-
Posts
1260 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Hiromachi
-
Red Warning Lights too bright (on English-Metric cockpit)
Hiromachi replied to Rudel_chw's topic in 3D Model and Cockpit
Some of those changes were submitted yesterday, so we added note in our own patchnotes. If not today, than next time. -
Red Warning Lights too bright (on English-Metric cockpit)
Hiromachi replied to Rudel_chw's topic in 3D Model and Cockpit
Not that I can think. Can always ask @-Rudel- -
So, it works. Buttons work, potentiometer works too. It actually works pretty decently. There is a bit of ghosting at the end or maybe its just rough after 60 years. But it works, produces 572 points through the range of axis movement.
-
Update: Fix has been submitted to ED repo.
-
Folks, regarding the known issue: "DCS: MiG-21bis crash sometimes." This issue was reported to us in the hours preceding the update, it seems it is only limited to Syria. There is no need to report it as a bug, we are already investigating it.
- 8 replies
-
- 12
-
-
-
That I can do. We've had a winter full of testing and many things are where they should be. FM was tested, some systems like hydraulics, weapons (including convergence / harmonization) and few others things such as sounds. Right now what is mostly remaining is cockpit perfection, final testing and sending to ED for their part of testing and evaluation. Rudel is working on cockpit details like piping, if you take a look at some pictures of Corsairs you will see ungodly amount of pipes and wires exposed in the cockpit. All this can be seen by user and all this has to be modeled. And its the cockpit that really takes so much time. On my end I can say that I had a mix of fortune and misfortune in finding documentation. I have found a lot of interesting documents regarding rockets, gunsights, toss bombing equipment and Bat bomb but only a portion of them could be researched as due to pandemic most archives (for example NARA facilities in Seattle and College Park and Smithsonian NASM) and museums are down. Oh, and I've spent a fair portion of last month writing a manual for the DCS F4U.
- 1761 replies
-
- 31
-
-
-
I guess this could also work with sensor. It only has written at the bottom of it: SL8024 CTS 6630
-
I have electrical systems manual. It does not have wiring diagram for throttle unfortunately. I assume throttle wiring is covered either in: Engine and Accessories T.O. 1F-100D(I)-2-3 or Instruments and Automatic Flight Control System T.O. 1F-100D(I)-2-7 or Wiring Data T.O. 1F-100D(I)-2-10 Construction is likely covered in Illustrated Parts Breakdown. Hmm, I will have to see once I connect them how Virpil software sees that. As I said, I have their circuit board and sensors: I tested switches yesterday. Airbrake works as you say, its fairly simple switch. Microphone switch has three cables but for simple operation two are enough for connection. I was more puzzled about the Cage button until I read that it works for both gyro caging and LABS, hence four cables. Four other switches are of the same type - Micro Switch V3-1001 6630 manufactured in Freeport, Illlinois. They have 3 connections but you use only two at one time - it can either work as button and when depressed, current runs or it can run as "breaker" so current is running continuously and when depressed, it severs the connection and hence current flow. Two are used for afterburner, one at the bottom of the grip lever (near pot) and one in CUT-OFF/IGNITION position. I'm still wondering whether I should completely replace cables or just wire them to the JST PH 5-pin connectors. They are old but seemed to work fine when tested yesterday. I dont know how exactly it looks inside. I had an idea of emptying it and placing magnet at the bottom of the rotating rod. Than I would glue or attach otherwise sensor to the bottom of the pot shell. I mean ... my pot works, not sure how precise it is but I dont feel like connecting half a century old pot to a brand new circuit board. I just dont know how to open that damn thing Will that produce 1:1 result ? This throttle has a fairly long movement so Id like to keep precision associated with it. You mean @Sokol1_br ?
