Awger

A modicum of success.. I can get two pair on final with .5-.7 mile (10-15sec) separation and landed safely... any closer than that and there will be a collision somewhere on the runway (usually when one of the lead element stops short... yo dude, there's another 1,000 feet of runway out there, no need to torch the brakes). Straight-in approach from 10 miles that puts them 180kn at 2,000ft 3 miles from threshold. But... even setting them at the correct speed and alt they do this odd clearing turn at about 5 miles.. to dump speed and alt? even if they don't need to. I've also been able to get two pair to land on top of each other. Not sure how I managed that, but somehow, if you get two pair close enough, they stop caring about each other and go straight for the runway. If two pair are on approach farther apart than some distance approaching .75 mile the second element will stay on approach until its time to drop gear and then power up and go around. Minimum distamce outside of .5 mile is around 4 miles, which gives the first pair time enough to touch down before the second pair hits the gear drop distance. Seems like the only way to get a consistent pattern is to send one pair at a time with 4 mile separation.

I'm working on some F-86 missions, trying to understand the "motivations" of the AI, and I'm having a problem setting up a reasonable and consistent landing scheme. In order to isolate the problem (?) I've setup a client that's just sitting on the ramp so I can watch the AI do its thing. I have two groups of two F-86s takeoff / form up / ingress / attack / egress all working reasonably well (although I don't understand why the AI insists on doing 4G turns in the pattern, overshooting the heading to the next waypoint by 20deg, and then snaking to correct), but I'm stumped on how to setup a "proper" approach and sequencing for landing. I've gotten things to work once or twice, but it's very inconsistent. What I'm looking for is some general guidance on how to setup the waypoints so that two groups of two units will properly sequence for an approach and landing. Info like: minimum distance (time?) between groups allowable formations (echelon? trail?) target altitude / airspeed for waypoint prior to landing waypoint best position for waypoint prior to landing waypoint differences in AI behavior at different skill levels I've noticed that at Veteran/Ace a 2-ship will do a formation landing, but at Trained they just refuse -- forcing #2 to go-around and wait for #1 to touch down before starting his approach. Only once have I gotten both groups to do a formation landing with about 1nm separation ... re-ran the mission a second time and AI did something different. Any suggestions on what to tweak are appreciated. BombingTest3.miz

If you're asking the question I'll assume that you're relatively new to DCS' replay system (like me) and you're interested in replaying flights to learn something. Short answer: SP replays are almost entirely useless. They will de-sync in only a few minutes (if not seconds) and the replay won't look anything like what you recorded. If you want usefull replays, setup a local dedicated server, connect to that, and use the MP replays. Also, get TacView . It has all of the replay controls you would expect (and then some).

It's actually fairly common... for sim instruments, at least, For example: a "real" altimeter has needles that are geared together, but most sim altimeters have separate drives for each needle (so that you don't have to wind/unwind to re-sync .. heavy load on the gears and a PITA for ops/maint). We've done air-core, sin/cos, 400hz syncros, etc ... the electronics are all fairly similar, mostly a question of what the mechanicals look like. You're not far off with the watch analogy, think concentric brass tubes with press-fit gears that mesh wth gears on servos or whatever. Fairly straightforward. Just by way of example: if you have an "old" car with a "real" needle on the speedo, there's a fair chance it's driven by an air core.

Looks like an "early" variant? Construction (specifically the support brackets, #17 and #22) doesn't look like what's illustrated in the manual.

I have a Reverb G2 and 3080ti ... was good before, but even better with the latest OpenXR tweaks.

I just noticed that ED responded to this thread.. I'm hoping that's an indication of interest... and, considering that I'm only some random voice on the internet, I thought I'd flex just a little bit. This is sitting in the T-37 simulator (seats missing... long story... if you know where to get seats, PM me plz-ty) ... on the left is the tail of the FJ; center frame and behind the FJ is a MiG-15 trainer; in the background to the right is Randy Ball talking to the president of the museum next to the tail of Randy's MiG-17. I've been messing around with simulators (military, commercial, and homebuilt) for the better part of 30 years, and I've always wanted to build my own F-86 pit. Never got around to it, but Mugga got me thinking about it again...

Been away from DCS for a long while, decided to jump back in... just saw your reply. There's a museum in TX that has an FJ under restoration, plus a bunch of aircrew and mechanics that worked on these birds back in the day (aside: the guy in charge of the FJ restoration was crew chief on that specific bird when it was in service). I know the curator, and have done some work on their T-37 simulator, but I haven't had a chance to ask them about the MPC system. Need to remember to do that next time I'm down there. If you have any info on who actually manufactured the MPC, or any other aircraft it was used on (I'm guessing FJ but there may be others), that would help. Hopefully info on the MPC is easier to come by than docs on old Link pits... or why Bubi Hartmann's Knight's Cross (with diamonds) is hanging on a wall there (blink and you'll miss it).

