Weta43

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.

It's possible (& this is just speculation on my part) that there are restrictions on the launch parameters* to ensure that smoke isn't ingested & the same parameters might limit the usefulness of A2A missiles. ( * Like a minimum launch speed ? - Even in situations where there seems to be confidence that there aren't manpads or heavy weapons the helicopter rocket runs I've seen are always carried out with a reasonably high forward airspeed. Remember that the S-24 was taken out of service with the Su-25 because it was causing flame-outs on the engines - but E.D. didn't model that particular 'feature'.)

Funny - in all the time I've been on the forum I don't think I've ever heard that mentioned as a reason why it couldn't be carried, only that the aircraft was never made capable of carrying it. Do you know who said it ? E.D. or a forum poster ? (know of a link ?)

"so many says that KA-50 can't launch the R-73 as its smoke would cause the engine to stop" Where did you read that ?

Yes, but I'm in NZ, so it would work for me :-) Bit OT, but did you see how the A-4K ended up equipped ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Kahu

Add A-4 with that ability to the carrier ?

If you use the search, & look a couple of years ago, there were images posted of ground radar images generated from DCS.

WRT the auto-hover. From memory (years since I read it), the manual says don't engage the auto-hover at more than 20km/h. I'm pretty sure the recommended procedure is to get as close to (in) a stable hover as possible, then engage the auto hover. Once you get below 20km/h or so the a line will appear on the HUD showing your speed and direction. Use that to get corrections before hitting auto-hover. If you always have to put left rudder in, check your controls to make sure everything's centred. Simple test - If it's wind, and heading North you need left rudder to correct, you should need right rudder if you turn to head South. If you still need left rudder - it's your controls. Also remember - if you're flying N at 40 km/h with a 30 km/h crosswind from the E, the aircraft will naturally want to point at 37 degrees East of North, & to align North you'll have to counter an apparent wind of 50 km/h from 37 degrees If you go into a hover, the aircraft will just want to point East.

What they listed are fixes to "how clouds work in the game". I assume you mean the ME GUI ? (as all the defects with the current clouds are specifically addressed except clouds 'rotating'), surely even a little thought before jumping to (forecasting) complaining would make it obvious that in order to have multiple cloud layers, types and localised precipitation, they're going to have to work on the weather interface. Some specific suggestions regarding what you'd like to see would be a better idea than a general gripe of "I'm sure they'll get it wrong:..