gospadin
-
Posts
1984 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by gospadin
-
-
^ In which version, though? For the time being, the problem is supposed to be fixed in 1.5.8 OB an 2.2 only.
Correct. The fixes haven't (yet?) made it into the "stable" branch. They're only in alpha/beta.
-
But is the support there for customizing it, on a user level? As in a few hotkeys, and voila, we can adjust it, to how we sit in cockpit, our cockpit FOV etc? I get that its up to the developers to set the default, but top of my head, I can only think of the Mirage and Spitfire right now actually, that have a good/decent mirror. In most modules I just see a bit of fuselage/wing, with a rather low FOV.
The developers define the full range of capabilities. Users can then select from those capabilities.
For example, the M-2000C from RAZBAM has a height-adjustable seat.
If a dev wanted to make the mirrors movable, they could I would think.
-
This is up to every individual airplane creator. Those elements are defined in the model's animations itself, along with whatever supporting code is needed.
-
I replied in my cockpit thread in the liveries folder.
In short, I cannot reproduce your problem.
let's discuss it there, though, if you have more data (or if others can reproduce it).
-
BTW, if you want to know what version you're running, look down by your right hip, behind the fuse panel:
-
1
-
-
The reflections I see are much less pronounced. I would suggest that you uninstall, run a repair, and reinstall.
My settings are:
Textures: High
Terrain Textures: High
Visib Range: High
Shadows: Flat Only
MSAA: Off
Depth of Field: Off
Lens Effects: None
HDR: Off
Deferred Shading: On
Ansiotropic Filtering: 8x
Cockpit Global Illumination: On
Gamma: 1.8
Screenshots which tried to replicate your results:
-
Based on your interpretation of the charts; at 10,000 ft the A-4 can hit a load factor of 87,500 lbs at mach .56.
One comment. Our FM tuning so far was merely mapping in the experimental lift/drag polar data from a scale wind tunnel test. No tuning to the performance charts has been attempted yet, this was our first comparison.
--gos
-
Based on your interpretation of the charts; at 10,000 ft the A-4 can hit a load factor of 87,500 lbs at mach .56. This would require a Cl of 1.05. Roughly 25% above where NASA places it. If you also look at the sea level performance charts for the A-4. The slowest velocity you can hit the structural limit at is mach .53. With a wing area of 260 feet, that put’s the Cl at .8. This matches the Cl max from NASA. This this leads me to believe that those area’s in “maximum lift” are not part of the actual flight envelope, but possible the theoretical limits of the 2-d airfoil.
This other good evidence to this effect too. For example, the corner velocity for the 10,000 ft chart on the “buffet onset” gives a load of 60,000 lbs, at Mach .51, at 10,000ft. With a wing area of 260^2 ft, the Cl needed to hit the load factor, for a wing of this size comes out to .8. Again it’s same NASA found for Cl Max with a full scale wind test of an A-4.
Based on your charts, I would say your Cl max is to high you should tune to target the buffet onset. If you try and adjust the Cl to hit “maximum lift” limit up at the slower speeds, you’ll need more Cl to hit those structural limits, which is counter-intuitive.
I also would like to try and head off any discussion about slats. At the speed these instantaneous turns are being flown, the slats would not be deployed. The slats on the A-4 were like those on the Bf-109, on rollers and held up by the on coming airflow. At corner velocity, mach .5 they will be up. It really doesn’t take much speed to hold them up. They come most of time before the catapult shot is over.
Agreed with most of what you wrote, especially about re-tuning for buffet onset to give a more typical experience.
Slat extension (and changes in Cl) begins below M0.3 at sea level, based on descriptions that the slats were expected to be fully retracted by 200 KIAS. Due to SFM table limitations, we cannot calibrate this effect directly to KIAS, so it will only be accurate at a single altitude. We chose sea level.
We can also add a hard cutoff for Cl (Clmax), a bit above the buffet onset at a mix of airspeeds, but I've done no testing in that area.
These graphs were (are) our first attempt at actual testing and calibration of our FM.
thanks!
--gos
-
interesting. thanks for the info.this happens after a brand new loading of the game and the vehicle is hot. so nothing should be broken. but i'll go in and give her a fresh inspection now to see whats up
Pitch/Roll autopilot should be enabled by default for "Parking Hot" and "Runway" starts.
-
Hey grunf, thanks you for the advice on using the AI. Wasn't sure what you meant until I just added a UH-1 to the mission editor, ran it, and messed with it!
That said, if anybody has screens of a UH-1 perfectly level (or close to it), on all axis, from the side and front, I'd really love to see them!
Anyone can load the UH-1H into modelviewer. Maybe that'd help you?
-
... as a 3-D modeler with close to 10 years experience, I would even join forces with your team. you guys have done an amazing job. I have a number of different aircraft that I'm currently working on , which could benefit from your ability to track the flight model in Excel. Since this is a "community mod" would you be willing to share some of your development technology specifically your ability to data log, with the community?
