MaverickF22

Well, the future would look very nice with a DCS level modeled Su-27..., and not if..., now as the western F-18E Super Hornet is rolling as a future DCS module. So i'd also appreciate if the Su-27 or any other future fighter will be developed specifically by ED (who i'd trust more rather than any third party members) for greater realism standards.;) So, i'm willing not to sleep one day until that day comes!:pilotfly: Cheers, good day!

So in the end, we only have the S version of the Su-27;)! Sorry i didn't read about it somewhere else eighter. That clarifies everything. Thanks GG and others for the reply! Have a good day!

At least what was done with combined arms! We'd need something like this! Have a good day!:thumbup:

I was waiting for a KA-50 counterpart..., the Longbow! Let us have this one first before everything else..., it should've come in the same package with KAMOV for some reason;):thumbup:!

Lol, good point^^!

What about change of version within that half an hour? Try running the single player and see if it tries to apply some new patch or something! I don't know if this is the problem, but it's only a guess, because i had this before as the version got updated for some moments that i didn't know about! Good day!

I've also found another thing! If you respawn or refly during the same mission..., each time you'll refly/restart, the track recorder will further increase the initial error. I've tested today that, if i was flying a mission with the Su-25, then for whatever reason i've pressed refly and continued the same mission or let's say, stood logged on the same server..., each time i would've got more unreal stories in what the track had to replay. So i've tested that the recorder will actually and accurately replay exactly what you did with no errors at all, but only the first flight of the mission or since you've logged onto a server..., while since the 2nd up to the last respawn/refly which you may take, the errors will pop up and accumulate after each of them. So far, this only applies to the P-51 and SU-25's as a method of saving exactly what you have done, and works perfectly as it should..., but only for the first flight during the same mission/server. I didn't test for the A-10, KA-50 and CA yet, but i will..., yet for Huey..., not a chance..., it will tell different stories than what you actually did even in the first start, no matter how many times have you restarted during the same mission..., so the huey has big trouble being recorded. Don't know why..., but P-51 works perfectly for the first flight, yet huey can't! Another thing that i've found about the huey's recording was that if your pilot dies..., and it will switch you automatically to your copilot (the left seat), the recording will make your huey act like being on autopilot and go straight, although you had control over it within the mission. This might be an issue because the autopilot function was active in the game's options, so the recorder "thought" that the copilot didn't have control, and this might also be from the fact that the sight was on, so normally when the sight is on and you switch to the copilot, the autopilot kicks in (if it's turned on), but not when the pilot is dead and this is what the recorder "forgot" about.

Now i've also found that this unpredictable track recording feature from DCS is more likely to cause a problem on DCS modules instead of to DCS World aircrafts like Su-25's..., which are free from any mishaps of any kind..., or at least the margin of error is quite small. The problem isn't at all if you replay the track fast, slow, change views or let it untouched!:P It simply makes no difference at all! I've tested it too, and only when it's recording a track of let's say HUEY, or P-51 or other DCS module's aircraft, the track shows a whole different story..., and it doesn't even matter how many times would you like to reload the replay and start it over again thinking that the playback speed or changing the views will affect the outcome..., NO! It won't change a damn thing and will replicate the same exact things every time! So the problem is HOW does this feature actually record movements directly as they occur when you are flying, there's the problem..., because if it interprets what you are doing, different than what you actually do..., that's what it is going to show you as well in the replay, no matter what you'll try to do to the replay..., it's done and can't be modified unless you take control:music_whistling: Only, for the SU-25's there seems to be almost no margin of error when replicating the exact same things that happened, but it also tells a different story sometimes, yet not too far from the truth, unlike for other DCS aircrafts, which are like having a different recording feature than that from DCSW alone. No matter how many times i tried to jerk the view around and view modes and go from very slow replay speeds to screen freezing speeds for long seconds, then going back to 1x speed again, it told the same thing every time..., for Su-25's it told with 99% accuracy, but for others with less than 50% let's say!

Yes, it's my bad, sorry..., nobody stated that it should certainly occur at 300ft/m and i also know all of the factors which need to be taken into account, part of which you've already mentioned. I'm certain too that there could be a big difference in how much should these factors vary in order to enter a VRS situation, which can definitely start from what you've said..., around 300ft/m (probably when very heavily armed or in overweight at lower air density, requiring more AoA to provide 1G lift) up to more than 1200ft/m (when the heli has it's fuel tank dry and is flying in a very dense air, needing less AoA on the blades). The bad thing is though..., that violent transition to stall, hence the ring vortex state being followed and also the ground effect and air cushion, are just some exaggerated behaviours..., it isn't that they aren't simulated, but the values aren't quite realistic or need a little tweak in order to look as they should. Of course, the way they seem to be (for a more or less trained eye) and the way the real values must be, might have a gab in between, yet the way it looks now..., definitely don't need a trained eye! Good day!

