Torbernite

Thanks I got it now! I marvel at your efforts to bring this great simulation. Thank you all for your job!

Thank you for the reply! I just found I misunderstood the transfer sequence. I wrongly thought the INT WING tanks were not being filled before fuselage full and didn't notice the fuselage indication tape. So "the drop of transfer rate happens beyond 8000lbs" looked strange to me before.

Hi Zabuzard! Thanks for your job! Could you please provide some figures of your modeled fuel system to show the refueling sequence and flow? After reading original manual, I took 2 AAR tests and got confused. TEST 1: AAR from about 2100lbs to full INT+EXT WINGS. A high transfer rate of around 3900lbs/min was observed during 3000-8000lbs as stated. But high transfer rate was kept beyond 8000lbs to nearly 9000lbs before obvious slow down.(According to the manual T-O-1F-4E-1(1979), aircrafts before blk41 have 12896lbs INT fuel and 8800lbs in fuselage tank 1-7, while those after blk41 have around 12000lbs INT fuel with a capacity of a bit less than 8000lbs in fuselage tank 1-7. The latter should be our version. But the tested value in game above is closer to the fuselage tank capacity of the earlier version in manual.) After that, the INT WING tanks were filled simultaneously with EXT WING tanks, and over 4mins were taken to fill them as stated. EXT WING tanks full lights were on before full INT fuel was indicated. TEST 2: INT ONLY AAR from about 2100lbs to full INT. Same rate as TEST 1, before and after fuselage full. Roughly same time was needed as TEST 1, only seconds shorter. (I think maybe it's because INT WING tanks filling rate is independent from EXT WING tanks and has its own limit? But that seems inconsistent with the figure FO-2 in the manual.) After INT full achieved, no automatic disengage happened. Boom had to be manually disengaged with button on the stick and tanker called "transfer complete". The fuel indicator showed consumption not immediately after disengagement but with a short time interval. Besides, according to the figure FO-2 in the manual, the AAR fuel is transferred into tank 1, 3 and 5 directly. While in our manual it's stated that "Fuel received is delivered into fuselage cell 2, then equalized through the rest of the aircraft cells, wing tanks, and, if installed and selected, external tanks." Can you confirm whether these features are all correct as it is? Thank you! F4EAARINTonly.trk F4EAARINTnEXTWING.trk

Could a damping effect or force curve edition in FFB setting help? I remembered when I just started to use G940 (which is quite weak in FFB force) it also got oscillation. Later in mirage F1 it appears again. Both were suppressed by setting a damping effect. And recently my G940 also gets a faint vibration in x-axis near physical center sometimes. That happens after I re-casted 3 broken teeth with epoxy resin on the x-axis plastic gear. I think I broke the designed fit clearance and made it too tight, resulting in a too steep curve near center. If that's the condition on the whole range, an oscillation might occur.

Thank you! That's a genius design, I didn't even imagine it before.

Just out of curiosity, which type of device is used as the digital indicator? Visually it's not a rotation drum, not segment display like VFD or modern LCD. I guess it's a series of Nixie tubes?

And the sight seems to get about 15 mils more depression in mode 2-4 than mode 1, is that correct?

Both in SP Caucasus, MT and ST. Edit: after finishing these recording the bug disappeared for me. Maybe it's related to MT/ST switching? MF1AARbugMT.trk MF1AARbugST.trk

When dispersing SD-2, AB250-2 shows two dispersing centers. In replay, half of the submunition quickly slow down with the open clamshell body, and half keep the normal speed with an unbroken or contacted body (two set of body model visible). That makes the submunition disperses around two centers, and the two center could be far from each other in level bombing. Similar for AB250-2 and AB500 with SD-10, but all (fewer) submunition stay in one "half" group in this condition. AB250doublecenter.trk

Then none. In fact Bilibili official channel is also quiet. When they truly have something to show that's often posted on personal channel of staff, which will also be posted here. So no need to find another info sources. I know they use QQ group chat to keep contact with players in China but I don't know whether they still run a group now. Just stay in forum and we, or I, would post info if we find any elsewhere. They have one or some members living in other country. So it's possible to have one legally, but hard for administration and maintenance. Besides, I think they are too cautious with their progress demonstration, and I guess most of them are busy on their other jobs, no one has enough free time for frequent official announcement or daily interaction. Even though I'm staring at all their social media (official and staff personal), I don't know what they are doing until an update log comes out, unless it's a bug I privately reported to one staff. Sometimes I felt they are more like some "core fans" among Chinese players (and at first they are) instead of developers. They are too cautious, unambitious and moderate as developers, trying to give only guaranteed products instead of progress. I can understand them but I don't think it's a good way. Sometimes risking misunderstanding and unsatisfying to show what they are making is also the responsibility of developers.

I think possibly it means the jammer (yes it has an SPJ) limited by DCS, and also sensitive information. Present ECM model in DCS is very rough. Although F-16 has some ECM characteristic, the simulation is still very primary. Interaction between ECM and other system is modelled, but a full electromagnetic environment or how the ECM works with enemy radar, is not well simulated yet. This is common among our modules, and we may ignore that. But if you ask a developer how the ECM is modelled, he has to say it's "simplified".

I found another video on bilibili, reporting game crash when he hit a radar of SA-11 system. He claims that the crash happens with ground units but only in MP. Sounds maybe it's different issue but I leave the link here if needed. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV18k4y1n72K

I'm quite tired of that. His idea is totally an argue of opinions rather than facts. He is just trying to output "what it should be" and forcing what he thinks into what everyone should think, just like what is happening around the world. I would rather argue on the J-8II vs. Su-15 question or what's monopulse seeker, for it would clarify some confusion at least. But this... It is purely wasting my life. Sadly if we have to deal with such a reasonless quarrel every several months we can do nothing meaningful here. If this useless (and answered) question were not excavated again today, I should be working on my translation of public test flight information of J-8. I found many interesting details in that and I think it's also safe to know.

Did you try to lock from another direction? I mean put the helipad farther and ammo nearer. There must be something wrong but I don't know what.

1. If you want that answer, then that's yes it will be the exact design and all details would be as its original design, not created by Deka themselves. They have documents and the exact equipment. The aircraft on display was once installed with all those equipment and tested, although now dismounted before into display so you won't find it in museum at present. 2. MiG-21Bis has pretended RSBN/PRMG which works totally differently from the actual ones, which should be a radio assisted dead reckoning equipment instead of a Russian TACAN. The bombing aiming is in need of rebuilding. The CCIP is totally unreal. Only rocket and guns should have it and it needs preset altitude data, instead of radar ranging. Not need to say the Kh-66. 3. Your "question" is already answered in first page, question 2. We answer questions, but not those with spite, conjecture and provocation, raised blindly.