Flagrum

I noticed a tendency for uncommanded pitch downs. Attitude, as OP demonstrated, is locked in the instant pilot input ceases - exept not for pitch down in many cases. I haven't really figgured out under which circumstances this happens. I fly straight and level, well trimmed, hands free(!). Then any tiny(est) inputs some sort of destabilize the helo and she pitches down - up to maybe 70-80 degrees. Note: stick is always centered (trimmed position), maybe +-1-2 % deflection.

Noticed this today with the latest OB (2.5.0.15184.338): trimming using the trim hat only works in a small, off-center range. With this I mean, on X and Y axis, the trim hat moves the stick only between center and about 50% deflection to the right or forward respectively. I am unable to trim a left hand bank or a nose up attitude at all.

Probably old:

I doubt, that an update would solve your problem ... as you are having problems to apply updates ..... But your might want to check your disk space - seems that you have to little space left for the updater to work properly: ERROR: F:\DCS World\_downloads\Mods/terrains/Caucasus/Surface/Caucasus.surface5: (112) Es steht nicht genug Speicherplatz auf dem Datenträger zur Verfügung.

The material is stronger and resists deforming more, even when longer than the other. Imagine bending a 20 cm twig - which is easy. Now imagine bending a 100 cm branch - although longer, it requires much more force. :)

Strange idea, imo tbh. You are implying that only verified module owners are supposed to have a genuine opinion on module related topics? Why? People may have knowledge and expertise concerning several topics that might show up on a specific module - why are those less worth than those of module owners?

Yes, it is a design decision, but not "just because" - as it actually DOES matter. The simulation is a set of equations. A BIG set of equations, that describe the various aspects that we see and experience in DCS. If the satelites move four times as fast, they certainly will not be hurled into deep space - as that is probably not simulated at all. But there is a good chance that something like that could mess up the equations dealing with GPS and navigation systems. You just can't change one variable of an (set of) equation(s) and expect the other side of it to stay the same (i.e. stay correct). Maybe it is possible to find a different set of equations that can handle that - by incorporating correction factors and whatnot. But THAT would be additional work and therefore an actual design decision that would have to be made. It would not be "just a tweak", but a different simulation.

Too bad, the rep system is gone ... The thing is, in DCS time has a meaning and is a necessary component to multiple, vital aspects of the things that are simulated. Right now GPS for navigation comes to my mind. How shall a nav system using GPS function if the day is only 4 hours long and every satelite position is suddenly wrong? Ok, not sure, if really the sat positions are exactly simulated, but in the Ka-50 you can lose accuracy if you lose LOS to too many satelites, i.e. in a narrow valley. And yes, it is a game and does not simulate everything 100%. But ED tries. And if the goal remains to be accurate, then ideas like this _at least_ make things more and more difficult (to find believable workarounds for aspects that are more complicated than "day time ... night time ... day time ...").

As you said, the _sensation_ of speed is different from RL. But that has nothing to do with top speed. It has rather to do with the lack of peripheral vision and maybe other clues that our brain gets from other sensors that a just not stimulated by sitting in front of a monitor. If you want the physics in the simulation to stay accurate, then there is nothing that you can really do to remedy that atm. The top speed depends on many different factors, starting with the engine power and probably not ending at environmental parameters. Fiddeling around with these parameters of the flight model does only one thing: it screws it totally up.

That was probably not a RB15F, which we use in DCS according to the manual, but an upgraded Mk.III version which is supposedly GPS capable.

Modifying the loadout options in the lua should at least result in a corresponding visual model in-game, even if the weapons might not be usable from the cockpit. So if the module diappears completely from the aircraft drop-down menu, it sounds to me as if you made an error. If a syntax error prevents DCS to actually read and apply the lua file, it might just not show up there. So, my suggstion here: check your changes and check the DCS.log for scripting errors.

640x480 with Low - Med. Textures should produce some decent FPS, I'd say!

Probably not gonna happen anytime soon as shrapnel effects are not modelled in DCS, yet, and flechettes are basically just a special form of shrapnell.

