zerO_crash

It's likely the ED domain when it comes to releases. As with any business, best practices are a key thing, and releasing multiple modules in the same timeframe tends to lower individual performance. Given that MiG-29 is currently on pre-sale, I wouldn't be surprised if La-7 came after that. Ultimately, I'd also assume that if more was known about the release timeframe, it would be in the dev's/ED's interest to share info ahead of schedule, just to allow those with lesser pockets to save up.

One could watch amazing performances by e.g. Adrian Rojek at Radom, one of the best demo pilots for MiG-29. His performances were not only elegant, but showed off the wide operational envelope of MiG-29As. There are many more performances, but this one comes to mind: https://youtu.be/GOLWf2fWnUc https://youtu.be/5QLfX5GJ1ag

The JF-17, if not anything else, is interesting because it gives insight into the engineering mentality of China. While the project is described as being a Chinese-Pakistani cooperation, the fact is that some aero-design input was made by US (Super-7). A further refinement was made by Russians (JF-17), and finally, China assembled the aircraft (including internals) to the spec. outlined by Pakistan within; budget, purpose and Chinese export-targeted avionics & weapons sensors. I have looked over the internal components of the JF-17, and it's all Chinese make. I recognize panels from within the cockpit which are used in other Chinese aircraft. TBH., I am curious to what capacity Pakistan helped, because neither do/did they have an industry advanced enough to produce the electronics required, nor do/did they have technical capacity. At most, given that the aircraft software is built on C++ (I have 2 relevant sources confirming that), it might be that they joined in on some software coding, but I honestly doubt it, all things considered. Even the first series of test flights, were performed by Chinese test pilots in China. In addition, all the armament is US/Chinese (excluding RA'AD, which came much later and likely utilizes foreign components). Again, I view it as a primarily Chinese build, that got exported along with the technology transfer to Pakistan. Even the engine, which sets the boundaries for what an aircraft can and cannot do, is Russian. The sentiment left then is that while Pakistan/Myanmar uses the airframe, it seems that it is a multinational, and primarily Chinese, product designed for the export market. Given how much capability the aircraft has, how advanced certain aspects of it are, yet certified for export, it certainly gives an idea around how far China has moved ahead in aviation technology. To me personally, as a red pilot, that is very interesting as it presents a different mentality and methodology of achieving the same/similar results, as compared to the west. The plane is incredibly nimble, and has plenty of power. The problem is typically that people overload it, trying to do multiple missions at one time. That's not what a multirole airframe is meant for. Instead, it's having an airframe that accepts a wide array of missions, making it a economically viable aircraft, but still respecting the one-mission-at-a-time operations. If you are wise with your loadout, and bother going out of afterburner once in a while, you really won't need external fueltanks all that often. Neither do you need to weigh down every pylon each time. A composition of BRM-1 pods, along with TGP and two IRs for defense goes a long way. That's 40 individual targets picked off, if you so desire. Also interesting, is how digital this plane is, compared to most of the aircraft that we have. It is highly digital, with few things mechanical, yet it's very intuitive. For example, the layout for weapon programming, seems to be the same for all weapons. Consider now how widely different the suite of a Viper/Hornet/Eagle are when changing between JDAMs and Mk. bombs alone... It might be because I'm partly Russian, but on a objective note, some of the design choices of the west, while interesting, seem expensive and inefficient to me. Why even bother with so many different setups, when it all could be baked into one fine list and that's all....? Again, splendid airframe, and likely the closest that we'll get to a J-10 (for a long time). For those further interested in the airframe, and where it came from; Start with reading up on Chinese FC-1 (also known as Super 7, or Sabre II). An interesting thing here, is how similar the finished product of FC-1 resembles the Romanian IAR95, visually.

Would easily go, if not for business and professional duties. Possibly next year for me. Having watched them online though, it's definitely worth it. Stellar performance and much to see!

Hi, Seeing how there are VR headsets that support HDR (High Dynamic Range) now, I'd like to request the feature. It would interesting to hear from the ED if this is viable to implement. I have to personally admit, that once one sees HDR on a proper screen, non-HDR content becomes lifeless in comparison. It would truly be a step toward realism. Thanks!

