Jump to content

zerO_crash

Members
  • Posts

    1213
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by zerO_crash

  1. It is the same in SP as well as MP. It is simply different when you have to focus on giving Petrovich commands, while staying formation, or such. Mi-24P is in development. Don't get too used to its damage model, it is very much off, I am afraid. I already pointed to this in another thread. In Afghanistan, Mujaheedins had at most KORDs (very seldom that something like ZU-23 appeared), and that was enough for Soviet pilots to start flying high. This is also the main issue with early access products, people get accustomed to incomplete aircraft, and believe that everything is as it should. Again, Mi-24P will get toned down on the damage modelling. I am suspecting though, that ED wants to implement the advanced damage model with both the Mi-24P and AH-64D, as the first helicopters. That's why it takes so long to get the damage model tuned. Time will show.
  2. It seems like many people don't know, thus sharing FAAs (Federal Aviation Administration) official handbooks for pilots of planes and helicopters. The following, include all the possible topics you could think of within civilian aviation. Much of the knowledge here, is definitely relevant for a military setting as well, such as e.g. principles of flight, weather theory or flying at night. These handbooks are certified, and certainly of good quality. Everyone will find something for themselves here: Handbook for planes - PHAK Front Matter (faa.gov) 1 Handbook for helicopters - Helicopter Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-21B) 2 There are many more interesting documents concerning civilian aviation here: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation Enjoy! 1 Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov) 2 Helicopter Flying Handbook | Federal Aviation Administration (faa.gov)
  3. My pleasure! Updated the thread. Everything is correct now.
  4. Reposting from Russian side, for those who are interested. Everything is in Russian, but you might get it translated. For the drawings alone, it is worth it. - La-7 Technical description: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/0S8yV5teC71_fQ - Armament: https://disk.yandex.ru/i/p0rz6vKaJ3VSUw - Armament: https://disk.yandex.ru/i/pBAzYvYw78myIQ - PBP-1 and PBP-1B + archival photos and photos of the sight: https://disk.yandex.ru/d/CNN09DP0ClO3uA A basic explanation from Twister1: The B-20S cannon has a lower muzzle velocity, due to the design feature (greater travel of moving parts than that of the ShVAK) and a slightly shorter length of the rifled part of the barrel. PBP-1, 1A, 1B. Letters stand for the model of the sight. A is an improved or bis, B is a new model. The PBP-1B is larger than the PBP-1 sight. Comparison of optical data and dimensions in mm PBP-1B and PBP-1 in parentheses. Focal length: 110 (60) Lens Light Diameter: 50 (40) Removal for Big Ring: 240 (195) Small Ring Removal: 350 (290) Height: 185 (160) Width: 145 (100) The sight was installed on La-5 aircraft from about 1943. Especially the archival photos, are of fantastic quality, and really interesting to see IRL. Thanks goes to @Twister26 Enjoy! 1Ла-7 Техническое описание и вооружение (Б-20С). Прицел ПБП-1Б. ЛТХ, двигатель. - DCS: И-16 - ED Forums
  5. If you turn in a coordinated and smooth matter, you don't need to close the optics, Petrovich will automatically slew Raduga to last position before you turned away (that is when you turn back on the target within 60* left/right of the sight). If you, however, will maneuver abruptly or at a higher rate, then obviously, you wish to close the sight before starting the maneuver. It comes down to practice, and finesse. Due to the complexity of DCS, don't just run a rant thread. Instead, explain the issue, and post a trk.-file. There are too many variables to consider, in order for such a thread to be relevant.
  6. Я предполагал. Спасибо за подтверждение. Высота измеряется как радиолокационным альтиметром, так и барометрическим альтиметром (выше 3-500 метров), или только радиолокационным альтиметром? (Вопрос о данных, обрабатываемых комплексом K-041) Интересно. При создании цели через канал данных ей назначается высота. Высота всегда соответствует уровню земли. Если вы направляете лазер (Шквал) на вертолет/БПЛА/объект в воздухе, канал данных все равно помещает маркер на земле. Почему так происходит? Он знает только высоту автомобиля, а также угол и дальность обстрела лазером... Он не знает, направлен ли лазер на поднятый уровень земли или на объект, парящий в воздухе. Из-за этого у меня возникло понимание, что K-041 должен использовать одну из карт, чтобы всегда знать, где находится земля.
