85th_Maverick

Yes, regardless. with clean wings and the plane has laggy stick responses. Maybe the rudder might be ok in it's response delay as it is, but the F-14 doesn't have this kind of laggy aileron and elevators deflections, the F-18 doesn't have it, the M-2000 doesn't have it. No other FC3 fighter jet has it. This is one of the reasons why I find flying the F-16 accurately in inputs or in formation flying more difficult than with any other jet which has quick and precise responses. Not in roll and yaw, only in pitch for the Su-27! And speaking of witch, why does the Su-33 have a quick elevators response in contrast to the low elevators rate of the Su-27 if you happen to have in depth knowledge about the differences (why would there be any) between the Su-27's FCS and the Su-33's FCS? We were talking about the flight controls system lagg, nothing to do with game FPS or TGP influence (there is none from that anyway). The response delay from the stick inputs has nothing to do with the input curves. Linear or non-linear sensitivity settings, you get the same inputs lagg. Either the stick and the FCS receives the inputs with lagg or it outputs them with lagg, idk, I just see this difference between the F-16 and all other jets and no it's not me. Have you tried comparing the time it takes from the moment you apply aileron input from your physical stick to the time the ailerons or roll control surfaces actually start to deflect? Try comparing the F-16 and the F-18, F-14, etc and see the difference. Don't even wanna talk about the F-15 which not only that it has the quickest response ever (arcade mode FCS if you'd ask anyone) from input apply to surface deflection, but wow, just look at those surfaces deflecting from a full position to the full opposite in merely 0.0000001 seconds (but yes, the FC3 F-15 is a different kind of story).;)

Whenever you fly any other fighter jet with or without FBW flight controls logic, the flight controls response is as expected. The one of the F-16 isn't so expected and it's always laggy. From the moment you apply a full aileron, rudder, pitch input to the moment the flight control surface actually starts to move there's a delay unseen in any other jet. Despite another strange phenomena of AoA reduction only when applying pure left stick (no pitch input) only (right stick doesn't do it as the left stick input) which is more pronounced with heavier loadout and I have already reported about, the laggy flight controls system create a particular difficulty in flying the aircraft both in formation or when trying to precisely maneuver it. Nobody can have precise the controls over a vehicle with laggy controls responses compared to one which responds almost instantaneously. I doubt that the Thunderbirds would be able to fly so precisely together if flying with the lagg that we get in the DCS F-16 flight controls system. Anyone can check this without recording track for evidence. It's a direct play evidence by comparing the F-16 to the F-18 or F-14 or even Su-27 in DCS.

How many aircraft in DCS have this in real life? Lol you just came with a pointless answer and SharpeXB just said what was correct to say. And the #1 problem you mentioned there is still unfixed. Once there was a thing called "Impostors" and impostors.lua which was actually the best workaround so far by making vehicles and planes disappear much later from screen and although it wasn't realistic in essence, if tweaked good enough it could make flying or ground units get physically seen from more realistic distances. For whatever reason..., they gave up on that "impostors" feature and returned to the same initial problem which remained.

I totally agree with you. When I meant that zooming and and out is a cheating in multiplayer what did you understand? It's as simple as it sounds. Zooming in/out is a way to cheat in PVP. Having a bigger monitor, yes, covers more view, similar to having greater FOV and vice-versa with a small monitor, but being able to zoom in at the levels DCS allows us for we can see planes and ground units from impossible distances to the human eye and that's the cheat and it can and should be corrected (I hope) in the future by limiting the zoom as to be the equivalent of a 50 degrees (not 60) FOV and not below that. Anything higher can help those who don't have or not want to have a big screen and just use either a laptop or regular PC monitor. Said this just to be fair with everyone. On the other hand, having a big screen and also abusing the zoom in, heh..., I let you guys test this against another player in MP who has a smaller monitor and is a decent person not zooming in but rather flying with the default zoom level (as everyone else should). ONLY in VR (I use it most of the time) the zoom and field of view are exactly real (at least from what I can see compared to real life), but there's where it all limits to. Out of VR..., and you can abuse it quite a lot which personally disgusts me when I see others doing so and they most do, at least on YT videos. Thanks, but now this is the new technique as you define it here. Before X update, the "view.lua" file in DCS main folder and under CONFIG folder there was a line defining the default FOV which was global for the whole game and all vehicles. Now it's as you describe it here.:) Well, if he answered "SLAVA UKRAINI" it's already enough said=).

