Igor4U

Yak On ! OK - Code Cracked: - Ran Repair from Command Prompt, but got same Error Warning as trying to Install Yak-52 Module from in DCS-World. - So, I tried running Update. That Ran - And What needed Updating was the Updater. - Then with the Newest Updater - the YAk-52 Module installed seamlessly. I am now an official Student Pilot in the YAk-52. Plan on Solo Tomorrow. :D Reference: .............\bin\dcs_updater.exe update .............\bin\dcs_updater.exe repair

Still Can't Install Yak-52 Same Old Song and Dance Module Manager says Yak-52 ready to Install But Install Routine says I don't have an Up to Date DCS World Build (2.5.2.20143) which I certainly do. Maybe I'll run a Repair - Reinstalling DCS World from Scratch sounds awfully painful Gotta get my 'Yak' On ! :pilotfly:

Need some Clarity OK - After thinking about the Error Message was telling me, I think I got it: - At First I thought DCS World Servers were not recognizing that I had a Valid Stable 2.5.2.20143 Installation and therefore would not let me install the Yak-52, but that's probably not the Case. - What the Error Message most likely means is that there is No Version of the Yak-52 compatable with Stable 2.5.2.20143. - I'm assuming that the Yak-52 is still on;y available to Open-Beta Users. NOT ready for Prime Time with Stable Builds. So why did Module Manager prompt me to Install the Yak-52 as if all was OK ? I think DCS World just needs to make it CLEAR as to When and How the Yak-52 will Install. I look forward to flying this Beautiful Bird - Looks like Tons of FUN

Just finished updating to Stable 2.5.2.20143 - DCS World said Update Successful ! I had Pre-Purchased (Early Access) the YAk-52 Module; and after updating to 2.5.2.20143 Module Manager showed Yak-52 available for Installation. Every Attempt to install Failed - Error Dialog Box says I don't have 2.5.2.20143 Installed. Re-Booted PC to make sure Registry Updated - Same Result - Won't Install - Says I don't have 2.5.2.20142 Maybe I should run Update from Command Prompt ? Any Help Appreciated BVR Igor4U Log Text: --- Log file: C:\DCS World\autoupdate_log.txt === Log opened UTC 2018-08-08 20:18:35 INFO : DCS_Updater/2.6.25.40 (Windows NT 6.1.7601; Win64; en-US) INFO : cmdline: "C:\DCS World\bin\dcs_updater.exe" --apply install YAK-52 STATUS: Initializing... INFO : basedir: C:\DCS World INFO : DCS/2.5.2.20143 (x86_64; EN; FC3,P-51D,FC3_video_EN,F-86F,MIG-21BIS,MIG-15BIS,F-5E,WORLD,NEVADA_terrain,FA-18C) INFO : branch: STATUS: Connecting to update servers... INFO : Got reply from http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com INFO : Got reply from srv14update.digitalcombatsimulator.com ERROR: Version 2.5.2.20143 is not available. === Log closed. === Log opened UTC 2018-08-08 20:19:58 INFO : DCS_Updater/2.6.25.40 (Windows NT 6.1.7601; Win64; en-US) INFO : cmdline: "C:\DCS World\bin\dcs_updater.exe" --apply install YAK-52 STATUS: Initializing... INFO : basedir: C:\DCS World INFO : DCS/2.5.2.20143 (x86_64; EN; FC3,P-51D,FC3_video_EN,F-86F,MIG-21BIS,MIG-15BIS,F-5E,WORLD,NEVADA_terrain,FA-18C) INFO : branch: STATUS: Connecting to update servers... INFO : Got reply from http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com INFO : Got reply from srv14update.digitalcombatsimulator.com ERROR: Version 2.5.2.20143 is not available. === Log closed. === Log opened UTC 2018-08-08 20:22:51 INFO : DCS_Updater/2.6.25.40 (Windows NT 6.1.7601; Win64; en-US) INFO : cmdline: "C:\DCS World\bin\dcs_updater.exe" --apply install YAK-52 STATUS: Initializing... INFO : basedir: C:\DCS World INFO : DCS/2.5.2.20143 (x86_64; EN; FC3,P-51D,FC3_video_EN,F-86F,MIG-21BIS,MIG-15BIS,F-5E,WORLD,NEVADA_terrain,FA-18C) INFO : branch: STATUS: Connecting to update servers... INFO : Got reply from http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com INFO : Got reply from srv11update.digitalcombatsimulator.com ERROR: Version 2.5.2.20143 is not available. === Log closed. autoupdate_log.txt

