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.

When the topic selected and approved by ED, it's already useless to complain here. At least, ED doesn't think the project is against their orientation. Don't try to make their choice. If you hate it, just don't buy it. If you don't want to see it in your elaborately decorated battleground, don't use it in your mission and ban it in your server. Look for the module of your taste, rather than force other modules into the way you want. By the way, except for this thing, legally from deka you will not get anything later than MiG-21 into your red fleet in following 10 or 20 years. Eastern confidentiality laws are not kidding. If you are looking for anything like that don't anchor your hope on deka.

Please try my temporary solution inspired by Anthony on discord. Set the FFB force of Gazelle to 0 and cyclic trim mode to NONE. Then use a simFFB or VPforce or anything like that (depending on what stick you use, I use simFFB with G940) and set a trim in software to override the original broken FFB trim in game. Only start the software when flying Gazelle then other aircraft will not be affected.

In the FM update an FFB support is stated. But with my G940 the force trim shows wrong behavior. The normal behavior and I think your target is, when the force trim button is released, the FFB stick is kept at its current position as new center position, and no virtual offset is added. For example, when I move from (0,0) to (25,50) and release force trim, the FFB physical stick should stay at (25,50) when I don't touch it, and the final input to the game is (25,50). But now its behavior is, when the force trim button is released, another virtual offset is added to the FFB device like it's not FFB. For the example above, the FFB physical stick stay at (25,50) but another (25,50) offset is added. That's to say, when I leave the stick at its physical new center position (25,50), the input to the game is offset to (50,100). If I want a normal (25,50) input, I have to pull the stick to its geometry center position (0,0) with forces. If I want a (-25,-50) input, I need (-50,-100) physical stick movement. And If I want a (-100,-100), it's impossible before the trim is moved again. This virtual offset should be prepared for non-FFB devices, which need to back to its spring or rail center after releasing force trim. But in FFB devices the trim is already realized by the movement of center position, so the offset is repeated, making the trim totally broken.

Very hard to say. It's a socially caused Chinese feature but not (or not totally) an old tradition. There was a period when people regarded cartoon as only for children and this thought met its acme about 20-30 years ago (even now many people think so). Besides, Chinese are relatively conservative and cautious with children and puts more responsibility to the whole society. Most of them reject too dark expression to children. (In case you don't know, movie, cartoon or game rating system is also doubted for its enforceability and effectiveness in China, so it's not relied on.) So, some modern Chinese cartoons took much influence from pre-school education cartoons. They took its relaxation and infantile appearance, which makes them easier to produce and easier to be adopted (although not everyone likes that). This series of short cartoons above started from several years ago and this style is easier for personal and small-scale studio to start with. Also, Chinese cartoon industry experienced a collapse & revival. When the environment is impacted by introduced foreign works, in my impression they had to do simple cartoons for children and provide outsourcing services (in which Japanese and western styles, ideas and techs are also introduced) to survive the winter. However, there are also more mature art styles all the time and more in recent works, either from indigenous tastes or influenced by Japanese or western style. More serious or matured topics are also involved and may or may not with a too child-like appearance. And if you watch some earlier Chinese works back to the 1960s, you will find another different style with amazing traditional arts and stories, and even more daring expressions than today, which many people miss.

I think they are very possible to move to SD-10 with new API in next update before making other change to PL-12 payload file.

It's just dual thrust engine like 120 or even sparrows. We don't have dual pulse motor in game for now.

From Deka Ironworks Simulation: https://www.bilibili.com/opus/794089786287587364 key points: Some general ramp vehicles will be added, including oxygen supplier, air conditioner and weapon loader for a vivid ramp scene. Those could be used with JF, J-8II and other aircrafts. (A gyrocopter is modelled but will not be added to CAP at present, for that its flight characteristic cannot be correctly manifested in DCS now.) (unrelated) (There is no imperious demand in CAP and no specific short-term plan now. SAM being considered now but possibly not as parts of CAP.) (unrelated) J-8IIPP is being modelled now. Most parts of the cockpit are completed. Exterior model is being frozen now. The model will only be demonstrated when completed and polished so stay patient for now. 3D scanning will be applied to make the pilot and equipment model. Body shape of one or another developer, instead of a plastic model, will become the one you control in game.