Again, I reiterate, I haven't commented on "stabilization", other than stating that it's not to be confused with the automation that you find in Ka-50. In the DCS manuals, it is stated that the AP has stabilization - while not wrong, it is often confused with the level of automation of Ka-50 AP suite. I did, however state, that "damping" is can be toggled (on/off - red switch shown earlier) regardless of AP YAW operation. I see that you get those confused, so let me explain: Damping - This is essentially a filter that overlaid controls which is supposed to grant a more fluent flight, and that by minimizing excursions of the controls. It's not supposed to limit control travel, but rather, see whether the control input was momentary, or sustained. Example; if you fly, and all of a sudden move the cyclic to either extreme (left/right/fwd/aft), and then return the cyclic back to neutral quickly, the maximum control will be filtered out resulting in a much lower control movement shown to the flight control system. In practice, even though you maxed out the cyclic in either direction, and momentarily moved it back to neutral, the hydraulic actuators driving the swashplate only managed to move a certain percentage of that, but much less than what you requested (this is also in part due to control reactionary delay - the time it takes for the system to give you what you requested). Now, there are many ways to add such a filter, it can either be in the autopilot (Ka-50 for example), or it can be simply a heavier control stiffness. In Mi-24P (and Mi-8), the dampening is done in a mechanical way, as you outlined by SDV-5000-OA. In order to remove unwated small and imprecise control inputs, you make the controls heavier. That way, only intentional control inputs will be registered. This sluggishness (SDC-5000-OA operation), is in essence what that red switch toggles (on/off). It's more advanced than you think, though, as it needs to be able to change the forces with regards to trimmed position of the pedals, and also, if AP YAW is operating (AP YAW on, and feet off pedals), then it cannot fight the corrections made by AP in order to hold a given heading. Still, some of that functionality does not function if AP YAW is off - it only dampens. Stabilization - This is something very different than dampening. Stabilizaiton, is essentially the ability of the AP (or aircraft in general) to hold a given metric, that the pilot requested upon releasing the trim button. Normally, you'd think that trimming is purely mechanically altering the zero-point of the control column (cyclic/collective), however, that is not the whole truth. In the first of aircraft, it did just that. With the inception of autopilots and flight computers, however, the functionality got much more expanded and advanced. While you still trim the control column by releasing the trimmer, you also tell the aircraft what metrics you wish the AP (depending on the composition of modes) to hold. It's called stabilization, because it isn't a purely human-mechanical interation, instead, you input system logic in there (human-system(AP)-mechanical). The effect is then that the aircraft will apply the mechanical trim, and also give reference values to flight computer (AP) to hold. If wind impacts your aircraft, or with speed, it will want to change relaxed position, the AP will operate within its boundary to try and nevertheless maintain the aspect requested by the pilot. The stabilization in Mi-24P and Mi-8 is mostly steming from a analogue computer, hence why I'm saying that you should keep it clear apart from e.g. how Ka-50 is operating. There really is no overlap there. I'll also add here a interesting nuance which most are not aware of: In the Mi-24P, you have two types of trim. You have the trimmer button, and the trimmer switch. The trimmer button, operates as described above - it gives the command to zero out the forces on the cyclic as well as setting reference values for active APs to hold. The trimmer hat, however, is completely disconnected from the system. It is purely mechanical, and bears no impact on the AP whatsoever, it's not connected in any way. If you think about it - if you use the trimmer button at the start of the flight once, then resume the flight by using trimmer hat only, and finally decide on letting the system operate again (take feet off pedals), you can actually destabilize the whole airframe pretty bad (it won't be catastrophical, but certainly ineffective flight-wise). Consider, that mechanically, you might have moved further away from the trimmed position you requested with the trimmer button. Still, the AP will remember YAW bearing you requested. In other words; mechanically, the helicopter will be trimmed for a different flight with the cyclic, than what the AP tries to maintain with AP YAW. That's why it's important to always use the trimmer button at least once, before handing off full control to the AP (feet off pedals - e.g. you want to demonstrate auto hover). That should clear it up.

SPO-15 is also planned to come, but that as among the last features (lowest priority). Even beyond "early access", there will be incremental upgrades to the AI and cargo aspect of the simulation, as confirmed by ED.

The AI, just as the whole module, is still being worked on. It will take time to have all the novelties and mechanics implemented. That's the price of wanting to fly modules earlier. I'm sure ED knows about those deficiencies, as they seem pretty basic.

