Smokin Hole

What to do? What to do? All three of my G940s failed. The last just recently. In fact I gave away the stick and throttle new-in-box to a friend just recently who is more skilled than me at keeping these things going. I’ve gone through two Saitek Pro Peddals in three years. My cheap Thrustmaster T-Flight peddals were trash within a month as were TM’s replacement. My ancient CH HOTAS gave her last in December. I now have a very expensive set of pedals shipping from Europe soon. But still no stick or throttle. Should I roll the dice as I have so often regretted? What to do? What to do?

If you are disappointed in the low IAS in forward flight, enter a sustained steep-ish turn. Notice that you will have gained 10+ KPH with the same collective setting. I don't know what Mr. Newton would say about that.

I meant a REAL 109. I agree that the virtual one is nice. But it suffers in certain regimes of the envelope where AOA is high and asymmetrical.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=197482&page=33 My take. Basically: As a test bed to improve how the sim handles flight on the edges of the envelope, this could be a good thing. I have flown the Eagle and it is a nice airplane. It is stable and comfortable, but also heavy. Which is why it will never be a Pitts!:D

As the owner of a Pitts S1S and a regular aerobatic competitor, I wish you well with the Eagle. It is a nice machine. Nothing like a Pitts of course, but nice!:D Aerobatics is my passion. Flight sims are a hobby. I have found that attempting to mix the two to be a big fat failure. Flight sims, and DCS in particular, do an amazing job mimicking flight smack in the middle of the envelope where 99% of pilots spend 100% of their time but they do a horrible job of modeling flight in the nether regions, areas of stalled and reversed airflow. Most of competition aerobatics is spent here. As a test bed to improve this situation, I see the Eagle as an excellent choice. I am certain that I am not the only DCS user who has actually flown it. It's commonality makes real world comparisons easy to get. The risk is that it will only serve to highlight how weak DCS can be. No one here flies a Bf109 so any doubt can be explained away. That luxury will not exist for the Eagle.

@DocWilly, I doubt I made myself clear but you mistated my description of the issue somewhat. I will make a short video when I get home in a few days. Its pretty simple really. Lift into a hover hands-off to prove that the cyclic is centered. Sure, it might roll a touch but thats not the point. You’re only in hover for a few seconds. Land and force trip full left or right and lift into a hover again. Note lack of change.

The most flagrant example of this is to do the following--very simple--test in 2.1: With gyros and A/P channels off lift off into a hands off hover. Notice, as expected, the lack of roll. Settle back down and move the cyclic fully to the left and hit the force trim. Take your hand off the cyclic and lift off into a hover again. Same lack of roll, right? In fact, nothing changed. The cyclic had repositioned. The cntl-enter indicator repositioned. But the helicopter acted as if nothing happened. Put the skids down again and do the same test to the right with the same results. (Fore and aft cyclic behave more correctly.) [EDIT] I believe that this is a known issue. I feel pretty confident that Polychop will get the Gazelle into shape in the next month or two.

I’m sure that’s helpful. I just hasn’t been my experience (in NTTR). But it looks like players are very satisfied with the update and its good to see the development support continue. Perhaps I am just too sensitive. There’s a point where one must accept or move on.

Even without the hard data. (I am a pilot, not a coder and obviously not an engineer), much of the difficult math you have already done to get the helicopter into a hover with a plausible power setting. More math and tables were needed to accelerate to speed with a given amount of weight and drag. There isn’t much hard stuff left to do in a steady-state turn. You’ve lost an easily calculated amount if vertical lift component and must compensate with enough power to cover the diference. The Army’s numbers seem right. In my example we were using 90% power to hold 200 kph leaving us 10% in reserve to climb. The Army percentages are the amount of that ten percent that is eaten by the bank angle (or load factor).

Thanks Borchi!

I love this little helicopter. But not in its current form. I have lots of what I perceive to be errors, particularly it's continued lack of stability and predictability (reply, "Helicopters are supposed to be unstable!" if you wish). But an error that I am pretty confident with is the Gazelle's amazing performance in a sustained steep turn. Do this: Start up in the desert at a moderately high altitude spot. Arm with enough HOTs and fuel to be at max takeoff weight. Lift into a hover and note power required. Now gently accelerate forward to whatever speed that roughly 90% collective (bottom of yellow torque) will hold; probably something around 200 kph. Now roll into a turn either direction with at least 45 degrees of bank. Apply a little bottom rudder to keep the nose down (yes, I am aware that this is not proper technique). Try to concentrate on a constant altitude but don't change the collective. Note after a sustained turn of several rotations that you are maintaining 200 kph with the same power setting. In fact I GAIN about 5 - 10 kph. I won't do the math here but basic trigonometry says that the lift vector (the hypotenuse) will need to be much longer in order to maintain altitude (VCL). And this goes without even getting into sources of added drag like my bottom rudder.

