Torbernite

Good idea. The only problem is it doesn't follow the tradition (developers to make the decision with or without a vote and then deliver a decided product), but it shouldn't be a problem. This would be a great trial in DCS for the first time to allow public players to evaluate which model is more acceptable, maybe also to push ED to improve the 120 scheme if we find it needed.

I know the AIM-120 scheme may mean INS + datalink first, and what's more? Would the guidance act in a more realistic, scientific and detailed manner, or more bugged? Could it be solved before moved onto SD-10? We need a clear and detailed list or at least a brief on the features and bugs to decide it. And I believe you, as developers, probably have more info and clearer perception on it. So I can adopt that you have the ability, authority and responsibility to make the final decision on your own.

How about this? with ECS off I can normally fly at 40000ft 300kts IAS, only blackout at 230kts and revived at 38000ft 300kts and no faint again. JF17ECS.trk

It seems that the blackout is (probably) wrongly connected only with speed, not the switches or the engine RPM. If you stay above roughly 250 kts IAS after engine flame out from 30000ft, even if you do nothing else (no ram air, no emer oxy) after the flame out the blackout will not appear. This speed may vary with altitude. To check this, you can turn off the ECS to cut the bleed air from engine and depress the cabin while leave the engine on, then set the speed you want and see what happens. The blackout will come at a speed near this value and will disappear if you gain speed in time.

Thank you! It would be very helpful! Considering I found this problem only on F1, it would be questionable whether the problem was caused by DCS or F1 module or the stick. One friend of mine is developing his own FFB stick so we are very curious about this question.

I'm deeply impressed by the great work of TVC easter egg of LJQCN101. Although I know the JF-17 HARV is an internal test model for developers and not intended to be shared in public at first, I wonder if there is any possibility for us to get a J-8II ACT experimental aircraft as similar role? For those who are not familiar with it: J-8II ACT is the early research platform for Chinese active control system or just say FBW. A single axis analogous FBW version J-8 ACT became the first Chinese aircraft with relaxed static stability in 1988. While it was lost in 1992 in digital FBW test due to a neglected software defect, another J-8II with three-axis digital FBW was tested successfully in 1996. To my knowledge, this project ended in 1999 and was not implemented onto J-8II series, but the achievement and experience were used in later FBW system development, including L-15 and other Chinese FBW fighters. Edit: The first single axis J-8 ACT in 1988 and lost in 1991 is actually a J-8I. The three-axis FBW one of 1996 is J-8II, which is what I mean at first. Earlier I mistaken the single axis one as also J-8II. The latter one was also modified with two fixed canards, to decrease the static stability. This plane is now on display in Shenyang. To model it the art model and aerodynamic data is also needed to change. Considering this, sadly I give up on it from my wish list.

Thanks for your effort. Actually the AP is also very easy to disconnect in other modes with FFB, and hard to be re-connect after that. Could we have a definite condition and envelope for the AP connect and auto disconnect? For example when the AP is disconnected during auto ILS approach it can't be connected again with gear down.

Hi markturner, would you mind share your experience on two problems? I'm quite wondering whether any other is experiencing those phenomena. Do you feel the feedback force is somehow delayed or has some lag from the stick input? And could you confirm if an autopilot-controlled ILS approach can be performed with the FFB stick? I found these problems on my G940 and I don't know if that's cause by the FFB design of the module or by my old bad stick.

I'm using a G940. Every time when I try an autopilot assisted ILS landing, the autopilot stays on if I fly at 20 or 30 knots faster than correct speed/AoA, but it would disconnect when try to tune for correct AoA, and sometimes when drop the landing gears. The stick is left untouched and I'm sure it's not broken by any unintended movement. Is that caused by sudden auto movement of the stick? MF1ILS.trk MF1ILS2.trk

I checked with a 14m long Su-25T from 185m away. It should be about 75.5 mil or around 1.5 times of the sight length, and it is with C-101 sight of same size, but it fills the exact length in MB-339. Correspond with your result. However, it seems that most of us don't think it's a serious problem.

I noticed the operating modes were already applied. What's the difference between A/G with/without roll control mode? Only sight as roll attitude indicator?

Maybe possible but not now. The problem is not coding or manpower. If we gamers could get anything can be coded, we should have already been flying an FF flanker. HMD is nothing new to the game, maybe AESA and double pulse missile need some work but not impossible. As for coding I guess even an FF F-35 or J-20 module is doable. The problem is how to get the information needed through a legal and respectful way. And this condition may need some more years to come. Deka may have some cooperations with official apartment and are trusted and allowed to ask for some document, which is hard for another team, especially an amateur one. If even they are not allowed to get some information with this trust, it only means that if they try, they will lose this trust even if not indicted.

I think those from left side were taking from a different view, closer to the front so the sweeping is less obvious. However the lacking of better view makes it less convincing. If we don't have more planes and more views elsewhere to check, the only hope will be waiting the cave hangar to re-open and the fence for its gate to be removed and we can reach to a correct right side view to end the puzzle. In fact when the museum re-opened in late 2021 (closed again later in last year) the fence was not set "correctly" so many places should be blocked were actually not. I went there in 2021.12 and there were some Q-5 could be touched but they were not intended to be. At that time I even strayed into unopened area with my friend until soldiers brought us back. Now they were all fenced, but somewhat overdone. Sorry I don't have any special information about them. But after the two memoir I have now I plan to find more. And I will call you if I find any.

