Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Glide

  1. I watch the sun rise or set almost daily in DCS. There are so many airfields in DCS that are carefully crafted for your enjoyment. I also set the date to the current date so I can watch the seasons pass. I hardly ever pull the trigger these days because I enjoy the flying more than the fighting (until the Viper is complete ). It's all about expectations.
  2. Agreed. Circuit height, say 1500ft, would be a better setting. I'll run with that. Thanks! Edit: Nope, 10 for the win. It nags you on the way up with higher values.
  3. lol. It's more that it's good to have the radalt working, even if you don't use the warning. The last thing you want is the pilot taking his eyes off the road on approach because of the bells going off, or learning to just ignore the warnings. Too bad you can't put a piece of tape over it.
  4. I think it's just ED evolving the flight model. I expect it will be as good as or better than the Hornet when done.
  5. Is there a way to fly the Hornet without the audible warnings for Radar Altimeter? In Wags' VFR landing training video he passes through 500 ft without the warning, but I can't seem to get rid of it. Thanks.
  6. Is this a bug? It won't hold trim anymore. Constantly trimming back and forth. It lists like a leaky tugboat.
  7. The F-16 flight model is a work in progress, so any force on the stick bleeds energy with a heavy loadout. As @Xavven mentioned, right now try it with no pylons and low fuel. The envelope is 350-550, so stay inside that zone. If you recall, ED mentioned they were working on their rudder coordination in the flight model to bring out the full fidelity Mig-29. The F-16 likes a small amount of rudder now to bring the nose around nicely. I hope this helps.
  8. No problem. I had Russian voices coming out of my headset today. Cya later folks.
  9. Sorry, I had target fixation on making the DCS Viper better. Nevermind. It's perfect.
  10. Yes, we established that the increase is due to the N1 fan speed increasing. What's incorrect is that the added fuel is not creating acceleration. It's a straight line increase to airspeed, not a curved increase. But what about deceleration? The jets lose fuel flow as the airspeed decreases. The mechanical nature of the thrust levers would not allow the fuel flow to drop past full military thrust as the airspeed drops. Full military thrust on the ground test was just below 10000 pph. Therefore, in a tight turn, my fuel flow should never drop below 10000 pph because my thrust levers are at PLA 85 right before the AB detent. This is why the jets turn to slushy mush in a turning fight. As you slow down, you lose the N1 fan speed and the extra push it gives you, but N2 should stay constant as long as the levers don't move.
  11. I never stop trying to make things better. Just my nature.
  12. The guys who wrote the paper?
  13. They said 85 pla is full non-afterburner power. So, right before the AB detent is my understanding.
  14. You can fly those tests easily in DCS. Start at mach .3, deflect to 85 pla, watch fuel flow until mach .75. I was watching the Grim Reapers turn tests on YT today. I'm going to try some similar tests with the mach increase and without the mach increase.
  15. Figure 9 is interesting. WFE increases as N1 RPM increases while N2 RPM stays relatively constant. N2 is core, so the deflection was constant. And N1 is the fan, so while the core was pushing the mach increase, the fan speeds up and draws more fuel flow? This makes sense, but shouldn't this increase the rate of change in the mach?, ie it should feel like acceleration. More like a curve, less like a straight line. What about deceleration? When you slow down the fan slows down, should the fuel flow drop so quickly so far in a min radius turn, for example? Or would you just lose the N1 fuel flow bonus and stay at full core fuel flow with 85 pla.
  16. Good catch. That 15 deg was the angle to the sensor array. That must have been a very gradual deflection to 85 as the mach increases and the nozzle volumes increase at the same time, don't they? Edit. Nevermind. It's a mystery to me how they got those WFE numbers. Fun report. I was a hotshot data center architect in '96. I love how they say "deck". They probably mean a deck of punch cards. We still had them back then.
  17. Climb to cruise. CTC. Note the change in Mach and exhaust volumes in this set. They started at those altitudes, deflected, and let the jet climb to cruise where it was about 15 deg nose up. That's my understanding of the CTC data in table 5. Table 4 was ground. Table 6 was straight and level. Yes?
  18. No sources. I am a pilot, and thermodynamics was one of my favourite classes. The details of the DEEC are not my concern. I am concerned with the realism of the flight model. I am assuming there's some magic involved, but the simulation doesn't care. Once per game loop, DCS will update the sprites with a formula that allows the fuel flow to vary with airspeed. This results in a certain feeling of flight. I am suggesting perhaps fixing the fuel flow variable and getting a much different feeling of flight.
  19. My understanding is there was three batteries of tests: ground, climb to cruise, and straight and level. My understanding is they deflected to 85 and let the jet climb to 15 deg elev in the CTC tests which were acceleration tests.
  20. I think there is some reporting issues on those tables. The tests indicate the CTC were conducted by achieving stable flight, moving the lever to 85 PLA, and measuring the acceleration during climb. However, the tests indicate the START, OH, and END positions were all 85 PLA. This is because of the locations of the microphones and the point in the acceleration when the jet passed the recording zone. This doesn't make too much sense. You deflect to PLA 85, WAIT 5 SEC for the engine to stabilize, then start the climb? What's happening in those 5 seconds? Did they mix that up? Should that have been written, "achieve level flight just below the Mach, stabilize for 5 seconds, then deflect"? Why test a high-NPR jet but not the afterburner acoustics? In my mind, the thrust levers are mechanical in operation even though it's fly by wire. If the lever doesn't move the rate of injection doesn't move unless altitude changes the flow characteristics. Otherwise, what's the point of physical AB detents and marking idle cutoff and idle on the throttle? I am flying along, I move the fuel flow to 3000, but my throttle is not on the mark. I think this is why folks say they don't feel the sense of speed in the game. I think it's not the sense of speed they miss, but the sense that there's a rocket attached to your chair and it wants to accelerate. I think if fuel flow was "stable", we would feel the jet's desire to accelerate more as we bleed off energy in turns and such. Right now it feels like a fast airliner.
  21. I tested this on the Hornet as well. The behaviour is there but not as pronounced. Pull a turn and watch the fuel flow drop in the Hornet by 400pph in 360 degrees. Try the same thing in the Viper. Fuel flow drops like a rock. I don't think either model is correct, but the Viper is at the far end of the spectrum.
  22. well, another week or so, and it could all change with 2.7. Cheers!
  23. Slight? Seems huge. Fly straight and level at 300kts with 3000pph. Move the throttle to just before the AB detent. Then watch the fuel flow creap up by over 1000pph. This does not seem correct to me.
  • Create New...