After the latest updates the view is now more stretched and I was wondering why. Although we now have key combinations which can modify the zoom (FOV angle) levels for each outside view, the default FOV within the "view.lua" file inside the CONFIG folder in the main sim's directory is now being set at 78? Why was it a good idea to make it even worse for looking around and spotting stuff as it was already almost impossible to see an enemy unit with the default view zoom/FOV? IRL one should be able to see a human on the ground even from 3km high if there's no haze and the weather is clear, but in DCS you can't see one even from 500m with the normal zoom/fov value. In fact, all units in DCS become extremely hardly visible from ranges at which in reality it isn't hard. This subject regarding the units visibility in DCS is a decade long debate and will most certainly continue if not finally done right. Zooming in or out is first of all an unrealistic feature, we all must agree with that. A human eye can't zoom. If one requires a bigger monitor or more in order to have more coverage is one thing, but to increase the FOV and distort the image for whatever sake is odd. Also, in multiplayer, the zooming feature must be blocked, because it's simply a big time cheat and exploit. The server admin should have the possibility to lock the FOV at 60 or have the natural zoom locked for everyone.

I believed you said that you need to have all the collective down as for preventing rotor overspeed due to that comparison. So, it's doable in the MI-24 as I've already showed in my track but it's just very difficult unless you have some lower weight and I was thinking that something might be wrong, but AeriaGloria better explained what goes on with the blades through his technically detailed reply.

You don't overspeed due to collective up, but due to collective down + increase in AoA on the advancing blades.

Copy that. So all in all it's the lower blades radius + the much lower blades washout (decreasing incidence towards the tips) and both reduce the aerodynamic autorotation of the main rotor as the AoA increases on the blades. The effect is there indeed, but I just thought that it's way too small to be true and now I understood why. So, it's a very bad day for a HIND pilot to lose both engines and rely on autorotation for landing. He can have a landing but he must do it at a much higher speed and much better coordinated aft stick and collective at the right moments in order to reduce the vertical speed as much as possible before touchdown. Thanks;)

Who's comparing apples and oranges? Did you read correctly? Both being 30mm AP and doing about 5 times different damage? Maybe not 5, but a couple of times anyway. You probably compare the 30mm HE of the 2A42 with the 30mm AP of the GAU-8...!

So I just wanna know if is there any script that I can run on a unit to make it engage an enemy target only after X amount of seconds of getting inside the launch range. Thanks!

Hi, I'm trying to make the manpads and other IR SAMs fire at aircraft with a bit of delay which is a realistic thing. In reality, most of the times a manpad wouldn't know when an enemy aircraft approaches and also from where, so after spotting an aircraft, the manpad requires a time to activate the missile's seeker and cool it enough to have a good quality lock on the target before firing. All of these would make sense to make the manpad and any other IR SAM system have a basic delay before engaging targets of opportunity or targets that aren't initially aware of being close to. Thanks!

Many thanks for putting this effort to answer about this topic. You've put a bit too much effort in what concerns the sudden pitch ups and I appreciate it, but when the wings on the helo stall (and basically any wing, fixed or rotary), the drag roughly doubles (more or less depending on design) the value it had at critical AoA, but it never drops as the lift does (the lift dropping to usually anywhere between 40% to 50% the max CL). Copy that about the much lower washout which is the only thing that can actually help generate autorotation torque on the main rotor. Thanks, so it has 5 degrees lower than for the MI-8. But..., is the MI-24's maximum takeoff weight actual in sim performance (ability to lift off at X IAS and Y altitude) that much lower compared to the MI-8? Cause then either the MI-8 has a bit overrated performances on the rotor (lift to drag) or the MI-24 has it a bit lower as it seems. Again, this is how it seems during comparisons. At MTOW, the MI-8 has a much better ability to vertically liftoff and hold a given altitude compared to the MI-24 for the same conditions. Many thanks!

