85th_Maverick

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!

Copy that! Will do then.

When you just said about how much effort it takes for what I was saying and how much it actually took someone, compared to what I was saying it would logically take...: Have a look:

God bless people like "LJQCN101"! With people like you and those who coded the flight model of the JF-17 DCS is overall a big step forward to true simulations. I'm off topic now but I can't handle myself to tell it: I'd hire only those people to code all of the flight models in DCS which need corrections! And the list is big! Thanks!

Whenever you roll to the left, the plane also reduces it's AoA a bit or goes towars more negative, but if you roll right, your AoA stays the same. Yes, not a confusion or error due to how I handle the stick as I'm carefully applying pure roll inputs without any pitch (the small deadzone I have also helps proving it), as the keyboard commands give the same results. Don't need a track as everyone can test it and see it quite quickly, but if needed, I'll make a track which also show the inputs values.

Ok, be it, 8G (although that guy said the manual tells something about 15G for ultimate load) operational will most certainly mean more than 12..13 constantly held for many seconds before the wings should rip off with full internal fuel and no belly loadout. The common sense brings a least average error when concrete data isn't available!

Heh, the same ultimate load limit factor of 1.5!:D 13.5 / 9 = 1.5 Wow..., and that F-22 only had some warped skin (we don't know about the internal structure and may never know publicly) at negative 11G (for how many tents of seconds if not seconds)? Well..., as all fighters are having their structure designed to withstand better positive G-load limits at the expense of negative G-load limits, just think how well it could've went at positive without any damage at all. Wow! So, there you go..., 15G even if it's form the old manual, it's the same old aircraft anyway. I was close when guessing it at 14;) for the Su-27 and thinking that it should be at least 12 for the Su-33. Now let's just ask the devs to take the time and tweak it a bit to about that before the wings break. Cheers to everyone!

And so they did! Now the Flanker's wings rip off very rapidly at just 10G. I've had a discussion about the Over G of the F-18C in DCS which can be achieved by pulling full aft stick and the pressing the autopilot disconnect paddle once and after that the plane's AoA goes somewhat higher and the F-18 is now limited to some much higher vertical G than 7.5 or whatever it was initially, all until you release the stick and the original limitation kicks back in. There I have been actually reminded by someone that the wings won't break that easy even some good Gs above the operational limit (what the aircraft's flight control system automatically limits it to) but eventually bend and remain remain unrepairable for good. In order to break, you must really pull some very serious Gs for many seconds, not just some 1.5 x the operational limit (1.5 x 9G = 13.5G). Maybe nobody has access to this sensitive data from the aircraft's design period but with some initial minimal knowledge and data we can estimate it with acceptable error. Knowing that the Su-27 prototype, the T-10 had at some exercise been subjected to some vertical G loads that broke one of the wings closer to the tip and the plane landed safely and was investigated, the Sukhoi Design Bureau had redesigned the wing reinforcing it. It's common sense that the Su-27/33 in DCS must have their wings breaking G-load some higher than just 10. If the F-18 in DCS which is a naval aircraft having folding wings (the hinge is a weaker structural element) reaches and holds over 10G (hard but doable at the right speed and height), how come that the more robust Su-33 breaks immediately there, not to mention the Su-27 which should be among the most structurally tough in this area. Someone must revise and rise the wings breaking G-load of the Su-27/33 by some amount. I'd guess it for at least 14G on the Su-27 and some 12G on the Su-33 with full internal fuel and no fuselage loadout (the internal fuel and fuselage loadout is the weight that breaks the wings..., what's on the wings matters only for their pylons)

To you maybe...! It's just fun for me, sorry to not be on your side with this...! The only thing I'm asking for is to have it even easier by having the damn pitch control turn to it's neutral which again..., isn't that hard in any way. Take the F-14 from Heatblur as well, if DEKA's JF-17 is not enough. They have tweaked (which I guess it didn't take more than 10 minutes all in all to code down) the roll input to have a high rate when the roll control is applied and instantly (infinite speed if you will) return to neutral when the roll input is released. They have exaggerated the roll input rate for both the input apply and input release (which is something like a 0.0000001 seconds time to return to neutral)! It is indeed ideal that a higher rate would be for returning the input than for applying it, but it looks ugly to see it snap in the middle like that, but even so..., having a higher control rate makes it much more precise and easier to fly. That's like a rule! Funny it is that on the other hand "they have thought that it would be good for the player" (which was actually a wrong thing) on the other hand to have the pitch control rate as lazy and as sluggish as ever seen making it very difficult to even takeoff without either overspeeding or over pitching up after takeoff. Just like others do..., they "thought that it would be better this way or that way" probably without actually testing at all or enough to make sure they are OK! So, there are just some simple constants within the keyboard input control lines in the code that have to be rewrote. I guess this would be the easiest and least time consuming correction ever compared to all the big lists of work that we see quite often being done at every update which proves a very high implication from everyone involving DCS and everytime I see so many corrections being done I wonder if these people even have time to sleep! What I'm asking for is actually easy!