-
Right, apologies for late reply. I did some tests over the week but had no time to give this more attention. I got somewhat confirmation of this but I think this is due to different reasons. From my observation it appears that below 2 G gyro calculates lead properly. But above 2 G small error gets in and shots fell short. Not much, just a little. According to ASP manual gunsight in Gyro mode should provide accurate results up to 3.5 G, so it is likely that information on acceleration are not fed properly. Might be underestimated a bit. I will forward that to the devs. As for radar. You see, the problem is that Su-27 despite being huge aircraft for a fighter, is not particularly large for a bomber. It's diameter and combination of range at which you were shooting (~560 m) means that piper ring was at minimum diameter. Diameter would start increasing as you close to Su-27 but there comes another problem, 500 m is minimum range for radar to maintain tracking. It frequently looses track around that range. So I would try with a larger aircraft and likely wait for the first part to be fixed, before repeating tests Firing5(greaterturnerrorradar).trk Firing4(greaterturnerror).trk
-
I apologize in advance for resurrecting this topic, but I was wondering how far did your project advance ? The reason I'm asking is that I have acquired some time ago F-100 Super Sabre throttle. It's fairly similar to F-86, but has few differences due to installation of afterburner switches. It doesnt merely move front / back, but also left right. Anyway, I was wondering how did you solve some of the problems and figure all of the connections for it. Mine looks as follows: My main issue is lack of drawings and documents showing how throttle was wired originally and how to disassemble it. I had to work with pictures backtracking every step. Until now I managed to: - disassemble grip. It is exactly the same as yours - there is Cage button, Mic button and three position Airbrake button. Grip itself rotates. Inside of it is a small rod going all the way from the grip to the bottom of the lever where what I think is, is a potentiometer. You can see it next to 6630 switch, connected with 3 wires. - disassemble lever - disassemble afterburner detent and switches What I cant figure out is how to set sensor for for throttle axis and sensor for the grip rotation. I did not test the potentiometer whether it works, but from what you've said its not really working well in Windows. And still, new sensor should just work better. Other then that I wonder if you managed to figure out all of the connections. There are 3 cables coming from the three position airbrake switch, four from the cage switch and again three from mic switch. Thats a bit more than needed for my control board and I'd just like to know what is what. I have Virpil control boar and two sensors but cant seem to figure out how to install them. I cant figure out how to remove the potentiometer (this circular box) almost covered by friction lever and main axis remains even greater problem. If center was moving and I could attach magnet there, entire thing would be so much easier.
-
I like them but it certainly WIP. Under certain light conditions (when its dark, under the clouds) they are the same as if I was flying in clear day. And I think front armored glass should be less affected by those. But as Rudel said, we cant control any of that just yet.
-
Me neither. I conducted tests along with a few guys and none of us saw any difference. Will try changing some settings to see if it makes difference.
-
Polish 21bis manual I've seen indicates more like 85-87 % for 1200 l of fuel left. 75-80 % is for 21M with R-11 engine.
-
Missing external Canopy texture on some skins
Hiromachi replied to Jarlerus's topic in 3D Model and Cockpit
Will look into it, thank you first reporting. -
I didnt notice anything during testing.
-
I will look into that. Thank you for reporting!
-
DCS: Me 262 Discussion (Development on hold currently)
Hiromachi replied to NineLine's topic in Western Europe 1944-1945
And Im sure you understood sarcasm I dont know if all 12 were rebuilt. At least 4 were. But work on foreign technology is not easy when you have to supplement parts and don't have access to technical documentation. All engines are the same. But they are also different. First captured Zero, the Akutan Zero, was rebuilt to a flying condition with carburetor mismanaged in such way that it exhibited power and pressure loss in negative G maneuvers (akin to early Spitfires). Something that led U.S. Navy falsely to believe that pushovers can be a good idea to get away from Zeros. And which was terribly wrong since Zero could follow that trick. -
DCS: Me 262 Discussion (Development on hold currently)
Hiromachi replied to NineLine's topic in Western Europe 1944-1945
That might be so. There were 12 Zeros captured on Saipan. But it does not change the fact that numbers in there are not representative for comparison. For both reasons mentioned above. Following sentence indicates that this was sorted after rewiring. They were running it at 2750 RPM, so it was full power since thats take-off / full power RPM for Sakae 21. This is a single data card from IJN, I got it from National Air and Space Museum. Not sure if I am allowed to post it (copyright and that kind of stuff, Smithsonians are very touchy about that). Other documents can be found in various US and Japanese museums and archives. It's not a report. It's one of the cards of TAIC No. 1 Performance & Characteristics which was meant to provide for pilots predictable and easy to use data of enemy aircraft based on Intelligence and Engineering data. To put it in other words, or as TAIC says itself, "Except where otherwise stated, performance figures represent estimates of Technical