Dvst

This is a shameless crosspost from the Gazelle forums because the same question applies to the Mi-8 :) So can anyone help with the Mi-8? What are the real life cyclic and pedal deflections?

Bonjour fellow flying antilopes. Feel free to skip the giant preamble and go straight to the question. :book: We all know that many of the control problems in simming come down to the differences in deflection between our home joysticks and their real life counterparts we are trying to approximate. Now, since the DCS helicopters ( and especially this beauty ) really do require us to properly train our muscle memory, those problems become harder to just ignore or work around for me. Of course the easiest sollution would be to match the deflection or travel of the real controls by extending the stick ( easily done with a Warthog ). A similar approximation is the popular decrease of Y-Saturation to at least match whatever control deflection we can get out of our sticks. If ( for example ) I guestimate the stock Warthog's deflection to be about 17-18 cm (meassured point to point using the hypothetical centerline of the lever ) and a fellow forumite was kind enough to meassure real control deflection for the Huey; we arrive at the conclusion that my trusty desk stick covers about 49% of the Huey's cyclic range. So with Y-Saturation set to 49 the two controls turn out to be reasonably matched. The obvious problem of course is losing half the Huey's cyclic. The answer must lay in some kind of curve. But what curve? S and J type curves present a massive problem: although they dampen or sharpen up the controls to an arbitrary point of individual comfort, they can only be used to match the *real* controls at exactly one point of the entire axis. To stick with the Huey cyclic example: a curve setting of about 20 will result in the halfway point of the deflection being roughly matched to the real one. The problem being that the stick will now be too mushy and insensitive below that point and too increasingly sensitive above. Whats far worse though is the ( pardon me ) curving nature of the curve, which distorts all proportional sense of movement we can feel and train for naturally. Our hand-eye coordination simple is not geared towards easily decoding none-linear proportions ( I suspect this is why many virtual pilots prefer completely linear control inputs - it is in a way easier to rehearse the delicate manipulation of a shortened linear axis than it is to memorize a disproportional curve ). What sounds complicated in the abstract is actually rather easy to feel. Give the Huey a quick whirl with 49% saturation and repeat whatever you did with a 20% curve. Luckily a curve does not need to be as gradual as s-curves are. A simple compromise that really works for me (as a person who prefers linear inputs) is what I daringly call a 3-point curve (aka 2 straight lines ). The idea is to break the axis up into 2 stretches: one stretch matching the real life deflections exactly and one stretch that is more sensitive but still localy linear all the way to 100%. The result is two hapticaly linear stretches of control. How large the 1 to 1 "matched section" of the curve needs to be is somewhat a matter of taste, I decided to pick the first 20-25% since that covers all things hovering for the Huey. Easy to gauge by setting Y-Saturation to match the real control and then watching the control indicator box during hover. Here is what it looks like (note the first 25%): Give it a try - especialy if you can't really get to be friends with normal curves or if you tend to think "something is mushy here". :joystick: Now finally the reason I'm posting this wall 'o text: This method of mapping "desk-to-real" can only work as intended by actually *knowing* the travel or deflection of the real life controls. To achieve something similar for our polygon Gazelle one would need the figures concerning the real Gazelle *gasp*. . . and I can't find them. My instincts tell me that the Gazelle's cyclic has a very similar pitch deflection throw to the desk Warthog ( maybe shorter even ) and I'm almost certain that the roll deflection is actually a *substantial* bit shorter than the Warthog's X-axis. I would really love to know for sure. Can anyone help with the real life data?

Could you elaborate on your objection towards the metaphor "on the fly"? I take just a slight communicational irritation. I'm sorry but repeating the same half knowledge of it beeing primarily an interceptor will not make it more factual. The aircraft is fielded as a multyrole combat aircraft by it's users, with all the implications that result. Besides that the term "interceptor" is wrong to begin with in this case. In the air to air regime it's design has always been that of an air superiority fighter. As for the remark on stealth and range, that is precisely why I used the expression "in terms of ordnance". To expand that part of the discussion you might want to notice that the Typhoon can carry a "slightly" bigger package then the F-16 which you compare to the F-35. You can easily asses the exact configurations possible by first hand official sources. They are all easy to come by. To say the EF carries a more powerfull swingrole package then the F-16 is a blatant understatement. As for performance under load it is simply wrong to state that the F-35 outranges the F-16 and EF at better speed and acceleration. The later outperformes the Viper by a large margin in that regard. As for SA and the obvious advantages of the Lighting II: It mainly is about the integration of the senor suite - not the individual sensor performance. To paraphrase again : Your description of the Typhoon as an interceptor is out of timeline about 15-20 years.

