some1

That's the whole point, you don't have to. Gyro gunsight from WWII works without radar, not knowing anything about enemy position and velocity. If you use your aircraft as frame of reference, then in a stable tracking shot enemy position is relatively constant. Then the whole problem can be reduced to: "where the bullets will be relative to my aircraft after a time of flight that is required to cover the distance to target" and then paint the gun cross at that position. If the pilot puts the cross on the target, he'll score a hit. Of course solving that ballistic equation is not a trivial task, with many parameters that affect bullet trajectory, and the enemy in real life (or in simulated combat) is rarely as cooperative as AI forced to fly in circles. But you can't expect much accuracy in a more complex situation from a gunsight that doesn't work well even in a "best case" scenario. null

This report is about a scenario where the enemy flies a constant turn and you follow him with steady tracking. The enemy position is constant relative to your aircraft and the gun. No target extrapolation is needed, just an accurate bullet path / time of flight calculation. Basically an ideal conditions, If the solution is inaccurate here, then it's inaccurate in any other situation, except for the rare occurrences when two errors cancel out, or the error is too small and you still manage to hit the target. In the F-4 the bigger problem is achieving a good stable radar lock. The gunsight itself seems to be more accurate in such scenario than in F-14, but I didn't do much testing recently.

You can swap x/y ffb axis, to ensure that force in pitch is higher than the force in roll. That's how the real force sensing stick is set up and was probably an "inspiration" for that weird ffb setup in DCS. Or ignore FFB effects coming from DCS and use a fixed spring effect in your joystick software. In vpforce rhino there's a "sticky" checkbox on the spring effect, don't know about other joysticks.

Yes, that's the issue.

Thanks, makes sense if the leftmost digit is either 0 or 1. In the meantime, I found a diagram that also confirms what you wrote: http://aviation.watergeek.eu/images/f-4b/flight_director_group_7.1.5_hsi_schematics.jpg Looks like they dropped this requirement for newer aircraft. Destination yes, but individual route legs are usually much shorter than that, even in modern aircraft with latest equipment. I don't think you can even legally file a flightplan that has legs longer than 500 nm, though military aircraft obviously don't always have to.

Not sure about that one, but usually these distance indicators go up to 999 nm, not 9999 nm, even in newer airframes like F-15. TACAN has reliable range below 200 nm and no one is flying 1000 nm legs on INS either. Some drawings in the F-4 manual also make more sense if you read the last digit on the distance indicator as decimal point, so 9,5 nm instead of 95 nm.

I also noticed something has changed after the latest patch. I need different mils values for gun and rockets, and also didn't have much luck with DT yesterday.

The picture in Polychop manual has the items 1-5 repeated twice, that breaks the numbering scheme. You already have both weapon buttons detent mappings, they are called "Fire Weapon [1st/2nd Detent]". Button cover is purely mechanical, you don't even need to flip it open to fire a weapon in real life, according to Casmo. "Communication Menu" binding serves as trigger 2nd detent.

When I perform a slow approach, the helicopter bounces back into the air at around 7 ft. Not touching collective, and the aircraft goes from slow descend to climb at a rapid pace, and keeps climbing past 70 ft. On the second approach I need about 10% less torque to maintain descend speed. In this track at first I need 91% torque to hover at 8 ft, then set 88% torque to descend, but instead of descending the aircraft starts climbing. And on second attempt 78% torque is enough to maintain descend speed. oh58land.trk

No matter what is the pressure set in the mission editor, the altimeter shows airfield elevation at 1013 mbar. The attached mission has pressure set to 750 mmHg so the altimeter should show the correct elevation at 1000 mbar. zPressure.miz

It changes for me, there's 53 kg difference between 100 and 500 option (~2% loadout).

Yes, classic ILS approaches in real life (that do not depend on GPS/INS waypoints) are usually oriented in relation to ADF, VOR or TACAN. You would fly some sort of procedure turn, arc, or just be vectored by ATC to intercept ILS localizer. The ILS approach procedure in real life not only gives you ILS parameters, but also tells you how to get to the point where you intercept the ILS needles. If you don't have the charts or don't want to fly the whole procedure, then an easy to remember aiming point to intercept ILS is a waypoint on runway course, 10 nm before the threshold and 3000 ft above airport elevation. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3320451/

Added Phantom and Kiowa.

