RvEYoda

I dont know, I've had similar issues in both Fc2 unpatched and patched, but also FC 1.12. If you fly close formation with AI wingman and just roll at high speed, he will crash into you and you explode. Also if you take off with a certain speed he crashes into you.

Thank you wed, i will add it to the first page! There seems to be some problems with pictures overlapping each other? is it possibel to solve? I can provide you with the source document from Open Office and picture files.

I'm interested in what part exactly in Fc2 is the cause of the wobbling, as I understand your answer Fusion, it was at least partially or significantly reduced by disabling ACS? This would indicate that it is a direct result of the flanker heritage aoa/g limiter.

Fusion can you do a test in Fc2, Test with ACS failure, see if the bounce is still there! If it is no longer there, we probably have another case of our old friend the flanker a2a/G limiter

What is that? A firewall? You MUST all have the exact same version of leavu or you will have big problems! Everyone must have 2.1.

Can the transition between colors be made smooth?

Thank you, Wed! :) I'll see if we can get an "about" button in Leavu2 and we can put your name there (be sure to put it on the manual you write also!)

Yeah this issue is something that would be good to see attended, but I think it is not possible with the current SFM, so definitely fixed in DCS. I think it is because in Fc the auto-trim of the F-15 adapts the flight path instead of pitch, plus some flanker FM code heritage.

Just a guess, the blue should be in the center and it should gradually become more yellow the more on the edge it is. (Hotter in the center). It seems to (looking only at the pictures) consist of 2 cylinders and a couple of "rings". I'd make the outer cylinder and rings yellow and try the inner cylinder blue.

That means someone has to create instruments for them. If you know some C or Java please don't hesitate if you want to join in development. It is fully open source.

I'm not going to go search for you - I am@work, you can search for it well yourself. You can also wait for BMS5 with dynamic flight model to be released which will have the same conclusion (you can watch its early flight model on youtube)

we are not discussing particular parts of either implementation. (They both have strengths and weakneses, depending on what you prefer one has more than the other.) We are discussing the princple of 2-variable interpolated tables vs dynamic FM. (For F-16 btw at least enough to perform straight flight because it has been done in real airshows)

I think they do. However I wonder if they further split each 1/50 step into even smaller steps when it comes to the FM. (1/50 is enough for let's say AI etc)

We have a song at our UNI about RK because its name sounds a lot like something else in Swedish. It is about a person who can't get his 1st year mechanics courses right and ends up using RK with some mech program called "Sofia" or something like that. Disagree. Someone has to find where the problem lies and understand what he needs to change to fix it. Can't just remove the rails, even if you feel like ur flying on rails :)

Afaik Falcon doesnt model the rudder as a lift surface, only as something that can turn/yaw the aircraft. In terms of acceleration/braking/speeds/turn rates/fuel consumption performance of F- 16 AF/OF has significantly better envelope coverage than flyable SFM planes in lockon (though Fc2 does even out things a bit), but of course has its own quirks. You have to find what suits you best. Remember Fc has got what is it, 5-7 planes to work on while Falcon only needs to fix the F-16? I find that the best way to become better is to learn from as many sources as possible. So we are on the same page :). (FC is 50 Hz btw) What I'm saying is you prob don't even need to integrate them at all. You just need to calculate one step every simulation frame unless you have some form of guidance system that requires an approximate extrapolated path (for example I wrote a program to predict the motion of a barrel roll). I guess indirectly "stepping" is equivalent of integrating, but you're not really integrating every frame afaik. (Well you could split each 1/50 part of a second into even smaller time steps and integrate that step...Not sure if that is actually being done, but I doubt it is necessary)

dlls are in the correct place? please give the error message from CMD.

For a flight simulation I think you rarely need to analyticly "solve them" (perhaps for computer control reasons such as FBW or intercept vector/inertial guidance), only formulate them, and see where they lead. Just use some step model to see "what happened next". Perhaps I'm wrong, I never studied fluid/aerodynamic. :P Yes but FC's SFM basically works the same way with a few tricks there as well to help. The hard coded SFM has other issues such as the auto trim keeping flight direction constant instead of nose direction, creating a excessive bouncing nose effect for F-15 etc. They both have issues, and are at about the same level of complexity.

You hit the nail there I believe :) My opinion on this has gone from one to the other about 4 times so far after reading this :p. I'm thinking along the lines of non-conservative systems, in the meaning that the "consumption" to reach a state is not only defined by the state itself, but also the path taken to get there. Use a different path and you may get to the same end state of a certain variable, while leaving others out. However some situations I believe are well represented by snapshots, especially when dealing with non-deformed objects, such as simple undamaged aircraft control surfaces. I am not sure if the drag-lift tables are good or bad for a simple flight model. We need to find some specific examples of where it fails in the case of the aircraft. I believe that IF the model can be well expressed as a function of current state F = F(x_0, x_1....x_n) (Function F of state variables x_0 to x_n), then it can be fully expressed as a multidimensional interpolated matrix, but, hehe, I think it may very quickly get out of hand when dealing with more than 2-3 variables :) (Falcon uses for example Cd,Cl = F(AoA,Mach)) Like you say some situations (like your spring example with memory, nice!) cannot be explained well by the current state at all (hence the if above), where dynamic is the only real option. Maybe we can find a third reason why it is a problem with these lookup-tables, but so far this is a very good argument. Though we must wait for AFM to really be able to get something significantly better out of fighters. BMS5 is dynamic, yes. (close to AFM)

I recommend if you want to make a performance/stutter test, Use the lua export functions "BeforenNextFrame" and "AfterNextFrame" and log the modeltimes. Moa knows how to do this I'm sure :). This way you can see exactly what adds stutter to a mission and when.

Yes it is all in the presets file. For me I can put the shortcut to leavu in my autostart folder and everything is setup straight on computer startup :). You shouldn't be getting any crashes whatsoever. I have tested leavu2 running fine 48 hours straight without restart (on 3 separate computers also). Please launch Leavu2 from CMD console and see if you are getting any error msgs. One more thing, try without the ADI. I am not able to test it here where I am, and I am not running it at home, maybe it is causing the problems (It shouldn't, but I have only flown a few hours with it)

Aha, indeed could be starforce related. I hope we can find out if anyone else is having the same crash, otherwise I'm guessing it is probably related to something in your setup, or triggering some rare condition/flaw in the game. If more people end up having the same crash issue though, I think we can be pretty sure it is a crash in the game itself. Mustang do you know anyone else getting this crash?

protect.dll, what is that, antivirus? atiumdva.dll sounds like ati something, gfx driver or settings issues perhaps?

RL - yes. LO - no, in Fc the doppler shift is only taken into account on the closure of the target itself.

I believe each unit in the game has a "cross section" parameter. When a target turns or changes aspect the detection ranges are also changed yes, closure is an important parameter. Most apparent is the case for totally cold targets, where range usually isnt more than 1/3rd of head on detection range. I have heard this is taken from real Su-27 radar performance, and since no good data on rear aspect detection ranges for the F-15 radar have been provided, the F-15 is basically set to the same.

When EOS exceeds a certain range it uses radar for rangefinding, instead of a laser. This is how the real system operates. Whether this ingame result was the intention of the developers or a sideffect of something else I do not know. Normally lasers cannot do much more than 10 km under normal conditions.