I was just running a test of Tacview, but this was a near-perfect run. Entry speed closer to 400, initial dive angle more like 15 (increasing to 26 to keep pipper on target). Tacview-20220729-172754-DCS-Bombing Practice.zip.acmi

I've had the most success (albeit sporadic) with the following procedure: Radar range to MAX Gunsight CAGED Gun-Missile selector to GUNS (also seems to work with CAMERA & RADAR) Sight selector to BOMB Bomb release to AUTO Bomb sequence to ALL Bomb arming to NOSE & TAIL Approach target at 10K AGL / 300-350 IAS with an eye to setting up a 30-40 degree dive to target. I have not had good luck with 45-70 degree dive angles. Establish stable / level flight (if your whiskey compass is moving, wait for it to settle) Gunsight UNCAGED Maintain stable / level flight for 5-10 seconds PRESS AND HOLD electrical cage Throttle to idle Extend speedbrakes Roll in to target, establish dive, trim nose down Stabilize pipper on target (3-5 seconds) RELEASE electrical cage PRESS AND HOLD weapon release Maintain pipper on target until pipper blinks out The trick seems to be letting the gyros settle ... the speed and dive angles seem to be a more forgiving factor. That said -- I set up a training mission with unlimited bombs, and I can run this profile a dozen times "exactly the same way" and the bombs will drop roughly half the time. I just got Tacview, was hoping to get a better look at the numbers at the moment of release; will report back if I discover anything interesting.

I fly in VR (Reverb G2). Once in cockpit I scrunch down in my seat, look at the trim switch, and then reset head position (5 key on numpad). When I sit normally, view is just about right.

Scoobie -- you are correct, the bombing altimeter in the DCS F-86 is not implemented correctly. With reference to https://forums.eagle.ru/uploads/monthly_2021_01/f86_bomb_alt.PNG.513c915ba9b0f8b756808617b37f154a.PNG : The "black arm for setting index alt" (indicating 6K) and the white arm indicating release alt (pointing at ~ 19K ft) are connected to each other (most likely not a single piece, see below) The arc ("set index alt here"), bumper, target alt pointer, and black outer ring (with labels "INDEX ALT 1000's" and "TARGET ALT") are all connected and move as one piece when the "ring-turning knob" is rotated This image reflects settings for a target alt of 12K ft with an index alt of 6K for dive entry of 10K above target (22K), use 80 deg dive angle (1st card) for dive entry of 15K above target (27K), use 70 deg dive angle (2nd card) for dive entry of 20K above target (32K), use 65 deg dive angle (3rd card) When the bombing altimeter is "zeroed" (target alt at sea level, index alt of zero) it looks like this: http://aviadejavu.ru/Images6/AE/AE72-4/199-1.jpg . Note that the "index arc" is rotated into the upper-right quadrant and the target-alt needle is not visible because it is covered by the release alt needle. The "index alt" from the MPC unit indicates a nominal release altitude above target altitude which is pre-calculated based on aircraft performance and safety margin (bottom of dive 2,500ft above target, 5G pull-out). Rotating the knob on the MPC adjusts depression of aiming pipper in gunsight (pre-calculated in mils) based on dive entry alt, speed, and dive angle. For reference: Altitude loss for a 60deg dive from 10K / .95M is 4700ft for 6G and 7300ft for 4G. For a 90deg dive, 6G nets an 8600ft loss and 4G gets you a dirt nap. Note that altitude loss referenced is for dive recovery initiated at 10K while maintaining .95M, not for a dive initiated from 10K, and not accounting for acceleration or deceleration. The black and white needles (index alt and release alt, respectively) are most likely seperate pieces geared together so as to increase the indicated release alt (relative to the selected index alt) as target alt is increased. Given that all altitudes referenced are pressure alt, all airspeeds are indicated, and altitude loss from a dive in a constant-G pull-up increases with altitude, it makes sense that these needles would have to diverge with increasing altitude. In any event there is something more to it than a simple "target alt + index alt = release alt" as the indicated release alt in your pic is +1K from the simple calculation, suggesting some additional fu (both mathematical and mechanical). Accuracy with this bombing method is entirely dependent on correct entry parameters. Altitude, entry speed, and dive angle can be reasonably controlled, but the exact point in space (where the dive is initiated) can only be grossly approximated based on slant-range to target, estimated by Mk1 eyeball. Over- or under-estimating the range will alter the dive angle necessary to put pipper on target, throwing the other settings out of whack. Fixing the bombing altimeter may appear to be a simple matter of adjusting some graphics, but I think it's just slightly more complicated than that (heh), so I seriously doubt that ED would make the effort.