  7. На Ка-50, при использовании Шквала, на КАБРИСе отображается жёлтая линия (направление и дальность) и маркер. Две вопроса: - Какие именно системы обеспечивают наклонный дальности для отрисовки маркера, когда Шквал используется "без" лазерного дальномера? - Как Шквал определяет на какой высоте находится земля (при использовании даталинка)? Использует ли он картографическую информацию из ПВИ-800 или КАБРИСа?
  8. Как чисто ориентированный на идеалы, моделировать BS3 было неправильно. С другой стороны, как было сказано выше, это не чистая выдумка. Основание в реальности существует. В конечном итоге, Ка-52 показывает, что, скорее всего, стал бы Ка-50, если бы продолжил свое существование. Нет, я не часто использую русский язык и живу за границей. Поэтому слова или синтаксис могут быть неправильными. У меня частичное русское наследие. Руководство приводится для работы с лазерным дальномером. Это ясно, и обсуждение было о том, что производит наклонный диапазон на КАБРИС, когда лазерный дальномер не используется. Читайте внимательно. Ка-50 оснащен радиовысотомером A-036A (https://domavia.ru/library_ati/detail/223698) Я использую как английские, так и русские руководства. В английском указано, что используется радар, в русском - радио. Я исправлюсь и укажу радиовысотомер. ДИСС-32-28 не используется для измерения высоты по радару. Хотя в руководстве не упоминается о использовании ИТ-23 без лазерной дальномерной (наблюдательной) системы, я предполагаю, что данная система аналогична системам Ми-24 и другим авиационным системам. Если лазерный дальномер недоступен, для получения наклонного диапазона, отображаемого на КАБРИС, используется комбинация радиолокационной и барометрической высоты.Я был бы благодарен комментарию от сотрудника ED, обладающего знаниями по данной теме (руководство не содержит достаточно деталей), чтобы прокомментировать этот случай.
  9. I see. I'm asking specifically about a reference, because it's interesting to me through which channels such orders are passed on in the US Army. I haven't heard of the ISAQ, but that makes it even more interesting. I would imagine that one would want an interim document to gather batches of updates and test the proposed solutions, before passing it to the operator's manual. Good stuff!
  10. - Авиация и Космонавтика. С.В. Михеев. Ка-50: концепция, боевые возможности - Михаил Жуков. Иллюстрированный каталог авиации мира. Ка-50 - Вестник воздушного флота. В.Сокольников. Боевые вертолёты Ка-50 и Ми-28 Полагаю, что это было в одном из вышеперечисленных, если я помню. Многое изменилось за последние годы (законы), вы должны знать. В то время как BS2 был специфическим bort, BS3 представляет собой смесь и предсказывает (например, Ка-52). Считайте, что он современный. Если речь идет о серьезном обсуждении, будьте конкретны. Системы ИТ-23 и К-041 достаточно совершенны. Проецируемая линия на КАБРИС (без лазера) поступает от гироскопа (ориентация автомобиля и Шквал) и радиолокатора высот (высота под транспортным средством), которые генерируют наклонную дальность. По этой же причине оценка менее точна с высотой. Это основы, но все гораздо сложнее. Есть разные режимы в зависимости от того, в каком состоянии вы находитесь.
  11. Sweet stuff! Well made too!
  12. I have done it many times, as said, between 3-5 sorties, is what the laser lasts for me. I've been flying since LOMAC. Trust me, I know my stuff! You have to understand that there are many factors to consider (range to target (flight time), how many times you range at all, how efficient you are in the process of cancelling remaining laser time, etc...). Again, that is not the problem, rather predicting the exact time when it will fail.
  13. Well, not always. If you turn the laser completely off, when not using it, it will last longer. The time is further extended, if you press the "stop lase"-button. I haven't counted (it varies), but it will be more than two complete 12-Vikhr loadouts. Still though, this is a much needed feature.
  14. Не художественное произведение, а предсказанное будущее: Вертолёт настолько же "плох", насколько "плох" сам пилот. Если хорошо летать, то и вертолет будет летать. Ка-50 работает так, как задумано. ИТ-23 входит в состав К-041, который предоставляет разные номера. Одним из них является радиолокационная высотность (доплеровская). Предлагаю ознакомиться с 8-12 (бручную). Машина хороша, вне зависимости от дизайнерских решений. Это недостаток культуры для того, чтобы ввести иностранный язык на форум. С западной стороны к российским комментариям придираются. Интересно, почему английским комментаторам здесь не напоминают...