Tenkom said: I think this comes from the nature of the hornet’s FCS. When you adjust the power after having trimmed for onspeed AoA the airplane will automatically make pitch adjustments to maintain set AoA and speed. Which is why when you increase power the plane will not speed up but instead pitch up to keep AoA. Talonx1 said: Trim works very quickly once flaps are at full and gear is down. If you are not in proper landing configuration then trim is less sensitive because the FCS automatically takes care of pitch trim. Thank you fellers for the Information. With your Help - I'm starting to understand why the Hornet flies the way it does. :pilotfly:

How Close to the Real Hornet ? Been working hard on Case I Recoveries, and after my share of 3 Wires I'm still concerned with the Hornet's Flight Model. IMHO: I believe The F/A-18C Flight Model is exaggerated in the rapidity at which the Vertical Velocity responds to slight Power Changes. The very quick response (change) in VVI is too pronounced in onset; not that the reaction is invalid - it's Not. All Aircraft respond to Thrust changes buy seeking their Trimmed Alpha (Airspeed), but in the F/A-18C Flight Model - it seems unrealistic. I've never flown the Hornet - but I've flown other aircraft in its' size and weight class. They all responded to Power Changes with a corresponding change in Vertical Velocity - but because of Momentum and inertia - the Response was not nearly pronounced as the DCS Hornet. Light GA Aircraft (which I fly now) respond very rapidly to power Changes with VV Change, but I don't think the 30,000 Pound Hornet should do so proportionally. The Hornet Flight Model seems to over-emphasize VV Change in response to small Power Changes while de-emphasizing Flight Path Changes in response to the Pilot's small fined tuned Pitch Changes. (Mach x Pitch = VVI); but the Flight Model seems to take instinctive Pitch Changes out of the Pilot's Tool Bag. Past Experience dictated that Fine Tuning an Approach required simultaneous coordinated Pitch and Power corrections. The DCS Hornet is way too dependent on Power Changes alone to control Flight Path Vector. I've flown hundreds of Flight Sim Aircraft (in different Flight Sims) over that last 15 Years and I will tell you that this Hornet is unique in the way it flies. That doesn't necessarily make it Wrong - just very different. But different enough to make me wonder. Now I'll be the First to Admit that I could be Totally Wrong - it's happened once or twice before. What I'm wondering is if we have some Real World Hornet Drivers to respond with some definitive advice on how the Real Hornet Flies. THANX ! :joystick:

How Does Lowering Flaps Affect an Airplane's Angle of Attack (AOA)? http://www.boldmethod.com/blog/2013/10/how-does-lowering-flaps-affect-angle-of-attack/ Lowering Flaps increases the Wing's Camber More Camber -> Requires a Smaller AOA Since the flaps-down wing has more camber than a clean wing, it creates the same amount of lift at a smaller AOA. The flaps-down aircraft now flies at a smaller AOA to balance the four forces of flight. Many Aircraft (after Lowering Flaps) exhibit a Nose down pitching moment results. With F/A-18C - (in addition to pitch down) Full Flaps adds a Big increase in Total Drag - so Airspeed will rapidly Bleed Off. So the initial Pitch Down will be followed by the Pilot needing backstick Pressure (increasing AoA) and Power Addition to stabilize at Approach AoA / Airspeed.

