Weta43

Yes, I think the turbulence is calculated independent from - but cumulatively with - the wind - which I'd set to zero at all altitudes because I wanted to isolate it from the effect of wind / wind shear. If I have time tonight I'll add 5.6m/s wind at altitudes and see if turbulence appears at higher altitudes.

There is the ability to have dynamic weather in DCS - it's just not easy to find or use. It does make dynamic weather though...

Apparently it is.

Then why do we need to have the same discussion again ? For obvious reasons (most pilots couldn't guarantee that they would get the same aircraft, ground crew didn't have loads of time on their hands to spend hours doing harmonisation at the whim of pilots), custom harmonisation wasn't common practice. Yes, it happened - no one said it didn't. Was it common - all the evidence is NO If it was uncommon, is it more realistic to give it to everyone or no-one ? Obviously, to not give it to everyone. End of discussion... Masalama suggested having to earn it - most realistic suggestion yet.

Again ? Really ? Before we get another 10 pages of rehash, perhaps people might like to read a nice 9 pages from 2017 to whet your appetite: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=180672 & I'll save people a search and link just a few more that just scratch the surface: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242629 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192366 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183475 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141609 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145990 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=95689 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=106711 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=102702 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=88108 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=145990

When I was flying the mission I left above, I did think that while the aircraft was definitely getting thrown around & needed correcting, it was less violent than I remembered, but the gauges shoed the aircraft being knocked around....

Really ? Think about how it would actually play out when you launched a mission. For example, how do you make use of a mission that simulates flying to a hard ceiling at the cloud layer, when after you launch it you discover that there's no cloud. Other than cool factor, I don't see what it actually adds to the simulation experience.

Real Time weather is a nice feature for a GA SIM, but it would be a lot of effort for something of little use in a combat SIM. Particularly WRT ground pounding / choppers, there's no point in firing up a mission (SP or MP) only to discover that the area has 10/10 cloud cover, and it's sitting on the ground. A2A maybe less of a problem, but if you're 10km does it make any difference what the weather on the ground is ? I think it would be more useful to vastly[/] improve the available features and GUI for weather creation & randomisation within defined parameters, so users can make weather (cloud cover, precipitation, wind & turbulence) a more intrinsic part of mission creation.

Either this, or nothing. IRL only the 'Stars' got to personalise their convergence. Maybe everybody thinks they should be a star, but if everyone's a star, no-one's a star. No personalisation is more realistic than everyone gets personalisation. If it's included, it should - like in real life - be for those that show they've earned it.

I think each aircraft has a look up table of how much 'heat' it gives off from various angles, altitudes (?), and with or without the afterburners on. Missile seekers have their own calcs to determine whether or not that would be detectable at a particular distance. At the time the SIM was coded it was probably considered a waste of time to do a lookup for engines off on the ground, so it probably uses 'low and slow', and so is detectable.

I think I know what you're after, but remember gusts on the ground are turbulence in the air... Turbulence is just where airflow is non-laminar - some parts of the air are moving in a different direction, and with a different velocity, to the average flow. If a body of air with nonlaminar flow occurring moves past you - you'll feel gusts (puffs, zephyrs, whatever). Gusts = turbulence like tomayto = tomahto. The general approach of using gusts to model turbulence is common and has specifications set by the USDoD & the FAA. (& I just discovered MATLAB provide specs to replicate the most common approaches : Dryden model & Von Karman model). This is roughly the approach we have now. Turbulence as a distribution of changes in air velocity. The movement of the air is uneven, and the unevenness causes perturbations of the aircraft's flight - which is turbulence. I assume DCS doesn't explicitly use either of the models mentioned above, as both provide fields that vary spatially, but don't vary with time - which wouldn't give the gusts in the video. My guess is that there's a sampled temporal distribution of variance imposed across all space (so gusts vary with time, but not across space), but I've never tested for that. What you appear to be asking for is 'white noise' movement. Flaming Cliffs and earlier used to model turbulence like I think you're asking for. Essentially it just added random shaking to the aircraft that was altitude dependant, and you could dial up or down the magnitude of the shaking. With respect to flying the aircraft that white noise was essentially irrelevant. because it was randomised if you just held the stick in one place rigidly, the aircraft would move around a course by some amount, but on average take the course. If you got set up for landing, you could feel it, but you could ignore it. I'm not a pilot, but I have flown a light plane over the mountains of the Southern Alps on a day with light winds & felt that turbulence, I've flown a glider a few times over ridges and thermals, and I live in windy Wellington (& for comparison, Chicago - 'the windy city' has an average windspeed of 18km/h, Wellington's average is 29 km/h. Wellington has recorded 233 days of gale in a single year). I fly as a passenger in a Cessna Caravan reasonably regularly & larger planes quite frequently, so I get to experience turbulent landings & take-offs fairly frequently. I think DCS does a reasonable job using the gust approach - it's definitely an improvement on the white noise they had. Perhaps they could up the amount of short time period gusts to get a bit of 'rattling', but it's all CPU cycles, and what we have now gives you something you have to take account of - which is the more useful part for all of us that don't have but-kickers... Fly the attached (land at Batumi), and as you go watch the triangle under the IAS on the HUD flicking between left (decelerate), middle (constant speed), and right (gaining speed). You can't feel it, but that would be a bumpy ride. Turbulence.miz

