Hummingbird

Both the 39 and 37 would be amazing to have and would both be instabuys for me.

The slatted F-4E shouldn't be that difficult to BFM in. Sure at very high AoA rudder will be needed for rolling, but you get used to that rather quick, as with the F-14.

The FM has definitely improved a lot, and I truly appreciate the step forward here. But there are still some obvious bugs that need ironing out, and it seems also some tuning to be done in some places. But I think ED will be on it quick.

Not sure why this is listed as "correct as is" ? As the post above says, the FLCS will be commanding the horizontal stabs full trailing edge UP, not down as is currently happening.

I'm sure they will be on it quick

Yeah I've noticed the same @777coletrain, and I don't think this instability in yaw is correct behavior but more likely an unintended bug. But we'll see. At least the FM is basically spot on in pitch rate & stability now based on the information I have available.

Yeah I agree @DummyCatz, it's the same conclusion I've come to.

Calm down, this is a relatively small issue. Overall the FM has been MUCH improved with this latest update! Now that being said, I can recreate the scenario you're talking about above and depart the aircraft if I apply FULL roll & pitch command at 300 knots & below in dry power only, and it seems to happen only if you do a complete rotation in roll (360 deg). Based on what I can see, it seems to be the rudder causing the issues, the FLCS seems abit conflicted as to how much rudder & in which direction in needs to be applied in a high AoA rolling maneuver below 300 knots. In full wet (full AB) power however, I can do this crazy maneuver the aircraft doesn't depart (but still the rudder is abit funky):

Credit where credit is due, this is an excellent update!! The overshoot/undershoot oscillation in pitch is gone, and the aircraft is a lot more stable in pitch inline with real life DFLCS logic, HUD tapes and pilot testimony. Well done ED!

Thanks for the detailed information Brems, that's what I was looking for As I understand it, the use of the flaps in this case is going to be quite limited, i.e. primarily if you're forced slow and need as tight a radius as possible. So a useful, but highly situational tool in the box.

As pr. the vids it seems the slats extend further when the combat flaps switch is engaged, is that not the case? Also as for the TE maneuvering flaps, you're saying they work when auto is selected or when combat flaps switch is engaged? I'm abit confused about this now, as I thought they were always automatically limited, but would only actually extend if the "cmbt flaps switch" was engaged.

Ah I see. So just to get this straight, what you're saying is that with the combat flaps switch engaged, the pilot can: 1) Manually apply TE flaps during maneuvers within automatically set limits 2) Manually apply extra slat extension during maneuvers over what the aircraft otherwise does automatically Yes? and thank you very much for the answer!

I'm going to answer you here with a simple; No. Look I studied fluid dynamics for several semesters before ultimately selecting a different direction due to a lack of relevant (to me) aeronautical industries (and thus interesting jobs) in my country, so I know my way around a lot of theory in its subdisciplines hydro- & esp. aerodynamics, and can thus tell pretty well when people are talking sense in that regard. So far you've yet to show a single unknown or "unexpected" phenomenon induced by slats unique to the F4 in your posts, not one. Finally I'm not the one concluding that the slats on the F4 were the direct reason behind the improved STR & ITR performance (although that should be rather obvious via method of exclusion), it's carved out in the actual report. So I'm sorry Kermit, but I don't buy it.

I will, and I hope it will solve it, but I mean if that's how it flies then that's how it flies. Realism should always trump desires, I'm just surprised is all. Hence not a dig at the module, just sharing some feedback.

Ok, well in that case I guess the Hind just is the more stable chopper, or atleast has a better stabilization system, as I'm clearly not alone with this opinion.

Just to be clear what to pay attention to in the video, it's when going straight and level, where I'm barely or not at all touching the pedals. I just can't seem to properly stabilize the chopper, it keeps wanting to subtly bob from side to side.

Yeah, bug reported this about 3 years ago when I noticed some pretty extreme climb performance: Viggen is basically a rocket until its engine dies around ~15+ km height, not really losing any speed until then. Had the engine not died, it seems it would've happily gone well into the stratosphere Meanwhile the F-15 is, as it should, losing speed gradually with altitude.

When trying to stabilize the chopper in a desired direction after a turn for example. I find the Apache very unstable in roll when just going straight, where it just always wants to subtly swing left & right like a pendulum in roll axis. By comparison the Hind is rock solid, and feels like a precision instrument.

Ok, here's a video of me doing a few circles round Mozdok AF: Now it may not look like much as I'm doing my best to keep the chopper stable, but as you'll notice it subtly but constantly wants to swing a little from left to right (like a pendulum), even when I'm not touching the pedals at all, and only using the cyclic. Having to constantly adjust in the roll axis as the chopper does this is very tiring, esp. as I just can't seem to get it perfectly stable after a turn, or just in general going straight, nomatter how hard I try. The Apache always seems to want to roll abit from side to side for me. By comparison the Hind is just easy, and gets stable real fast. I also feel like the Hind stabilizes much better in heading after a turn, i.e. it seems to stabilize more in the direction I want to go than the Apache, which after centering the pedals always seems to wanna slide more in an unwanted direction. In general the stability system in the Hind just feels way better, which is a surprise to me considering how supposedly advanced the Apache is supposed to be. Now I don't know if the SCAS is finished yet, so this could very well all be ironed out in later patches, but it's just how it feels to me now. PS: I had wind set to zero on the mission, so that isn't a factor.

But why is it not an issue in the Hind then? Also I feel like I'm centering it quite quick, but also I believe I am using the setting where no inputs are registered post trim until I center the stick, so should that even be an issue?

I'll record some footage later today and post it here. It's a super annoying issue for me when flying the Apache.

I am, so that sounds good Hopefully that solves the issue, as I can't really fly her atm due to that odd instability in roll.

Yeah this is exactly what I'm feeling too, that rocking pendular motion in roll as you try to level out. Feels very strange that the Apache should be doing that considering the advanced SCAS it's supposed to have. If realistic, it's certainly not a very impressive system compared to what's in the Hind, which is way more stable.

Has anything been changed/updated in the SCAS roll channel in the past few months? Just asking as like I said earlier, I really don't remember the Apache being so unstable in the roll axis during my first month of flying her. So when I came back to her a few weeks ago, I was surprised at how much she would rock in roll after no longer commanding any and just going straight. By comparison the Mi24 feels rock solid in roll, and quickly stabilizes after any roll commands. Is the RL Apache SCAS really that much worse than the Mi24's ?

They're certainly visible on real life guncam footage, so I'd say it would be really cool and add abit extra immersion if they made em so in DCS as well.