PhoenixBvo

OK, Frederf's remark might be very useful to get better effects also for bullet hits, but how to change the cutoff frequency? We'd need an extra command, similar to gain, but then perhaps something like cutoff... Anyone knows what it is, or is it a global thing for the cockpit?

What's the correct file for the landing gear? Is it gear or also gearend and gearloop?

Correct but not complete. You have 6 degrees of freedom. The lift vector only determines 3. Your attitude is at least as important. That means you need to control the 3 associated moments (= torque) as well. In the case of counteracting the weathercocking effect from a strafing motion, you need to apply a moment about the rotor axis. That's done using your pedals. In the case of a coaxial helicopter it collectively increases pitch (and therewith torque) on one rotor while decreasing pitch on the other rotor. The net effect on your lift vector is zero while creating a resultant torque to counteract the weathercocking moment. Of course this explanation simplifies somewhat as it doesn't consider the cross coupling effects that even coaxial rotorcraft are subject to.

OK, have seen what you mean. It "sees" the player through the building, fires, but the sim correctly lets the shells impact the building and not the player. So the problem is oversimplified (read stupid) AI, but you can still effectively take cover behind a building. You just can't hide.

And the A10 doesn't HAVE radar! ;) So what is it doing? Shooting through the building? And not hitting the building, but the player a/c? :huh: Do you have a "proper" (:P) link to such a trackfile? EDIT: Ok, sorry the link you supplied earlier did work, just not at work. My company blocked it.

I can't download from that server. Its only giving me ads :(... Very curious though.

OK, let's see you're looking for a New Yorker? World population = 6.867E+9 NY population = 22.2E+6 Forum members = 15490 chance = 15'490*22'200'000/6'867'000'000 = 0.547% Good luck! :smilewink:

I never noticed that buildings don't give cover. In fact, I use buildings quite a lot and very successfully for cover. The line of sight (LOS) problem is really limited to trees. One tip: set terrain detail (if that's what its called) not to the highest setting. The high setting increases the number of trees dramatically and makes things unnecessarily hard. The only situation that I encounter where I find the tree LOS problematic is with tree covered hill ridge lines. When you want to pop up from behind the hill, you're exposing yourself too early as you can't see anything yourself yet. In such cases I find myself forced to find an observation point with a bare hillside. Finding targets is difficult, but realistic as long as the mission builders didn't put them inside a forest. This is actually almost never the case. That aside, I find cities to be the hardest terrain to locate targets in. But IMO realistic as AA DOES NOT shoot through buildings.

Exactly, Tacview actually records all the trajectory data, as opposed to the DCS track recording. Clearly visible from the difference in file size, but who cares as long as you have an accurate recording... I think DCS should have an option to record Tacview style.

My guess is that the effects you're describing have something to do with randomization of group inclusion. IIRC, the track file only records inputs and randomizer seeds, the rest is deterministic. So if for whatever reason the included enemies are incorrectly chosen for a replay, the sim just applies your recorded inputs to a slightly different scenario but the outcome may be very different. That's also why the training tracks generally don't work after patches.

Or backup players.lua and overwrite the update one after a failure and update the backup after a success...

Remove the springs and add counterweight, good luck!

Checkout the method I posted here:

I suspect the problem is that the mouse wheel doesn't have a minimum and maximum as a proper axis would. It only gives speed and direction of movement as opposed to position within a fixed movement range. And that's no good for controlling collective without some extra interpretation like an integrator which assumes 0 position at the start of a mission. That's not hard to code, but someone has to do it...

However, you are right about the incorrect trim simulation in the specific case of the Ka-50. That may cause the wrong motion range around the neutral point. But still, if you trim your ffb2 stick, it attains a new neutral point. With a spring-loaded stick you have to move it back to centre, that the extra operation required, but after that you'll have recentering forces around the trim position in both the spring-loaded and ffb2 cases. (Or is that not the case? I have no RL heli experience and Simona is mainly a fixed-wing simulator) I have trouble believing your example that in a RL helicopter you'd have to apply a force in the direction of the trim centre to move the cyclic from a deflection back to that trim centre. That would mean a very unstable situation: if you'd take your hand of the stick for an instant, the cyclic would deflect! That can't be the case, right?