I think the question can be splited into two: 1. Why a CWI is needed. Very possibly, aspide uses CW only and not PD capable. As we see before, monopulse seeker doesn't mean PD capable. US provided AIM-7M in PP project, which is CW/PD compatible, but China still turned back to asipide for it's cheaper and Italians could provide technology transfer to produce their own missile in China, instead of just exporting missiles. Late sparrow's PD illumination compatibility is not common in worldwide, and very likely this Italian sparrow lacks this system, just updated the conical scanning seeker from 7E to a monopulse tracking mechanism seeker but continue to use CW illumination. In fact, I read the Spada and Albatros SAM also use CWI with aspide missile, besides Italian use it with F-104S equipped with CWI. However, if you have some more evidence that it's PD capable it would overturn this. 2. Why a Chinese CWI is finally chosen instead of choosing a version of APG-66 with original CWI. APG-66 didn't come with a CWI at the very first. The earliest F-16 have to use AIM-7F in PD mode before OCU and MLU which added CWI to support old version sparrows. Considering the version used in PP project is greatly simplified in function because of price and US is unwilling to provide frequency agility at first, it's very likely to be an early version. So why bother to choose a version without CWI and add yours, when there is another version with original CWI? Well, the Chinese CWI is probably earlier than PP project. The update of J-8II is intended to use Chinese radar and PL-4 missile (copy of earlier AIM-7 from Vietnam, possibly C or D, with conical scanning seeker) at first, but neither meets the requirement in 1980s. The performance and reliability are totally a mess. The early J-8II with domestic radar is only equipped with PL-8 and not BVR capable. The further update is somewhat independent for each system. Marconi, Dassault and Israeli suppliers are also considered as avionics updater before the US one is finally chosen, while Chinese didn't decide they must use missile from same country with other avionics. And the aspide missile is considered to be used with Chinese future radar before the PP project, that's why they already have an airborne CWI for aspide when they don't have the missile. But the new radar process is not smooth, and even it is, the performance is still not good in 1980-1990s. So finally PP project started to induce foreign avionics including radar to fill the immediate need. In compatibility test with APG-66, the Chinese CWI showed good compatibility, even better reliability than the radar itself, enough performance and "better price" than a US CWI, and it was accepted by Westinghouse. Besides, Chinese don't want to discard their earlier work to have their own CWI + missile in case the foreign equipment would turn unavailable in the future, so they chose to use the domestic one with American radar. The ending of PP project proved this decision is wise and they can mount the CWI onto the domestic radar to finish the work to make a BVR fighter. In the whole story you see autonomy and low price everywhere like a ghost. They chose asipide for low price and technology transfer, domestic CWI for low price and own production. That's an age when China is not as rich as today and political situation could also change suddenly. And the military expenditure was also cut to give way to civil economy development. So they have to ensure every military import purchase is necessary and useful at the moment and also good to the future own development. In my words that's an age of hardness and glory for those working in military industry.

I'm not very professional with this topic beyond basic mechanism. If they don't have, I think maybe it's because CWI is not need. Sparrows after 7F are already able to work with PD illumination, and CW illuminators may become not so necessary if the radar is not intended to be used with earlier version sparrows. However, CW illuminators could attain higher average power with same technical condition and the beam is simple and easier to adapt between illuminator/radar and seeker, so maybe make it easier to design and make the seeker on the missile, so many other SARH missile-radar combinations continue to use CW illuminatior instead of updating the missile to use PD illumination from the normal radar antenna, until replaced by ARH. Just my speculation. Maybe need some experts to correct me.

Monopulse seekers have no direct correlation with CW/PD illumination guidance. 7F has the ability to work with PD illumination before the update of monopulse seeker, and many SARH missiles use CW illumination with inverse monopulse seekers. "Monopulse" here is an expressing of tracking mechanism versus conical scanning. They are used to solve the measurement error caused by the beam width from the radar. Monopulse mechanism was initially used in pulse radar to determine both azimuth or pitch error in one pulse, but later also used in continuous wave system. It only needs the beam to be encoded or modulated (for example phase modulated in many monopulse radars) but not necessary to be pulse beam. A pair of beams are usable as long as they can be recognized from each other after being reflected from the target. For example, polarized continuous wave beam can also be used. In monopulse radars, a pair of modulated (thus, "recognizable") beams are sent in slightly different directions and the corresponding return is selectively received, "distinguished" and compared to determine the target is at the left or right side (another pair of beams could be used to determine high/low at the same time). In monopulse seekers, the beam pairs are sent in one direction but selectively received with pairs of different antennas with slightly different direction to achieve the same effect. You see no "pulse" needed in this mechanism. Before the monopulse mechanism, similar work could be done through a multi-pulse way, which sends one beam at a time (or "in one pulse") and another next (or "in next pulse"), then compare the two returns. This mechanism is "monopulse" because the pair of beams are "recognizable" and can be sent and processed simutaneously or "in one pulse", instead of one after another. Because they can be emissed, received and processed at same time, the beams don't need to be pulse any more.