Hi, Can you please let us know how hard was it for you to make the keyboard pitch control input return to neutral and have the current control rates/speeds on all 3 inputs? Thanks! Many of us trying to use the keyboard (just because we needed to) have seen how ugly it is to try to control the aircraft in DCS (alone) at least in pitch commands which never turned to neutral after releasing the pitch input keys. YOU..., are the ones and only (my respect) who made it very simple and very perfect by having ALL of the controls return to neutral with a constant rate (no accelerations and crap like that) and as such, made the JF-17 pilots using keyboard fly the thing almost as good as having a stick in the very moments when a stick isn't available (laptop playing or whatever else reason). Many thanks and good regards to you guys on not only making THE MOST AUTHENTIC flight model in terms of correctly simulating the 6 aerodynamic coefficients on this nice jet, but also allowing us with many other features (countermeasures personalization, etc.), including these rather perfect keyboard controlling inputs behavior. BRAVO!!!

Bro..., are you working for ED or are you hired to improve it in any way? If yes, then you should help us obtain what is otherwise easy to be done instead of giving disgusting and unconstructive replies through mockery! OK? If not..., then stop talking about things that don't bother you, seriously! We want all of the planes and helos in DCS to have the controls return to neutral as they are already perfectly fine implemented on the JF-17 and that's it! This shouldn't be time consuming in any way as the only thing needed to be done is to change some parameters in the coding.

Oh really? If you want I'm going to show you how I even fly upside down with many fighters using just keyboard, not to mention about landing on aircraft carrier. Where did you come up with having it very difficult with keyboard?? NO! It's not difficult at all and I personally like it. All I wanted (and there's many other who do) was to have all the controls get back to neutral and at a faster constant rate (no acceleration / deceleration). Huh? Time consuming? Doohhh! Man that takes very freaking little effort. If it's your imagination that it's hard, it's only yours! THANK GOD that DEKA IRONWORKS have foreseen this need and had done exactly what I'm talking about with the JF-17 and it's just superb to fly using keyboard. The controls don't have any accelerations, but just a constant decent speed which makes controlling the plane more accurate (at least in pitch) and easier to fly overall. So what are you talking about and why don't you even read it all before replying nonsense? There you go..., at least someone with a better quality thinking! Cheers!

Then these JF-17 AA missiles must have their warhead tuned down a little bit cause even without the frag modelling, these missiles are exploding like some small nukes next to your plane. A better tweak would be a good remedy!

Yeap, the structural fatigue isn't indeed simulated and nobody should waste time with that kind of modelling, but wings remaining bent up to a level and having the plane not fly straight (some uncommanded beta and/or roll) if a given G limit is reached before they actually break is something already achieved in other flight sims, but again, this shouldn't be a priority! The priority should mainly be focused on accurate simulations. At least that's what DCS should mean to me!;) No, I didn't watch Top Gun 2, because only after I accidentally saw some parts of a trailer showing very unrealistic F-18 pitch up accelerations (a kind of fast cobra or something that it did) that would induce some 30 G's (I've calculated that using time frames and some math just for fun and that's what it resulted for an instant G-load) or more on the pilot simply made me puke..., so, no thanks, I'm all for realism and TOP GUN 1 remained the only one more appealing to me;). It does not engage the normal G-override unless you release the stick first, but holds some couple of degrees AoA and G-load higher. You simply pull full stick, press the disconnect then release it and as long as the stick remains pulled, the normal limitation is gone, but some higher limit is still there. I've already wrote about it! Thanks! I didn't RTFM so, it was as simple as that!;)

Copy that! So when was the MWS button in the cockpit put on the Falcon and did they put it as a provision as a future upgrade? Thanks! Copy!

Would it be possible to have MWS (basically monitoring for IR missiles being fired) implemented for any DCS fighter module? The FC3 aircraft benefit from it, named "RADIO ASSIST" (but it's not realistic due to high ranges and missile motor OFF conditions where it still warns of incoming missile) which is a feature available at mission options, but the A-10C has it's own MWS and it's about the only one modeled so far for non FC3 modules and it's also quite realistic. Have a look at what some are developing: https://electronics.leonardo.com/en/products/mair Another example for the F-16 is here: https://www.militaryaerospace.com/sensors/article/14169273/infrared-missile-warning-f16-jet-fighters