FIXED The Problem (DCS World Crashing) was more exptensive than I first thought. I thought it was only restricted to the F/A-18C Module with Nevada Map (after 2.5.2.19273.411 Update) with any flight that descends (or originates) below ~1,000 ft AGL. But thru Trial & Error I discovered it was all Modules with the Nevada Map (same about the Altitude: descending below or originating below ~1,000 ft AGL). So something is happening in the Graphics Rendering (Resolution / Textures ??) as you descend below 1,000 ft AGL on the Nevada Map. The FIX: Updated to the current Nvidia Driver (398.36). This seems to have solved the Problem. PS: Yes - I did have a Graphics Driver that was a few years old. My Theory (when it come to updating Drivers) is to let Sleeping Dogs Lie. I am hestitant to update Drivers unless they: - Fix a Bug - Increase Performance - Add Features you want/need In this case - my Theory was Wrong. Updating the Driver Fixed me ! :pilotfly:

As Follows: Instant Action - F/A-18C - Nevada - Free Flight - If I try to land the Aircraft, below a set altitude on Final Approach - the entire (DCS World) Application Crashes. Wanted to just get a Familiarization / Local Area Orientation ride in the Hornet - Free Flight Nevada looked like a caual sortie without anyone taking Fox Twos at me. But the Scenario won't let me land. Has happened four times in a row. Twice attempting to Land at Nellis AFB, and once trying to land at Creech AFB (Indian Springs). And just now again going into Nellis (descending thru 2,700 ft MSL - field elevation ~1,900 ft MSL). I always get an altitude warning about 3,000 ft AGL followed by (approx 3 Mile Final and just below 1,000 ft AGL) the entire application (DCS World) Crashes. Just Me - or are others having same problem ? All other Instant Action F/A-18C missions I've tried are so far OK (haven't flown all of them yet). Free Flight Caucasus works fine - Landing A-OK - No Problem What's up with this - maybe a Known Bug-a-Boo (but new to me). PS: My DCS World 2.5+ Build has worked flawlessly up until now. OK - Here we go again. DCS World Crash going into Nellis AFB (Instant Action - F/A-18C - Nevada - VFR Landing) - same at 2,800ft MSL on 3 Mile Final) Must be something with the Nevada Map and my System. Other Modules land fine at all bases (Nellis, Creech, Homey, Tonapoh) More: Instant Action - F/A-18C - Nevada - Aircraft Takeoff and Navigation - DCS World Crashed before the scenario even can open. This F-18C Module coupled with the Nevada Map will not allow me to descend below 1,000 ft AGL. Very Strange Bug here ! dcs.log-20180716-181237.zip

An Excellent Training Exercise - Great Advice. My Take-Aways: - I achieved stabilized approach parameters (F-18C Instant Action Case Recovery Scenario - See Screenshot) as follows: -- 3 Degree Glideslope (descending flight path) -- Amber Donut at 133 KIAS -- 93% Core RPM -- 1,200fpm descending VVI probably a liite too quick (think 800 fpm descent is closer to target) - Relatively Small Throttle (Power) changes can induce (with some slight lag) effective changes in Vertical Velocity, and you have to lead with power to stabilize and/or reverse the induced (VV up/down) trend. - Too large of Power Reductions can also bleed off airspeed, so don't yank a Fistfull of Throttle Off - To minimize Power Changes I tried a Trick I use when flying formation with the F-5E; just use one throttle (for small position adjustments) helps with not over-controlling the Go-fast Levers. Allows smoother and morte controllable adjustments of power. BUT - with the Hornet (despite almost centerline thrust engine alignment), I got enough Yawing Moments to be Distracting. One Engine power input Technique didn't work for me. - IMHO, Don't rule out (entirely) small & timely Pitch changes with Stick (especially as you get close in). With any Precision Approach (PAR, ILS, Carrier), you're going down an ever constricting Funnel. Real Distance relating to Angular displacement from Course and Glideslope gets smaller and smaller the closer you get to touchdown. As you get close to the Boat, because of response Lag in VV change (from only modulating Power), I find that Slight coordinated & timely Pitch input can help fine tune staying On-Course and On-Glideslope. - For the most Part, Smooth & Small Throttle Movement (power changes) along with lateral stick (course) adjustments seem to do the Trick - I still get the Illusion that grabbing the 3-Wire looks like I'm landing Long and will Bolter. Guess I just need lots mo Practice !

