MaverickF22

Thank you for the help, i'll read it as soon as i can. I suppose it will tell me where i have gone wrong using the CCRP in a non-leveled (climb/dive) dumb bomb delivery. But i really wonder if it would also tell me why does the MK-82 AIR bomb have that wrong trajectory and constant translation/sliding speed in it's behaviour, after it had aligned with the vertical axis (where it should have 0 speed in horizontal plane), as shown in the video that i've posted. Thanks again for the thread link, but i'd still want an answer about why does that bomb behave the way it does. Cheers.

Hi there ED Tester (Eddie), If is there something wrong that i did, please tell me! I'd also like to hear from someone, about these things that won't seem right to me, and what should be done. I don't want to waste anyone's time or nerves if there's something i might've done wrong or didn't do, in the CCRP's case..., and i also want to help ED solve these problems that some of us find, because after all everyone wants this simulator to be as good as it can (the best if possible), and that's the reason why i'm considering these problems which i find. Any answers from an ED Tester would be highly appreciated.

Ok, so now the subject of precision bombing issues seems too saturated to pay any more attention for some people here and we moved to off topic stuff. No reply from anyone else about this CCRP issue regarding the diving or climbing which affects the release moment? Also, no reply about that damn MK-82 AIR bomb which seems to go in another direction then the one it was launched on, sometimes even going on an opposite heading then the one it was released on..., all of these factors occurring at 0 wind velocity! Maybe nobody reads this thread or understands what are these problems that i've found, therefore i should start another thread for answers...! I hope there is someone capable to tell me what's wrong with this CCRP behaviour as well as for the MK-82 AIR bomb. Also for the MK-82 AIR bomb, i don't want answers like: "When the bomb is released and the chute is deploying it would swing and change direction due to oscillations created by the chute" or any idiot answer like that, because any oscillation which may appear in reality will have an asymptotically stable form, so the final trajectory (although with these initial oscillations) remains the same. So this thing with the MK-82 AIR should be a bug to go fall around like that. Cheers, Maverick!

Well, just read about what other guys have told about precision bombing using the CCIP function on a wind condition. They told something like the LASTE function is now implemented for CCIP and now works as it does for the CCRP mode as well.

As i wrote, i've only done these tests on a no wind condition (0 wind intensity) and you could also see the accuracy i had, as well as my dive angle on using CCIP mode. The two great problems are the CCRP feature which releases at a wrong moment (badly calculates the impact point, thus the releasing moment) and the bombs which seem to go on another trajectory then the one they were launched on, as it could be seen that the MK-82 AIR bomb does! I hope the devs will take a look at my video and tell me if i'm wrong somewhere, or if there is something they should fix in further updates, regarding these facts! Cheers.