Another detail of J-8. https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1m84y1M78x/ At the beginning of this video, you will see a J-8II (perhaps H or F variant) with the tail fairing cones cut off (the original design has a pair of sharp fairing cones between the two nozzles, similar to MiG-19), leaving two holes there with even no cover. I saw this design on a J-8 (maybe E variant) in the museum. At that moment I thought it was an exhibition lacking maintenance and losing its cone so didn't take a photo. According to the designer's memoir, the J-8 was encumbered by vibration caused by various factors. Many modifications were implemented to eliminate the vibration during design, test and service. The tail cone is vulnerable to the high temperature of engine jet flow, and sometimes it also causes vibration. In 1990s the air force reported the cones were often heavily cracked. They tried to reduce its length and the vibration became more severe, but when the tail cone was further cut in length and moved forward, conversely the vibration disappeared. Finally in later batch of J-8 and J-8II the tail cone was completely cut off.

Any drone flight is restricted in Beijing and need to be authorized by local ATC in advance. Besides, that museum is managed by air force and have military station beside it so drone is prohibited. Although the low altitude flight may not record much area, I don't think it could be taken into the gate.

Sorry but only these. Others are repeated shots. Most time was spent on trying to find more planes and more views but ended up with finding no more. I have to leave for other affair before taking more. I have some important job this week and I can try to come to take more photos after finishing that.

Some from left side. The white one is another one at the gate of cave hangar. Also behind the fence and I have no more views. In fact the fence can be set nearer to the gate and the side view would be available. Do you believe these are all view I can get from an aircraft on exhibition? I would give some "fiery suggestions" if I find their suggestion box.

Those planes are surrounded by fence and only thing you can touch is the pitot tube (although will be stopped by patrols) and climb into cockpit is sure to be forbidden. I have only some photos to show the fins of J-8II today because I have other arrangement and only limited time for the main target. And @LowRider88 here are the fins. The trailing edge can be seen sweeping forward even from a right front view.

They have J-6III here and maybe J-5A but I didn't see one. Those cockpits unreachable, however. They also have a cave style exhibition hangar but closed now since nCoV age. Some foreign made planes were there last time I went there years ago, got as present, captured, destroyed or other way.

Sorry I'm in Beijing and I mean the museum in 小汤山.

Today I have checked all J-8II I can find (5 or 6 in total) in China Aviation Museum. Sadly due to their bad route and fence design I can't reach to any side view, and the PP prototype is not on exhibition at present , maybe in their hangar. However I'm sure to say now that the trailing edge of the fin is very slightly sweeping forward, maybe 10 deg or less. I would post some photos later. As for the bottom edge I can't confirm because the fin is folded with gears down and has to be checked from right side and closer to the tail, which I can't reach. But I think with all the photos online we have no doubt about the bottom edge.

I haven't used the 802AKG for a long time and find the ground texture lost in wide view when the control was carried out from about 70 nmiles away. While when from 10 nmiles away the texture is loaded. I remembered earlier the terrain texture was normally loaded in its full range, but now it's distance-dependent and just buildings on evenly gray ground from long distance. Could anyone confirm whether it's a new problem or not so new?

Not AUTO only. Click the OSB LSR for manual lasing and RCTRL+O is not used now.

In fact, python 3/PL-8 may be the second heaviest AA missile (120 kg) used by MiG-21 analogues, even heavier than R-73(about 105 kg) and only lighter than R-77 used in India. While the sidewinder weighs a bit more than 80 kg iirc, and the early version lighter (J-7 uses PL-2 and PL-5 before PL-8, which can be traced back to AIM-9B/D respectively). The difference of weight is even smaller between python 3 and AIM-120 than between python 3 and sidewinder. The main problem on J-7 is that PL-8 uses full length launch rail instead of drop pylon, and its weight causes too much impulse and recoil in launch. The launching disturbance, rocket gas and mass change cause the nose up and wing rise on the launched side. If you level off right away the smoke will choke the engine. This problem also happened when launching PL-2, but extremely severe with PL-8, sometimes causing over 40 deg roll. So 120 kg additional weight was added in the nose to balance the missile and strengthened wing frame before the double delta wing was introduced, and the normal operation is pull up and steer with the disturbance of launch, and level off after moving away from the smoke.

If so, you need to trade your pylons for SD-10 to carry it. PL-8 is too large and too heavy for normal IR missile points. When used on J-7, its weight caused severe stability problem after launch. The tip pylon of JF could be traced back to F-5F and only for sidewinder or its analogue before PL-10. On JH-7 with same tip pylons, you will find it carries both PL-5 and PL-8 simultaneously, only because the tip pylon can only carry PL-5. Instead, I would imagine a PL-9. It's basically a python 3 made into an obese sidewinder shape to bypass the export limitation. Although still heavier than exact sidewinder, it seems more possible and practicable.