bongodriver
-
Posts
809 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by bongodriver
-
-
As the title suggests, my force feedback Logitech G940 stick is constantly shaking the moment I press the fly button and does not stop until I quit, I have no issues with other modules only the F14. The patch did seem to improve many other aspects like load times and general smoothness in VR (oculus rift)
-
Agreed.
The only thing more resistant to a spin seems to be the 109.
Which makes some sense, the leading edge slats give a margin of stability that make it more resistant to spinning, not impossible to spin but certainly more forgiving.
On the wider issue, there were very few aircraft that would not recover from a spin if the controls were put at least to neutral (effectively just letting go) one of my old flying instructors told me the only aircraft he could think of that wouldn't self recover that way was the EE lightning, and he spent his entire RAF career on the machine apart from a brief stint in the Red Arrows on the Gnat.
When doing intentional spins it is required to hold pro-spin input in order to maintain and I have rarely seen a case where recovery didn't start to happed as soon as the controls were moved to neutral and fully recovered before full anti-spin inputs reached. on occasion some spins wind up nicely and it takes a few turns to recover mainly because the aircraft has built up some inertia in the spin. I find DCS has all this modelled very well, spinning is a doddle and the Spits pre stall buffet is absolutely magic using FFB, just ride the buffet and watch everyone else flop around trying to turn with you.
-
Hi
Thanks.
JSGME? Nope. Afraid not. I hadn't even heard about it until now.
Just install this over the original wingman voices (best to back them up).
They will just replace them. Probably for all missions and all planes, even US ones.
Cpt T
This is the bit that confuses me, I created a custom mission and assigned the country as UK and my wingman appeared to use the built in British files.
-
No he is entirely correct, when a tailwheel aircraft is in the 3 point attitude on the ground and moving the CoG is behind the main wheels and the laws of physics makes this an unstable condition, being alert and keeping it under control does not change the laws of physics.
This guy explains it pretty well, they know a thing or two about tailwheel at the commemorative air force.
Link only as the video owners have restricted playback on 3rd party websites.
-
1
-
-
The advent of VR is taking us into true 3d and depth perception, custom convergence becomes fairly relevant then.
-
What might be of significance is the fact it was rolling at the time, rolling g limits can be lower, though it does seem a bit too benign to be ripping the wing off. So far I haven't managed to break a wing...yet.
-
There are already British voices in DCS, will this mod add more messages or just a variation in voice?
-
in the real world I'm used to seeing lovely bright orange windsocks at each end of the runway and or one about half way, in their absence then it really must be a case of feeling for it and that's not a problem really.
the video looked pretty good to be honest. I'm a bit reluctant to mess about with curves as they are really just robbing you of the true stick to surface response and if you don't set them up right can make a total pigs ear of things, I don't struggle with the issues some have with the hardware i.e. long stick vs short stick or non force feedback, I have flown aircraft that have all the same variations, I have 600+ hours on Tiger Moths and the lack of feedback and huge amounts of backlash you get makes you think someone has built it with 50% deadzone and almost flat curves yet it is very sensitive, the point is you just adapt and learn to refine your inputs or on others push the stick to the corners. Having said all that one thiong I have repeatedly said is I really want to find a solution for the rudder hardware, personally I would wish for force feedback on my feet over the stick itself, it's where I struggle the most adapting to virtual flying from my real life flying.
-
Not a single one of the linked videos plays for me.
-
I've found that reducing the 'Axis Fine Tune' slope for Rudder & Pitch, from the default 45° to more like 30°, has allowed me to take off far more easily. Landing is still a bit of a problem (as always), but only after I touch the tarmac - left wing dips to ground...... I'm giving right aileron & right rudder, but that doesn't seem to cure it. Anyone advise on that?
on the landing roll the main reason the aircraft tips on a wing is not aerodynamic but more to do with the narrow track of the undercarriage, imagine doing a sharp right turn in a top heavy bus, the bus would tip over on it's left side, the same thing is happening effectively, the ailerons play very little part in controlling this and it's more to do with controlling the yaw or swing that develops, in your case the right rudder was probably counter productive.
in the case you are dealing with crosswind it's more often the case you will find yourself needing crossed controls i.e. opposite aileron to rudder inputs with the tendency to lean into wind with the aileron and counter with opposite rudder.