Hello guys, I've read and understood that the A-10 should have a wind correction function for a more precise hitting on the target..., but what about bombs that won't go in the right direction, but rather sideways on their travel towards an impact point which is different from the initiated (wanted) impact point, upon bomb release using the CCRP or even CCIP (for a very retarded bomb in particular) on a no wind condition, so with or without LASTE at your hand, still, the same thing will happen. Also i want to state here that, being noticed or not by others, you will have the best precision (if you can call it best) only when you are straight and level (no vertical speed) while heading for your target and releasing in CCRP mode which seems to have an issue. If you are in a climb or in a dive, in both cases the CCRP will release the bomb in such a way that it will always fall further of it's target with an amount according to your climbing or diving pitch attitude angle, so you'll only have your bombs drop as close as possible when releasing from a leveled flight. Even so, in a leveled flight release, the bombs will always hit some 10-20m further of the target if launched from 10000 feet, or in other words, the CCRP function doesn't correctly calculate when to drop them so they will always drop, no matter the case, further beyond the wanted impact point. The CCIP function otherwise, despite the fact that it should work almost the same as the CCRP function, except that it will only calculate your impact point and will not interact with your release trigger..., does send your bombs exactly in the place where you have pointed on the ground, nomatter if you climb or dive or fly leveled..., it will always have high and even precision, despite CCRP, and this doesn't seem normal. The only thing that CCRP should do for you, different than CCIP, si that it would release your ordnance with milliseconds precision exactly for this reason, to give you the best accuracy for the moment of release, yet here it does worse. Even if, so far the CCIP seems not to lie about where your bombs will drop..., there might be some bug, which i'm afraid might affect all other bombs, be them with or without guidance..., which makes the bombs simply slide or travel in a different direction then the one they are initially pointing at, and this doesn't seem normal at all. It's like after stabilizing and even before stabilizing, as they oscillate around an alpha (AoA) or beta (sideslip) angle (here i'm talking about the usual bombs, not like MK-82 AIR bombs) after being released, they are "thrown" in a different direction then the initial heading, and this direction is always random for each release..., so it's like your bombs will have a circle of a given radius around your target, on which they are likely to fall, and not on the target as they should. This thing that i'm talking about can be most clearly seen after releasing MK-82 AIR bombs and watch as they are aligning with the vertical axis, and instead of going along (towards the ground) as there will be no more horizontal airspeed acting on it..., it will still travel in some random direction (always different) just like sliding, which i believe will appear since you release the bomb..., and it's not the same direction as the one on which you've released it, but you can't really see this in the first few moments. I might be wrong saying that this weird traveling direction seen for the MK-82 AIR bomb may also be affecting all other bombs in the sim..., but i guess they are all using the same laws of motion and this could be the reason why dropping any bomb in dumb mode will have it falling a bit left or right, forward or backward of the calculated point (if you were to always release on the same calculated point), although the difference would be small, about 5-10m radius of error if you drop a bomb from 4km high (so let's say we might not notice it), despite 500m error radius if talking about MK-82 AIR! Here i've provided a video regarding all these aspects: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8s9PKLbNW8 I would've rather linked a track file and that would've also be a lot easier for me than making a video..., but the way that DCS records what you have done (saving it in a .trk file) has it's own issues, which i believe other people have talked about on forums or somewhere..., because the longer your recording will be, the more errors it will record as you have manoeuvred your plane and done different things, showing stuff that you haven't even done or that you've done in such a manner which is unrecognizable. I've tried a couple of times to watch some track files of a formation flight with the P-51 between me and a friend, as we did different things, and as we were initially rolling down the taxiway towards the runway for takeoff, the recording was showing a whole different story of what we did, and did so every time with every different track, so i don't know how other people manage to gather anything from a track file showing the EXACT things that they did, but i'm not going to use this feature again until ED will try to fix it and make it replicate exactly what you did when it was recording, because for now it only seems to have a mind of it's own.

Man..., from what range had those AIM-120's been fired at you? 10-15nm? Of course it won't reach you before it's engine is stopped (it also depends on the speed of both you and that Eagle, but more on altitude i'd say, rather then the closure speed) and if you've done proper evasive manoeuvres or at least did some barrel rolls along your path to make the missile bleed airspeed..., then you won and outmanoeuvred it, not a surprise to me eighter! I've tested this enough too, and if the Aim-120 has less than 1000kts airspeed you may out turn it or outrun it(which is the only certain way possible to get rid of it so far)! If that missile is fired at you from closer than 5-7nm let's say on head-on..., you are dead whatever you'd try..., it is 100% chaff resistent and 100% resistent for not breaking lock no matter how close to the ground you are, which is bullshit, especially for a missile that has it's own, smaller and much weaker radar on which it can barely lock a target up at a maximum of 8nm on a clear day! Because even the firing aircraft's radar looses lock on a target flying as low as 3-5m above the ground due to clutter or signal waves bounce, not to mention the missile's radar that is even weaker! The missile might only be able to maintain a lock on it's target flying so low, if the missile would be just close enough to have a stronger and less breakable signal! So this the most annoying thing at this missile, at least for me, not to mention that it has the longest legs between all the missiles, even greater than the R-27C and D, don't know why because the difference should be huge, but the fact that it has an unbeatable lock to fight with..., no beam manoeuvering, chaff crap, nor anything works! Only the drag and lift coefficients due to alpha seem to be fine for it and nothing else! The only chance, cause there is one..., is to stay away off of it's lethal firing range (depends on closure aspect between firing aircraft and target and their particular altitudes) and to start descending (to conserve as much airspeed as possible) while running away from it (keeping it at 6 o clock) and doing loaded barrel rolls (don't do it at more than 6-7G's, in order to conserve some airspeed) just enough to make the missile deplete it's own airspeed/energy quick as it tries to constantly intercept you..., and the lower the missile gets,the thicker the air and the faster it's speed will drop while following you through the rolling manoeuvre..., and so when it's below 1000kts airspeed, you may out turn it by pulling towards maximum G if it gets too close and it will pass beneath your belly and fly away, or by outrunning it if you continue trough the rolls...! I hope i had given some advices in how to use the strongest technique in order to evade any type of missile which doesn't break lock on you, not only the AIM-120 crapram, which i won't allow anyone to use on my server, to be honest, as long as they won't nerf it's locking ability and use a more realistic one!