So in your belief the MI-24 cannot use autorotation to land smoothly at all even when very light?!

I always felt that this helo has difficulties when it comes to blade stall which takes place rather quickly or at a quite low AoA which is also accompanied by an abrupt and uncontrollable pitch up whenever the blades pitch is at higher values compared to any other helo in DCS which don't have a great difference from one another. All other helos blades stall at a rather correct AoA, but these on the MI-24 stall at slightly above half the other helos. The stall AoA being a bit too small is one thing, but their drag is yet another thing. In autorotation tests, even with just 10% fuel, no heat suppressors, 0% ammo and clean loadout, the helo just barely flies on a high slope at some 200km/h with very little rotor blades pitch (some 2-3 degrees mostly) while the rotor rpm is visibly very low for all of these autorotation conditions which should keep the rotor rpm near 100% or at least that's what happens on either MI-8, KA-50 or UH-1. Although each helo has it's own autorotation performances, the differences should never be great between them or something is wrong somewhere. For short, the small stall AoA and too high blades requires some attention. Another thing (different topic maybe) is that below generator power rotor RPM, the controls trim does nothing anymore. Is this normal? Isn't the trim suppose to be mechanical like it happens on MI-8, KA-50 and so on, not requiring electrical power in order to work? Thanks!

Cheers bro..., you have the right thinking! Indeed that for constant turn rates you'd rather like the constantly held input variant that we have now, but you can see that even with an ON/OFF variant you can still wobble rather nicely around the desired AoA. I'm saying this from experience of more than 2 decades of flying flight sims. It's no to hard to do it, but yes, if you could have a sort of input mode toggle button you can switch between modes during flight, and again..., that's not a painful task at all, it's just a thing of wanting to do it or not! Hmm, I don't see needing 3 hands (LOL) in order to toggle it. What would be so hard to reach for a key combo?

Hi, Although it has already been addressed by some folks that the CBU 97 goes haywire and spreads far from the designated zone, the CBU 105 does the same and here's what I found to be the greatest cause of it! The burst altitude setting. For both the 97 and 105, when you set a higher burst altitude, the CCRP will compute the release point more wrong and release the bombs (at least the 97) much further than it should overshooting the target by far. The lower the altitude burst setting, the less overshoot from the 97 but, of course, the much smaller radius of spreading the bomblets. The same generally happens with the wind corrected 105 but with a more weird thing. The 105, when having a higher burst altitude, say 3000ft, the bomb will glide too much ahead into the wind (wind overcorrection) in front of the targets on the ground and at the very last moments it tries desperately to correct it's trajectory and go where it should, but by the time it finishes to correct it's glide path the burst altitude is reached sending all the bomblets too far ahead into wind missing everything by far. Here's a track: CBU 97 and 105 go far from target when setting more than 1000FT burst altitude.trk Regards!

Man..., again, have you really understood what was he actually talking about? NOT SO IMPORTANT PERFECTION AND FINE TUNING WHICH I ALREADY SAID IT'S NOT NEEDED TO BOTHER WITH...! Several days..., wow...! You only read that and "voila"...! Fine tuning of "rates", "COMMAND RATES". You and I don't have to test it for days until we can find the best of the best delight rates. It only needs to be fast and simple! It can take even forever if you want to and never agree with X rate for a given input and every day you get into the code again and readjust the rate and test again and readjust again and again. That's not needed. Just put some damn fast stick rates which are similar to those on the JF-17 and that's it! THAT'S JUST IT! No input accelerations and deceleration (they are only there to make it look fancy but no pilot wants sluggish controls). Zero to that or "99999" whichever is the correct number to only simulate a constant and non-accelerated rate. Is it fair enough now?

