Fri13

Effective maximum range is moisture and temperature dependent, as well your programmed thermal scale value and sizes. The Normal setting gives cues from 2 km slant range front of plane to 0.5 degree above horizon. The Extended setting gives cues from 1 km slant range front of plane to 0.5 degree above horizon. The Full setting gives from 1 km slant range to 90 degree upwards, so whole sky area.

When no Target Designation exist, the pilot is required to do so by using a Flight Path Marker as initial designator for LOS. After initial TD is created, it is based to either barometric or radar altimeter angle. Throught the flight toward target, pilot is required to use TDC to move the TD above target and release TDC for moment, that is called "sweetening". The ARBS system will then re-calculate target slant range after each "sweetening" until it gets slant range properly calculated and pilot can confirm this seeing through HUD that TD diamond does stay above the target and doesn't slip away from it. Higher height difference between the target and initial barometric/radar metered altitude is, then more sweetening is required. And if the target elevation is same, then less sweetening is required. At this moment we do not require any corrections. The INS mode is perfect to the target altitude as it is locked on the ground. This makes it unrealistic as target altitude is magically known. The INS based TD movement is as well only possible when it is inside the HUD total field of view. Meaning you need to be flying toward the target and have TD diamond inside HUD or otherwise TDC inputs do not move TD position, like currently happens any time you are in INS mode. INS is critical part for all other sensors and target designation as without it properly done the other sensors and systems can not operate correctly.

More like that we get more reasons to love it with all more realistic features it has....

So instead adding a color shaded filter with small up/down animation and blurry shaped edge when going up/down, they decided to remove it permanently?

That depends the angle. As lower your thrust, then lower your climb angle and so on more distance covered. More thrust means shorter distance and still same time. As that was not about angle but maintaining the climb airspeed, right?

Not just 4300 but about performance values to get 250 knots at 700-800 ft runway.

I disagree with that. SL to 10,000 ft = 0:48 mins / 0:25 / 0:35 A 48 seconds vs 35 seconds is a 34% difference. 3.5 nm / 2.5 / 3.8 That is only 9% difference. SL to 25,000 ft = 2:30 mins / 1:13 / 2:04 A 2:30 vs 2:04 is a 25% difference. 16 nm / 7.1 / 13.2 A 13.2 vs 16 nmi is 17% in difference. That is not a marginal ones IMHO. I think that 5% would be more acceptable than almost 1/5-1/4th of the documented. They went leaps better one, to more toward accurate one. But I still think that they could tweak the values more to get it closer of that interpolated data. What comes to fuel consumption, that looks very good. But I am more looking the distance and the time that are still off.

IMHO what the couple pilots has said about the deceleration capability doesn't (talking before May update) feel to be right. As even pulling nozzles back and you still have difficulty's to slow to join another aircraft. I don't know now. There is something about that maybe, as at higher altitude and higher speed you need to use low RPM to avoid overspending the engine or something. You don't get maximum speed or something with maximum RPM but need to bring it lower like 70% or something as it is after all a airbreathing engine. Has anyone tried the performance maneuvers as mentioned here Like the 43:00 position about short takeoff etc?

Hmmm... Great if so.... Need to try out, as it is realistic that chocks are removed in last moments when engine has been running long time already.

Excellent testing. I think whole community should thank you for it. Reading the values I think little more tweaking for the power reduction is required to get those low altitude climb times little longer. They are already close ones, but I think there is enough speculation room to lower the thrust to get it more accurate. Does these tests include the high altitude lower engine RPM requirement to have higher airflow? Someone who knows better might understand what I try to ask.... The pegasus engine should be powerful at low altitude (time-to-altitude records), but be slow to accelerate for higher speed. Now it has been so easy to pull nose up and just climb to 20-30k ft in matter of seconds and same time just gain speed at low altitude without even noticing how quickly it does so.

Did the 5th May patch bring that change? I didn't notice it to be in patch notes....

Tested that today, and didn't really notice such.