Just got Stable 2.5.2+ and the F/A-C Module (couldn't resist after seeing this video: DCS World - F/A-18 - Case I Carrier Recovery Tutorial Gave the Instant Action Case I Carrier Recovery a few tries. Made it (Permission to come) Aboard 2 out of 3 Attempts (a 2-Wire and a 4-Wire). Instead of flying the actual Recovery Pattern - I just made some long Straight-Ins to get a feel for the F-18. I noticed one (unexpected) trait that surprised me a little: - During Power Reductions - the Aircraft is Quick to lose Airspeed, and not so Quick to Increase it's rate of descent (Vertical Velocity). - Many (other) Aircraft respond quicker to Power reductions by pitching over to seek their Trimmed Airspeed (a characteristic of Stability), making Power inputs (both +/-) a method of controlling altitude and glideslope. - It appears that Full-Flaps put a healthy amount of Drag on the Hornet - maybe the reason for the (relativly) rapid Loss of Airspeed during Power Reductions - I was expecting small reductions in Power to be more effective in modulating Vertical Velocity (Rate of Descent). - I know Larger/Heavier Aircraft (Like Figher Jets when compared against Light Prop GA Birds) have more Inertia and Momentum, and therefore don't react as quickly to power changes in regard to Rate of Descent, but the Hornet surprised me at it's resistance to descend and would rather bleed airspeed. - My Impression is that the hornet is a Hands on Aircraft requiring coordinated Pitch & Power Inputs, along with a Good Cross-Check, to see what Performance Changes are happening. Reference - Basic (T-34C) Navy Flight Training: Glideslope Corrections http://navyflightmanuals.tpub.com/P-330_wch5/Figure-7-9-Glideslope-Corrections-129.htm The glideslope (altitude) is controlled primarily with power, and the attitude/ airspeed primarily with the stick, but it cannot be overemphasized that there must be a coordinated use of both in any correction. In analyzing a situation,there are two basic elements to be considered: speed (either fast or slow) and altitude (either high or low). There are many possible combinations of these elements, which will compound the error analysis and correction. The following is a list of the most common deviations and corrections to ensure the"perfect approach." (Figure 7-9) Now - is this just me (maybe) not being experienced enough with the Hornet - or did anyone else notice something similar ?

Copy - Thanx ! Many other Jets want the Speed-Brake out in Landing Config to keep RPM Up in case a Go-Around is Needed. That way you can get: - Rapid Throttle Respond (already spooled up) - Rapid Reduction of Drag by retracting SB But I did Notice that Full-Flaps put a Lot of Drag on the Hornet. That alone probably keep the Engine RPM Up - and the F-18 GE 404 Motors seem to accelerate very quickly

Since I started this Thread - Just a few Final Thoughts: - Seems more folks favor the Navy Color Codes for the AoA Indexer - No Judgement here; but what I will tell you is that depending on which Aviation Service schooled you, the other's use of AoA Indexer Color Code appears illogical and Bass-Ackwards. - Go Navy, but check Six for Raptors

The Hornet's Speed Brake automatically Retracts when the Flaps are Lowered Anyone know if this is Normal Operation ? Couldn't find any info on it in the F/A-18C Early Access Guide.pdf THANX ! :pilotfly:

Air Force Pilots wanting to get some Hornet Alpha will need to Re-Cage their Eye-Balls. Brains, and Hands when flying off the AoA Indexer. UASF and USN AoA Indexer Indications are NOT Standardized. The Indications are Reversed - so Air Force Pilots on an Exchange Tour will need to get 'their Minds Right' ! Related: Watched about half a Dozen DCS World F-18C Carrier Landing Videos - liked this one the Best (Clear & Concise without getting swamped with too much Detail). May the Blessed Lady of the Three-Wire be with you. DCS World - F/A-18 - Case I Carrier Recovery Tutorial

