randomTOTEN

That also makes sense as the initial altitude on a Cat shot is also 500' good tip, thanks!

How can he have both TGT and TCN boxed at the same time?

Correct, you have to press the green "End Mission" button to save the results to the campaign. If you failed the mission and don't want to go backwards in the campaign, you can instead hit the grey "Exit Mission" button and cancel your campaign attempt, with no consequences for progression.

sounds like you nuked it

So your entire thread is invalidated because you misjudged the density altitude?

I don't agree with this. I don't believe you were in VRS until less than 35m AGL on the file "2.trk" I tested this by taking control and attempting recoveries by increasing collective hard. If you were in VRS this would have no effect. The lowest I can recover by increasing collective is 35m. I judge that you were never in VRS above 35m. 2trk recover 35m agl.trk I controlled view and simulation rate earlier. When Radio altimeter indicates 35m I hit "Escape" key on keyboard, and select "Take Control" EDIT: I also think you compound the analysis be introducing ground effect into these tests. Is ground effect negating VRS just as you encounter it? Is the inability to escape the ground below 35m just because of inertia? Or am I actually in VRS?

I think you did find VRS paramteters on your final attempt. But you're the helicopter pilot, you can judge these values probably better than I can. You also make analysis hard here. I have no output of raw flight data (no Tacview), and am forced to rely on cockpit instruments. You fly this test like a pilot, and not a test pilot. You are trying to replicate landing attempts that end in VRS. My example shows my attempt to maintain steady flight parameters to compare them to the stated "impossible to perform in DCS" condition. But that simulator flight was also read off instruments. To counteract the instrument delay I tried to achieve steady state flight (and thus steady state indications) for better judgement. In your track VRS2, what you perform are probably what you consider normal landings, but they make judgement and measurement difficult. Your speed and vertical descent change continuously. The instrumentation lags, and it is extremely difficult to judge exactly what the conditions of flight are. You state, DISS does gain signal just before the end of the track, but there is a delay as the needles are driven to the proper positions. Your speed and descent rate are of course continuously changing. You don't know "where VRS actually starts" because you don't control the flight parameters. They are continuously changing, and it is impossible to carefully judge exactly which parameters are resulting in VRS. I have to slow down the track greatly just to be able to get analysis of the instrument gauges. In my track I give you several seconds of constant speed and vertical descent at the chosen values. We test a single condition to see if it results in VRS. You throw a wildly variable approach then claim it's broken. People come onto forums like this all the time, claiming this and that is broken. They have a variety of experience. You start this thread by asking your SME about the DCS sim. You give him an incorrect value of VSI, and no doubt he probably took that into consideration into his reply. He's never touched the simulator I understand. We just have to go off your experience. And your tracks. And the graphs, FAA guidance, and other sources. At first I didn't believe you, thought you were just another frustrated pilot crashing. Perhaps you didn't factor the different cues you must use. There is an adjustment that needs to be made for RL pilots to often adapt to "sim world" as the visual, auditory, and stomatographic cues are often missing or lacking. Maybe you don't look at the VSI in RL because you can better judge it outside the cockpit windows. You either have to learn the simulators depiction of the "sight picture" or more closely watch VSI. But I do think you have a case, and it deserves merit. I want to help you with that case. I think better data would help your case greatly, but as I watched this track, three landings isn't enough as I can see. Perhaps the developers have already output the flight data of your tracks and found the problem. I'm just going off what I can see. Going to watch your 2.trk now...

I'll be gone for 2 days, but will try and watch when I get back.

I think mine does too. And I get to nearly -5m/s for a moment there. EDIT: I also judge that he has begun to loose tail rotor control at that point. Something we don't have. Also, did you notice the airport is Sochi-Adler?

I think the more relevant time stamp is actually 3 minutes, 42 seconds. It's immediately before he enters LTE (which I would love to have modeled.) From my viewing, it is the moment where the horizontal IAS is the lowest, and the VSI is simultaneously the highest. I.E. the best candidate for VRS. If I'm reading the instruments correctly, at 3:30 the KmIAS is 100. Vertical speed -4mps. At my time stamp the values are about 60kmIAS and -4mps. Let me know if you think that's a more severe example. I think it is, but I have 0 RL rotor time. My time stamp values translate to 32 KnotsIAS and -787fpm. Here I am in the DCS Mi-8. I have achieved my values. I am not in VRS. This track is 9 minutes long, and taken from the Caucasus Free Flight Instant action. I set internal fuel to full, with no weapons (and I presume no cargo). Please have patience while I refuel, take off, and position above the runway (and get better light on the instruments). Feel free to take control. I vibrate (presumably ETL) but remain in control for extended time. I think this is a much better avenue for discussion than misquoting values to a 3rd party, and thank you for providing concrete values which we can test. In exchange, enjoy my test of the quoted values. Thanks! Eight VRS Test 60kmh -4mps full fuel .trk

E-shop

You can try searching your computer (DCS folder if you know where it is ) for the file named "DCS World Input Controller Walk Through EN.pdf" I think that's what you're asking for.