Guys UH Tigers carry 4 Stingers by default on the outer pylons. Since years.

The Typhoon fleet is constantly developed overall. New capabilities are backwards integrated over time. Don't know how the RAF handles things but Luftwaffe Tranche 1 EFs do the default AG loading ( LGBs ) just like Tranche 2. More weapons are integrated on the fly so to speak. As for the F-35 comparison I can't see a single thing the F-35 can do in terms of ordnance that the Tiffy can't. The SA will probably be superior in the F-35 especialy in CAS situations but then the EF can carry more payload ( especialy a more complete weapon package in swingrole loadouts ). Apples and oranges because of different layouts but the Typhoon beeing developed foremost as an interceptor is 1990s info.

I'd say realism all the way. As close as it gets please.

Thank you very much chaps - outstanding work. Wholeheartedly appreciated.

The absolute correct and ( in my eyes ) most practical method is pressing and holding the trim button, changing flightpath / speed and then releasing the button. As said before that way you don't have the AP interfere with what you're doing and it's way less complicated then changing AP modes. I got it mapped to the pinky switch on the X-52, so it's easy to keep it pressed without loosing any other functionality. FD is quite similar to keeping the trim button pressed permanently ( maybe identical - feels identical to me anyway ). Good for attack runs and the like.

That's a simple function called type ( pylon ). It's easily adjusted for each pylon in the meinit.

It's probably because the game takes the pylon positions directly from arguments on the model, like on the Su-25T. Try going to Scripts\Aircraft\_Common\Pylons.lua and change coords_from_model_flags[KA_50] = 1 to 0. Didn't test it but there is a small chance for it to work. Oh. For the 3D mesh parts in front of your cockpit, the only way to solve that is editing the position of the player pit. Go to Config\View\server.lua and find CockpitLocalPoint[PlaneIndex.iKA_50] = Edit the XYZ coords to your liking. Cheers Hunin

It's relatively easy to do, a bit easier then in Lomac even if you ask me. Blackshark has the whole xml based meinit stuff and large portions of the code in lua files. Those can be opened with any text editor and offer most of the xml files benefits combined with easy accessibility. With a text editor like "Notepad ++" or the like you will be able to close and open taps whilst viewing the file, giving you easy navigation. The information what country fields what equipment is in a file called "db_countries.lua" in your Scripts\Database folder. Open that file and search for the Ka-50's ID "3457BB1E-523F-4C24-BBEA-58D028623F05". You will hit 2 entries. One for Russia and one for Turkey. You'll see that it's listed with all the paintsheme IDs under a subpoint called "Helicopters =". Now search for "Canada" and you will find that the different vehicle types are listed in each their own category. You have "Planes, Heliports, Ships, Cars" and finaly "Helicopters". No helicopters assigned for Canada yet, just "Helicopters = { CATID = "{828CEADE-3F1D-40aa-93CE-8CDB73FE2710}", Helicopter = { }, }," Now copy the Ka-50 entry over with all the paintshemes you want so it looks like this: Helicopters = { CATID = "{828CEADE-3F1D-40aa-93CE-8CDB73FE2710}", Helicopter = { cnt_unit("{3457BB1E-523F-4C24-BBEA-58D028623F05}", "Ka-50", { color_scheme [...] }), }, }, Easy isnt it? :)

Well without online registration there is no save copy protection. The only thing you can do is bind the game to a certain hardware profile and register that in your own database, which is exactly what they will do now. I mean when westerners have a problem with mandatory online activation the picture won't be any different for Russia, if it's not worse there because of more sparse internet availability. I don't think 1C could hope to sell a lot of copies when they included the online activation.

Well the delay of the western release mostly due to the legal distribution methods in the western countries. And I don't really think that the programmers doing the Demo are responsible for the localisation either ;). When you look at the posts by Wags you get a clear picture of whom is the targeted audience of the demo. Their will to even speed up the Demo release to compensate for the late western release shows that they do care about the community and want to give us something to play with for the time being. And that's not something you can take for granted in the sim world. In fact I want to thank ED and the community representatives very much for the dedication and top notch effort they are showing. :)

The cost statements are all wrong and the integrated loadout lists are incomplete / old aswell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment If you can't tell why a turret is a bad idea for a single seat gunship that has been proven to do it's job perfectly without I'm afraid noone will be able to help you. Especialy not when you ask for it to engage sudden attacks by SAMs.