This unintuitive behaviour is probably better discussed here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196099

Not sure if I got my point across properly here. I am not questioning the AP holding the attitude of the helo. But I am questioning why I can not do exact the same manually. The mag.brake trim holds the cyclic in a certain position and also keeps the helo's attitude. The position of the cyclic obvously is meant to match the helo's attitude. My understanding is that the AP keeps the helo in the trimmed attitude and just then sets the cyclic position to match that attitude. (as opposed for example in the huey, where the trim sets the cyclic and the helo follows the stick input). But my issue now is: if I try to replicate that maneuvre manually, it does not work. If I deflect the cyclic exactly as the AP would, the helo just keeps rolling. It will not settle anywhere near the same attitude as if the AP would be in charge. Maybe I post a track later to illustrate this a bit more. edit: attached track. At first I entered a left hand turn, then clicked mag.trim. Watch the controls indicator - the moment I clicked trim, the cyclick jumps violently to about ~50% left. Then I fly hands-free - the AP performs a nice turn. Later, I add right cyclic input to level out the helo again. Once level, I click trim again (controls indicator jumps back to neutral). Then I try a manual turn by deflecting the cyclic by hand to - not even - 40% left, without AP support at all. Result: barrel roll into the ground ... So, how can the AP keep the helo stable at 50% stick input and I can't? ap1.trk

I have my troubles with the trimming system of the DCS Gazelle - there are already a couple of bug reports and/or other discussions revolving these mechanics. Today something occured to me that I haven't noticed before consciously: if you press mag.trim, the AP keeps the helo in the attitude it had in that very moment. Additionally, the cyclic forces are also set so that the "center" matches the desired attitude. (I had my troubles with that already documented ...) But now I noticed, that this "desired attitude" and matching stick position can not be done manually - only with AP magic! Example: I slowly put the helo into a 45 deg. bank by applying tiny stick inputs (everything else would cause death by PIO ...). Once arrived at 45 deg. I press mag.brake trim. The 45 bank attitude is now the APs desired attitude and it keeps the helo steady in that attitude. Also, the stick forces move the stick a good amount (about 40%?) towards the side of bank. Now you can fly hands free - the 40ish% stick position appears to match the established banking angle of 45 deg. Now try that without trim, just free hands! I bet, you'll die.:D (I know, I did. Repeatedly.). If you just manually deflect the stick 40% and keep it there, the helo banks ... and banks ... rolls, does a barrel roll and eventually spirals into the ground. edit: Tested on New Caucasus, 2.5 + latest hot fix, using G940 FFB stick with FFB enabled in the options. No curves, neither in DCS options, nor in Gazelle special options.

Werbung, afaik. Send via my PC using Firefox.

Oft werden verschiedene Teilaspekte von verschiedenen Leuten im selben Thread diskutiert. Da hilft es imo, wenn man den betreffenden Absatz zitiert. Aber gerne auch nur diesen ... ich gehe mal mit gutem Beispiel voran! ;-) Eine Bildschirmseite zu zitieren, nur um dann +1 zu schreiben muss dagegen wirklich nicht sein. Daher: Zitieren JA! Aber: aufs nötigste gekürzt.

OK! I figgured it out, I think! :book::smartass::pilotfly: omg, this is so embarassing ... :cry:

Tried that now for an hour - different parts of the Caucasus map, including far north, outside of the detailed map. Tried different time-of-day as well: the (new) default time 8:00, but also 12:00, on a sunny summer day with no clouds. The results were as before: no luck/no lock. Yes, PLEASE. +111111

I dont think that this is weapon dependent - the mechanics of explosions are a core feature of the sim. But what exact type of rocket do we talk about, what warhead? 2.75" / 80mm? Anything HEAT-like will probably really do nothing to anything further away than 0.5 meters. Those warheads are meant to concentrate their energy forward - and maybe have some sort of shrapnell sleeve ... which is not modelled. HE type warheads should be more effective ... dunno, perhaps within a 2-3 meter radius.

It is in the Bugs and Problems section because it seems that more than just one or two encountered a problem ... which even seems to be a bug. See attached track file and help me finding the pilot error! Admittedly, it's some time since I flew the Ka-50 regulary, but I really can't remember any remotely special procedure that one had to follow. Shkval on, Laser on, slew Skhval, lock, fire. :dunno: no luck no lock.trk

Same issue here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=192432

Blast damage is modelled, but shrapnell effects are not. I suppose, that is what you meant. An other aspect here is that atm the visual effects of (at least) the 2.75" / 80mm rockets is quite exaggerated imho. Also to be taken into consideration: a dust plume of an explosion does only mean that there is dust ... not necessariy lethal overpressure/blast damage. (but also vice versa, just because something was not engulfed in dust does not mean that it is safe from shrapnells:-)

Not sure, but I tend to believe that he's playing in game mode...