Use the standard comms menu shortcut (default '/' key).

BTW, Casmo said in one of his videos, that he and most other pilots he knows always flew with force trim off. They only used force trim on the ground to prevent cyclic from flailing around. Tutorials are in, more than a dozen. No voiceover I think, text instructions only.

ILS does not transmit bearing to station, only localizer and glideslope deviation. So the bearing needle won't show the direction when tuned to ILS frequency. It may keep showing bearing to TACAN depending on how the aircraft is wired. ILS also does not transmit DME by itself, but most real world installations combine it with DME beacon. But last time I checked, DCS still does not simulate ILS/DME stations so you won't get DME on ILS frequency either.

The landing light cone magically shines through the nose and lights up the rain above the horizon line, in front of the cockpit. It produces a massive "warp speed" effect on approach. It should be oriented more like the green line here. It doesn't happen in F-16 or A-10, either because different light effect is used, or the light intensity is lower.

A follow up on this topic, here's another set of missions this time testing AI climb performance. Again, you are on his wing, push the throttle full foward and try to keep up. The climb is not extreme, 25-40 degrees depending on the aircraft. It can be adjusted in waypoint options, aerobatics task. From what I can see: - AI doesn't slow down as quickly as the player - AI can keep climbing and maintain level wings at speeds that cause the player to stall and fall down. - AI doesn't overheat (Mosquito) These are the first four aircraft I've tried and they all have the same issues. You're free to check other AI aircraft, I don't expect them to be any better. zAIclimb_Mig15.miz zAIclimb_Mig21.miz zAIclimb_Mosq.miz zAIclimb_Su25.miz

Is that not enough? https://forum.dcs.world/topic/326798-ai-turn-performance-impossible-for-a-human-aircraft/#comment-5226532 You have a mission to test mig21 fm there. Have fun following him pulling 7-8 g.

With the new fuzing menus, CBUs default to 300 meters burst, while Mk20 bursts almost immediately after leaving the wing. These are very impractical fuzing settings. This basically breaks all existing missions using these weapons until you go over the payload and manually change the fusing for each bomb.

Checked several 3rd party modules, and the bombs fusing options are not available for bombs connected to ejector racks. Only bombs connected directly to pylon can be customised in the mission editor. The issue is in F14, F15E, AV8, M2000 and JF17.

In the current Dcs version Mk 20 only has timed fuze options, so it bursts after a fixed time, not at fixed altitude. Default fusing options cause the weapon to burst almost immediately. That's rather awkward.

Just watched Kiowa startup video where Casmo explains that he never used force trim and most of the guys he knows didn't either. They only turned it on when on the ground, to prevent the cyclic from accidentally moving around. Turns out you can fly in combat with a cyclic that is "wet noodle" (his words). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hITMf5FxI&t=618s Spring, friction, damper, inertia are different kinds of force feedback effects that you can implement using electric motors with directX API. All work within the budget allowed by your stick motors, but differently. Trim effects are implemented with spring, not friction. Dampening and friction are two different things. Weight is not friction, etc. You use these words interchangeably. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/desktop/ee416335(v=vs.85)

Maybe from here? https://www.reddit.com/r/Helicopters/comments/12d4lj9/question_about_force_trim/ Worth a read. There's even an UH-1 pilot there commenting that he flew OH58 and UH1 with force trim off most of the time, including manoeuvring. Now imagine a fixed wing aircraft, not a helicopter. I've already wrote an example in the previous post. Also, I'm talking about the centering (spring) forces, especially peak forces when pulling high gs, not the relatively constant friction or damping, don't mix the two. The controls are displacement based, so the precision depends only on how small are the movements that you can make with the stick, not how much force you have to apply. Of course having some force resisting your inputs is better, building muscle memory and better feel of what the aircraft is doing. But you certainly don't need 10 kg+ forces to fly with precision in the simulator.

This is a turbofan engine, so it has two independently turning sections. High pressure (Core) that burns fuel and Low pressure which uses the power produced by the Core to turn the Fan at the front. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbofan#/media/File:Turbofan_operation.svg The pilot mostly uses the Fan speed (N1 in other engines), as this is the part that produces most thrust of the engine. The core speed (N2) is important for startup and abnormal situations. But the startup process in the A-10 is automated, so for most of the time there is not much need to look at it in the sim.