Aeroscout
-
Posts
1943 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Aeroscout
-
-
It has to do with the trim. I flew the Vegas Tour again today, and once I passed under the bridge, I needed a LOT of nose-up trim. I ended up missing a gate, and while I was circling around, I decided to trim up in level flight, sure enough, I was trimmed back to about 50% longitudinal stick, at a speed where I was normally trimmed at about 10% to 20% (right around the TO trim position). I continued the tour and I ended up passing low and a bit slow over a town when the nose suddenly came up. I re-trimmed nose-down, and the trim position returned to about 20%.
So, something funky happens to the aircraft trim when passing under the bridge, almost like there's an additional longitudinal control bias that's added as you pass under, and then removed when you get low and slow enough. Very odd.
(For reference, 0% refers to full forward stick, 100% full aft. The TO trim position, where the lines cross in the control display, I'd estimate is around the 20% point.)
-
Come to think of it, the Hoover dam bridge is probably just big enough for us to really notice the effect, even more so as the old hangars never allowed an A-10 to enter them (well... enter, yes, exit, not so much :D).
Of course that still doesn't explain the landing flare anomaly on the next touchdown, even if it happens 10 or more minutes later in a different part of the map, and why it only seems to affect certain airframes.
Yeah, that's why I was looking for something you could fly through in a fixed wing where this happens.
Interesting theory, Yurgon. Perhaps the "(DCS) World Physics" doesn't (completely) apply in buildings and the bridge is just a building and between the pylons, we are inside of it.Does this effect also happen if one flies much lower benath it? I.e. directly above the water, where the building perhaps does not reach that far down?
That's an interesting idea. I'll have to give that a shot. The flight model is obviously taking the presence of the building into account, which is interesting. I didn't think it would beyond collision detection. I guess it all comes down to how the flight model is done, and how robust it can be made for these kinds of cases. For instance, the flight model has to know to model ground effect only when above an object, not beneath it. Seems obvious, but is something that could be overlooked. Of course, this issue could have nothing at all to do with ground effect. We have no way of knowing without actually seeing how it's modeled, and from what I know about ED, that's never going to happen.
-
If a helicopter hovers below a solid surface, it will indeed generate additional lift, and will appear to be sucked up towards it. However, this will only happen within a rotor diameter or two, much like ground effect. Helicopters obviously don't fly under things very often or at all, and so this is never really analyzed. I can't imagine there's much real world data on it.
Anyway, that said, I don't think that's what's going on here, and if it is, they've done it wrong. The bridge is way too far in the far field for it to have much effect (remember, we're talking only a rotor diameter or two). Additionally, there's a clear, distinct boundary where the aircraft enters and exits this disturbance. Should it be a real phenomenon, I would think it would fade in and out in some manner.
-
It's not really turbulence, it's the same kind of glitch you can already find in some hangars and oil rigs in 1.2 and 1.5.
More details and a track here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154325
Whether it's related to what is described here, however, I do not know.
I decided to take the Huey for a spin under the bridge. Here's how it went:
Something's really messed up here, though you say it happens in 1.2/1.5? Is there a bridge in the Black Sea map that exhibits this behavior? I'm wondering if we could give it a try in the A-10C to see if it happens there too.
-
Just made another video, this time flying the Huey under the bridge several times.
Something really strange is happening here, but at this point, I think it's up to the devs to figure it out.
-
Yup, I noticed this too. First thing I did when I fired up the Nevada map was to fly over the key locations from Fallout New Vegas (I quite like that game). Searchlight (about as far south as you can go before they stopped bothering to detail stuff) should have an airport, but it's only visible as the low res discolorations in the desert you describe. Think I saw one at Primm as well, though google earth suggests otherwise. (On the subject of Primm, ED forgot to add the rollorcoaster there, though I don't think many people are going to be flying to the south end of the map anyway)
-
I have noticed the issue where there appears to be an impact, but there's in fact no damage. Happens in the video below.
So, I did some more flying, and this is what happened. I'll let the video speak for itself.
Notice the significantly different trim positions.
-
I had a look at the landing issue. Something really strange is going on.
Notice the significantly different trim positions.
-
There is an area of turbulence under the bridge at Hoover dam. Fly a Huey under it and you'll see it straight away.It's not really turbulence, it's the same kind of glitch you can already find in some hangars and oil rigs in 1.2 and 1.5.
More details and a track here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=154325
Whether it's related to what is described here, however, I do not know.
Not sure whether it's really related, but there's a new thread about that disturbance including a video that shows it quite nicely in the F-15: Odd Transient When Flying Under BridgeYup, that's it. It's not really an increase in lift so much as just a disturbance. It happens in yaw, or at least in the inertial XY plane (See the bit where I go under when banked, it seems to be along the horizon). I figured I'd just post the video and be done with it, but now part of me wants to set everything back up and try it with a slower aircraft.
