Bucic

Am I right that there's no proper website for end-product specifications? I don't think it's a good idea to give specs... of a box. What are: maximum Peak torque maximum Continuous torque stick deflection range power draw at maximum continuous torque for the VPForce Motor Kit (86BLF04)?

You mean duck it? https://duckduckgo.com/?q=F-5E+blueprint&t=ffab&iar=images&iaf=size%3ALarge&iax=images&ia=images https://duckduckgo.com/?q=F-5E+blueprint&t=ffab&iar=images&iaf=size%3ALarge&iax=images&ia=images&iai=https%3A%2F%2Fdesigner.home.xs4all.nl%2Fmodels%2Fnf-5%2Fnf-5-cuttaway.jpg

I was just about to post a bug report on shimmering in F-5E remastered (4th Dec 2024 patch) cockpit but this may be just shimmering with MSAA in general, it's just that it's much more visible in cockpit. I don't use sharpening and I only use nvcpl defaults as far as AA goes, plus maybe custom Negative LOD bias.

edited

Could you please link the bug report sonthat there's a good reference? I know that bug report, just don't have the link handy.

You can overlay those two. I highly recommend using two separate layers in Inkscape for that, third for your scribbles and lines. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/02/48/e4024895adce3ecc82206d15cc4fab1e.png https://www.warbirdregistry.org/jetregistry/images/f5_3View.jpg Freaking Pinterest cancer...

I'd say we are pretty sure of the opposite

Noted! Tacview authors themselves documented its limitations. And it was the very first time I actually used it so, have faith I have more experience with racing telemetry in motec i2 pro.

@IvanK Exactly. So you saw an example of me cancelling the error by inducing the same error mechanism to the other side.

@IvanK I'm not sure which video/track you watched but the most recent ones focused on 15+ deg bank turns. Also, please make sure you're not noting as the final error the value after an opposite "corrective" turn that in one of my tracks/videos cancelled out the previous error (from the opposite turn). I also noted in my report that trigger values for auto levelling may be exactly what's at play here. All in all In have delivered tracks with 5-7 degree error after deep turns or aerobatics in the most recent DCS build.

I was reeeaally hoping for the new landing gear physics on release day, since the 5 is poised to get it anyway and since that requires integration with the actual model animations. Anyway, here's for some impressions along the way while doing a regular MP mission.

Doh, I simply reached for the main menu with charta and haven't found any with "G" in the name I'll look into it tomorrow. I don't have an agenda - is/isn't the structural limit too low. For me it isn't. It's just the penalty is over the top. The G onset is fishy though. I have one video with G rising from 1 to 10 in something like 0.2 seconds!

That's contrary to what I have reported recently (track included) https://forum.dcs.world/topic/259460-rapid-drift-of-attitude-indicator/page/3/#findComment-5563920

@Schmidtfire 1. I don't wanna be the jolly optimist but I don't think it's the end of the paid update scop3, even on top of the already confirmed vortices and additional skins. That said no new radar visuals (at least) on release, that bit alone, fared badly on the prospective reception by the fan base. 2. Even to me as a Pole discussing a pizza-worth cost of such an optional cosmetic update seems off.

You just have to be in the right coalition/country. Black MiG-28, Austrian, USAF standard grey, 2 aggressor skins, Norwegian, they were all available when I checked yesterday.

But in the slow portion the G changed from 1.5 to 3.0 with no change in AoA. It can bee seen on one of the TacView video recordings. Check out the edited post.

