Luzifer

Right now, it only responds to trim left/right while autopilot is active, I believe.

More than that, there is a total conversion mod for Quake called Airquake where players are planes instead of humans.

If you get external power and you flip that switch, some things are switched on/off. I haven't checked if that implements exactly the alert power networks, but there is at least something implemented.

True, it doesn't mesh with the other HUD videos shown on this forum. Which just means... that oft-quoted p.66 in that document simply does not apply to the Mirage.

Basically the total energy is converted to a virtual altitude H and the chevrons show the "flight path" in reference to that virtual altitude. If only altitude changes and speed doesn't, the path angles of both H and real flight are the same and the chevrons appear next to the flight path marker. If speed is increasing the chevrons are above the FPM. If total energy is increasing the chevrons are above the horizon line. That's what the formulas in the French document say, I don't know if RAZBAM has now implemented it exactly like that.

I can't quite read understand the French but the diagrams (including the Airbus one) make me think that the chevrons are centered on the horizon line, not the FPV, and furthermore the deviation is scaled so that they coincide with the FPV when speed is constant. If that is the case, that would mean that deceleration in climb showing the chevrons above is indeed wrong. In this situation, if the total energy gain is still positive the chevrons should be above the horizon but below the FPV marker. Edit: Oh wait, the relevant speed for kinetic energy would be TAS. Can't say if that makes enough of a difference to be noticeable.

Well duh, there's always drag. There's drag in level and constant speed flight. There's also engine thrust counteracting the drag. This is completely independent of the fact that altitude can be converted to speed and vice versa. That's the reason the total energy concept is so useful.

That's not quite accurate, total energy means, well, total energy. The sum of kinetic (speed) and potential (altitude) energy. If you're flying level, then pull into a climb, then level out again without changing the throttle, you should have decelerated from the climb. Yet the total energy is still the same, you just converted speed to altitude. If you climb at a constant forward and vertical speed, total energy is increasing even though there is no acceleration at all. So when the chevrons now display total energy, OP's observation that the chevrons are above even though the speed drops just means that the gain in potential energy is larger than the kinetic energy loss.

If you don't have the ILS chart for the runway to follow, but know a few basic things instead, you do know. You need runway elevation and glide slope angle, which is 3° in most cases. For that standard angle, you get >3150 ft above for 10 miles out and >4100 ft above for 13 miles out. In the video, you even pointed out that the DME showed the distance after ILS was tuned. :) I think you were more than 6000 ft above at some point in the 13 mile range. Well okay, it is probably easier to dive on the glide slope from above in a small fighter than with bigger planes...

Runways are always named with two digits and – if needed – a letter. There's no such thing as a runway 145. :) Nice ILS tutorial, but intercepting the glide slope from above is not the cleanest technique. You were too high on approach, I think 3000 to 4000 ft above airfield would be about right. Can't estimate if that works well with the terrain there, maybe the approach needs to be different for that runway.

Ah, also kein extra Tank sondern die Feeder sind auch negativ-g fähig. Aus Sicht der Piloten allerdings kein Unterschied. Weil man außer im Kunstflug nicht längere Zeit negative g hat. Zweitens gibt es das selbe Problem auch mit der Schmierung, also müsste der Ölkreislauf ebenso modifiziert werden. Außerdem dürfte die ausfliegbare Menge geringer werden, wenn der Treibstoff nicht am Boden sondern durch ein aufliegendes Gewicht gesaugt wird. Hier ist es noch etwas ausführlicher: http://aviation.stackexchange.com/a/21456/3296. Die beste Lösung wäre also wohl der Treibstoff in einem Gummisack ohne Luft darin. Wo keine Luft ist, kann auch keine angesaugt werden, egal wie das Flugzeug fliegt.

Yesterday on the VA server I saw a F-15 refueling off an Il-76. It seems DCS doesn't care about the refueling method right now, only that the boom or basket connect to the receptacle on the plane.