Wheneven I open any Aircraft in 2.5 Release Version, they open with a Slight Right Roll Input. In most Aircraft, a few Clicks of Left Roll (Aileron) Trim quickly fixes things. Except (is a problem) for the Mig-21 which appears to have no Roll Trim. Then I'm having to hold a tiny bit of either Left Stick Pressure or Left Rudder to even out the Keel. The MiG-21 is a handfull as is - having to hold Pressure (cannot Trim Hands-Off) is a Pain in the Rear. Have re-calibrated my HOTAS Warhog in Pitch and Roll many Times - And Stick works fine in other Flight Sims. Never had this Problem in DCS World 1.5+. Any Ideas on how I can Fix this - Thanx in Advance ! BVR Igor4U :D

OK - Got It ! True vs Mag Heading Thank you Folks for the Information. I think I have it figured out. As 'catt42' mentioned - using the FC3 A-10A and the MiG-21bis were not Fair evaluations of True vs Mag Heading. By looking at the F-5E on final Rwy 32 at Tonopah, I confirmed the following: - In Cockpit (F-5E) HSI Heading is correct Magnetic Heading - Exterior (Chase - F2) View shows True Heading in the Bottom Data Bar

Went out for a little DR/Pilotage Navigation (with FC3 A-10A) up in the Northwest Sector of the Nevada Map (Nevada Test and Training Range - Nellis Ranges). Route of Flight: Cedar Pass - Tonopah Test Range (Airfield) - Mount Helen - Stonewall Mountain - back to Tonopah Rwy 32. While flying - I was also referencing a DoD chart (JOG - Joint Operations Graphic) at 1:250,000 Scale. What I noticed was that all Magnetic Headings (in Aircraft) were off by the exact amount (in degrees) of Magnetic Variation. In other words - Aircarft HSI Headings were showing True Headings instead of Magnetic. Thinking this could be a FC3 Limitation - I repeated this flight with the MiG-21bis Module - same results - the aircraft was showing True Heading instead of Magnetic. Data Points: A-10A on Final had Left Crosswind adding 2-3 degrees left Crab Magnetic Heading in Vicinity of Tonopah is calculated as follows: True Heading minus Magnetic Variation (subtract East is Least) = Magnetic Heading Localizer Heading (Magnetic) for Tonopah Rwy32 is 321 degrees Magnetic (see Published Approach). Current Magnetic Variation (from SkyView) is ~ 13 Degrees East (East is Least) True Heading for KTNX Rwy 32 sould be 321 + 13 = 334 Degrees True (almost exactly what my Screenshot HSI Heading and Whisky Compass Show) I have seen some other Threads here that also indicate Heading irregulartities with the Nevada Map. So my Question is - am I a Paranoid Delusional - or do we have a Bug with our Modules flying on the Nevada Map ?

Still Busted ========================================================= Thank You - I'll give that a Try In the Mean Time I've done a Brute Force Fix by going in and resetting all HOTAS Warthog Controls. That should have worked - but it didn't: Ok - Have went back into Systems Configuration (Both in General and in all Individual Aircraft) and reset all my HOTAS Warthog Trim and View Controls (I use the top Hat Switch for Pitch/Roll Trim - and it is set as such). But - many Modules are still NOT working IAW my Settings (they're using top Hat Switch for Rotate External View) The following Modules are not following the Settings I have set and are Unflyable: - F-5E - F-86 - MiG-15 - P-51 The following Modules work Fine with the Settings (I've reset) that I have used for last 4 Years: - FC3 all Aircraft - MiG-21 - Su-25T So what is up with this ? Why are some Birds behaving properly and others just go Stupid ? This just doesn't make sense ! Any and all Ideas welcome as I need to get this Puppy Fixed - THANX !