Air Intelligence Center and have been calculated after careful analysis derived from intelligence, captured equipment, drawings and photographs, using power ratings derived from the same sources. (...) Vmax is estimated using Military Power, and when available, War Emergency Power for representative calculations." I will look later if this specific card was calculation or was based on one of those 12 Zeros tests. Its certainly closer to original Mitsubishi specification, so Intelligence guys did a good job And where would that Mustang fly from ? Or land ? Certainly not on Marianas, which were occupied by Japanese It is. But Spitfire is slower than 109. FW-190 A-8 is slower than P-51D. Yet we fly them. 30 MPH speed advantage is certainly not easy but for as long as Zero will stay above Hellcat (and Zero climbs faster) you can benefit from height advantage to catch up. But anyway, its all theory until ED decides to make it reality -
DCS: Me 262 Discussion (Development on hold currently)
Hiromachi replied to NineLine's topic in Western Europe 1944-1945
I dont mean to hijack thread, hope Nineline wont be mad (apologies in advance!) but the report you are (and following poster) referring too is based on evaluation of captured airframe. It was captured on Saipan, shipped to San Diego and went through overhaul (to the best of U.S. Navy abilities). Afterwards it was flown to Patuxent River Naval Air Station where comparative performance trials were conducted vs FM-2, F6F-5, F4U-1D, P-38J-25, P-47D-30 and P-51D. Not going into full detail (actual values can be found in TAIC 38), the airplane performed below specs. It attained at full power 291 MPH on deck and 326 MPH at critical altitude (about 19.000+ ft). Japanese specifications for A6M5 model 52 indicate maximum speed of 302 knots (348 MPH) at 6.000 m but at rated power (so not full power, which would push it a bit more). Airplane in that test was thus at least (accounting for full power) 25 MPH slower than it should be at given altitude. What could be the cause of that remains unknown, likely captured on Saipan unit had damaged or tuned incorrectly supercharger. Climb performance was also below the specifications (it took nearly 9 minutes for it to reach 20.000 ft, whereas I.J.N. specifications indicate that it should reach that altitude in 7 min and 17 sec.), which also points at the supercharger malfunction. Additionally, this comparison was conducted in November 1944 vs newest types of Allied airframes (so even after Leyte and Philippines). I don't know what is EDs idea for the PTO and I sincerely hope that they wish to make a coherent and historical plane choices, so there would be no F6F-5s over Marianas. In fact F6F-3s with water injection only started leaving factories around that time. The actual F6F-3 attained 376 - 379 MPH at critical altitude (based on all tests I've seen from 1943 and up to May 1944 period) which is still around 30 MPH faster than a Zero, but not nearly as fast as in those tests quoted. I've given some effort in another thread to provide better picture of the two in Marianas struggles, based on actual reports from U.S. Navy pilots: As for personal preferences, I leave that to you. Everyone has his favorite birds. As for me, I've waited 17 years for a new Pacific Sim while flying all kinds of 109s, Spitfires, 190s and others in various sims. Guess its as good argument as any other to have it. But I wouldn't mind 262 as a study plane, in DCS it would fit perfectly as you could truly embrace it and see for what it was -
Well, Corsair is dangerous since its much faster but I'd not make that point in regard to Hellcat. Unless we speak of F6F-5 with water injection and some aerodynamic improvements, the original F6F-3 is actually unimpressive in terms of performance. For a 1943 aircraft powered with 2000 HP engine at least. And its 1943 record was also rather unimpressive, at least in comparison to Marine (and VF-17) F4U pilots and USAAF P-38 pilots. Claimed victories to losses ratio in Solomons for that period was 4.9 to 1, which was better than F4F (4.1 to 1) but inferior to F4U (5.4 to 1). Do mind that those are claims only, to get a better picture one would have to dive into combat records of both sides to cross check them. Interestingly, Hellcat initially failed to impress IJN aviators, at least seasoned ones, in that they saw it as no better than newest Zero (A6M5). If we take a look from performance perspective, Hellcat is faster than Zero (I'm comparing it to A6M5) but not nearly as much as P-38 or F4U-1, has superior rate of roll (at least at high speeds) and it also gains in dive if you need to get away. But Zero has noticeably better rate of climb (and can climb at much steeper angle), acceleration (so much so that initially it can catch up with F6F), maneuverability goes without saying and I'd also argue about visibility. In fact at some altitudes Zero stays so close to Hellcat, that speed advantage is not conclusive enough to call it a deciding factor. And this general performance overview correspond with H1 1944 reports. Richard Dunn in his book (Exploding Fuel Tanks [...]) on pages 132 - 134 quotes a number of reports compiled by U.S. Navy aviators in this period. For example Lt. Cdr. JG. Sliney, commander of Air Group 30 after March 29-30 raids on Palau noted: "The pilots engaging the enemy VF [fighters] on this mission state that F6F-3 is almost as maneuverable as the Zeke at fast speed; the F6F-3 could also out-dive the Zeke and was almost as fast at lower altitudes, but could not climb as fast or as steeply. The Zekes were not aggressive and did not work together, when our pilots turned into them, they would break off and pull up." Considering the Marianas, I think its worth bringing up another report, this time from Battle of Philippine