What about that real life Huey driver, who said something about 700ft/m to be a known threshold beyond which the VRS will occur? I personally have found that i can maintain a 1000ft/m constant descend rate but with a lower angle of attack on the blades, because i only had 100% fuel and no weapons which makes it much lighter, so this matters and that's a reason why i could descend at a higher rate..., yet i don't even know what to believe anymore, because the ED testers are saying that a 300ft/m should be the barrier beyond which the vortex ring state would occur (of course this should happen for a given total helicopter weight and height (density counts))! I've done this on a 0 wind component. Another thing which i find quite bad is that even if dropping almost perfectly vertical at 1000ft/m constantly..., you'll end up "hitting" the ground effect like a leaf falling on the grass...! The ground effect seems to have such tremendous power, that even at the inertia and momentum that the helicopter had accumulated in a 1000ft/m (5.08 meters per second) constant vertical descend, it stops the heli very abruptly at about 0.3...0.5m from the ground giving it a vertical deceleration of around 0.5..0.6g's as it enters the ground effect, (so the blades would carry 1.6g's in that stopping distance), leaving you at ~0,3m above the ground like everything was ok!:music_whistling: Here's a video of it..., because i can't use that track/recording feature that our sim is provided with..., it's totally useless, because i've tried 3 particular times to do another track then review it and..., a different story came up every time!:thumbup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZP5euMNXDQ As a short conclusion...: Exaggerated/very sharp transition from normal flight behaviour (unstalled blades) to an abrupt lift loss from the blades when entering the vortex ring..., it launches like a rocket towards the ground! Also that air cushion which comes linked with the ground effect is quite exaggerated, it almost stops you in place over the ground, reducing like more than 50% of the horizontal force component. At higher speeds and close to the ground however, the ground effect is close to null though!

Raptors, Eurofighters, whatever...! What about the Falcon that many of us are looking for? I've also seen a video done by someone here, i don't know if he's a DCS member or simply a fan, but he did a god job so far as i saw with the F-16, and that's what brought my eyes wide opened:)! Now i can't tell exactly how accurate could he bring an F-16's flight model (regardless of the filtered FBW inputs), as it's aerodynamic's behaviour is similar to that of a Flanker and F-18 in terms of high variation in pitch stability with alpha, but let's hope he put that thing in it's place using the data provided by NASA's TP 1538 (which i've read already). The only thing that seemed a bit high was the yaw motion's acceleration, everything else is harder to tell about how well it replicates the real behaviour, yet it might look good already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-JdKVbwFlk The day that DCS will announce for bringing in the Fighting Falcon..., would be a very great day of my life...! So far i'm just praying that it would come in mind for someone to bring it in! I'm willing to pay double the price of FC3 so far, for a lone DCS F-16C Block 50-52 (or 60) module if i could have, just to chill my eagerly wish for such an aircraft! Here are some real entertaining videos of the F-16 Fighting Falcon!:thumbup:: Good aircraft this is even in one engine: A good day to everyone!

Good point, let's just hope they'll fix this without having us modifying the files in order to have it more realistic! Here are some AGM-88 HARM video footage tests, and indeed, i was wrong a bit..., at my first statement when i've said that HARM has some error of about 5..10m around the target, but it seems that was the only example i had and it's at this video: While for all other vidoes of HARM, especially when it was first built, so it didn't get the latest upgrades, and it was still very accurate on hitting it's mark..., so after all there really is a problem in the way ED modelled the KH-58's and MPU-25's target hitting error because they are exaggerated too! Here's the footage with the early HARM being able to hit their mark with such a great accuracy: This one also shows a very high accuracy of some anti-radiation missiles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1vORMHHlOs

Ok..., i think i have the answer after thinking a bit, yet i didn't take the time to read what you've shared, but i'll read it too! Thanks! At lower air density(higher altitude), now it doesn't matter if the helicopter moves in horizontal plane or not (regardless of IAS on blades and airframe), so let's say it's standing still..., as the angle of attack increases, so does the air rotation component driven by the upper rotor blades (due to higher drag created on them), will further increase the horizontal component of the air motion that takes effect on the lower rotor, increasing it's angle of attack way more than the higher rotor does. So it's simple, as the blade's angles increase (geometrically from a reference plane) and evenly for both rotor blades, the upper rotor will have a linear increase in angle of attack, which will also give a linear increase in lift (which rushes the air down towards the next rotor with a linear increase in speed) until the curve before the critical angle of attack, and an exponential increase in drag (which exponentially increases the rotational component of the air on it's way to the second rotor), that gives an exponential increase in angle of attack for the second rotor. This, from my point of view would be the greatest influence for the increasing difference in rotor's lifting force as the angle of attack increases. A good day to everyone!:thumbup:

Heh..., so i'm not the only one to figure this by myself, although it wasn't hard to think of it, yet it seems to be the only reliable option to start it in this condition..., yet i doubt that it would be easier to find the perfect spot where to place the mixture handle or jiggle it a little bit in that area to have the engine started...! The way i do it quite easly, except for the fact that at lower temps than 36C only one cycle is enough to have the engine started with no primer or anything..., is to press the M key or the button for which you might have the mixture handle assigned fast enough until you complete 3 cycles from IDLE CUTOFF through RUN and then through EMERGENCY..., so if you'd press the M key 10 times on a hot day you'll have the engine started with no other headaches, although it looks hilarious, it's the only way! Cheers.

There is one problem though which i can't comprehend! Why are the rotor discs coming closer and intersect (on the right side as you fly forward) at higher altitudes (lower air density) than at lower altitudes (higher air density) for the same amount of true airspeed which is indicated on the HUD (the KA-50's HUD will normally show you the true/ground speed) or let's say indicated airspeed also, which if you try to maintain while gaining altitude, the blades will come closer to collide on the right side even quicker. Normally, if you fly higher, where the air density, and in turn, the dynamic pressure which the blades and the whole airframe would feel, and also the indicated airspeed, should be lower, thus reducing the aerodynamic forces for the same amount of true airspeed (indicated on the HUD). The weird thing is..., that even if the indicated airspeed drops as you maintain a constant true airspeed let's say, and gain altitude, the blades are coming closer and closer to each other on the right side and finally collide if you keep going higher in these conditions, and this seems completely opposite to logic..., because it simulates that the aerodynamic forces on the blades, depending on their azimuthal position (the highest is at 3 or 9 o clock, depending on the direction of rotation when flying forward or backwards) and indicated airspeed are more a function of true airspeed, which has a lower and lower top limit at higher altitudes, which is wrong...! The aerodynamic forces on the blades should only be a function of each blade's angle of attack and dynamic pressure (which leads to the indicated airspeed), so for short..., the lower the dynamic pressure, then the lower this effect should be and vice-versa for higher pressures. So, in reality, the higher you are flying then the higher the possible true airspeed should be, for the same critical or maximum indicated airspeed where the blades might collide, indicated airspeed which should be the same at every height. Now tell me what am i missing here! I'd like an answer from an ED member who knows aerodynamics and flight dynamics. Thank you! Have a good day, Mav.

Now as you guys have understood that as the more airspeed (first of all), more collective level, the more right rudder (the effect of rotor intersection increases if you fly forward) and the more forward cyclic stick (again, when flying forward) will lead you to an epic blades collision on the right side (your 3 o clock)! If you fly backwards, the above elements (rudder and cyclic positions) will reverse (except for the collective which has to stay) which means that you will have to have more left rudder and stick pulled as your airspeed increases backwards (as long as you can increase it without turning forward:smartass:) in order to obtain a blades collision on the left side (it's all logical). So in order to avoid touching your blades, simply avoid the above characteristics..., and most of it, the thing that almost everyone might still encounter (even the more experienced ones) while trying to fly as fast as they can in level flight (over 310-320km/h), eager to reach their destination quicker..., will have a feeling of certainty to puss the stick (cyclic) forward for going over a slope or a house, whatever..., then they will force the blades to collide, so avoid, or simply use as little forward stick as possible as your forward speed increases (pulling the stick will increase the distance between the upper and lower rotor discs, but you should now be careful on your G load which can brake your blades again) so it's a bit safer than pushing. Have a KAMOV day!:thumbup:

I'm correcting my first statement a little bit, because this behaviour only occurs if the blue side artillery vehicles start from an off-road terrain, otherwise if they could probably follow an off-road terrain on further waypoints, but can't start from off-road.

Some SAM systems in action, i hope that in the future we can see those real, more detailed, screen informations or something similar in our simulator while playing as artillery commander (combined arms): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tBSY65UdL-w http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rObAizmhCU The following has a more complete list of knowledge:

Now it doesn't matter so much which of them (the MPU's or the 58's) miss their target the most, the idea is that it seems pretty realistic to be so...! If you'd look at some footage with other anti-radar missiles, like the dedicated AGM-88 HARM, you'll notice the same problems..., they hit somewhere close to radar that they are homing on, and not always, or let's say less than 50% of the times it hits on a 5-10m radius around the radar's antenna, so these anti-radar missiles have their problems in reality.