It is interesting the people mention the Hoover Dam bridge. As I think back to the flight that my brother and I experienced ground effect at Groom Lake, we had both flown under the bridge. There were two others in our flight who did not fly under the bridge and did not experience any ground effect when landing. There definitely could be a correlation here.That's interesting. I might have to give that a go.
Another thing, ground effect isn't going to result in pitch up so much as an overall increase in lift. In a fixed wing aircraft, however, the effect should be very subtle, so I doubt this landing disturbance is ground effect modeling, or at least, it doesn't appear to be proper ground effect modeling if is indeed pitching up.
-
tbh it looks like a shadow rendering bug.
will give some runs tonight a d see if I can re produce.
I don't care about the shadows much, though I'd like to see that fixed as it can be distracting. What I'm referring to is the slight transient (change in flight path and attitude) as the aircraft passes under the bridge. I flew hands off as I passed over and under every time so that everything's clear and obvious that it's not being caused by control inputs. Of course, that made many of my recoveries pretty close-calls.
Others have noticed it as well.There's a theory that this might in some way be related to a weird landing flare problem that has been observed at Nellis and McCarran, but I think there's nothing definitive yet as to the nature of that effect or whether it's really related to this one.
In any case, good video, that really helps to show the effect! :thumbup:
Thanks, glad it's not just me. Because this only happened to me when I enabled wind an turbulence (though I haven't tested either individually) my current theory is ED did some turbulence mapping, increasing turbulence over paved areas. If they made it a function of height, it could explain why the effect is more noticeable under the bridge than over it.
I'll have a look at the thread.
When I first noticed it in the Mustang, I thought it's an intended simulation of air flow being disturbed between the bridge and the dam. I don't know if that's the case, but I wouldn't mind finding out :).That was actually my first thought too, but the transient occurs very consistently directly under the bridge.
-
I get an odd transient/perturbation when flying under the Hoover Dam bridge. Actually, I get it when flying just above it too, but it's more noticeable when going under. The transient only occurs when I added some wind and turbulence. It does not occur when the default weather is used. Honestly, I couldn't be bothered to investigate it any further, so I have only done it in the F-15C and with the Summer Hot with Wind preset.
Here's a video showing the transient. Watch closely when passing under and over the bridge. The case where I flew high over the bridge there was no transient, so it appears to be altitude dependent.
I know we're not supposed to be flying under bridges, but considering this is a sim, and this is a pretty prominent and easy bridge to fly under, I thought I'd mention it.
-
2
-
-
I posted the following comment on your video, but maybe others here had similar questions:
A couple questions:1: Do you fly other helos in DCS? (Mi-8, Ka-50)? These helicopters implement a trim release and autopilot which cannot be accurately simulated by a passive stick. If you do fly these helos with your setup, how do you get around the sim's assumption that you should return the stick to center? As a former UH-60 pilot, I'm sure you know already, but for others who might be reading this, in an actual helicopter, pressing the trim release disengages the autopilot, drops the reference heading/attitude and disengages the trim. The stick can then be freely moved, much like the damped stick hardware shown here. When the trim release button is released, the trim reengages, creating a new center position for the stick, and the autopilot reengages and picks up a new referenced heading and attitude. When the trim release button is not pressed, the stick has a return-to-center behavior much like that of traditional joysticks. This is true on the cyclic, collective, AND pedals (Depending on the specific helo, of course)
2: Is there any kind of mechanical slop or bending in either the cyclic or collective sticks? What about sticktion? From the video, you appear to be making small movements to the collective stick which don't appear to be all that smooth.
3: How much throw does the stick have? (Angle of throw, stick length to handle, and arc length at handle) How does it compare to the control throws of the UH-60?
4: I believe this company makes pedals as well, though they lack toebrakes. Any planes on picking those up?
Thanks for the video! I had an idea for a damped stick with no spring return for a while now. Glad to see someone finally made one. I want to tear it apart and see how it works.
-
The general effect of the water (scaling and shape of the waves) is way off as well, but until we actually have to visually judge sea state for landing on a carrier, I don't think that's as important. It's a good point though.
-
I'm sorry, but I don't get it. Is water not supposed to render at sea level in rivers?
Or is this a similar issue to the gravity defying water present in rise of flight's harbours?
I've been away for a while....
This is a remnant from the days of lockon 1.0, and t's really hard to understand from a screenshot.
See this picture: http://imgur.com/cHoks8E
The sea-level water plane is continued to infinity; it is always rendered, even if it's below the terrain. Small rivers are accomplished by laying down a strip with textures and a reflective surface, and for the most part, it works fairly well. This can't be used for larger rivers, however. So, instead, someone thought it would be a good idea to simply rip a hole in the terrain so that you could see the water lying below. It's pretty simple solution, and is fine for a still screenshot, but if you're moving it creates a HORRIBLE parallax effect, especially if you're low, compromising your depth perception. Back in the lockon days, I could accept this. We were flying jets and didn't spend much time down low. However, IMO, as soon as Ka-50 was released, this should have been fixed. I brought this up before somewhere in these forums a long time ago and someone told me I should ignore it because "it's not fishing simulator." It's an example of one of the many reasons I don't frequent the forums or indeed the flight sim community much anymore.