In my opinion, the value of the blade's CD (total drag coefficient) seems a little bit high, because that's why all this phenomenon occurs in such an amount that literally oscillates the hole heavy airframe around pitch and yaw axis like that! So i'm only guessing that the CD is to blame..., yet otherwise i don't know if it might be correct and then this whole phenomenon is completely realistic and it may only have been known by the pilots that actually fly/have flown a dead engine (prop fully stopped) P-51D, to tell: "YES, that kind of swirl really is noticed, but i didn't tell anyone"! I also don't know what kind of CFD (computational fluid dynamics) software have ED used to determine the CL and CD values for the P-51D's blades, or have they simply taken them from a wind tunnel test, which would be better in any case than trusting the CFD! So i personally don't know if that value really isn't too high, which creates this amount of oscillation or it would really be confirmed/correct! But i'd like to know that...! With honest respect, Maverick

First of all, landing or flying with the throttle to idle isn't our subject here..., as the gyro effects are normal and there are no problems whatsoever in that area because you won't experience that swirl phenomena in that area as the propeller is still spinning..., then you say that you didn't experience "any torque or gyroscopic effect when the propeller is still"..., well that's obvious within itself don't you think? You can't have gyro effects on a non-rotating body/object! It's that pitch and yaw motion combination that occurs ONLY when the blades are fully stopped and that's due to the P-factor that i've talked earlier about and which Yo-Yo has firstly defined!

Make me understand what are you trying to say with the "right flat turn" or what would it mean to you for making the ball jump a little opposite to the direction were it will naturally go! Probably you might want to say about the side force created by the fin only...! Are you trying to tell that the hole airframe is initially "pulled" to the side of the force created by the fin deflection (which is opposite to the fin direction) and that the airframe is rotating around an imaginary center which is in front of the plane's CG and in front of the slide indicator..., and until the CG will actually start to accelerate along the plane's Y axis due to the centripetal force which is aerodynamically created (for which the ball will slide in the correct direction), the CG will slide with the force created initially by the fin and around that imaginary center of rotation and that would make the ball listen to the initial opposite movement of the CG? Or would you mean the the CG itself is in front of the slide indicator (which can't be that much in front, cause it would be ridiculous) and that's why, if the rotation is around the CG this time, the ball will initially listen to acceleration around the Z axis of the CG and then to the side force Y axis of the CG? Cause otherwise there is no other explanation than these 2, and i think the first one is more appropriate! The weird thing is that this happens only with the P-51..., not with the A-10, nor with the Su-25's or with the KA-50, that's why it is so intriguing...!

Ok, by this you mean about the P-factor again, but this time it won't take the lift or thrust center into account, but drag one, because the blades are stopped and let's say they are stopped in cross position as you've said, having two blades vertical and two horizontal, your explanation is good, for instance, as the P-51 that has a clockwise rotating blade from cockpit view..., and the plane is gaining a positive alpha let's say, no matter the blade pitch, the left horizontal blade would have it's own alpha (AoA) increasing towards -90 deg, while the right one will have it more positive/decreased from -90, let's say -45...(which depends on pitch), therefore the left blade will create more drag than the right blade, and now this imbalance which turns as a drag center that is shifted left of the aircraft's longitudinal axis, will create a left yawing momentum, and the negative beta created due to this will trigger a drag imbalance between the vertical blades now, having in our case the lower blade's alpha closer to -90 deg and the upper blade's alpha more positive also, so the lower blade will create more drag and pull the nose down and is reducing our initially increasing plane AoA, therefore the beta will start to reduce itself too and we now have created a swirling effect which sustains just due to our initial input that started the imbalances...! But even on a more than 1 square meter prop area..., would you have that amount (that much) of effect on an aerodynamically stable airframe in pitch and yaw, even if you'd have the prop pitch at the angle where this effect would have the highest value (that is when the blades make a 90 deg angle between their chords)? So the theory here is fine.., but the amount seems a bit exaggerated, that's all!

Hi there jcomm..., nope i definitely doubt that it has something to do with fuel imbalance or with corresponding aerodynamic damping forces...!

Doesn't even matter where the CG is, in relation with the -slide indicator-, even be it right within the indicator as you exemplified, the ball should slide/move opposite to the CG's movement along the plane's Y axis or if that CG is within a centripetal force and the plane has a constant yaw rate, because that's a circular acceleration of the CG..., which everyone knows as V^2/R (R=radius) or V*angular velocity (in radians) and that's what the ball actually does..., it measures an acceleration around the plane's Z axis OR an acceleration along the plane's Y axis, so if the yaw rate would increase as you've said, therefore you should have a yaw rate acceleration which is even more, it's an increasing acceleration of the CG and that will stick the ball to one end of it's tube, doesn't just move it..., so think again of what you're saying!