Das ist bei den meisten Maschinen so, kopfüber fließt halt kein Treibstoff mehr zu den Pumpen. Dass es überhaupt 10 Sekunden lang geht, liegt an einem kleinen Tank genau für diesen Fall, der kurze Zeitspannen negativer g überbrücken soll. Sonst würde es sofort ausgehen. Dieser kleine Tank braucht Zeit zum Auffüllen, also 10 Sekunden negative g, 1 Sekunde positiv, dann wieder negativ geht nicht... Ob das schon bei der Mirage korrekt ist, habe ich nicht getestet. Und wie lange der hält sollte auch vom Schub abhängen - bei Leerlauf sollte er deutlich länger halten als bei vollem Nachbrenner. Und bei 0 g funktioniert weder der normale noch der negativ-g-Tank - zumindest bei der MiG-21bis ist das simuliert.

It needs INS and EGI to work. So you need the INS aligned and switched to NAV mode and you need to select EGI as the navigation source with the button behind the stick. It doesn't work in degraded/in-flight alignment mode of the INS (neither does EGI, I think), so you have to wait for alignment and switch to NAV before moving the plane.

Given that the instructor specifically said they taught the pilots to use it like a digital stick it probably isn't.

Das war ja auch ein Geheimnis, außer dass sie ab und zu erwähnten, zwei Module in weiter fortgeschrittenen Zustand zu haben. Bilder sollten halt mit der offiziellen Ankündigung kommen, die bis heute noch nicht raus ist. Ich glaube, da war ein Team-Mitglied länger krank und das war ein Grund, warum das alles nicht so weit ist wie geplant.

Where does the 24500 ft come from, even in the US transition altitude is 18000. And the US is an outlier with having it so high and identical all over the place. I just looked at a chart for Sochi (just to take an example) and the transition altitude is 3700, transition layer is 50. So yeah, you'd be at STD that high up. Edit: Ok, missed the reference to Red Flag. Which is US, of course.

An der Viggen und der F4U Corsair arbeiten die bei Leatherneck schon lange (das sind die "zwei Module im fortgeschrittenen Stadium" die von ihnen ab und zu mal erwähnt wurden), die sollten eigentlich noch Ende letzten Jahres angekündigt werden. War dann aber doch nicht so weit und inzwischen wurde das Geheimnis über die Steam-Datenbank verraten. Die F-14 von denen ist dagegen noch weiter weg.

In DCS braucht man keine zufälligen Systemausfälle, dafür sorgt schon der Feindkontakt. ;)

That would kind of miss the point. If the SARH missile hits, you already hit the target. If it misses, the IR will miss too.

IGN is a momentary switch position (i.e. it needs to be held there and will revert to NORM when let go). It's for windmill restart of the engine in air. Engine start is fully automatic and does not need anything more than moving the throttle from off to idle.

Which is just saying that at higher speeds and smaller changes the effect isn't as obvious... But you would still have to retrim to keep the nose up and that means speed will drop. Maybe just slightly for a shallow climb, but the energy that goes into climbing still has to come from somewhere.

That does not make sense, why would speed make a difference? Trim balance stabilizes the plane at a certain speed no matter the thrust*. Given the speed is the same, the rest follows from simple conservation of energy. Of course that's the static situation for 1 g. To go from level flight to climb you have to have more than 1 g for a time (and less than 1 g to go to descent) so it will oscillate around the trimmed speed for quite a while until it stabilizes if you let it do it all on its own. * That's a bit idealized assuming that thrust doesn't affect trim. For the A-10 it probably doesn't, much, but for airliners with engines under the wings more thrust creates a significant pitch-up moment.

Ich denke mal auch, dass das Fuß sein sollten. Beim DME hatten sie zuerst auch die falschen Einheiten dargestellt.

Das würde dann aber für jedes Flugzeug gelten. Die mögen alle kein 0 g und negative g nur dank extra dafür eingebauten Zusatztanks eine Zeit lang. Bei 0 g schwebt der Treibstoff halt irgendwo im Tank, da kann man nix machen. Außer vielleicht einen Zentrifugentank, aber ich habe noch nie von sowas gehört.