Although the shaking might follow a predictable rule on which it comes up, it is barely understandable so far! Let's hope some huey engineer or someone from ED who is capable for answering all the questions related to the bad or less known huey's behaviours, will clarify these problems! Good day!

Hi, I'm starting this thread in a sense of bringing new ideas to life, which could probably be more than unique for the DCS type of flight simulator. I've been thinking of the possibility to make the Huey and the later MI-8 to be able to pick up downed pilots/players which ejected successfully and bring them to a close friendly airport or farp, on a multiplayer mission, as they will already have the feature to hold multiple players (ex: 2 gunners, one copilot, and of course, the pilot), so why not pick up downed players on the battlefield! Also, all the pilots from the same airport or farp should be able to see each other on the ground as they walk around! This way it will make the multiplayer missions be as realistic as possible, although nobody might want to wait until a chopper arrives and simply wants to refly immediately, but this type of option would be very interactive among the players and it would give a better shape to the whole simulator. After the helicopter arrives with the downed and rescued player pilot, now the player should have the option to walk and enter in one of the aircrafts available to his bought modules, while having all the starting ramps filled with client aircrafts which are ready to be jumped in and flown! The idea is to eliminate the aircraft selection window that appears during multiplayer sessions and have all the players which join a server be spawned at an airport or farp at their discretion after viewing what types of aircrafts can they hold and then walk around and pick up the desired and available one. So each airport and farp should have the starting ramps filled, like i said, with each type of aircraft which may be assigned from the mission editor and after a player picks up an aircraft, then starts it up and clears the ramp start..., that aircraft should only be respawned in the same place after it has been destroyed or after a period of time has passed since it leaved the ramp (to allow more players to use that type of aircraft, or if the initial plane is too damaged but not destroyed and can't takeoff anymore). It would also be really nice to have the downed pilot able to carry a pistol in order to defend himself and be able to deal some damage to any enemy infantry near by, which could capture him. The score of a pilot who dies or doesn't want to wait to be rescued should be back to 0, in order to make it realistic, thus may hold the number of units killed/destroyed during a join session. I don't know if this sounds interesting for others, but it could be a really nice feature! Have a good day!:thumbup:

My mistake i didn't realise what the disable trackir function was used for in the options menu..., and that's why my gunner didn't listen to my mouse anymore. My bad i didn't open my eyes enough!

Why would you guys go for the older and worse Su-27SM3 when we have the option to choose the Su-35 which is known to have greater manoeuverability, has greater range, more powerful engines and better avionics..., why are you guys so crazy going just for Su-27?!

Long live the first actor of the advanced flight model...: The Su-25: Yet we might never have it as a DCS module:P, it has been forgotten!

Hi, I've finally got the moment to post another weird effect that appears as soon as you press the engine starter button..., and each time you press it, as long as you are in mid air!:pilotfly:Just try to think what happens! Normally the propeller should start spinning just like in a normal engine startup, but no..., it seems that the aircraft wants to rotate and yaw instead of the blades, or something like that...! Check this track file up and see what's wrong: P-51's engine startup torque.trk Cheers, have a good day!:thumbup:

This is the P-51's airfoil's aerodynamic test data, and as you can see, that drag bucket is the region where this airfoil (which is a laminar one) has the lowest drag coefficient values as shown in the picture, between -1.5 AoA and +4 AoA (the drag variation is very low between these values), while the lift coefficient will vary from -0.05 to +0.45 (which is more than what a regular airfoil can provide)..., so when you're at 4 deg AoA having a 0.45 lift coefficient (which is quite good), you'll have a very good lift to drag ratio there, and that's the reason why you feel that it has a lot of lift for so little drag...! That's what a laminar airfoil is also meant to do! Learn2Aerodynamics! Good day!:thumbup:

Have you guys ever head of laminar airfoils? They stall violently with no or very little warning (vibration/shaking)...! Although we have a 15% times the chord lenght, as an airfoil thickness for the P-51..., there still is some vibration due to a partial airflow separation over the wing, yet that isn't high enough..., although when it stalls, it stalls violently due to an abrupt and complete airflow separation from the top of the wing (if we talk about positive alpha). Think of what would've happened if it were a 5% thickness airfoil or 4% (like the F-104 Starfighter has)..., it would snap in a spin with no warning at all (except for a stick shaker or alpha limit audible warning)...! Aerodynamics baby! So the way the wing's stall and any other aerodynamic surface (empennage) stall is simulated, is simulated as realistic as possible from my opinion, so not the stall is the problem with P-51, but the way it transfers the center of lift in horizontal plane (along the aircraft's XoY plane), from one wing to the other and closer or further from the leading edge as the aircraft travels through the alpha (angle of attack) and beta (angle of sideslip) angles..., that's where the devs have to revise the aero tables, for the P-51 alone (so far). Have a good day!:thumbup:

Exactly as you've said Aaron..., that was the same thing i was trying to point to as well! The roll due to beta for positive lift values isn't right in the sim! Nor for negative lift values eighter. Let's all remember how the first flight in the world took place with a plane heavier than air (the Wright brothers airplane), where the aircraft was only moving a wingtip in front of the other by moving the wings in a different position around the vertical axis (XoZ) just like in a gyration movement, thus making the airflow smoother and better on the wing which was ahead/leading wing (the wing that had a negative sweep angle) and so worsening the airflow on the trailing wing which was rotated backwards (positive sweep). This effect led to a lift differential between the wings, making it roll towards the trailing wing. That's how they used to roll the airplane in the first moments historical moments. Our example here from the above shown track: a positive overall lift, having the left wing forward (right rudder), should produce a given amount of right rolling momentum equivalent to that positive lift level, and so the lift differential between the wings, case in which the wing which is also shadowed by the fuselage (the right wing) should have much lower lift and also be almost completely stalled due to that given airflow separation from the fuselage's wake...! So WHERE is that? I've found this thing for months (perhaps almost immediately after flying the P-51 a bit and trying a lot of crazy stuff), yet i forgot to tell so far...! Let's just hope ED will take a look at the P-51's aero tables cause this doesn't look good! To make it simple...: At some particular alpha values (somewhere below -7 and beyond +7), the roll due to beta doesn't correspond to realistic values anymore and goes asymptotically to 0, or at least that's the case we can see in flight, only for the P-51 so far...! Yes, when at low alpha angles, let's say between 0..5 degrees, there is some roll due to beta (sideslip) yet it still doesn't look quite enough to be real..., it acts like it has a very low wingspan..., as for negative values of alpha and lift..., the roll is still on the same side as the yaw? That's just the opposite of what should happen. Negative lift should give you a roll opposite to the yawing/sideslip direction in reality..., but in the sim it goes in the same direction! With honest respect, Mav.

I've figured out now how to upload a file on a post..., i simply didn't find the "attachement" button before, but now i have it! Thanks!

At least taking use of a gunner and/or copilot AI which to shoot at the bad guys while you focus flying the bird, would be absolutely necessarily before other facts would take place! Cheers!:thumbup:

Hi guys, Since 1.2.5, it seems somethings have changed around Huey also, yet from now i can't seem to be able to control the gunner or the machine gun anymore using the mouse. Any idea how to retake control of the gunner in 1.2.5? Cheers!:thumbup:

I agree and i took in mind the aspects that could make an engine brake apart (internally) due to detonation in some regimes or simply too much force that the axle shaft or other mechanical components might need to withstand, but i didn't know how much it was the case here, because i thought that a warplane should also be trust worthy...! So, from what you're telling me is that they've designed this merlin engine to be abused in RL more than it could withstand and make things blow away from it, if held at max RPM and max WEP throttle, in only a matter of seconds. But the manual says you shouldn't hold it in that situation for more than 5 minutes or bad things will happen to it..., yet it sometimes blows spectacularly even after a couple of seconds..., which seems more like a random failure and you can rarely reach those 5 minutes the manual talks about! Cheers!:thumbup:

You might want to say compressor blades..., the turbine is well hidden between the exhaust nozzle and combustion chamber, radars mostly can't see the turbine, but rather the first compressor stage! Cheers!:thumbup:

I'd like to talk about exactly this problem, yet also the same symptom, engine SALMS dead like a shockwave after a couple of seconds if the oil temp isn't higher than let's say 40C and you're at full WEP and full RPM, or if the throttle was set to full WEP and rpm (3000) for a couple of minutes, although the temperatures aren't over the red lines..., still the engine slams stuck! How does ED replicate this damage effect to the engine? I mean..., why does it behave like this? How can a quite powerful engine like this merlin, with so much momentum accumulated at 3000RPM at full throttle just SLAM from 3000RPM to 0RPM in 0.0 seconds? I mean..., it looks kind of hilarious..., at least we should see things blowing the hell up..., gaskets flying apart, pistons, shafts, whatever, just like in the movies...! Yet nothing! If this is to be simulated as an engine explosion..., there firstly has to be an explanation why does this happen, and secondly..., it should be an explosion, not an atomic one, but a least something blowing apart from the engine if this has to refer to a catastrophic failure! Cheers!:thumbup:

Hi there, Sorry for asking such a silly question..., but speaking of witch, how can you actually upload a .trk or .miz file here on the forum? Do i have to upload the file initially on the DCS site when logged in there and send a link to the post that i want to make, or should i only add a link of the file being uploaded on a ftp server? Everything has a start..., and each first start might always look hard! Thanks, cheers!:thumbup:

The F-16C Fighting Falcon...: I can't be waiting for this babe, to ever show up in DCS!

Well, i've had this issue of missiles blowing in front of me also..., but this only happened to me when i tried to fire them at a HAWK sam system..., only at hawk's search radar or tracking one, don't know exactly..., but this happened only in 1.2.4 version, now it didn't seem to persist anymore, yet overall we have to say: Tank you ED for "recalibrating" those pesky KH-25MPU's and be able to have a proximity fuze and not just have it flying by the target radar and dig wholes around it! Although there hasn't been much done for it, except for replacing a 0 with a 5 (at least what seems to be done for the 25MPU) at "killdistance" section, so having the missile explode at 5m away from the target with an impact error of 10m radius (same as KH-58) instead of 3..5m which would seem more realistic (at least for a AGM-88 HARM missile), although i think it would be rare nowadays that sead missile would have a 10m (which seems quite much) impact error around the radiation source. Thus, even with this great guidance error (10, 10, 10), you can more easily destroy radars and SAM's using the previously problematic KH-25MPU, which now does the job as great as the KH-58 was doing..., at least for the moment, cause, let's hope these sead missiles and mostly all of them will be refined in time by ED. Here's a short video that i've made immediately after 1.2.5 came up, proving the capability of the KH-25MPU especially..., in dealing with infested sam sites!;): Here you could also see that i was firing missiles one after another at less than a second interval..., so it's not the interval of firing them in order to have them blow up in front of you..., but rather of having a hard enough signal from the targeted radar in order for this not to happen. For example, i've also noticed that missiles are blowing ahead shortly after launch, when i fired them at a MOLNIYA combat ship..., which had a radar signal, yet when i locked them to my sead missile, i was getting the LA (launch authorized) blinking instead of remaining constantly solid..., and if i fired the missiles in these condition, they were blowing up. When i was locking other ships which had radar emitters, i wasn't having the LA blinking, and so the missiles weren't blowing up ahead anymore, so make sure the LA is not blinking when the missile blows up for no reason..., cause only then, there might be a problem! Have a good day!:thumbup:

In fact for the TOR, at least as what i've tested by flying with the A-10C straight over it, the minimum altitude needed in order to not get shot could be even 27000+AGL (as distance between TOR and it's target), i was at 28000 so i couldn't tell, yet it would "seem" that even 27000 feet could be a quite high altitude for a 9M331 missile, but who knows..., if ED has the correct missile's burn times, missile's aerodynamic data (especially drag) and other technical data..., an accurate simulation should prove how far the missile can reach/go, before opinions can arrive, becase i've also listened (first) to what the web has to say about these more or less allowed information! Here's a thread dealing a similar subject: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=106861 Cheers, good day!