We appreciate the offer for assistance, however, at this point in time, we prefer to stick with the team of contributors that we assembled almost exactly two years ago. To us, the process of working together and learning what it takes to make a mod for DCS is more important than the final mod itself.
As to releasing our source lua code, we plan to release most of it. We are not planning to release any of our code ahead of the mod being available to everyone.
--gos
-
You only want 40 new planes? =P
-
Community A-4E: November 2017 Update
Community A-4E: November 2017 Update
So, not much to report this month. A lot of small 3D/2D changes are being made, but since we have multiple artists working together and sharing the work, the pipeline isn't the most efficient. We just aren't quite ready to share any of the new images just yet.
Code wise, building upon a debug interface first created last year, we added dynamic logging of certain flight parameters. While in the past we could tune some of our systems live while flying, having a data feed we can import to excel allows for offline analysis of dynamic conditions in a way that is hard to "see" and address live.
This infrastructure is flight model independent, but for now we're using it to tune the SFM, and I thought I would post just one simple example.
The following plot was our first use of this logging, prior to tuning any flight coefficients. We have are 3 datasets which plot lifting force in terms of load factor * gross weight in 1000s of pounds on the Y axis, and mach number along the X axis. These were (are?) the units for NATOPS maneuverability plots from that era.
- Orange squares are the design maximum lift.
- Grey triangles represent the projected buffet onset.
- Blue diamonds are measured datapoints from our SFM.
As you can see, maneuverability between mach 0.3 and mach 0.5 is pretty close to accurate. Above mach 0.5, our model essentially splits the difference between buffer onset and absolute lift capability. Additionally, it's obvious we haven't implemented a lift-force limit yet, given the higher lifting force possible beyond the airframe's design limit at higher speeds.
It isn't obvious (yet) whether this is a function of the test environment used for the wind tunnel data we referenced, or whether we interpreted some of it incorrectly, or whether the NATOPS estimates have errors in this regime, but we'll sort it out.
Oh, and since we know a lot of people wish we would release this mod sooner rather than later, the team thought we could better explain our progress graphically:
As you can see, lack of progress isn't our fault. :lol:
Thanks again for everyone's support!
--gos
- Orange squares are the design maximum lift.
-
No. It's basically a voice communications package that works with DCS so you can tune your in-cockpit radios and talk to other players with voice, not with F10.
-
In real life 67L has a CTAF, but that concept doesn't really exist in DCS today, since DCS only implements monitored frequencies.
With ciribob's DCS-SimpleRadio you could tune in 122.8 and it should work as expected.
-
a-4e development is on hold, we're all too busy crashing our harriers
/s
-
1
-
-
I did not made presets for the Warthog HOTAS nor the X-55 Rhyno (or the new X-56) because unlike the Cougar MFDs, they need to be programmed to each individual taste.
The community isn't asking for default assignments.
We just need the bindable commands implemented in the lua, as in:
flap switch up (exists today)
flap switch down (exists today)
flap switch up else middle (new)
flap switch down else middle (new)
This way we can handle the assignment to our favorite position on the warthog, without needing to edit the lua code.
--gos
-
I wish these would be available in DCS modules by default. That would help us pit builders a lot. Now we have to add these for each module and sometimes after a patch you have to redo everything again. Just a thought :)
I agree, it's ultimately the responsibility of each module developer to add them to be warthog/switchbox/etc. friendly.
-
BTW, i'm still reading all the posts in this and related threads. There's a lot of stuff to go through.
-
You being on the testers team, have you brought up ILS being affected by the CRS knob?
No, I only have access to NS430-related stuff for testing.
I'll PM someone who does, though.
FWIW, the UH-1H CDI and HSI hardware works as I am used to in real life, if people want to compare behaviors.
--gos
-
Everyone accustomed to cruising around at 115 knots is in for a huge surprise.
-
Edit 2: and regarding the channel pairing only being relevant for terminal DME: I am of course referring to the DME channels paired to ILS frequencies, not VORs. Just so that's clear.
Yup, it's the same math for pairings in either case.
-
Maybe two rows instead of one row?
-
I think he's reporting that ground effect doesn't work over water properly.
@FragBum can you post the lat/long of that spot on the map?
A few purchasing questions
in DCS 2.9
Posted
There are three publicly-available branches of the codebase right now. You won't lose anything, per say, but if you're limited on disk space you may only be able to install one at a time. Modules (and asset packs) you buy work on all branches.
The "stable" and "beta" branches only includes the Caucasus terrain for now.
The "alpha" branch includes NTTR and Normandy.
Once the updated Caucasus map is ready, it would likely be available first in the alpha branch alongside NTTR and Normandy.