Yes, the overall realism is divided into percentages from each of those that you've said and yes those percentages that add up to make the total realism are varying from person to person. For example, as an aerospace engineer and pilot I put most of the points for realism into accurate numbers, not graphics, not immersion, not fancy stuff, but good quality simulation...! Other people consider graphics and onboard systems simulation to be a benchmark for "realism"..., basically those people that are only "image" oriented. For me, a realistic simulator is that which can relatively accurately calculate what goes on with stuff, but that's just me and so the means by which I get to see it realistic (simulation oriented) won't matter as long as the outcome is just the same. It won't matter for me if use a keyboard or a joystick to find out how the plane behaves in certain conditions, but for people like you, yes, having more precise control over the inputs can lead to an increase in realism perception!

Why do you want to play blind? I'll reply with this again and again until you are able to get it...: You can keep saying that it's hard and it only makes you look bad! Seriously! I just don't have access to the coding of those few simple input constants cause I can assure that they'd all be tuned similarly to Deka's for ALL dcs aircraft in mostly one day. If some people are looking forward to do good things, one like you shows up to try ruining it!

Someone else who shares the same views! Many thanks for your effort to talk about this as well. When someone new tries this and sees how literally ugly the control is using the keys with Su-25T, he'll have a good chance to just skip it for something possibly worse without even trying to put any more effort in to convince himself that it's worth it or not. Deka Ironworks made their JF-17 fly using just the arrow keys EXACTLY AS EVERYONE WOULD CONSIDER IT PERFECT and as they say it didn't take much at all because it wasn't anything complicate to code in there, just the wanting to do it and these are the kind of people that push DCS up in all aspects, not just by allowing people to properly fly with the damn keyboard but all in all by how they do things starting with the plane's incredibly realistic flight model.

You are talking off-topic. The business should not be affected by a 1 hour work to make something better for all customers and speaking of witch..., the customer should be a business man's boss if you will, cause that's where the money come from and yes..., the customer should be listened to first of all and only if something is absurd (and what I talk about here is nothing but simple and easy to do) should be discussed differently. So... NO..., a business man wouldn't do stuff only how he likes it and use the rule "if they want it they buy it as it is no matter how wrong things are" cause he won't last long! I had to respond to your off-topic views about business so you can understand that things are not as you think!

Several days of development...? Man, are you ok? Have you read what I shared above? What does realism mean to you? Using joystick? LOL! The definition of realism is about how well the simulator simulates stuff, not how it looks and what devices you use! Deka Ironworks made their JF-17 work flawlessly with keyboard and as perfectly as desired so you won't need a joystick if for whatever reason you don't want or can't use it such as trying to play outdoors using just the keys. Oh man..., Deka should be punished now for proving that the coding took about an hour maximum from start to finish! Good work Deka and many thanks only to you on this subject!

Did you have the lantirn mounted? That's logic to have it roll right by itself due to the lantirn's weight the FCS doesn't compensate for that unless you select the ATT mode for the autopilot. The problem that I saw was about selft-reducing AoA when applying just pure roll inputs to the left which is different than rolling right. The left rolls reduce the AoA quite much compared to the right rolls. From how i see it there can be two reasons: 1. The FCS which is taught to reduce the AoA when applying rolls in order to reduce the inertia coupling effect. This being a pure flight control system design problem. 2. The aerodynamic part of the flight model (the nightmare of developers for correct and pure flight simulations) where the lift forces varying on the flight controls may also induce an abnormal shift in the total lift force towards the rear of the plane, thus bringing the pitching moment coefficient a little towards negative from which the AoA lowers a couple of degrees. I hope it's not an aerodynamic "bug" issue so to call it and that it's something much easier fixable regarding only the flight controls programming. Cheers!

=))! Yeah..., something like that! And this loose goose in the FM gets more evident at higher altitude and heavier loadout (bombs, 3 CBU 97's, etc.). Test it yourself! I mean it was straight forward to notice it from the first flights I've done in the F-16 with higher loadout and higher altitude when simply rolling left and right. I thought that it was me also pushing when rolling left and not pushing when rolling right, but no..., it wasn't me as the same happens even when using the keyboard. It's not a big issue, but shows something wrong! Take your time ED, I love you! Cheers!

Here it is: left rolling generates more down pitching than right rolling.trk I've done the test at high altitude (lower overall Reynolds number) because this strange effect is more obvious there. This isn't a big FM issue, but shows something that shouldn't be normal! Cheers!