Excusemwa if I should have posted here: '1.5.8 and 2.2.0 to 2.5 transition Discussion'. I was afraid it would get buried in that mega-sized Thread. So here's my Stuff: Pulled the Trigger and Updated/Upgraded from DCS World 1.5 to 2.5. It (excuse my ignorance) did not turn out well. My Starting Point - Had a Perfuctly Functioning Build (the Final 1.5) of DCS World 1.5.8.12823.414 that included FC3, P-51, F-86, MiG-15, and Mig-21 Modules. Everything worked Great ! The Migration to DCS World 2.5 appeared to go OK. The Updater Offered (and I accepted) to Create a Separate DCS World 1.5 Installation (Folder). That seemed to work OK. Then the Updater took my Original 1.5 Installation and upgraded it to DCS World 2.5 (and Yes - I deleted the Config\options.lua file before letting Updater proceed to 2.5). Upgrade seemed to work OK. Checked Saved Games under my USER Account - each had it's own DCS Version. But when I went to test both DCS World (1.5 and 2.5) Installations, here's how they functioned: - New DCS World 1.5.8: All my Payware Modules were boogered up and not responding IAW my previously programmed Control Inputs (TM HOTAS Warthog). Funny - the Native (included) Modules such as Su-25T still responded perfectly IAW my control configuration. Checking the Control Settings - the creation of the New DCS World 1.5 Folder went in and re-configured many settings that I had changed/deleted before. So what was a Perfect 1.5.8 the Day before - was Now almost totally Unusable. - My DCS World 2.5 Build: Discovered that (unlike 1.5.8) none of my Payware Modules would activate (be usable) unless I Logged In - Is this as Intended ? With 1.5.8, I could decline to Log-In and all my Modules Functioned A-OK Offline. And also like my New 1.5.8 Build, my 2.5 Payware Modules are all Boogered Up and Not Responding (TM HOTAS Warthog) IAW my original Control Configuration. - Looks like the Installer (Updater) assigned a lot of default settings on top of customized settings resulting in Duplicate Button Assignments. It wasn't smart enough to leave my settings alone. - Guess I'll have to go into each Module and reprogram all my configuration settings - that above all else I was hoping to avoid. Am I missing something - or is this Pain the Price of Progress ? - What is the Big red Circle with the Green Outline in the Upper Right of the Screen (like a Situation Display) ? What is it ? Never had that thing displayed before. How do I get rid of it ? Transmitting in the Blind: Any Kind Souls have a Optimistic Vector (or advice) for Me - THANX ! BVR Igor4U

During the Reagan Administration - the Goal for the USAF was to build to a 40 Tactical Wing Equivalent. But Events overtook that Plan: - Large increases in Budget Deficits & National Debt - Fall of Berlin Wall - Breakup of the Soviet Union - And the anticipated realization of a 'Peace Dividend' by drastically down-sizing America's Military Force Structure So under Presidents HW Bush and Bill Clinton - America's Combat Force Structure was reduced 40% (saving $1Trillion over the decade of the 1990s based on the Trajectory that the Reagan Defense Budgets were on). Manpower and Hardware simply went away. :( So now the DM Bone-Yard has Squadron after Squadron (literally as far as the eye can see) of once proud Aircraft. In fact - if re-constituted - the Bone-Yard might be in the Top 10 of largest Air Force in the World (my Guesstimate).

Wonder what NATO Code-Name (designation) will be assigned ? What a Cool Looking Bird of Prey !

Bushmanni queried: "Any comment on that" ? Thanx - All Valid Points :smoke::smoke::smoke:

EM Aint Everything ! One more thing on EM: Boyd's Energy Maneuverability Theory failed to take into account certain factors that are equally important in aircraft vs aircraft performance. In Robert Coram's book 'BOYD', Chaper 22: In the Light-Weight Fighter Fly Off, the YF-16 was the unanimous choice among USAF evaluator pilots compared to th YF-17. Boyd's EM theory suggested a much closer contest - but the YF-16 was the clear winner. Perplexed about the Clear Cut Results - Boyd was allowed to interview the pilots upon whose subjective evaluation the decision was made by the Air Force to name the YF-16 the winner. The book says the eval pilots called it (the winning reason) the 'Buttonhook Turn'. In essence - the YF-16 was the nimbler machine. It's amazing agility allowed it to transition between maneuvers faster than any previous aircraft. This agility coupled with the high trust to weight ratio allowed the YF-16 to be employed differently (and more successfully) than any fighter to date. And these findings indicate that there are other factors (unquantified in EM Theory) that determine superior performance in a fighter aircraft. But those F-4 gentlemen (in Vietnam) who downed the EM Predicted superior MiG-17 already knew that.