Sea period. Post combat record compiled by VF-25 stated: "Zeke showed usual maneuverability. Zeke out climbed three F6F's at 11,000 feet but was caught by fourth F6F-3 with water injection. One F6F without water injection had difficulty in overtaking Zeke at sea level despite a slight altitude advantage ... at full throttle. All Zekes absorbed a lot of bullets before being destroyed: none exploded in air and some did not burn at all, indicating possible self-sealing fuel cells". VF-1 CO, Cdr. B.M. Strean had different opinion in regard to plane rigidity at least: "The Zekes were very fast in both straight and level and climbing flight. They could turn on a dime and there is nothing yet in our experience to indicate we can out-dive them. In head-on attacks, they were still shooting as we ducked under and over them. It is very noticeable that they have no pilot protection and that they blow up and catch fire easily". Vf-10 Lt. Cdr R.W. Schumman reported: "The F6F-3 is superior to Zeke in all respects except climb and maneuverability in tight slow turns. Same as before the Hellcat cannot dogfight a Zeke. The F6F-3 must keep up speed, dive and pull up. Zeke in a power dive is just slightly less fast than the F6F-3." Finally Lt. Cdr. D.J. Wallace, CO of Air Group 31 noted: "The ability of Zeke to turn and climb seemed more pronounced than ever. Zekes were able to turn 180 while Hellcat was turning 90 deg at high speed. The Hellcat was again faster in dives and level runs at all altitudes. In only one case the Zeke outran the F6F-3 on deck." Of course Hellcat pilots in those events encountered various Zeros. IJN employed from aircraft carriers both A6M5 model 52 fighters and also much older A6M2 model 21 fighters, which were used in this case as fighter-bombers. So differences can often be in planes that Hellcat pilots engaged. Anyway, I think a lot of k/d ratio prowess falls on performance when it should on pilot skills, tactics and U.S. Navy organization. But if we compare raw performance of both, I think F6F-3 and A6M5 are decent match. If any of that talk during stream had merit and ED decides to make F6F-3 to compliment Marianas, it would be fabulous.
-
I'm sorry but you're wrong there buddy. I dont need motherboard bios upgrade, AMD chipsets were provided with support for Resizable Bar / SAM in December and I tried that on mine with AMD Radeon 6800 XT. GPUs do require vbios upgrade. As stated by Nvidia themselves: https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/geforce-rtx-30-series-resizable-bar-support/ and My RTX 3080 shipped in October and it still has original vbios. Any attempts to install new one failed so far unfortunately.
-
Tonight during routine flying online I have suffered hydraulic and coolant damage, which prompted me to proceed to nearest airfield and land. Upon landing I noticed lack of hydraulic pressure, so I used emergency handle to extend the landing gear and banked airplane few times to make sure its locked. On final approach engine failed me, but I managed to glide the aircraft and put it down at approx. 100 MPH in three-point position. Airplane landed on front gear first, which extended properly, but as soon as tail touched the ground it started porpoising / bouncing (with rather constant intensity), after few bounces tail came off, plane caught fire and as soon as I stopped, entire plane exploded, killing pilot instantly. This was extremely frustrating as I did everything right, yet have to suffer consequences of the bug. This prompted me to ask for help and record two instances offline which show exactly what is happening: 1. 2. As you can see with emergency wing deployment tail wheel remains retracted, which is wrong. Even DCS P-51 manual indicates that tail wheel should come down on its own: But what follows is even worse. With first touch of the ground (concrete or land) tail starts bouncing (from readings of acceleromter it seems to be +1 / -1 G) and after 2-3 bounces entire tail comes off, center of the aircraft ignites and soon machine explodes. Thus there are few questions which demand an answer: 1. why is tail bouncing in such a manner when there is contact with the ground ? Is collision model correct in rear section ? 2. why is entire tail section so easily detaching ? 3. why does center of the aircraft catch fire in this situation ? (and why is it followed by explosion ?). I have seen a number of aircraft crashes, including a few P-51s, but never seen entire tail tear off of it and I haven't seen bouncing like that. Id rather expect tail to fall and scrape the runway, with tail section being bent. But not completely tear off in such manner, when loads applied on it do not exceed 1+ G (as indicated by accelerometer). Secondly there is no reason why aircraft should catch fire in this part. I made sure that both instantaneous mission and my online flight were with auxiliary fuel tank empty. So there is nothing that should catch fire like that and even more so cause explosion. Wing fuel tanks are far from the section which breaks and since front gear is fine, they are not in contact with runway. This issue is rather important as me and number of friends from my squadron (I presume other people encountered this as well) experience this every time we try emergency landing. It can be replicated almost every time and almost every time leads to death. This prompted us to make landings with gear up which by definition should be significantly more risky. There is a reason why emergency gear release existed and it was used. Current DCS implementation with this bug prevents any effective use of it. I attach the track from offline test. I also have track from multiplayer, but its almost 2 hour long so not sure anyone wishes to wait until its very end. bouncy_bouncy_tail_breakoff.trk