В АБРИС измените этoт настройку: “ВРЕМЯ ПОЛЕТА” — изменить с «АВТО» на «ВРУЧНУЮ»

Let me help you a little: What you cannot fail to recognize in the MiG-21Bis (as one of the modules yielding this tendency), is the trim position at different airspeeds. The faster you go in the MiG-21Bis, the more the aircraft wants to pitch up, thus - the faster you go, the more nose-heavy you trim. If you think about it for a second, that means, conversely, that the slower you go, the more the nose will want to droop (unless paid close attention to). If you consider how a BFM fight typically starts; you retain more energy at the start of the fight, than you have towards the end. In other words, whether kinetic, or potential, your net falls over time. Why does this matter? Because it tells you that you typically will go in fast with heavy forward trim, and finish slower and in need of readjusting trim back. In particular, if you end up dogfighting in the vertical, you will lose speed, yet typically maintain the same pressure on the stick. At that point your G will lower, more than you'd expect. I am mentioning this, because a pilot is esp. susceptible of entering the 0.5G - 0G regime when going vertical (following or escaping from an opponent). If you are not aware of your trim at all times, you are done for (engine flameout due to insufficient fuel). Remember this; if you go vertical, either actively retrim, or keep pulling the stick harder back. Also, one eye on G-meter if doing below 1G maneuvers. Above that, you have warning lights on both sides of the cockpit front glass. To add to the times Rudel mentioned; the culprit of flameouts in the region sub 1G, is very simply that the engine gets starved of fuel. The fuel tanks in the MiG-21Bis have generally a very clean layout, where you have individual fuel tanks in different sections of the plane connected in line to a 9L cannister (reservoir), and finally to the engine. That 9L tank is there, because at sub 1Gs, the main fuel pumps are incapable of delivering fuel fast enough to the main engine (hence why the time you can fly in these different regimes lowers, the higher thrust you demand from the engine). The technical solution, then, was to engineer in a small tank (it was not there on the early MiG-21 variants - hence a couple accidents), with a fuel pump sufficient to operate even in the extreme and deliver fuel to that Thumansky R25-300. In those extreme G-conditions, the tank will deplete faster than it is refilled by fuel tanks from the feed side. Your takeaway from this should be to keep in mind that you have a 9L bottle back there, which gives you options in sub 1G envelope, but keeping in mind that it isn't big, you don't want to hang out there for too long. Don't forget the nose-heavy trim either, when losing airspeed. You'll be good!

Re-read what I wrote: I state that microswitches put the "heading hold AP" in standby. I make, however, no mention of the dampening in that statement, and for good reason - in the Mi-24, the heading hold AP is entirely disconnected from the dampening fucntion (there is no stabilization, this is not Ka-50). I won't link Russian manuals, as you'd likely not understand them anyways, but here is a picture showing which switch in the cockpit operates the yaw damper (image is from Chuck's manual for simplicity): When talking about the Mi-8/Mi-24/Ka-50/+++, you have to be very careful not to mix the systems up. They have their differences and nuances, with Ka-50 being entirely different than Mi-8/-24, which have some overlap. EDIT: To correct you and make it clear - Mi-24P has yaw dampener actuated regardless of the operation of the heading hold AP. Provided that the damper is engaged (default position), it operates all the time, whether the heading hold AP is on/standby/off.

The button you are looking for in the mission editor, is called "Historical Units Only". It's at the bottom of the editor window, and looks like a wristwatch. Toggle it to "off", and all units/armament will be selectable.

Polychop should definitely consider this very carefully. There is a sense of authenticity and immersion, being able to (esp. in VR) perform a whole flight and mission in one seat. It does break that very immersion to jump between seats in order to utilize the module fully. The SA-342 in particular, is a module with far less functionality, than those which already have an AI compadre. It would be a good testbed to have an AI either perform hover, if the pilot choses to jump over, or better yet, by command be able to search and engage targets as per Mi-24P/AH-64D type of logic. This module would personally, great as it is, really jump to the next level with such an implementation. Ultimately, it must come at some point, given that "competition" is already far ahead in the department, and pushing boundaries with each consecutive release. Clearly, no 3rd party wants to be seen as the "underdog".

Welcome back AirAssassin Sorry for late reply, business and travel on my part - as always I'm not flying the F-14 personally, but wonder if it wasn't discussed in the Discord channel linked above some time ago. I seem to remember that the F-14 stick is actually tilted somewhat forward IRL, and that this could actually be a detail programmed in by Heatblur. Just to be sure, I'd recommend you join us in Discord, as most of the guys there fly western aircraft. You'll definitely find someone who flies the F-14 who can give you an exact answer on the issue in question (my expertise lies with Soviet/Russian aircraft). HB has FFB hardware for some time now, so if this isn't resolved, I infer that it points even more to everything working correctly. Two basic recommendations from me: - Check any other module to see if the stick centres properly. - Make sure that you have the newest Brunner software installed for the base (you'll find it on the Brunner forums). If both of the above are in the green, then I'm fairly sure it has to do with that physically relaxed displacement of the F-14 stick that I mentioned earlier.