SinusoidDelta

IMO never trust ILS in the F-15C(At least how it’s implemented now). Use the technique from the flight manual (basically what GG said) and F-10 map if needed for distance. Also remember that at higher gross weights your CG will be further forward. You’ll need more aft stick at touchdown to keep the nose up relative to a lighter gross weight. This is mentioned in the manual. To the original poster, have you had any success? I think we’ve made it clear as mud :joystick:

My thinking as well. VKB and VPC have definitely set a new standard. :thumbup:

:shocking: Looks wonderful!

I don’t wanna be that guy but google something like “Doppler Radar pulse compression”. There are a bunch good documents that can explain the concept. If I explain my understanding I’m only setting myself up to be corrected by beamscanner :smartass:

For OP:

Also, when telemetry is exported from tacview to .csv the time interval is 0.25 seconds. It would be wonderful to have the ability to change the csv export interval.

I’ve modified a few modules’ cockpit glass reflection dds textures to reduce the glare and intensity problems. I don’t own the mig-15 module so I haven’t done that one yet. It’s fairly simple if you have an image editor that can import/export dds. I suppose I could gather the ones I have done and create a proper, single JGSME package.

Posted for visibility, thanks blkspade: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3282281#post3282281

As reported by blkspade here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3281643#post3281643

I purchased my TM Warthog in late 2014. The throttle bricked about a month ago. Switch failures occurred on the stick grip around the 1 year mark. I feel like more TM Warthog owners who purchased from release to 2014ish are saying they’ve had no problems than those who purchased 2014 or later. Just my opinion.

After seeing the pictures I think I shouldn’t have speculated. From my experience as a CNC machinist as an engineer, I’ve had an emphasis on metrology, GD&T, and V&V. Saying what I really think about the quality of those cams is essentially engineering for free. It would likely just get me into trouble here. I think VPC if anyone should explain.

I am a very unhappy TM warthog owner. The flawed design of the gimbal cannot be corrected. It’s gimbal design shares more in common with an analog thumbstick (i.e., Xbox or PS controller) than anything resembling a flight control mechanism. Perhaps I’m just being picky there. What cannot be denied is the abhorrent build quality and overall design. Yes the throttle levers have slop, are made of plastic and have only a thin metal veneer. Yet the throttle weighs nearly 10 pounds due to the steel ballast affixed to the upper side of the bottom cover plate. Switches on the throttle and stick are of the lowest possible quality and fail often. I would gladly take analog potentiometers over TM’s “H.E.A.R.T.” hall sensors in the throttle if the cost would allow something resembling a quality switch or button . Now, look at the stickied post at the top of this sub forum for how many users have had total main board failures. My throttle is now on that list, despite following TM’s absurd instructions to plug the throttle in after PC start up. Why does no other USB device have such problems? Yet Thrustmaster Support continues to manufacture this product with a known flaw and when the failure occurs immediately they will offer sell you a replacement for $60. If you’re lucky enough to have it fail within the warranty, they will still send you a replacement board that you must replace yourself.

Ah, I haven’t seen any pictures of the cam surface that close. Maybe I’m not looking far enough back in the thread. If that’s the surface finish you’re seeing then the parts are almost certainly being cut with a water jet. Correction: It looks like those are 3 different cutting tools in the image? Are you referring to the bottom most one?

Thanks for reporting. I’ve been aware of this bug for a long time now and haven’t reported it. I think the proper place would be the open beta / alpha sub.

I can’t confirm the flaps problem yet. I can however confirm the HSI range indicator bug. Exactly as yours looked it is blacked out in 1.5.7. This should be reported in the open beta sub.

More than one reason you could be seeing that: using a dry machining process or inadequate coolant flow, excessive feed/speed depth, or even post process heat treatment. When metal is removed with rotating cutting tool, the machined surface becomes strain (aka work) hardened. This is can be undesirable in many applications and can be altered through heat treating though I don’t think it’s necesary here. It also could indicate laser cutting or wire EDM for the roughing process. Which picture specifically are you looking at?.

Yeah. As a former CNC machinist the cams may be use laser cutting for the rough cutting. But the finishing process looks to be done with a vertical mill. The one photo you can see the burr has “pushed” up and over, off the cam’s radiused working surface and onto the plane that has the 2 countersunk holes (the holes appear to be plunge cut at improper feeds/speeds based on surface finish). This indictates an end mill performed a finishing pass, typically high speed, low feed pass and as you said a shallow depth that varies depending on the steel. Feeds and speeds in addition to using a non ideal cutting tool on the finishing pass (more Ideal would be a shorter higher flute count HSS, Ideal would be carbide) seem like the obvious problem here. Something I’m curious about is they almost appear to be electroplated based on odd surface finish on the far right cam, far right portion of the working surface.

That’s the impression I was getting when you say: Or this: This is all beside the point though. I’m only trying to help illustrate the FBW modes and the specific transfer function responsible for the behavior you are referring to.

That is not what I’m arguing. That is an inductive assumption. We actually are closer to agreement than anything. The only thing I’m saying is that damping exists in this mode. Let me explain further. A block in a 1st order, control system block diagram is called a transfer function. The transfer function is defined by a curve. The curve and polynomial, along with its variables, are defined in fmoptions lua. The damping transfer function itself is what could be incorrect here.

This is how I interpret the longitudinal FBW. We've been provided a 1st order block diagram and the 3 control states have also been described verbally. The signal flow is unambiguous. In LANDING MODE pitch rate is still fed through the damping transfer function. The assumption that LANDING MODE stabilizer rotation cannot possibly have (leading edge downward) damping is incorrect. The block diagram flow path tells us it absolutely can have damping in LANDING MODE.

Try clearing the controls. I’m going to test now and report back about both.

Purely my opinion but, although mental triangulation is essential for SA, invoking Pythagoras during combat is certainly a ‘less than ideal’ solution with hands full.

I know this sounds trivial but check your control assignments. Personally I’d clear them entirely and reassign. What command are using? Flaps auto? Or do you have flaps up and flaps down assigned to seperate inputs?

I think both should be an option.

Thanks for clarifying. In the OP it says you were I saw 1.5.6 so I was just trying to understand. I guess I misunderstood. I’ll test it out. Seems like there certainly could be a bug.