-
1
-
-
That's disappointing. I've been away for a while, so I guess I missed that it was corrected for unconnected bodies of water. This is something I was very excited about seeing corrected entirely. I hope it is fixed some day.
-
I thought this was supposed to be fixed as per
I checked the rivers and lakes near Krasnador, and they seemed fine.I know this isn't fishing simulator (as someone oh-so-kindly reminded me years ago) but this is incredibly frustrating for helo pilots.
-
Hey hey! Haven't posted here in ages. Thank you all very much!
Aero
-
Simply put, the F-16 pit builders community is much larger and more established than any other military jet in the sim genre. Besides, the bezels used on the A-10C are almost identical to the ones on the F-16C...
I have a feeling that's about to change. And "Nearly identical" is not how I would compare them to those of the A-10 C. There is an extra rocker switch and a dial, in addition to being significantly larger.
Anyway, I have purchased the MFD cougar for my new setup here at college. To be honest, I have mixed feelings about their quality. But it's better than a keyboard. I would have liked to see some 5x5 inch ones though. The F-16 is overrated.
Aero
-
Ok, so I know I'm probably one of the most detested and hated people on these forums, but maybe some people will find these useful?
So, I was bored one day, and instead of working of stuff that I really should have been working on for school, I decided instead to make these up incase they helped anyone out with sketchup models designing cockpits.
Using these dimensions, I made, in about a day, near perfect models of the cougar MFD in sketchup. Here are some pics.
Sorry, no stand or glass or anything fancy like that as those dimensions were not available to me and I do not actually own these (Though if someone would like to give me a cougar MFD pack or make a monetary donation, it would be greatly appreciated!:D)
Ok, one thing I should note. Going along with their whole "F-16 replica" thing, Thrustmaster had the most brilliant idea of making these MFDs with a screen size of about 11cm by 11cm (or about 4.25in by 4.25in) which, IMO, was a rather stupid move on their part. Nearly all other American military aircraft with similar 20-button displays are 5in by 5in, including the F-15C, F/A-18 and (*Gasp!*) the A-10C! But I guess everyone just has such a hard-on for the F-16, that it's justified? I don't know, but I would have perfered nice 5in displays to go along with their A-10C HOTAS. But I digress...
So, If you want this in the cockpit you're building or designing in sketchup, please feel free to use it, assuming you don't think it's tainted by my making it (Sorry). It's available in the Google 3D warehouse.
Will I be making any of these in the future? Probably not, as I'm really actually not that great with any sort of 3D modeling.
Enjoy
Aero
-
1
-
-
I should also note that I really enjoyed the inclusion of the CT paint scheme for the 103rd FW.
Greeting's from Connecticut :D
Aero
-
Well, this helps me justify the money spent on some new parts for my rig! (i7 870, Radeon HD 5770, ect.)
This is looking quite amazing, loving the soft shadows. The lighting looks great too. Don't know much about DirectX11, but so long as it's backward compatible, I'm happy (not that I have anything to worry about)
This has me much more excited than the shark did. fingers crossed for a release this year.
Aero
-
Haha, wow...
I believe those two movies where that footages came from were Just Plane Wrong lolThat's awesome, pauldy. I spent nearly an hour reading stuff on that site!
Aero
-
Yes, betty will tell you about an in-coming missile and tell you to shoot. The "Shoot Shoot" cue is usually quickly followed by a "No No, I'll shoot when I want to damn it!" followed by hitting escape and changing the settings in the options.
In short, I think it's more annoying than anything and is far from realistic.
Aero
-
In my setup, I have 2 monitors showing the same thing. If there's someone who wants to try my cockpit, I let them sit in the pit and I use the mouse cursor to point things out to them while I'm sitting at my desk. I don't have a joystick, But I could connect on exra one I have lying around and basically fly as an instructor. Yes, It's a work around, but it's not half bad.
Just a thought.
Aero
Where is the terrain self shadowing??
in DCS: Nevada Test and Training Range
Posted
I could be very wrong here, but this is what I believe is happening.
The terrain is actually NOT self shadowing. What's happening is terrain shadows are baked onto the terrain textures for various times of day, and are probably faded from one to the other as time passes. Go ahead and look at a road that passes through the shadow of a hill or mountain, ad you'll notice it's much brighter than it would be (bright as it is in the sun) as it is not affected by the terrain. Same for the cockpit. Fly behind a mountain, and you shouldn't notice anything change regarding cockpit lighting.
Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. Whether or not this constitutes false advertisement I'll leave for others to decide. I just wish ED was a bit more upfront about their methods. That said, I think I remember something being mentioned in one of Wag's Sunday videos, but I can't be bothered to find it right now.