  15. To correct this: That is wrong, and completely opposite of what it actually is. There is a reason why every moden attack/combat helicopter has engines spaced on both sides of the fuselage (as far as doable - performance/mission dictate design). Whilst by default, both configurations shield the engines in a similar way, notice how, from below, the engines typically are placed such that wings are obstructing them. Primarily though, the reason for going away from the engine-by-engine arrangement, is that both configurations are susceptible to losing at least one engine upon direct impacts. Where the difference lies, is that with engines close together (even with armored plate between), the chances of losing both engines is far higher, than when you have a fuselage between them (more space (shielding from pressure), more material that can stop a bullet/part/shrapnel, and higher chance that the bullet/part/shrapnel will miss the other engine (the further apart two objects are, the less space they occupy of the their arc in a crossection). There are positives though, with engines high up on the fuselage and well ahead, for example; the Mi-24 is not prone to dynamic gas ingestion, even when firing rockets as big as the S-25. Another positive, is that due to being mounted higher up, they are less susceptible to dust/particles, than otherwise helicopters with engines mounted down low. Ultimately, the Mi-24, has the engines placed in such a way, so as to permit a troop/cargo compartment in the middle. That is the reason for such an arrangement. As Mil learned themselves from Afghanistan though, when one engine got hit in combat, often, both went out. (One engine experiencing a malfunction, sends turbine blades and other pieces flying in all directions. With the kind of forces a turboshaft engine exerts, the armored barrier sitting between gets easily pierced.) Both systems have their strengths and weaknesses, however survivability, is prescribed to the separated configuration, out of the two.
  16. I have read and seen all the posts in the thread, and that is precisely why I pull out the points that I do. While the discussion is somewhat irrelevant in the long-term aspect (new damage model will come to more than just WWII aircraft), in the near term, I give you the examples for why your testing is flawed at hand. Initially when Mi-8MTV-2 released, it was getting shot down by a couple of AK shots. It would literally take 2-3 AI soldier with common personal weapons, to pop one/two of your engines, and that was the end of the mission (mostly). The problem back then, was that the AI would explicitly aim for your engines, and had superior accuracy, when aiming for the Mi-8MTV-2 specifically. To that extent, it felt like all the other helicopters would take a fair amount of beating, where Mi-8MTV-2 had no place in combat closer than 3km to a target. Certain changes were made there, most of all, the AI's accuracy was toned with regards to hitting the engines, and that issue got solved. The point being, it's not always the damage model which is to blame. First and foremost, this is not a contest, thus doing a comparison in the form of "X should be tougher than Y, because X is a combat helicopter, and Y is a utility one.", is pointless. It is an improper way to tackle the issue, and while your testing might seem interesting, it does actually point to more issues at hand. Namely, if you watch closely your attempts with the Huey, it seems durable, because the bullets are hitting mainly the middle of the helicopter. If those hits were anything close to real life, then both pilots would be shot to pieces either by the first bullets, or by the shattered glass in the cockpit (most bullets are going through front windshields). For some reason however, the bullets (look at the incoming tracers), go mainly towards the middle of the airframe - neither killing the crew, nor damaging any vital components. This then, gives a flawed perception of what the Huey is capable of handling. There is a reason why Huey Cobra was introduced (other requirements aside). Notice how Cobra, introduced a slim design as its main attribute to present a smaller signature. Furthermore, you are comparing two aircraft which are in a state of development. There are videos showing Mi-24P being nearly impervious to 7.62mm bullets, which while it is considered a tank in the sky, it is not. If you hit some of the vital components (engine intake, sides of the bubble canopies, certain parts of the rotors (bearings, shafts, etc...), it will get damaged. Both the Mi-24P, and especially the AH-64D (the glass will not take that damage it took on your video IRL!), are all individual aircraft, and in making. There is no comparison here. You are further making claims as to what "feels" realistic or not. That is neither an argument, nor a qualified opinion to have. The closest we will come to judging what damage will be handled by an airframe, is refering to either credible sources that have performed such tests, having detailed information from former shootdowns and action in conflicts or having pilots/manufacturers provide their insight (which still has to be confirmed is many ways, as e.g. memory is neither consistent nor credible). In terms of manufacturers, it has to be pointed out that there is PR in play, and one has to consider very carefully the