And you know it because? https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/raytheon-plans-expeditionary-jpals-and-f-35a-signal-test/139974.article JPALS is a GPS-based guidance system that is pre-installed on all three variants of the F-35, as well as the US Navy’s (USN’s) Boeing MQ-25A Stingray, an unmanned in-flight refuelling tanker. The system achieved initial operating capability (IOC) for the US Marine Corps’ (USMC’s) F-35B short take-off and vertical landing variant in 2018 and has deployed on amphibious assault ships. The system will reach IOC with the USN once a squadron of the carrier-variant F-35C deploys, says Raytheon. The system is installed on nuclear aircraft carriers. In June, Raytheon delivered the first production unit of JPALS to the USN. The company had already delivered engineering development models to the service, which are now to be replaced with the production examples. Raytheon claims the system can guide aircraft onto carriers and amphibious assault ship decks in any weather condition, for example, in fog. It also claims the system can help land an aircraft on a carrier deck even with the ship pitching in rough water, up to Sea State 5 conditions, which involve 1.8m (6ft) waves. https://www.raytheonintelligenceandspace.com/capabilities/products/jpals Joint Precision Approach and Landing System, or JPALS, is a software-based, high-integrity differential GPS navigation and precision approach landing system that guides aircraft onto carriers and amphibious assault ships in all weather and surface conditions. It uses an anti-jam encrypted datalink to communicate between the aircraft and an array of GPS sensors, antennas and shipboard equipment. http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/2840/f_18a-makes-automatic-landing-with-jpals-(aug.-31).html (Source : Raytheon Co. ; issued Aug. 30, 2000) Raytheon Company completed a major milestone last month during shore-based flight trials of its Joint Precision Approach and Landing System (JPALS) technology demonstrator. The flight trials, conducted by the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) at NAS Patuxent River, Md., achieved the first automatic landings in an F/A-18A Hornet using the Global Positioning System (GPS)-based JPALS system for guidance. The JPALS system combines the satellite-based GPS, data link and computer technology to yield an integrated, multi-function air traffic control system that provides landing, surveillance, TACAN-like navigation and two-way data communication. The result is a simple, low-cost and highly reliable system that is compatible with the Navy's future ship designs and aircraft equipage. The above deck, non-rotating antenna set is compatible with the smaller superstructures of future ship designs and simplifies installation aboard existing ships of all classes. https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/MG1100/MG1171z8/RAND_MG1171z8.pdf (<- Do you find any mentions of Scorpion?)

Off-topic, but please remember that it is not a hotspot detector. It is a thermal cuer where your task as a pilot is to analyze the terrain, the time of day, the weather and program the thermal cuer to point you the wanted heat levels, sizes and their relation to environment.

I haven't checked the mechanic there, but it could block the unlocking mechanism just by being in the way. It is little odd that you have two functions, seal the cockpit and lock the canopy. Both have own lever. Like why not have locking lever as well seal the canopy? What are the downside to fly without sealing cockpit at normal altitudes?

https://file.re/

That sounds much easier, and should be possible be set in the gamin devices as joysticks. Well the force feedback I think could be just overlooked as when most joysticks don't have it, then it is not there. So just adapting the system that joystick deflection in degrees would give correct amount of G's should be doable. For the player it is just easier as there is no force to pull, but then again more difficult as you don't feel forces so you need to look more of the instruments. But in time player would learn to recognize the joystick angles better and it would become easy to pull wanted G without looking HUD. Question is more that is ED willing to implement that kind system if it isn't there already? They have limited force they can really apply. We are talking maybe a 2.5 kg at max I think. There are people who have built own ones, modified existing ones by using stronger motors etc. But it is totally possible to in its force limits to make the increasing force from the center for wanted output value in the game like G-number. So more G's you are pulling then harder the joystick tries to center. Okay so there is no such modeling in the DCS for it. What is sad thing. I have always felt that while ED can make very good flight modeling, it is their input/output logic that is lacking severely. That there is missing the "feel" to the plane aerodynamic forces as the joystick input is just read as is, without any control system really sayin anything about it. Okay so that is why there has not been any reasons to even add any "safety features" in there but kept as is.

I don't know how to put it, but I think ED needs to redesign the whole input system for DCS. As there are lot of differences what controls players has and then how they can tweak the axis in it. Divide the real cyclic length (from the position where grip is to gimbal) squared and you get the required movement. So let's say that with 50 cm it is required to do a 5 mm movement, then at 25 cm length it is 2.5 mm. With 12 cm joystick it is 1.25 mm. With a 5 cm it is 0.6 mm movement. Add a spring force, mechanical stickiness, axis jittery, low resolution (8-bit) and all, and it becomes impossible. That is why I have for helicopter flying a 50 cm length (from gimbal axis to palm rest, so with two fingers it is little longer) as it makes possible to do all the small corrections without thinking the control. That is better said about the input system. I think that is the key that we would get to options a simpler value to select the proper length of the stick to have a acceptable compromise for the control input. I am believer that stick and joystick should match 1:1 in their movement range (hard to do with F-16 force stick) so full joystick deflection is full stick deflection. As right now example in the Gazelle the stick barely moves visually with full joystick movement. It is like stationary one that just is there. And it can be seen even in the cockpit videos from flight students and instructors that how much they need to wave the stick around to make the required corrections. And you can't have that kind movement in DCS with 1:1 ratio as the cyclic in cockpit doesn't like to move. Yeah, but could be improved. Like having a setting so that system would take in consideration the joystick real length to start with so it would be easier to tweak. Those who have a short joystick would get assisting features easily enabled to make the helicopter enjoyable. As hard fact is that not everyone has same gaming equipment and hardware, and not everyone has skill to fly with limits that DCS can offer. But it would be nice to have various settings across different gaming devices. As I don't think it is acceptable to expect gamers to buy all expensive helicopter controls to start to get as close as possible, or to force such settings to those who do. It is just very difficult to model a real control system to completely different kind.