-
I didn't see a GPS but the 3 instruments visible are 2 VHF comms and a Transponder, on occasion I have seen GPS units mounted up high in a position close to the gunsight mount.
-
Yep, and some people will vehemently argue that a landing roll is a low workload period and pilots should be able to multi task, it's that kind of complacency that get you into trouble, I wonder what excuse these people would give when they hand the keys back of a wrecked aeroplane?
-
the flap retraction method is a bit of a waste of time, just about all aircraft are landing with full flap which is mainly drag and not lift, it's a distraction to be operating flaps when you should be concentrating on finishing the job of landing (it isn't over until you are parked), if you are worried about getting airborne again because of flap then you landed too fast, on an after landing roll out you are so far below stall speed that there should be pretty much no lift generated so the theory about more weight on wheels for extra braking sounds a bit of a myth. I have noticed an increasing number of UK PPL's are doing this when I do their biennial check rides and most of the time they start drifting off centreline as they fumble for the flaps.
it's supposedly a recommended technique for short field operations in some aircraft POH's but people are doing it on 2000 metres of tarmac....baffling.
-
I don't know why the argument started other than someone really took offence at a comparison to a car gearbox (which is perfectly valid), all I did was try to help out a poster who clearly hasn't got a grasp on the subject yet and listening to a bunch of experts probably has provided as much help as if he had asked for sex tips.
I'd assume engine braking is also a drivers call thing too and airbrakes are not so common on the aircraft we are dealing with so slowing on the prop is kind of unavoidable to an extent.
I think the Spits merlin is modelled a bit too fragile but this is still beta and may well get changed, I have read in some Spitfire tests that even the 5 minute limit was allowed to be exceeded up to 15 minutes as a further emergency limit which is interesting.
-
ENGINE CONTROLS 19.Throttle.—The throttle lever (33) is gated at the climbing boost position. There is a friction adjuster (31) on the side of the quadrant. The mixture control is automatic and there is no pilot's control lever. 20. Propeller control (i) On early aircraft the speed control lever (35) on the inboard side of the throttle quadrant varies the governed r.p.m, from 3,000 down to 1,800. (ii) On later aircraft the propeller speed control is interconnected with the throttle control. The inter-connection is effected by a lever, similar to the normal speed control lever, which is known as the override lever. When this is pulled back to the stop in the quadrant (the AUTOMATIC position) the r.p.m, are controlled by the positioning of the throttle lever. When pushed fully forward to the MAX. R.P.M, position it overrides the interconnection device and r.p.m, are then governed at approximately 3,000. The override lever can be used in the same way as the conventional propeller speed control lever to enable the pilot to select higher r.p.m, than those given by the interconnection. It must be remembered that the interconnection is effected only when the override lever is pulled back to the stop in the quadrant; indiscriminate use of the lever in any position forward of this stop will increase fuel consumption considerably. At low altitudes (and at altitudes just above that at which high gear is automatically engaged) the corresponding r.p.m, for a given boost with the override lever set to AUTOMATIC are as follows:
Boost (lb/.sq.in.)R.P.M.
Below +3 1,800-1,850
At +7.. 2,270-2,370
At +12 (at the gate) .... 2,800-2,900
At +18 (throttle fully open) .... 3,000-3,050
(iii) A friction damping control (46) is fitted on the inboard side of the throttle quadrant.
-
Personally I believe the problem is people getting too hung up on the comparison to cars an misinterpreting things, you can slow down on the prop without any problems (it's not a car) and no it's not the primary means of slowing down but it sure does help with all that drag it produces.
been flying in real life for over 20 years.