Hello, Please check to see if the AP disconnect button should allow for the flight controls system to unrestrict the positive AoA max +7.5G limit! Whenever the AP disconnect button is once pressed (no matter if the autopilot is already ON or OFF) while already having a full aft stick input (I didn't try with part aft stick to see if the FCS activates the same unrestriction again or only at full aft stick), the required positive AoA for holding the operational G limit is unrestricted to a couple of degrees higher which allows for afferent higher G loads. At the same time the MASTER WARNING light comes on. The FCS self resets when the stick is released and the AoA now re-limits the G load to whatever it should be and the MASTER WARNING light goes off as well. So, please check to see if this is the case with the real F-18C as well. By logic and common sense engineering, this G limit unrestriction shouldn't happen by using an AP disconnect button...! If it were for the pilot to have an emergency higher G limit for a matter of seconds, a dedicated button must've been there for it. At least that's how I see it. The structural failure limit is realistic for the F-18 already. As I've played a little with this rather abnormal AP disconnect high G limit behavior, I could see that the wings with break at some 9 to a bit over 9G if that G is held for more than 1 or 2 seconds. Yes, I've also reached some 10.3Gs but only for less than half a second and it didn't break which is remarkably well simulated. In civil aviation at least, an "ultimate load factor" is about 1.5 times the "design limit load factor" while for the military (where performance is more important) the ultimate load factor is usually around 1.2 times the design limit. The ultimate load factor is defined as the load at which internal primary structural elements (spars, stringers, whole torque boxes, etc.) start breaking up when subjected to a constant force for more than 3 seconds. So, in other words, only after 3 seconds of being held at those loads the structure can fail. The lower the amount of time a structural member is held at a given load, the less the chance for it to break. Someone can call it "resilience". This is a big thumbs up for all fixed wing aircraft in DCS and my admiration towards all the developers in DCS modeling the function of structural failure G-load versus exposed time to those loads. I've first seen this playing a bit with the Su-27 and 33 when using direct pitch input and first saw that the wings integrity would fail at some 10G at a full internal fuel and no belly and engine nacelles loadout condition (the load carried by the wings alone does not have any effect on the G-limit at which the wing breaks off the fuselage, which is also another important and correctly simulated thing, cause only the total weight of the fuselage is what makes the wings break off of it, and if the pylons break alone or not is something separate) if that 10G is held for no more than some 1 or 2 seconds. If the lower the time, let's say 0.2 seconds and now the wings can resist even at some 13G or more without breaking. The lower the fuselage (only) weight, again, the higher the structural breaking G-load versus time. Speaking of witch (regarding a Su-27/33 wings breaking G-load topic), the Su-27 and 33 in DCS prove the lowest G limit wings breaking resistance among all fighters. Either these 2 Sukhois are being simulated a bit too weak compared to reality or all other fighters are too resistant, it's a big subject to research, but my view is that all other are about right (except MIG-21 and probably another) while the Su-27 and 33 should have it some 1..2Gs higher than it is, because the only known Su-27 that had a wing broken closer to the tip was a prototype and they've redesigned the wing after that mishap! All the best!

I see the intention with this new feature and it's a another good idea to increase realism. I like it, but it still needs tweaking and improvement here and there. The idea to only better see the hotter spots of a ground unit (vehicle or human) in contrast to the cooler spots is not wrong, but I believe that the discrepancies / contrast are too great. From all real IR life footage I could find on the internet, there isn't such a great contrast between the hot and cold areas of a unit seen with a FLIR for example and at the same time they appear much brighter and clearer in reality than in DCS. Here's some war examples and may require discretion: If the ground units can appear much closer to this in DCS, that would be the key! The idea may be good (not that necessary I believe though) to make a difference between hotter and cooler spots on a unit, but it might be too much bother to program. Better just make them brighter as they appear on real FLIRs and that's it!

I tried this and even accelerated the time to become a couple of hours later after the mission has started and the targets still remain as cold as the night. Yes, I continued to try so using the mist respawn code, but still, by making the group activate with mission start shouldn't the targets become hot as you've said it should work?

I moved the tank and solider around in that small example mission that I've uploaded here for test and no heat was added to any of the 2 units. What can I do to have the units heated up to bypass this rather useless feature that would only make sense for ground units which stood with engine off for plenty of hours to become as cold as the surroundings. Still for the soldiers, to be as cold as the surroundings would mean that their life chapter has ended!

Copy! Until then, just let us know how turn the targets hot (if there's any other method than having them move around a bit) cause even in winter or summer your vehicles will be hotter than the surroundings well enough to be spotted on FLIR. In the summer, they'll get heated by the sun much greater than the surroundings and in the winter they'll be with engine running and heated for the crew, so either way I can't find a real situation where the vehicles will be as cold as the environment, makes no sense. The soldiers should always be hot anyway! Cheers!