I don't know how you people tell that the 25MPU's have more accuracy than the 58's, as it's just the opposite:P! The 25MPU's seem to be those that are more than 70% of the cases overshooting the target or hitting randomly close to it (if they aren't destroyed by SAM), while the 58's have the best accuracy so far..., having a hit to kill probability of more than 60-70% and so about 35% of them might actually fall randomly near their mark! If i shoot all the 4 MPU missiles at a SAM radar, i pray that any of them will hit their mark..., while for the 2 remaining 58's, i'm more than certain they will hit the target directly, if not destroyed else way!

So after all..., why isn't the R-77 available for the Su-27's as it normally should? Our Su-27 in the sim isn't an SM variant? Then if it's only the Su-27S which lacks R-77's, then why can't the Su-33 carry an R-77 either? Now it's not like, if players can use the R-77 from Su-27 or Su-33..., the MIG-29S will become useless, because it would fall behind in comparison to Sukhois, but it would respect the real life loadout of these planes. Have a nice day!

It's good that i'm not the only one around angry about this old bummer that makes DCS look very bad from how good it looks for simulation in almost all other aspects. It's just annoying that ED team might be looking only for graph charts done from whatever medical evaluations which can't offer a realistic behaviour of a real, trained pilot that has flown enough times at 9G, for plenty of seconds each time, and who can say how things should happen and normally when. A real (trained) fighter pilot, should stay no less than 15 seconds at 9G to be able to fly an Eagle or an F-16, or even a Flanker, cause i bet the russians also apply something similar to their pilots, and you could see that after the 80's with only the given technology, pilots were able to withstand at 9G for more than 30 seconds with no tunnel vision either. In our simulator, no matter what plane you take, after no more than 3-4 seconds at 8G in a P-51 or 5..5.5 seconds at 9G's in a fighter, it really makes the driver of that plane look like he happens to be a pilot for some reason...! This isn't a game in which you would play within some sort of limitation rules created on purpose, just to test your skills or to give a noob, a fictional feeling of G-force while flying a plane! It should simulate the real thing! I'm just wishing for the day when they'll start to seriously talk to some F-16 or F-15 or even F-18 pilots about all these aspects regarding the minimum amounts of seconds they were able to hold 9G without having light loss, or until they've experienced a loss of consciousness, then ALSO..., how much time did it took for them to turn back on, of course they couldn't remember nor count how much they stayed in the blackout, but the recordings should also note this reaction delay. Here in this video, we can also see the reaction time after getting out of the blackout..., you'll see that it didn't take more than 5 seconds for the pilot to reply to the call and instantly react (from 0:41 to 0:45 (about 5 seconds), while until 0:49 he evaluated the situation and immediately pulled), the second video's pilot stood a bit longer, so this part might be discussable, yet in our simulator, the one called pilot, remains dreaming for 13+ seconds (on chronometer) until his vision starts getting on. Have a good day, Cheers.

Although there are other similar threads talking about exaggerated head movement (in DCS) in the cockpit due to normal G-force effects, the primary problem remains the blackout effect which occurs way premature at a given G-force and time spent in that condition, or never occurs at all when it normally should, if the G-force is slightly lower than that of the simulated blackout. For instance, a real life and normally trained pilot should be able to withstand a 9G for at least 15 seconds, without major light loss, yet there were cases when these pilots could stay for as long as 30+ seconds at 9G without having any light loss at all, so it highly depends on the training of that man in order to compete well with the high G forces without having too much trouble. There are also, some older trainings (around 1997) were the pilots could stand amazingly at 12G's for 15 seconds without loosing too much vision/light, and i bet they've progressed today! Here are some true facts about this: And now the best of it: The bad thing is that in DCS, the pilot, which is presumed to be a trained one (not a monkey) to fly a plane to it's limits, blacks out at 9G in about 5-6 seconds since reached 9G with a fast onset, but never blacks out if held at 8.0G, which is impossible! Have a good day!

Thanks Eddie..., so all we need now is to have them implemented in future DCS patches!:D Good day!;)

Wow..., so are you saying that a real TOR can fire a missile using either optical guidance or tracking data from another source, without using a radar illumination on it's target, then in the final phase of the interception it will guide the missile towards the target, by actively using it's radar?