Hello everyone and hello "WAGS", it's a great honor to meet you..., as producer of the most brilliant modern simulator! I've tried to enter the game in single player to try and test the mission one more time before uploading it here, as Matt asked..., and so the sim asked for a newer patch upgrade (1.2.5.15865)! Guess what..., after this upgrade the issue fell away and the trigger works perfect again (at least as it did in 1.2.4), so the problem seems to be fixed. Here is the mission and in it you can see all the other triggers involved: http://www.fileconvoy.com/dfl.php?id=g9405aa43500554f89993378549ebb204b973efcb3 Another aspect which seems to be a bit better..., after the last patch or probably since 1.2.5, is that the ground units are less likely to get stuck on a bridge like a pile or simply standing on it a bit off track, because that was a problem when you had to drive units over long distances with lots of bridges, but now it seems to work better..., excellent work!:thumbup:

Hi, Immediately after upgrading to 1.2.5, i've noticed crashes to desktop if a ground group dies, after having the following trigger applied: Continuous -> Part of group in zone (specified the zone) -> Signal flare (in another zone); Smoke marker (in the same zone assigned to "part of group") This happens only if the group dies, if it has such a trigger assigned, otherwise everything is ok. To be noted that this problem (CTD error) didn't apply for the previous patch 1.2.4, where it worked just fine..., while now it won't work anymore whatever condition types i choose, because after the group dies a CTD occurs. Something might've been changed to the the smoke marker or signal flare actions in the above conditions, since 1.2.5 came up, idk!

Hi, I don't know if i read correctly somewhere, about a month before or so..., that those who already had FC3 bought..., will benefit for free of the new AFMs for the F-15, Su-27, A-10A and Su-25, which could also be bought as stand alone modules (20$ each) for others who didn't have FC3. Don't know if i'm right, so please correct me if you find it wrong! Cheers, let's head to the flight...!^^

We are willing to wait for it, as long as we know it will be worked out, we can't be happier than that for the moment!:thumbup: ED, we bow before you, thank you very much for such answers!;) Have a good day!

Well, they normally should have! Let's hope ED will fix it. Anyway..., here are some pictures taken from those videos at a closer look, showing exactly what kind of accuracy levels does a HARM missile have: This one didn't need further details! As far as you can see, the AGM-88 has that error cube of about 1.5, 1.5, 1.5...,that would be an average for it (in meters), although we can see that it sometimes passes as close as less than a meter by it's target:P..., so it would be good enough to say that it has 2 meters (rarely more than that) accuracy for hitting it's prey. In our sim, within that "missiles_data file", the value of almost all SEAD missiles is set by default to 10, 10, 10, including AGM-88 HARM, the KH-25MPU and for the KH-58 also (as other people have also stated before), which doesn't seem realistic, or it's rather exagerrated, and i doubt the russians aren't good at missiles and their guidance systems...! I've tested in game that a maximum of 3, 3, 3 (meters) error cube would look more realistic for a sead missile (than having a higher value) with a kill distance of 1..3 meters (detonation distance)! So my honest suggestion would be that at least these values or close to them shall be used for the KH-25MPU and KH-58 and other known SEAD missiles, in the 1.2.5 patch, which should be coming...! They might not be real values, but at least they'd be way closer than the default ones, up till the time will come to put some real ones, because it's frustrating and quite annoying to see that your missiles dig holes around the radar not killing it..., probably just doing a bit of damage. Let's hope the people at ED will have the proper time to modify those values when the time makes it possible! Good day to everyone!