Flagrum

also be aware of crosswinds

:thumbup:

I haven't much experience, yet, with this aircraft. But I got the impression from the RL manuals that radar ranging should play an important role, too. From what I gathered, some delivery procedures make use of the radar ranging (i.e. those where you actually dive, like ANF BOMB DYKE). The delivery procedure is performed in several phases where the first requires a good QFE setting for the initial alignment, but then switches to radar ranging for precission. Iirc, radar ranging is active when the small vertical bar (the "fin") is displayed on the HUD.

Guess who is also surprised by that fact ...

+1! At least a few changes made it into todays update - i.e. Control mappings CW/CCW for the big rotaries. But what else?

No servo = moving the stick needs more force, correct? How could that be modelled anyways? Ignoring the user setting and apply maximum FFB forces? And even if we would want that - what if the user has set the forces already to maximum?:smartass:

NTTR and 2.0 are beta version (well, alpha versions, to be precise) ... so I don't see how that would create bad feelings?

Because what I wrote as "Second" is all the FFB effects that you get in these helos. Don't ask me about the technical details, but there is no "back channel" from the rotor to the cyclic - the whole thing is also called "artificial feel system" (iirc), as it adds a tactile feedback to the pilot only by artificial means, not by the real forces that act upon the rotor or the airframe.

Öhm, das sind doch alles nur links auf mehr als vagen "na, vielleicht"-aussagen von vor einem halben Jahrzehnt ... Ich würde erstmal von einem "Nope" ausgehen hinsichtlich der Frage "sind deutsche Flieger geplant?"... Eher sehen wir ne F-16 und nen AH-64 ... imo.

First, make sure that you have Force Feedback enabled in the DCS Options. Second, both helos use the so called "force trim" system. Using hydraulic pressure, the cyclic is kept in position and you have to apply some force with your hands to actually move it. If you depress the trim button, the hydraulic pressure is released and you can move the cyclic freely. As soon as you release the trim button, hydraulic pressure is applied again and the stick then is held at its new position. Uhm, and third, with a MS FFB2 you will have to play around a bit with the FFB axes and invert one of the two (X or Y ... can't recall right now which one) at the control setup page.

Training films of the Bundeswehr: relocating a Hawk site, including recon / gathering intel about the new site and the actual Hawk site setup. warning: those BW training films of the 70s/80s are all a bit cheesy ... ;-)

Regarding 1.: AI does need NVGs, but probably doesn't use them. Ok, possible that the AI in a player aircraft is implemented differently, but at least default AI aircraft (and ground units, I assume) that rely on their eyesight "sensors" have different spotting distances under different circumstances - one of those being the fact wether it is day or night.

This has been reported as bug: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3105826 But yeah, +1 for looking forward for a fix.

The laser is only good for a certain amount of lasing cycles, no matter if or if not there is a cool down period between the cycles (and afaik, there is always a cool down period, no matter if with or wirhtout that mod). There are some threads around here covering this topic in more detail and the manual has some info as well, iirc.

The logic is, that if stuff like this happens, it could be very possible that the issue is based on problems within the normal envelope. I am not suggesting that the fix should be "IF outside-of-envelope THEN helo-explode". But when the formula, the curve of the flight parameters, converges with the documented flight envelope, and then just continues as if nothing is wrong, is not good enough. Some logarithmical or exponential factor is perhaps just a tiny bit off. And if corrected, the curve of the flight parameter will not just cross the limits of the normal flight envelope and just continue, but degrade in a way that seem physically plausible - and eventually result in physically sound reactions like loss of control and or overstraining the airframe. No, this will not lead to a 100% accurate flight modell, neither within nor without the normal envelope. But it get's closer to 100% than just saying "ok, we ignore everything outside the normal envelope". Imo it is not important if the airframe breaks because the sim calculated "force = x" or "force = x + y" as long as it breaks whenever "x" is clearly out of bounds.

The thing is, to enter such an abnormal condition, the aircraft was close to the edges of the normal envelope at least once at some point in time, before it eventually left it. And at that point the FM should probably have reacted in a way that would make the end result impossible - or at least far less probable (i.e. stable?).

+1 for the effort and the idea, but my advice: save your energy, Wraith.

+1 for interest in this feature! ... does that thread you mentioned exists? link? thanks!

What is the limiting factor here? Cable length between the different units, I assume?

Of course it belongs there ... if the bad guys have a foothold there then someone has to push them out again, right? :smilewink: It all depends - on the creativity of the mission designer and our imagination as vpilots.

Yes, but that is not necessarily unrealistic. Just think about an full fledged war scenario with massive jamming and other ECM employment. In a WWIII scenario, I would not expect many radio or sattelite NAV and COMs to be operational ...

I wonder, if there is GPS available over Normandy. Theoretically it shouldn't, but technically that is not a feature of the map module, but of the aircraft module... so ... maybe?

Almost sounds like a problem with your procedure. Safety off? Correct weapon selected? (Is the weapon even mounted on the helo?) In case of rockets: ripple quantity at least set to "1"? Maybe post a short track where you demonstrate the issue?

Breaking down everything in smaller portions - that is what I would have suggested as well. Nobody can digest it all in one go. Just pick topic by topic - after reading once through the manual to get an overview of what is ahead of you. And maybe one thing to keep in mind in regards to the memory concerns ... training the brain with stuff like this is maybe just the right thing to do? ;-)

Difference is, you release the CBU - it has it's own flight model and the state of the CBU fligh model influences the flight model of the sub-munitions. But you don't release the TER - you release the Mk82 individually as if they were mounted independently.