I guess i was misunderstood, i know how the ball works and what type of liquid it has inside it's tube and it doesn't apply complicated physics..., it should only work as a pendulum (is what they were using in the early days to measure the sideslip or centrifugal force around the plane's Z (vertical) axis), so now they use this ball which does exactly the same by using it's static inertia to slide along the tube..., but still there is no explanation nor any reason why would that ball in reality slide with the force, in the direction of the force for 0.5 seconds and then go where it should..., just like it would be grabbed by that force..., there's simply no reason for it to act like that, here's the video;): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISSmzNIlA9w There is no P-factor applying to a stopped propeller, or to not lie..., it is very small due to the very small airspeed component which tends to create differential lift between the blades when they are stopped..., yes there is a difference, as each blade encounters the airflow from different directions if you have any alpha or beta angles and that creates different lift forces on the blades, but that ammount is almost null as the propeller is fully stopped! Take a look at the video and notice the behavior! Cheers, Mav.!

Another, but this time it's a smaller issue and i hope that at least this, the devs will fix as the engine restart problem hasn't been solved for years now! The HUD brightness button doesn't rotate normally in one direction but in both, as you want to increase or decrease the brightness..., it will rotate in both directions when you totally increase or decrease brightness! It's not a big deal, but it's just another bug! Here's a video with it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6RgtY4kwYU Cheers, Mav!

Of course i do, but this only applies if that propeller is spinning, yet i was explicit when i've said that the engine was fully stopped and the prop wasn't rotating at all..., i'll put a video right away covering both the still not understood wrong way initial ball movement and also this abnormal oscilation! I know what you are saying, but it's not the case here, so i'll apply a video! Many people have encountered this at least once when their engine had stopped as well as the propeller, but none dared to ask about it or didn't pay attention it, yet i'm not like that and i take all of these things seriously even for the tiniest issue..., not because i'd be mad, but because i want you guys to do good things, so i'm with you all the way even if i fight GGTharos arguing with him on other threads about various stuff...! I like and want to support ED for what they are doing, but all these things have their effort too! With honest respect, Maverick!

Perhaps too..., but one in particular is beating all records here, the LAME 120, or by definition, Amraam stands for -Another Mistake Regarding Air to Air Missiles-..., just to make a small joke about it:P!

Good point mate..., yet someone or the devs don't care about whatever the crowd would say, just because they only "trust" what they call certain documentation, but sometimes they won't trust even the data found in manuals, not to talk about what others say..., they only believe what they want and treat us like we'd know nothing, so you might accidentally be just a simple player of a "game", not a sim...!

Here are some interesting things to know about various missiles and their limitations! I'm not part of the military to know more about the accuracy of the data found here, but the information doesn't seem too far from real..., have a look: http://www.quebecairforce.com/falcon/escadrilles/canada8/WolfPack/Training/TacRef/Tacticals.pdf

Oh, and i forgot to mention another weird behaviour of the yaw rate (side slip) ball indicator..., as it has an initial wrong side tendency to move when you quickly apply rudder inputs. So, for example if you fly at positive G-loads and apply a right rudder fast enough..., the ball will initially move to the same side of the rudder input, just to change it's movement to the correct direction at around 0,5 seconds since you've applied the input! So it moves to the right with the rudder for the first half of a second and then it starts moving to the opposite direction as it normally should! This is a small issue, but i'm confident the devs will fix it! Have a good day, Maverick!

