ericinexile

Wasn't it modeled during the Beta phase? I ask because I remember a pre-release SimHQ review in which the reviewer was constantly doing fix updates to correct for what he considered to be a very inaccurate PVI-800.

Relax EB, I have no intent to hijack the forum or otherwise make myself unwelcome. Its your home to clean as you please I am just a guest with no rights other than to leave when I feel unwelcome. And I feel very welcome. I made my point which you understandably took to be blatant resistance to forum rules. It was not. Rather it is my recognition that the GD/Not GD distinction is arbitrary. This is why I still intend to post there when I am unclear as to where the thread belongs. In the two examples given, I think I've been clear that one doesn't always know. Topics, as in all things in life, rarely fit neatly into someone else's devisions. The "ALchemy" thread is still in the GD section even though it is obviously hardware related. It is still there because even Admins are not sure where it should be placed. AND I am glad it is as I would never have known to go to the Hardware subforum to learn about a problem I didn't know I had. (Well actually I learned about it a year ago but the point is the same). There is another thread in the GD section in which the poster complains about his GPU overheating with DCS. Again, obviously a Hardware issue ...but then again, maybe not. He doesn't know as he thinks it may be unique to DCS. But I digress. It's not like I am a spamming "thread starter" overwhelming the Admins. I doubt I have started more than a dozen threads since DCS was released. I just thought there was a freer way to do things that would provide the thread starter a better chance of getting numerous useful responses to his/her thread. I was apparently wrong. Carry on...

"So I was flying Multiplayer on the 3rd Sqdn server yesterday and suddenly my Trackir stopped working. This was REALLY bad timing because I was 20 minutes into the mission and almost at target. I logged off, reset my TrackIr, and tried to log back on but the TIR got stuck again. This never happens in single player missions. Another odd tidbit is that other players on Teamspeak also said that they've occasionally encountered this problem...BUT ONLY ON THAT SERVER..." Completely made up but where shoult that thread go????

Which I noted in my OP by saying: I get it. I'm am alone on this so I will shut up. I've always taken the General Discussion subforum as a poll of what subjects interest users. As an example there is currently a fairly active thread on Audigy (probably should be moved to Hardware). If you have an X-FI sound card you might never know of the existence of the software which corrects EAX sound issues with that card. Very helpful and precisely the reason the forum exists. Others don't see it that way so I will use the forum as the owners intend. Well almost. I will still continue to post on GD and let Admins decide where it belongs because most topics cannot not be pigeon-holed into a single subject. How does one decide where it belongs...

That's the post that "inspired" this thread. It was very informative to get people's opinion about their expectations. But now only a small population of forum users will ever know of the thread's existence. And that will kill the thread. For those who treat the the forum as an encyclopedia, the separation is useful. For instance, "How Do I Trim?". Search "Trim" and you will learn. But you still won't care what subforum the hits reside in. But I rarely use the forum that way. I want to know what others are talking about. What are they interested in? And separating popular threads simply because they touch an arbitrary subject area immediately cuts their popularity by 90%. It is arbitrary and stupid.

^^^^ About the R1 and R2 wheels. Since you seem very well-informed about the stick, do you know if the wild spikes with throttle movement are common or unique to my stick? I can't seem to get a reply from any users as to whether or not they also experience spiking. And if the spiking is common, is it driver correctable?

(Before I continue, may I recommend that this thread be moved to the Forum Administration Complaints Channel) I know this has been brought up before but thus far I haven't heard an answer that doesn't leave me more puzzled than I was before I asked. So I will ask again: Why take active threads and move them to the dozen little obscure subsections of the forum? I mean its not like this forum gets 10,000 posts a day. If it did then I could understand the need for heavy administration. But this forum is lucky to get 200 posts in a day and usually most of those posts are lumped into a single popular thread. So why not just let threads exist, thrive, or die on the General Discussion channel and users can use the search function to find particular topics of interest but still see what is most popular and pressing among other users. Moving an interesting thread almost always kills it because most people (me anyway) usually won't bother jumping over to continue the discussion. Look, I'm not asking for a change in the way moderators address inappropriate content--you guys do a fair job in that regard. And I know this isn't my forum and I know I have little if any right to make demands. I just ask that you consider the utility of such aggressive house cleaning.

I voted for the last option. But I want few IF ANY fighters in the mission. H2H and A2G don't mix well as the fighters have an obvious advantage and, unlike the real world, air supperiority will never be gained by either side due to respawns. That means that the strike planes will be easy pickings over the battlefield. I can count on one hand the number of successful Su25 strikes I have made on a high-occupancy online server. Yes, that says something about my NOE strike skills but also the futility of striking with fighters over the front. It's just not worth the planning knowing your chances are slim.

So far direct-to-modem is working fine but I'll continue to test.