Sure it does, :) we are talking about any feeling you get back from the stick. You can model a pure spring, damper or only friction or a combination thereof and it would still be a passive controller. The point is the accuracy of commercial products, or the lack thereof... But where have you read that the Ka-50 is pure fly-by-wire? The fact that it uses hydraulic servos doesn't mean there is no mechanical link between the swash plate and the cockpit controls. I highly doubt that there isn't. The B747 also still has mechanical links augmented by hydraulic servo actuators. The cost of providing enough redundancy and reliability for a pure fly-by-wire control system is very high in terms of both money and system weight... Plus pilots don't like the lack of feeling :smilewink:

Hi ChromeWasp, everybody is entitled to their opinion of course, but I can't help but to strongly disagree with you on this point. In my humble opinion any commercial force feedback product available to the consumer is very far from being realistic and most of them have a rather short lifespan. Springloaded sticks aren't that unrealistic at all, considering that you're flying-by-wire. A lot of modern a/c have similar passive sticks with only a stick shaker added for stall warning. I have flown the Simona research simulator at Delft University of Technology, which has hydraulic-actuated haptic controls, and the difference with any commercial force feedback is HUGE. Smooth and solid. It feels like there is a serious piece of mechanism hanging on that yoke. That you're actually moving something around. Of course with all the proper aerodynamic forces. Haptic feedback is ten times faster than eye sight, putting high demands on the simulator to avoid a feeling of lag. With the plastic toys on the other hand, you can generally feel the steps of the motors and the construction is not stiff enough to accurately simulate haptic feedback. Add to that the very noticeable lag and lack of high frequency response and I can only say that it is much more of a distraction to me than an added sense of realism. Just my 2c...

I hardly know any of those keyboard combinations at all. And yet consider myself quite proficient as a BS sim pilot. This will be true for most of the people in these forums. The trick? Two things: HOTAS programmed with the most important functions. You can put lots of them in and still remember them because of the intuitive layout and distinctive switches. There are lots of ready-made profiles for all the common HOTAS setups available. A good starter setup would be the Saitek X-52(Pro), a more advanced option would be the CH Products Fighterstick/Pro Throttle and Pro pedals combination. Potentially the best thing out there now is the Thrustmaster Cougar with custom U2-Nxt gimbals and Hall sensors. That requires a lot of money and DIY work though. TrackIR 4/5 or Freetrack. These headtrackers let you quickly and naturally view all around you and enable you to reach all the switches in the virtual cockpit with your mouse. No learning hundreds of key combinations, you just remember what the actual switches are for. Its important to have combat and other time critical functions on your stick/throttle, because looking for a switch still requires some time and you can't keep your eyes on the target. But a personally customized HOTAS profile in combination with headtracker has really extended the realism of this sim beyond anything could have imagined ten years ago.

Related to a hard landing? Well maybe if you'd normally have crashed (without the immortality (please turn that off!!)) the INU might get an offset. This would be a numerical simulation related issue due to the enormous accelerations of an impact. The INU has to integrate accelerations and rotational rates to get attitude. The numerical algorithm to this will be inaccurate for very large integration steps. Again, please turn immortality off and just crash like everyone else ;).

You're right, without Shkval lock, the targeting defaults to boresight for cannon (rockets are always boresighted). As long as you have your laser rangefinder active and done a ranging, the pipper will still correct for ballistics though. Note that after a laser ranging, the range is calculated (extrapolated from last measurement) based on the heli position, attitude and assuming flat terrain. The range accuracy will deteriorate and is especially bad in mountainous terrain.

A rather mystical statement, if you ask me. What launch parameter would be adjusted for a Vikhr? Also, it doesn't say how the calculated lead should be presented to the pilot. As a pipper displacement as you suggest? Or a second aiming point (would be more clear in my opinion). Anyway, I have never observed either. So you're probably right: not implemented...

How could the rockets be adjusted for lead if their launchers aren't stearable? That is an important difference with the cannon. I doubt whether the real shark can take target movement into account when firing rockets... One way to do it would be to show the pilot a second aiming point, offset from the calculated impact point to take the movement into account, but there obviously is no such feature. Are you sure that something like that was meant by the manual? (I don't have it handy here).

Super! Thanks Bengo. I hadn't looked for it for a long time since my cougar flies like a dream, but cool to know!

My first HOTAS was the X45. Not bad, but there was too much play in the stick. Plus I was not entirely satisfied with the programmability which Saitek offered. Perhaps this has changed with the X52 though. Then I went for the Cougar... Its a entirely different league feeling and control wise. Also very versatile with programming possibilities and there are lots of profiles out there for reference and customising. But its also a do-it-yourself package hardwarewise if you want to get it really satisfactory. There used to be a very active modding community on www.frugalsworld.com but that site is dead and I don't know where all the modding guides have gone :(. The biggest issue with the cougar are its gimbals and pots. The gimbals wear quickly and have an annoying spring force dip in the centre of each axis. Also, lots of people have reported spiking potmeters. I modded my cougar with the U2-NXT mod which includes Hall sensors and makes it the best stick out there (as long as the HOTAS Warthog isn't available yet). If you can get your hands on a U2-NXT modded cougar, I'd definitely recommend that. Should be no problem as soon as the Warthog hits the shelves. All I can say is that the Saitek feels extremely light and cheap now and I couldn't go back to it anymore. I wonder what I'll say of the Cougar after the Warthog comes out... D*** I have to start saving some money :D

Sure, my pleasure. Its just that such terms are often used too casually, while having quite different meaning. So in this case "correct for the pitch axis" I take with a grain of salt as there is no way to know "up" from "down" with the available sensors.