wording. Semantics-wise, there is absolutely no instance in which a manufacturer will claim that an airframe "will" (with certainty) handle damage from any given calibre. Instead, they use "can". The reason is that the whole topic on damage, is a very complex one. There are far too many metrics to consider, in order to qualitatively give a specific promise. An example here, is that Mil (Rosobornexport) claims that Mi-24 (and its derivatives), "can" handle up to 23mm "splinters", whilst Boeing claims that AH-64 "can" handle up to 23mm "fire". The the word "fire", does not imply the bullet, but rather the whole system, meaning for example fragments from the bullets. Simply put, ED has to investigate this, and see what they come up with (based on individual modules). I would recommend writing a bug report on the UH-1H in the appropriate forums as well, with that video. It proves that AI have a point-specific shooting pattern for the UH-1H. Theory: http://www.ppgaerospace.com/getmedia/9a556385-c535-491c-bbce-e332a8ca63bf/boeing_apache_-AH64-12021Final.pdf?ext=.pdf Practice:
  17. Actually, it does matter. While DCS doesn't simulate it, per real-life procedures, INU heating is to be turned on prior to starting the alignment of the INU. This matters all-year around, however primarily, during winter. The reason being; any gyro will have ball and roller bearings which are lubricated with some form of oil (low viscosity). Not heating up the bearings properly, will increase the alignment time, and might actually introduce a certain (miniscule) error into the alignment. Again, DCS does not model this until now, however for a purist (IRL operations), this is essential to know. Same answer as above. As to official youtube procedures, there are the ones from made by Wags for the first iteration of Ka-50. Regardless of that, the manual will be the proper place to look for an exact procedure, as private one often do not respect the order of systems turned on (little respect is paid to what systems are allowed to be turned on in which sequence). If realism is to be simulated, then manuals are the way to go (otherwise - pilots who have experience with the type). Eventually, intimate knowledge of the different systems, and what minimums for voltage they tollerate. For anything less than realism, you can basically do your own startup, and test what works and what doesn't.
  18. Hi, I have asked about this before, and I am requesting this again, seeing how more modules get released, and the issue thus gets propagated. My request is for ED to design a specific tab/menu/etc... which will solidify the settings from different modules in one specific, easy to read, place. Currently, modules have settings regarding their intricacies split in two places; the "special options" tab, and under loadout in the mission editor. The problem with this system, is that as more and more modules get released, it gets increasingly harder to effectively design bigger mission (single/multi-player), while keeping all respective settings as desired. This, further goes for hosting mission on multiplayer. My suggestion for an elegant solution, is as follows: Keep in mind, a user might want to host a mission with different module-specific settings, than what their own global settings are. Therefore, let there be two places to setup these special options. GLOBAL SETTINGS - Same as the DCS settings tab today, albeit with all the addtional settings from mission editor, moved in here. In essence, this will be the user default configuration. It allows to setup the module from one specific places. When a user runs singleplayer/mission editor (new mission), those settings are the default setup. MISSION SETTINGS - A completely new tab in the mission editor (preferably on the top pane - general), where a user can open one single tab, and have an overview over all the special options for all flyable modules (even those that the user does not own himself). The idea here, is to allow the user, to alter his/hers special settings in the realm of a single mission, without the need for altering their own preference (Global settings). Here, all special settings which are relevant for hosting a mission (i.e. not types of trim/cockpit shake/cockpit texture/etc...) would be located. The point being, it would allow for a better overview (one place, instead of reviewing each individual aircraft placed in the mission) for the mission maker. Also, this special settings tab, could then be replicated in the server list/briefing, where users could see what specific settings each server is running. With this system in place, you could also feature a drop-down menu in the Global/Mission tabs, basic predefined profiles (concerning all modules): realism, normal, easy, etc... Point being, for those users who simply have not read into these module-specific settings, it would give them a way to have all settings organized based on their preference in simulating DCS. zerO
  19. Precisely! This is a limitation of the, until now, current menu design. I have requested the system to be revitalized and solidified, and I'm sure that it will come. As more modules gets released, the need for a easy-2-use system, will simply be more pronounced. There are more important issues at hand, which is why I imagine that this request hasn't materialized yet. With such a complex simulation, things take time to implement.