Thanks for copying the text from the scan. Interesting about the S-13 on the inner pylons, & Chizh's comment that gas-dynamic stability may be modelled.

Not sure if this is OT, but it speaks to the question. "If you place a carrier just outside the map grid, would this cause any issues or bugs e.g. Nav points, tacan, false bearing readings etc?" I just flew on the PG map from Shiraz in Iran to Tbilisi (actually Gamarjaveba 1) in Georgia. The moving map had me on the airport, the co-ordinates reported in F2, and me 6km East of the tarmac. On the PG map, there's nothing but sand in Georgia, but everything in the DCS.world worked fine.

yes, that is wake turbulence. great feature. not what i meant though. and i assume that is also not what the original post was about. __________________ It's not (though the OP wasn't specific). My reason for showing video is that there are no particle videos of the normal turbulence ... but I did remember this, where you can see the effect of the gusting wind on the lift produced by the rotor blades, which is, in essence, what the OP was asking for evidence of. hVSq-HL2-es or 2RT8OVLF14k Turbulence is there - you just have to turn it on.

Given how many hours some people put in, and how easy it is to get kills, maybe make it you have to maintain some kill : death ratio ?

maybe… If you're hunting insurgents in narrow winding mountains valleys the Ka-50 @ 100 km/h probably makes a better platform to search and destroy hideouts than fast movers. If that's what you're doing, then a Kh-25ML will deliver a warhead that is ten times the size of a vihkr warhead, and is designed to penetrate bunkers not tank armour. Horses for courses.

The fact that you can launch VAST amounts of S-8 in the game and have no issues doesn't mean it's possible in real life. To my non-Cyrillic reading eye, S.E.Bulba's doc appears to say in the real world S-8 rockets shouldn't be launched with less than 100 km/h forward speed, but that's not how it works I the sim at the moment. Adding flameout from gas ingestion / turbulence would be a nice addition to engine modelling in Black Shark III :)

As long as you put it on water, it will be fine. you can go into the mission file & edit the spawn point to anywhere, and / or give yourself unlimited fuel & fly anywhere, and the world still works consistently - though it gets pretty boring in the hinterland.

Thanks

Twistking - See from 0:50 82Q3kd4v3bw You just have to turn the turbulence on.

LoL :) What you're interested in is all that counts eh ? E.D. must wish they'd seen that pearl of wisdom before they wasted their time on coding the F-16 & F/A-18C TWS...

But it's not saying you couldn't launch an R-73, only that you couldn't launch one from a hover (or less than 100km/h forward speed), or - put differently, you could only launch it at targets in front of you while you were maintaining more than 100km/h forward speed - which makes it pretty useless. The S-24 is on that list of available weapons, and that's the one the Su-25 had issues with, while the Su-25 has no such issues with the Kh-25. Presumably if it can launch the S-24, it can launch the Kh-25ML. What we probably shouldn't be able to do is launch any rockets / missiles except the Vihkr ( & Igla when it turns up) from a hover...

"And if you want to turn it off quickly, you can ..." ...depress the trimmer button on your stick. Pressing the trimmer immediately disables alt, yaw & pitch AP channels and only leaves the stability augmentation. & you don't have to let go of the stick.

freeform and complex polygons would be tricky, triangles & non-parallelogram rectangles would be simple though. Define two points and orient them both towards a 3rd point. Give each a number of degrees + / - from their orientation, and the zone is where the object is where those overlap (which will be somewhere between a triangle and nearly a square - anyway the calc is simple - and(object bearing from point a between x degrees and y degrees, object bearing from point b between v degrees and w degrees) If both are true, it's in the zone, if one or none are, it's not

It was definitely smoke ingestion for the Su-25 - now I think there's something where they fire the igniters (?) for some period of time after launch, and the plane is rated for the weapon again. Turbulence could be the issue for the Ka-50 though.