Port Forwarding didn't correct the problem. Plugging directly to the cable modem DID correct it (so far, as of one day of testing). Looks like the Belkin was in fact the culprit. Thanks for all the suggestions!

I see your point about a second button even though many modern large helicopters use that same trim button logic to communicate pilot desires to the AFS. I like the idea just so people stop using the term "trim" when half the time they are really refering to autopilot updates. Unlike an airplane, a helicopter doesn't need trimming. Triming isn't for the helicopter, it's for the pilot--his fatigue level and and ability to fly with precision. But back to the thread and the question, "is the AP modeled correctly?" I fly with fighter guys, helo guys, and bomber guys all the time. They are more than willing to answer all my technical (non-classified) questions about their old jobs. Aren't there plenty of players on the Russian side of the forum in similar situations? This seems like such an easy question to answer even considering the rarity of the Ka50.

Thanks. My next step is port fowarding but haven't been home to test it.

AFS=Auto Flight System. A general term for the systems installed to make flight easier for the pilot, up to and including the autopilot. Same here. Its just easier with the autopilot off. Now why is that? Really think about that question. The autopilot is there to help me, right? And usually it does. I use Route mode and Autohover and Turn-on-Target all the time and would have died a thousand (more) deaths were it not for those features. But at other times during general maneuvering flight why is flying different with the FD on than it is with the FD off. That difference is obviously the AP right? Is that difference helping? Well if it is then why all the force trim inputs to either countermand the autopilot or to lock it into another mode? Let us say you are driving on a straight road and ask your wife to reach over and take the wheel while you open another beer, check the map, and fiddle with the GPS. Do you then constantly make steering inputs for her? Do you slap her hand (trim) every time you want to adjust your course then immediately have her take the wheel back? No right!? You either let her drive or you say, "I got it, thanks?" In other words, there was a point where she made driving easier. Then later, there was a point where her steering made driving harder for both of you and you took over completely with zero further input from her...other than perhaps, "We're lost AGAIN?" That's what the FD does in DCS. It is our way of saying, "thanks babe. You made my life a little easier for awhile. But flying isn't done by committee and its my turn for awhile." Again, I happen to think this is a "DCS thing", and that Kamov designed the AFS so that any cyclic input is registered as a pilot's desire to take full, unaltered control. Then, after a short time elapses and no more cyclic input is sensed, the autopilot resumes flying.

Frederf, You simply will not listen to evidence that counter your own convictions. In fact you don't even seem to fully trust your own experimentation. The evidence of AFS inputs counter to those desired by the pilot is there for you to witness in a 30 second flight: With flight director on, lift off to a stable hover, accelerate forward to 100 kps, turn 360 degrees, and decelerate back to a hover. Perform this little flight agressively--not as you would your 172 but as you would in a high powered killing machine. Now, do the same with the FD off. See the differece? If you do then to what do you attribute the difference? Stability? No, that's covered by the AFS dampening channels and is independent of the autopilot. Did you NEED to trim more with the FD off? Why? Finally (and ask yourself this honestly): Which mode was easier?

This notion that pilots of large helos trim every few seconds is nonsense. Pilots tap the force trim when they want the magnets to hold the stick in the new position because that new position is fairly close to where the plan on keeping the stick for awhile. Let's say we are in a stable hover (FD on, AP off) and the helo is trimmed. Now we want to translate left 10 feet. Nobody in that situation is going to apply a nudge of left stick and trim. Instead he is going to nudge left and let the helo coast to the new position, then nudge right to stop the movement. The helo is now in a stable and trimmed hover in the new location without ever touching the trim. The problem with FD Off (AP On) is that you MUST trim because otherwise the helicopter is going to apply cyclic counter to your desired sideward flight. THAT is what is so nonsensical (is that a word?) about the AP system as simulated in DCS. Where constant tapping of the trim occurs is during acceleration where the position of the stick is gradually moving farther forward and left (in the case of a Ka50 in forward flight). Without continuous trimming the pilot is slowly turning himself into a body-builder. But once the ship is stable, trimming stops and it shouldn't be needed if the pilot maneuvers with intent to return to the old, trimmed attitude and speed over a short time period. Constant blipping of the trim is the DCS pilot's way of telling the autopilot to "mind your own business". The other way is the Flight Director.

Hmmm. Thanks Boberro. I seem to get it during long flights enroute to a target area when not much is happening. That might also mean that I am no longer communicating to the server, but because there is nothing in the "world" with which to communicate, I don't notice. The last time it happened, I spent 10 minutes flying alone up a valley when another player zoomed by. I decided to fly to the top of a ridgeline to get a good view of any action he was about to attract. The very instant I popped flares at the top of the ridge, I was directed to the Client screen and given the "timeout" messege above. Maybe I should pop flares every 29 seconds so that the server knows I'm still around.