-
Here is a flaw in your reasoning. While it is true that finer pitch (higher prop RPM) produces more drag, this is more than offset by the engine capability to produce more power at higher RPM. The whole problem of choosing the right propeller size, shape, pitch and optimum RPM for a given aircraft is complex and is a headache for the aircraft designers - not the pilot who later flies it. The correct propeller profile is chosen to not hinder performance at high power output, especially in a high performance airplane like Spitfire. But i haven't seen any aircraft in which a pilot has to reduce engine RPM to achieve top speed.
Cruising is a different story, but then you don't need all the power the engine can produce and don't need the high RPM. Your priorities are fuel consumption and engine longevity.
Also, it's not a common practice in real life to increase engine RPM in order to slow the aircraft down. The reason why you're instructed to set RPM lever to highest RPM during landing is not to increase drag, but to prepare it in case of go-around when you will need full power again. At landing speeds and power, setting 3000 RPM in a Spitfire doesn't make any difference, the engine would barely turn at 2500 RPM anyway.
Minutiae again, I grant my statement that max level speed is not achievable at max RPM is wrong but I had myself confused with the thinking of continuous power settings for long term performance as opposed to short 5 minute bursts, if you were in the level cruise and changed only the RPM to max then the aircraft will slow down.
I feel you are on a quest to argue with me and I just can't be bothered for much longer, you are attributing statements to me that I simply have not made, check my post #17 on page 2 and just agree that we are on the same page for the most part.
the key point being that a CV prop system is remotely similar to gearing in a car (automatic or manual) I was only trying to help out the original poster of this thread to give a basic idea.
furthermore an RPM of 3000 at +18 boost is not combat effectiveness but more like combat desperation, it just seems to me much more effective to manage the aircraft better and use your smarts and use max setting to get you out of trouble.
-
bongodriver, I was referring to your explanation here:
which is completely incorrect. Of course reducing RPM when the maximum power is not needed is a preferable way to reduce engine wear, heat generation, fuel consumption and noise, that's why the lever was put there in the first place and that's why a pilot should reduce RPM for climb and cruise. But first: you don't reduce the RPM to go faster - it's not like shifting up the gear in a car (ok, selecting highest overdrive gear is a closer analogy). And second - 3000RPM in combat is not a terrible idea - it's the right way to do. Actually, putting high boost without increasing RPM puts more strain on the engine and forces it to work outside its designed envelope. Just look at the diagram I posted, the highest boost settings are allowed only with 3000RPM. So if you are in combat and you have a lower RPM setting than 3000 RPM then you either:
- don't use the full potential of your plane
- have to remember to increase RPM before trying to increase power
- risk more damage to the engine if you forget to increase RPM and move the throttle fully forward in the heat of battle.
German stuff adheres to the same laws of physics and it does the same things that English engineers wrote in the Spitfire manuals - just automatically.
No, not completely incorrect at all, maybe different to the way you see things but not incorrect.
I didn't say you reduce RPM to go faster, I said you reduce RPM to fly more efficiently as you go faster, I already mentioned doing 40mph in both 1st and 3rd gear, which do you think is better for the engine? either way you are doing 40mph but at some point 1st gear wont allow you to go any faster, same with a prop, at 3000 RPM you will hit a wall eventually, that's why you use max RPM to slow down.
We are getting into a pointless argument over minutiae here.
p.s. you aren't German are you? because the last bit was really just a joke, no need to explain the same laws of physics apply.
-
Bongodriver, take a look again at what Yo-Yo said:
In other words, it is a very bad idea to be in this power regime (3000 +18 ) while in a flight regime that does not provide good airflow for cooling system (slow turns fighting)
He never said that 3000 +18 does not provide the greatest output from the powerplant.
S!
it's a bad idea to fly at 3000 and +18 boost beyond 5 minutes regardless of the speed, if you become reliant on these power setting then the enemy won't need to worry for so long.
let's agree that everyone is right and just have a different way of seeing things.