  20. Я не могу подтвердить (поездку). Напишите отчет в ED («Белсимтек» входит в их состав). Было бы неплохо иметь возможность ручного управления счетчиками.
  21. Ka-50s excuse for what exactly? You are introducing a subjective perception, that is not a valid evalutation. Also, what kind of metric do you use to define that "... all three are touted to withstand the same amount of damage IRL"? Obviously this is not true. The manufacturers use different methods of testing, and militaries have different thresholds for what constituates an acceptable level of protection. This is a very delicate discussion in that there is no guarantee of anything. A KPV (14.5mm, or even 23mm fragments) can score a few hits on the airframes, but not take it down, yet a lucky shot of lesser calibre can. Realistically, when you look at how these aircraft are built, then the overall consensus is that vital parts are the most protected (a armored part on the outer side of the airframe, will still be pierced faster, than one burried deep inside the airframe). Still, however, there are big changes in design, which all yield different results all around. The Mi-24, while being massively armored, is still limited in design by the weight a combat-/assault-helicopter can lift. Why do you think Soviets started flying high in Afghanistan (helicopters) in the early-mid stages of the war? About the biggest cannons that Afghani resistance had, were KORDs (few instances of captured ZU-23 platform). RPGs were also fired at helicopters, albeit with practically no documented success. On the design-aspect, Hind and Ka-50 have a all-around armor, with main focus on pilot. While Hind "only" has armor on the front windshields (the bubble canopy is a type of plexiglass), the Ka-50 has armored windows all around. Comparison-wise, the AH-64 has mainly armored bottom (below the pilot and gunner), and the plexiglass all around the cockpit. Still, armored glass, is not titanium. Obviously, the glass-cockpit will never provide the same level of defense as a built-around, titanium monocoque. AH-64 pilots are taught to use the bottom of their helicopter to their advantage, if close air-support is provided (flying at higher altitudes and using the deflection of the cannon). Otherwise, there is one example of a AH-64 downed by a bolt-action rifle. Another difference lies in the spacing of engines, where the Hind, while having a armored plate between them, will still have a higher probability of getting both engines shut by shrapnel, than the Ka-50 and AH-64 (engines separated by fuselage). Finally, with the tail of a helicopter being potent to damage (thinner part of the airframe), that as well as the tail rotor, are an immensly sensitive point. A proper hit, and if the helicopter manages to maintain straight flight (only the tail rotor failed, and at speed), then it will have a problem at landing, even with roll-out. Most commonly though, the tail breakes off, and the helicopter is gone. A Ka-50 is incredibly survivable here, where the tail might be shot at, or off, and still fly well. With that said, use a little common sense in terms of the speed at which this happens, trim setting, change of CG, and other factores involved. Obviously, of this happens at very high-speed, and low altitude, chances are you will go down. Overall, the point is that these helicopters are very different in design, each and every one of them. Claiming what they should or shouldn't, based on qualitative judgment, just doesn't cut it. You don't even know what steel/composite is being used in the different airframes. A metallurgist, and synthetic materials-engineer, would also like to have a word on this topic. They are very different, but as different conflicts have proved, a Hind might survive landing in a minefield with 2XX shrapnel holes, and still fly well, but it might also get downed by a lucky hit through the bubble canopy, killing the pilot. Still, no aircraft is meant to withstand bullets of high-calibre (above 12.7mm) for a prolonged saturation. What you claim, is a pure fantasy. Also, DCS would be a simulator, not a game per se (even if the actual word is used by devs in the few marketing instances).
  22. DCS .trk-files are have their own issues as well. Typically, the longer the session is, the more inaccurate the .trk becomes. Which of ACMI/TRK however, are more accurate, is a technical question irrelevant of this thread. The point is, ED uses TRK for all their intents and purposes. I suppose this has to do with having an accurate reproduction of mission events and user experienced bug/glitch in the same space of time. Another thing that I can think of, is that as far as I know, ACMI only records metrics and units, not actual events taking place in the mission (triggers, module systems info (switches, etc...).That's why ED specifically asks for TRK, not ACMI. Beyond that, a ED dev would better be able to explain why exactly the distinction.
×
×
  • Create New...