The whole MWS kit in KA-50 was to be a part of the President-S system that has the "smartness" in it, to make a threat assessment for each launch. So when a launch is detected (the UV sensors are well capable to detect launches past 200 km even if environmental conditions applies, so they are very sensitive) the system tries to categorize it to "Cannon Fire" or "Small Arms Fire" and "Missile Launch" kind a way. And then if the threat is coming toward the helicopter, it will only then make the warning and track the threat for automatic counter measurement program at proper distance (so it will not launch flares on missile launch at 6 km distance but wait it to fly at 200-300 meters or so). If we do not get that "intelligence" then it would just be wasting flares on friendly launches next to you, for someone just firing a cannon at some distance and be blinking to every heat source there will be. Then it totally is reasonable to disable the whole sensor suite as you say, if you are not middle of nowhere. And what use it is if would get a single light lit up for warning, if the missile can hit you in any second from any direction without having any idea?

I think that Polychop said few months ago that they are 70% ready in the flight modeling for Kiowa. That gave doubts to many that they are going to complete the Kiowa in 2021 as it was like 9 months left at the time to get last 30% of it done. And if they now have changed to renew the gazelle flight model same time... It is just going to slow down both. I am happy to be wrong with such assessment as I would have liked to see Kiowa out in 2021 (hey, it is suppose to be "Year of Helicopters" after all!) but now it might go to 2022.

I don't get that "G command" part how to apply it to DCS. So as typically we are talking about a gaming devices like joysticks with centering spring and that being its only force. How it should be translated to the simulated stick that has the "same G command for a given stick force"? Like we have now possibly in DCS that joystick deflection from the center is linear to the control surfaces range. If in 0-100% scale in pitch the 50% is the stick centered, then 75% position is stick half way aft and it would translate that control surfaces are as well half way (75%) from their maximum deflection angle for pitching up, and that gives whatever G you can just get at that flight condition and a force feedback for that G you got? Or so should it be that (regardless we don't have forces in stick) the joystick angle like 75% to pitch up would translate always to example 5 G no matter of the flight condition as the system would turn control surfaces as required to give you that 5G? So you are "commanding G forces" by the joystick deflection angle, and we would be just missing the physical feedback to tell us the required pull force to stick? As the latter I imagine would make flying easier as you would be thinking in G's to pull. "I need to do 7G turn now" and you pull stick to known position and the system gives you that 7G turn on that position. Am I totally lost in that? So the ailerons are fully in pilot control and system can't do anything about it if pilot want to kill self with those but other surfaces has those partial authority to limit the command to help pilot not end to dangerous zone.

No need. You just need to push it momentarily forward to get the wanted forward angle and then return it to center for continuous forward flight. To me it seems that they have made the Gazelle to be flyable by a table-top joystick that is spring centering. I do not get any other reason to make it so wrong, than just make it flyable by large majority of the gamers who have no extension and have no non-centering/springless/FF joystick properly attached to between legs and collective and pedals and all. They say that they had a real Gazelle pilots to confirm the flight modeling. But that doesn't mean a thing as it requires the context that the pilots would need to validate it. If it is a "yeah, it doesn't perform crazy 360 turn in half a second" or "Yeah, you get to fly low and you can hover nicely" by using table top joystick and all, or even a gamepad. Then they can sign anything as "valid" as if they do not get the understanding that it should be a study level simulator where they should be able use even a real helicopter controls to fly on parking slot with a big flat TV front of the real helicopter... If someone is happy for having Gazelle regardless what is its flight modeling or input system modeling, then they are having trouble when things gets fixed or if they really believe real one flies like it. I was today flying Gazelle just to confirm those few things, and it is just funny that after you get past 50 km/h speed the flight happens with just the cyclic. You can take feets off from pedals, hand off from collective and just fly around with cyclic to do all maneuvers in tight streets and so on. But that is a dead horse to beat as Polychop is going to fix it.... So they know they need to fix it.

Does that mean the stick has same force constantly or that the force changes by the G to give a feedback of it? So where example Su-27S provided a AoA limiter, the F-15C doesn't have any other than numerical values on HUD, pilot feel on pants and stick forces? Why it couldn't be just copied as flight behavior alone with controls is totally different.... Thank you!

Thank you for making my brains have some gymnastics by trying to think a such behavior that wouldn't make a sense... Well, I recall that people went mental when the reports started to come about oversensitivity and odd behavior. Only that reporters got attacked by claims that Gazelle is perfection but it is speciality as it is so light small and has fancy SAS. I haven't read about that. I thought as well that they visit Gazelle after Kiowa is out and "polished" etc. As far I know it was that they needed to do new development software for the Kiowa and then use that same for Gazelle later on. But sooner we get fixed Gazelle, then better.

Wasn't the whole F-15 from the start designed to have the FBW control system? I am now surprised as I have thought that it had FBW system since the A model.