The Gazelle was the first helicopter in the world to be certified for single-pilot IFR. Many of the world's armies either bought it as a trainer or converted it for training use later. It is stable and forgiving. The DCS version is unforgiving and unpredictable. And this isn't because it is small. Compared to helicopters I have flown, it is huge. But they were far more predictable. Some of this can be attributed to the cheap sticks most of us use. But that limitation has been overcome in other modules and other sims.

I flew a little time yesterday and was mostly happy with the improvements. Today, however, I spent hour upon frustrating hour with it trying to get a consistent focus on what it was that continues to bother me. It is easier now. But it still feels odd. The requirement to apply a counter input after an input is still there. This alone doesn't make flying it very hard but it does require concentration. I find that at max gross weights that the same power setting that is needed for level flight at a steady 200 kph will also work in a 45 degree bank, level, at a steady 200. Given the loss of vertical component of lift, this seems miraculous. Also (in 1.5.7) I found that the force trim would sometimes work, sometimes not and other times displace the cyclic in a direction exactly opposite the displacement from the previously trimmed position. Blip trim also (sometimes) displaces the cyclic opposite the direction of trim. Can someone explain how autohover works with "PA" annunciated and all channels off? I want to love this little machine. It is a nimble little sniper with great potential. But it needs attention beyond the nips and tucks that occasional changes are capable of providing.

It's unplayable for me in VR. And that's with a fairly top of the line PC build earlier this year and with everything on LOW. Must be an issue with 2.1. And I should say that I just bought the F-5 and did not try this campaign when it came out for an earlier version of NTTR. So as said above, probably just due mostly to the current (Oct 2017) version of DCS.

Singleplayer/Multiplayer Mission to Practice Carrier Ops and More. I wanted to make a simple mission so that friends could practice carrier operations and tankering with the improved Su33. Then I added an Mi-8 as another platform from which to watch the action. Then it grew a bit to the following mission. You can have fun flying it alone or host it as a co-op. Takes up to 11 clients. The boats start about 11 KM NW of Batumi steaming north. If you just want to practice traps and refueling, you will not be harassed by the enemy flights. SITUATION Dusk carrier and refueling ops. 5 Su33 slots at Batumi (Hot start on ramp, 50% fuel): WPT 1 = Carrier, WPT 2 = Tanker. 4 Su33 slots on the Kruznetzov (at launch, 40% fuel): WPT 1 = Tanker. 1 Mi8 slot on the Kruznetzov: (Hot start near bow. ENSURE NO LANDING TRAFFIC.) 1 Mi8 slot at Batumi (Cold Start). RED TASK Two adversary flights of F-15s and A-10s will launch from Sukhumi and patrol west. Once they are down two more will launch (F-16s and A-10s). A few enemy vehicles are on the main road NW of Gali (Red Bullseye). Mi8s can find cargo for the boats at Batumi (middle ramp). Ammo -> Pyotr Velikiy Container -> Neustrahimy Bombs -> Admiral Kruznetzov Su33 Carrier Ops v3b.miz

...

I think only the first thing is a bug and it is known.

My guess is that in the actual plane, the feature functions more like a gentle return nudge on the stick. But if the pilot doesn't let the stick move in response, he remains perfectly in control. But non-FFB joysticks don't do this, thus the PITA. I feel the same way about the autopilot in the ka50. At least there I have the option of not using it.

I know, I know. Suck up threads like this are annoying. But HEY! I've been told that I can be annoying. So let me add to what I am sure is a considerable level of appreciation for this amazing update to an old favorite. The Su27 became such a joy to fly after it's PFM update. This might be even more true of the Su33. I've been doing traps for hours in different lighting and visibility conditions and just can't wipe the smile off my face! After all the hiccups that came with FC2 and FC3 these free PFM updates have paid me back tenfold. What is getting less attention is the greatly improved friction model on not just the Kruz but the boats with helicopter capability as well. (Possibly this is placebo and an indication of my general happiness with this update :D).

Trimming with the refueling autopilot doesn't help and is probably a bad idea. The trim will bite once the autopilot turns off. I imagine that in the real airplane this feature is just a small force on the stick that is easily ignored by the pilot.

I have asked the question in two other threads with no reply. Best guess answer: No. (I agree that it is very unhelpful)

Is the autopilot mandatory for AAR? I works ok but I don't believe it makes refueling easier, especially when the tanker enters/exits a turn. I'd rather use the Force :D However, none of the autopilot keys seem to disable it. The reason I know that it is much easier without the autopilot is that control-r provides about to minutes of autopilot-free flying while the lines pressurize. It is pretty easy to catch and stay in the basket until the probe retracts.

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere but I couldn't find the right keywords in search: Is the autoflight assist for air refueling mandatory with the upcoming improved Su33?

Thanks. I was attempting with the manual updater without success. I then closed the Oculus app and it finally worked. Like most things PC, I have no idea why.

I haven't had an update in quite some time. 1.5.7. I ran the updater and it just launched the game. Maybe ED is spreading the update over users over time.