OK, I managed to snap the wings at 5G and... 1.5 deg AoA (TacView). The snap was preceeded by 2 high G pitch commands. Track, video as well as a TacView recording coming along. It turns out I bought TacView Advanced on sale 9 years ago Is there a way to do a custom plot of G vs AoA in TacView? On limitations of TacView https://tacview.fandom.com/wiki/Formulas#G-forces You can bookmark this OneDrive link, today's session uploaded: https://1drv.ms/f/c/66cf2646234394fc/Eq2pxziu5-9MrFLEnhqFCHUB9arWL83TFma8zE0adhUEjw?e=WqYEVj

Oof, that's were we'd need https://m.youtube.com/@Bullet4MyEnemy/videos I'll ask for some info. Seeing how much overlimit conditions it took to break the wings during my flights the wings would never break with my flying. On my end I'm going to expand into: 1. Abrupt pitch up preceded with slight abrupt pitch downs 2. RAW roll input with no curvature and no saturation. BTW, mark my words, deadzone settings people are using are going to be a factor in this bug

Did 2 trials with 80% fuel 2 x AIM-9P center tank 150 IAS 450-500 Xbox controller RAW pitch axis (no curvature, no saturation) - so I'm guaranteed to give a faster input than any joystick rider. Roll axis still with some 15% curvature and 88% saturation. I wanted to isolate the roll a bit at first. Results: Some 10 attempts with sharp full pitch input coupled with roll, sometimes with yaw, with no wing snaps. You can witness multiple 9+G onsets attained in 0.5s or maybe even faster. What I did avoid conciously was preceeding the positive incursions with negative ones. Also, at one point after several "unsuccessful" attempts I immediately got a wing snap... when I use an rudder input opposite to the turn. You can also see I attempted abrupt pitch commands having it set up with preceeding rudder kicks. attempt 01 attempt 02 Both tracks can be found here https://1drv.ms/f/c/66cf2646234394fc/Eq2pxziu5-9MrFLEnhqFCHUB9arWL83TFma8zE0adhUEjw?e=WqYEVj Additionally bug F-5E REM notbugtest elevator deflection rate mach 1.trk shows that the module has some limitations on surface deflection under aerodynamic load. Which is good. Puzzling to me is the clear discrepancy between up and down pitch. Pitch down (stick pushed) makes the surface deflect faster.

I don't even make liveries and even I know a new 3D mesh won't be compatible with old textures. And for good. They were made based on a poor resolution template. You can fly your old skins in Flaming Cliffs I suppose.

I could do that but first please consult the devs on the agreed loadout, OK? I may produce some track but to spend more time on it I'd need a starting point.

By clean slate I meant the bug reporting ground. Tracks recorded just one patch back may be trash, not to mention tracks prior to changes to wing code. As for the length of time the F-5E has been left in the pit, it's not up for debate it won't be the brightest bit in ED's history. And yet here we are. There are things to do. I didn't say it's correctly modelled now. My usual conduct is to try to feed a bug report showing glaring inaccuracy as opposed to arguable inaccuracy. I don't really care about PvP scene. PvP people are not husband material for the bride anyway. They tend to jump from flower to flower. Yes, I want it improved, I see the flaws (I was not aware of the mil doc you posted - I will read it through and through!) but at the same time I can see the wind of change... <melodic whistling> Especially with the human component modeling in the control systems chain. I consider it repeating the 6DOF cockpits history. It used to be community's wishful thinking, then it became a minimum standard. By the example of some other otherwise realistic sim, tens of thousands of man hour work go out the window by the mere fact they disregarded the flight controls limitations.

Yep. Check out your Settings - Special - F-5E. You probably have a Saved Games cockpit mod enabled there. That's why clean up doesn't touch it.

Let me rephrase my stance - the wings shouldn't snap as they do. At the same time I routinely fly at 8-9 G with rolling and stores. In my opinion recordings of glaringly premature snapping are needed to have it, freshly, acknowledged by ED for further work. Do I personally feel there's fire on ED's side to get to the bottom of it without waiting for tracks pouring in from users’ side. Probably not. At the same time let me remind you that it is exactly what led to the wingtip pylon fix - resilient delivery of track recordings with edge conditions.

Disregarding the limitations your premise for the real life cases is: pilots do the training and learn about the airframe structural limitations - pilots disregard the limitations and exceed them daily - nothing happens I'm also against the instasnap (as opposed to proper bending with horror audio) but disregarding the documented limitations is not the way to go.