I also agree this is likely the problem. For the MiG-29 too. These landings should probably overload the NLG to the point of failure, but as the gear doesn't fail, the physics simulation tries to process the overwhelming forces anyways, which results in the excessive spring back into the air.

yeah that happens with long tracks, meanwhile every other track posted in this thread (that I downloaded) works beautifully You don't know that. It's entirely possible that what sent you back bouncing into the air was a collision with some mod object on the airfield, that's probably nowhere close to your landing point. Things like this are why tracks are useful.

It fails to load because I miss the following mods: VPC Object by voc & Virpil.com Ala13 Pack I do have VPC airfield equipment mod if that's what "VPC Object by voc" is, but I don't know if we have the same version. I don't know what "Virpil.com Ala13 Pack" is. It's also possible that these mods are what was causing the problem for you and your squad mates (especially considering they were using the same mods). So that's another avenue of investigation. Can you create a simple (and short) mission (with the mods disabled) and try to recreate it? That's really what I was asking for, and what CoBlue provided. That also gives you the chance to try and reproduce it on your end, before suspecting there's a bug with either the aircraft or map. Just some basic troubleshooting, you understand. EDIT: I just realized, the two mods are probably correctly titled "VPC Object by voc & Virpil.com," and "Ala13 Pack." Considering your name is Ala13_ManOWar, this 2nd one is probably unique to your squadron.

We don't know what you're talking about because you didn't upload a track. CoBlue might not like our analysis of his tracks, but at least he uploaded them. We can carefully examine each one, and take control of it and test it for ourselves. These tracks are worth about 5 million words each. People can hate them when they try to use it as a replay system, but for "seeing what you saw" they are fantastic. Much better than, "well it happened to me and all my buddies, why aren't you guys seeing it?" Recreate it and upload it here. If you can't... well then that's valuable information too.

To help demonstrate just how hard the smack really was, I changed the view of "mig21 land 1.trk" and moved the free camera to approximate the perspective seen in the timestamped youtube clip, "Mig-21 landing on a highway" of course I can't replicate the telephoto effect which compresses the perception of distance, so I'm a little closer to the touchdown point than the videographer. mig21 land 1 Youtube View .trk

You came down like a sack of bricks, ripped the fuel tank off on at least 2 of the tracks. These were not "a little hard." You should have blown tires on these (if that was modeled). Vertical speed nowhere close to the the video footage. Simulator pilots are a terrible judge of sink rates on touchdown. You bounce because you bash the nose wheel. Just like when people complained about the 29. They bashed the nose wheel too. Stop bashing the nosewheel and you'll stop bouncing like that. Watch your source videos. They don't bash the nosewheel. Watch for smoke from the nosewheel. You smack it right on. You claim "not a single bounce." Yeah they did. You can't see it? It's generally less than 1/2 the height of the main wheels but they absolutely are bouncing. You can even hear the bounce in the audio. Its the same thing all over again.. simulator pilots really have no frame of reference when it comes to landings. They post landings they think are "okay" or "a little hard," that in reality would be serious events possibly causing structural damage (in this case ripping a tank off it's mount). Landing on the nosewheel is not acceptable.

Thank you! Curious, do you know why there are two green R's, instead of just one?

Throttle (actually called "Corrector") is left at 100% the entire flight. Helicopter automatic systems control engine output and you never touch it under normal conditions.

do you have the older version of the mission you were using previously? you can also try opening this newer mission with your (older) version of the mission editor, then resaving it.... just as a temporary solution.

seems quite a few of you don't know how to read the Mini-updates thread stickied at the top of this very forum..... with the list of the announced weapons in the very first post....

The KA-50 and A-10C are also aircraft that are built tough. They can both take some amounts of damage and survive. In my view it doesn't matter. Don't get shot. Don't make a flight plan that includes getting shot. Armor and system redundancies should not be exploited, but instead used to recover from being shot when you didn't plan to get shot, and were unable to avoid getting shot. Don't get shot.

I suggest against manipulating saturation values. You either make your joystick more sensitive, or you loose range of control motion. I suggest you experiment with control curves to compensate for hardware geometry/sensor quality. The overwhelming majority of users use this technique across multiple simulators and decades of simulation.

I don't understand why the people who willingly subject themselves to this bug are adamant there is no other way to accomplish the task (advancing in a campaign). The easy solution is basically ignored, why? I've been advancing through a campaign since 2.7 with zero issues, and I only know this bug exists because people are ranting on the forums that they can't play campaigns. What?