I've been getting this when I am on some, but not all, servers. First started happening around the time of the first DCS update and happens most often on 3rd Sqdn, and STP (Spare Time Pilots) servers. I'm sure the problem is on my end but if anyone else has encountered this or has a solution I'd really appreciate the help. Pings for servers I join are always less than 100. Thanks and regards, (Edit: I should add that I am connected by cable to a Belkin Router)

I may have missed a post but I don't think you and A16 are in disagreement. He is correct in stating that the force trim button is a common and logical way to communicate to the AFS the you wish to hold current attitude, speed, heading, or hover point depending on the situation. The question is, and you both agree on the question, does the real Ka-50 actually require the application of the force trim button to temporarily stop AP inputs? You both intuitively feel that it should not. And I happen to agree.

Well A16, we've had this discussion for two years now and it looks like we have come to an agreement. The most basic precept of autoflight logic is a bit like the Hippocratic Oath: "Above all else, Do No Harm." That means the autopilot should never get in the pilot's way. It is easy to design a system to recognize cyclic input and accept that input as something the pilot desires as opposed to something that needs correction...which is what DCS does within its 20% control authority. As a pilot, it is so counter-intuitive to me that normal procedure would be to fly with a system that is applying control inputs, no matter how light, counter to my own. Yes, I know of and have flown FBW and SAS, that's not what I am talking about here. The autopilot isn't stabilizing flight when it applies those inputs to maintain attitude or heading. Rather, it is saying one of two things, ONE, "I have no way of distinguishing pilot input from an outside disturbance", or TWO, "Pilot, I know you just told me you want to bank left but your last trim input locked me into this attitude or this heading and I am going to fight you to the limits of my authority!" Neither makes sense in a modern aircraft. What does make sense is an autoflight system that, once it senses cyclic movement, makes no input whatsoever until that input ceases (other than stability augmentation functions). Fortunately, for those of use who find those uncalled for inputs irritating, there is the FD which we choose to use, albeit incorrectly. Or you can fly with the autopilot equally well by learning to work around its limited authority. Both techniques work. Meantime, I'm with A16, my near-certain hunch is that the logic is not correctly inplemented. But until a Kamov engineer takes time out of his busy life to post on this forum, none of us will know for sure.

Some call that "sexy". Pretend she's warming you some tea, and giving you a foot massage, as she warns you of a "main hydraulic failure". Sure beats the jerk screaming, "Go Around! Windshear Ahead! WINDSHEAR AHEAD!!" on the plane I normally fly. Smokin' Hole

I can't link posts with my phone but I have another thread on the G940 and a post on my settings. Works great. Holds trim through it's entire speed range. You can manipulate buttons without affecting autohover. And it flys quite well. Positive curve in pitch and negative MANUAL curve in roll. Control curves have the most direct influence on stick position after trim is released. BTW, the Sensitivity setting in the Logitech Profiler is just a control curve with 50% being a straight line. Use the smallest deadzone you can possibly handle.

There is no question that AA affects cannon aiming when it is slaved to the Shkval. I don't know about Head-On because I have never used it. But certainly AA provides the only workable firing solution against a moving airborn target. Easy enough to test. Just place a fast moving UH-60 perpendicular to your path and watch where your shells fly with each setting.

I must say that while my orginal complaints stand, I do have the G940 setup to fly DCS extremely well and much better that my old Saitek or the trim-and-center method. This involves 25% sensitivity for X and Y in the Profiler. And in DCS: a 6% positive curve in pitch and a manual Negative user curve in roll that gradually takes the stick (after 10%) to 100% on the slider before the end. I know that makes no sense when you read it but if you play with the DCS "Axis Tune" it should be clear. Flys wonderfully! (The G940 still sucks!)

No, It's doing A LOT! Black Shark sounds much better with no need to open the door or switch views to kill that awful whine. Even better is LOMAC! No more afterburner sound in the pit of a cold airplane. Other fixes as well. It's brilliant. However, if you play IL2, I recommend not using Alchemy as it introduces some very wierd sounds that I wont begin to try to describe. Alchemy allows easy adjustment as to which programs get the fix and which don't. So it's easy to try and back out for each game.

Not a helpful answer but I recommend going clean, akin to getting a divorce and starting a new life. Hoding on to those old accomplishments and battles is like keeping a picture of your ex in your wallet. Perhaps more helpful is to offer one thing NOT to save and that is your joystick.LUA file. When your new Black Shark looks at that file it, for some reason, gets it all wrong, particularly axis settings. I've had to complete Windows reinstalls since purchasing BS and I've learned to start fresh and new. Don't forget to: 1)Deactivate 2)Recall and note config changes such as Natural Head Movement Off and "Old" Trimmer (if that's your preference). 3)If you made Sound changes such as Russian Almaz (Betty), be sure to back up the sound folder. Good luck with the fresh install