-
Nope. The analogy with manual transmission with a fixed number of gears is completely wrong. You don't have to "shift gears" by pulling the RPM lever back. The prop governor automatically changes prop pitch as you go faster maintaining the optimal conditions, which, as I said, is more akin to CVT transmission in a car.
But like in a car, to achieve top performance, you need to use the max power output from the engine, which is at peak power RPM. That's not always in the highest gear, when your RPM is lower, even if the torque is higher. The difference is that in a car with a few fixed gears, you have to change engine RPM to change speed, while in the air with constant-speed prop, you can just set the RPM to optimum and forget about it.
Here's an example Merlin power graph (first link from google). As you can see, any setting below 3000RPM gives you less horsepower than the same setting at full RPM:
But like in a car, to achieve top performance, you need to use the max power output from the engine, which is at peak power RPM. That's not always in the highest gear, when your RPM is lower, even if the torque is higher. The difference is that in a car with a few fixed gears, you have to change engine RPM to change speed, while in the air with constant-speed prop, you can just set the RPM to optimum and forget about it.
Here's an example Merlin power graph (first link from google). As you can see, any setting below 3000RPM gives you less horsepower than the same setting at full RPM:
In the German airplanes with Kommandogerät you don't even have a choice, throttle full forward = max designed RPM. In some western airplanes there was also a mechanical link that prevented the pilot from moving throttle forward without moving the prop RPM, so he couldn't set full power without full RPM as well.
Of course flying at max power setting all the time is the fastest way to kill your engine, and that's what Yo-Yo said.
I didn't say you shift RPM like gears, I said the way power is transferred is like transitioning through gears and that is true and no different to automatic or manual transmissions, mechanically a governor is doing something like a CVT but the similarity ends there, the whole CV prop system is more akin to a manual transmission because the operator selects the RPM, if you like we can compromise and agree that selecting RPM is more like switching to a separate CVT transmission instead of a gear.
So why have a selectable RPM? why not just have a governor that keeps the engine constantly at 3000 RPM?
You can drive your car at 40mph in 1st gear or you can drive your car at 40mph in 3rd, which would you choose? that is the point if you want to optimise things you need to change gear, look at your graphs again and see for yourself that the difference in horsepower between 2850 rpm and 3000 rpm is minimal and certainly puts less strain on the system, you really don't need to be at max power output to reach max speed if you can optimise the propellers efficiency, it's no coincidence that the book climb RPM is 2850.
German stuff is a different kettle of fish as we all know they summoned magic from Satanic demons so god only knows what we will compare it to...:megalol:
-
Check tests of airplanes u are talking about. At lower RPM you cannot go faster than at higher RPM. In both Spit and P51 you need 3000rpm to gain max speed. All best performances for the Merlin engine are at 3000.
If DCS is correct. Our engines quit after a bit of abuse while we have IRL reports of way longer abuse and just engine damage not loss. For example I've read that R2800 was tested on WEP 2300hp for 24h (constant operation). Engine was sitting on the ground. Test concluded engine was damaged but it didn't quit.
Sure we don't have a radial, but I am pretty sure those engines should start running rough and loose power and not just die 100% of time.
I agree entirely there, stuff still needs work here without doubt, I'm still amazed at how the 109 seems to run like factory fresh despite poring black smoke that indicates it is losing all it's oil yet a single puff of white will kill the Spitfire.
-
Yeah I did say the similarity is not in the mechanics.
-
not my opinion, physics mate.
you can try yourself at full boost see how flat out fast you get with either 2700 or 3000 rpm
First of all....mate....my opinion is based on the physics I experience in the real world, yours seems to be based on the sim, now we need to establish if we have found a bug.
-
CORRECT
the part i marked in bold is NOT CORRECT
in your oppinion
[RESOLVED] Force feedback shaking since last patch
in Bugs and Problems
Posted
Worth a try I guess, though in my case it does seem like it's just the F14 module causing issues, I have no crashes and the hardware behaves normally for all other modules.