I have found some issues related to the flight dynamics of the P-51 and these are as follows: -Opposite roll rates due to beta at negative G-loads and negative AoA (alpha) are non-existent -Strange whirl phenomenon occurs when the flaps are fully lowered and the engine is throttled up..., or when the engine is cut dead and the propeller is fully stopped! As any pilot and aircraft engineer should know..., there is a roll rate that you will attain at a given angle of sideslip (beta), angle of attack (alpha) and airspeed even if the stick is fully centered, due to lift force imbalance between the wings...! For instance, if you fly at 1G in normal steady flight and at a given airspeed, it means that you have a given positive alpha angle for that, and if you apply left or right rudder and try to maintain 1G (thus maintaining the alpha angle) without changing the position of the stick in lateral direction, you will get a roll rate on the same side for which you apply the rudder or to the opposite side of slip! But this thing only applies when you have a positive G-load and/or positive alpha..., because when going high negative on alpha or just negative enough in order to created negative lift or negative G-load..., then the roll will be on the opposite side of the rudder, and the rate of roll will be according to how much negative alpha (and G-load), how much sideslip (beta) and airspeed you have, but again..., on the opposite side of the rudder or on the same side of the slip this time! The idea is that i haven't seen this opposite roll due to negative G-load occurring on the P-51 if i don't apply lateral stick input to that side..., and this doesn't smell good! So yes, it will do an opposite roll due to rudder at negative G-load, but only if i help it with lateral stick, while the roll should occur even if the stick doesn't have lateral input, so something isn't right! The second strange phenomenon is the whirl motion, which is something common to the propellers due to the gyroscopic effects which increase with rpm..., but tendency of the aircraft's propeller to perform a whirl type motion around the Y (pitch) and Z (yaw) axis should be diminished by the aerodynamic forces which tend to keep the airplane's direction straight! Yet this phenomenon may not be completely understood for why is it happening when the flaps are fully lowered for our P-51 in the sim, but when the engine is gone/cut off and the propeller is either stuck or it stopped spinning..., why does this phenomenon still occur, and it occurs even more intense than in the previous case? So i really think there's something wrong with the P-51D's flight dynamics behaviour here! If someone needs a proof, i'll make a video in no time and show it, but i hope the devs understand the phenomena and will fix this nonsense behaviour! Any answer is appreciated Thank you, Maverick!

You're right..., but there is one specialty of the house that virtually can't be stopped by anything. when it locks something up! And that's the AIM-120C/B...! Nonetheless that everyone around has noticed it's unbeatable energy peak and range..., it's also impossible to get rid off...once it locked you up, you can try yanking and banking all around with or without beaming(putting it on a 9 or 3 o clock position) and chaffing like crazy..., this baby won't let you down until you are down. "The" as you've said, has a remarkable function of following targets way below any other Surface to Air/Air to Air missile could ever do..., in terms that it could maintain lock and kill any flyable object even if the object flies at merely 0.5-1 meters above the ground or sea...! I've tested this..., and you couldn't break it's lock nomatter how low you would go or whatever else you'd do and no missile in reality could do that..., normally this missile can't follow a target which has more tan 8 G's due to breaking lock on that target and i have this information from a military document if you don't trust... This missile really is the king of the kings since FC3 came up! You should know what the real relates tell about the AIM-120's performances, from the countries that have tried them or from US where they're built and tested! Well, the Pk stays somewhere around 50%:P, not more! "Janes IDR Dec 2008 issue which reported that AIM120's combat record is far from sterling. Nine kills out of a total of 17 fired in real combat - only 53 % kill." Not to mention that nowadays they've found a big problem with the rocket motor at low temperature conditions (where they should operate when fired from high altitudes) where the propellant changes it's chemical state and won't fire..., but that's another story! It seems like it isn't the case here! Do you say that DCS/FC goes for realism and respects real world performances and data? I personally doubt, and it feels more that all of these weird performances for various missiles or aircrafts (Ex: Su-27's insane roll rates and very low rolling inertia) are intentionally meant to be like this by the devs, more like for propaganda or for whatever reason idk..., because they know too that it is not the way it should be. And let's say things aren't yet settled down and the AFM for missiles is only at the beginning..., and there's an old saying that: "the good things always need their time". But i start doubting that some things will ever change...!

Ok, here i have a sound bug about the KA-50..., and maybe A-10C also! When i played MP with a friend of mine, i heard a short apu startup sound and then it silenced (in about 2-3 seconds)..., and after the engines were start spooling up, the apu still remained silenced, so i could hear the engines RPM increase but without apu! And this happened the same way several times! With the A-10C, there's a similar thing going on with both the APU and the engines sounds..., where again the other player might have the APU running but i don't hear it at all..., and some other times, his engines are off but i still hear them:P, weird stuff! And i can guarantee it's not my soundcard!

Hi, I'd also have a question about rearming, but this time it's related to multiplayer...! If i make a server..., what should i do, what file should i modify in order to not let any player rearm a particular aircraft with anything else than what i let him to...! For example, i want to modify the rearming options that should appear for FC3 fighter aircrafts, in order to allow only IR missiles and not allow any radar missiles to be loaded on their planes! I've also seen some people, which connected to my server, loading various kinds of weapons which were not designed for that airplane or "borrowed" from another (ex: Su-25 armed with AGM-88:P) and stuff like that! Maybe i won't be able to control this kind of thing..., but at least i should know if there's a primary way to modify/make the rearming lists that players should have, only as i'll let them! Thank you very much, any answer is appreciated! Cheers, Mav.!

Thank you very much EtherealN..., i'll do as you told! Merry Christmas everyone!