zerO_crash

Russian military pilot on the recoil - as stated by me:

There will always be a certain level of recoil, even on so-called recoilless rifles/launchers. While firing in low quantity, the recoil is very low, however, fire a volley of unguided rockets (Hydra/S-series), and you'll notice that the combined recoil is actually noticeable.

Exactly my point. It needs some tuning, especially when you compare the other modules with AI

That's what I'm talking about, hence "... sensation of proper flight model...". For the moment, AI cannot use human flight model, otherwise it would hit the performance. On the other side, AI model, should in this case give the sensation of being closer to the human one. Actually, the best comparison here is the Mi-24P and AH-64D (same goes for fixed wing). There, the AI actually operates on the same FM the human pilot does. I'm demanding the same from KW, but it feels way too static currently. That does not say anything about the FM the pilot has. As I hear, it's pretty good, and in line with IRL (except roll being too sensitive - needs some tuning).

I was looking at it, and yes, it seems a little too "perfect". Wobbling/swaying, delay between issuing a command and fulfilling it (not instant) and generally a sensation of proper flight model, would be preferred

Conceptually, while it did work with drift in Sa-342, it was somewhat off. On one side, there will be slight corrections all the time. On the other, as a co-pilot, you had to constantly monitor your position, that, especially in concealed areas. With the way KW does it, it might seem almost too stable, true (possibly some wobbling/drift can be added with time). However, you don't have to worry about the piloting-side of things. You can focus fully on the task of warfare.

"There are guys who like challenge, which fly the Anton...". Brother, when I take off with my I-16, if you don't get me while I swing the landing gear lever 52 times, you ain't getting me at all! My ShKAS will cut a bomber in two, that, while I turn twice as tight as you! Having a red star on your machine, is the next level above "Made in Germany". One does simply not disrespect that! Btw. realism above all! Fantastic that you are putting all that effort into it. That's how true and unique trademarks are made. At some point, one has to ask themselves whether they do it for the business-side of things, or if this is a true passion. Not mentioning paying a tribute to the machine! Keep at it!

Don't worry, we're good Iknow what you meant, but that would not work as an argument for my point, quite the opposite. Again, the topic of automotion isn't flat, there are many nuances, especially to engines. RPM is the rotational speed of the engine, in pure dynamics. Horsepower, is the amount of work done in a certain amount of time. The two basic formulas are for rotational motion, and linear motion. In other words, horsepower tells you something about how quickly an engine can do a given job (hence the unit of measure -> foot-pound-second (fps or ft-lb/s)). What I'm saying is, even if certain aircraft (helicopters and planes alike) have/allow little friction (spring force per MS/DirectInput) on their controls, the majority, esp. military, really do have a fair amount of weight to them. With a strong FFB base, you have the option to simulate just about any system. It also gives options for chosing length of the stick, without the fear of insufficient friction. There is virtually no argument against going for a stronger base, even if you were to lower the FFB strength in the "Special Options" of individual modules. It's a win-win, considering price parity (approx.) between FFBeast and FFRhino.

Interesting, I'll take a look Yeah, I'm not using MS FFB nomenclature: "DirectInput defines the following types of condition effects:" It's their specific professional language (programming of FFB). I use them based on common definition. To give an example of the differences; in helicopters which apparently have adjustable cyclic/collective "friction", what you actually adjust, are "spring" forces (according to MS/DirectInput). I don't use their nomenclature, because we often touch on IRL situations on these forums, where these terms are defined more commonly. Otherwise misunderstandings can often occur. To specify; According to MS/DirectInput, I'm talking specifically about spring forces. That's really what is preventing the stick from falling to either side, regardless of the other effects. It just seems that it's not as one sided, and obviously depends on type (aircraft), but pilot preference. It's somewhat funny though, because I've seen manuals discuss the problematic of using force trim (disabling all forces on the stick/cyclic for as long as it is held), and that in different regimes of flight. For example in Russian VVS/Army, pressing and holding trimmer is recommended against, on the grounds that it introduces at best a minimum amount of PIO. I've seen the same in the Apache manual (available officially), if I recall correct. Finally, observing different cockpit videos IRL, I've seen a majority show a pilot use force on cylic (you can judge it from posture), rather than afree floating one. (Saw once a UH-1 pilot who showed how the stick would fall to either side, if not held firmly.) In a sense, a good FFB stick allows to test this and make onservations for oneself.

Interesting. While the helicopters mentioned are generally light, except UH-1, it does raise the question why some pilots prefer such light controls. On bigger helicopters, and Russian, the forces (friction) is strong enough, such that pilots can let go of the controls completely, and let the AP fly the aircraft independantly. Also, during any kind of route leg turn, the cyclics/collectives, won't displace. I will admit that the topiccis more versed than we are making it sound. It is, for ecample, a know fact that in smaller helicopters (light), physical space constraint forces the pilot to practically curb his legs around the cyclic while using pedals. As such, the movement of a low-friction cyclic will be both reduced, as well as less of a problem - the controlling hand will be resting on the legs. There surely are more points to this. I'd still argue though, that for general military use, higher forces (friction) are correct. (Reduce FFB for OH-58, Sa-342 or any other light, even UH-1H, if you will). Point is, with such setup, you can simulate just about anything. (FFB-strength in "Special Settings" acts then as a friction adjuster.) There is no mixing. When talking about FFB, one talks about maximum potential force exertion. For units which can overheat, yhere is additionally sustained vs. temporary. As such, FFBeast at 35kg, does not mean that you will encounter that 35kg friction the moment you move the stick. You will encounter more, as you move away from the trimmed centre. In terms of fixed wing, FFBeast doesn't even do it just. There are aircraft which exceed 40kg of force, under high-G situations. Right, and logically so. But then many movements will actually be imprecise. There is a reason why AP with dampening modes exist, much like FBW. What I'm saying, is that those imprecise movements, can either be filtered out by the dampening of AP, or by increasing the friction of the stick. The more friction, the less likely you are to perform PIO or unwanted inputs, simply because the dynamic of movement is slower.

Certain planes have a trim button as well (Russian), not only a hat. Still, the trimming is recommended as being done with repeated presses and only in stable flight, otherwise during any maneuvering, a pilot could very easily overcontrol. That becomes even more real as atmospheric conditions are taken into consideration. A wind-gust or turbulence, and you are gone. What I cannot agree with you on, is the statement that real weight (friction) of controls is inaccurate on a simulator, as IRL, he would be helped by the G-forces. I'm not exactly sure how you see this happen, but if anything, even during higher g-loads, you become heavier, sluggish, and have a harder time counteracting a further G-buildup. Take a basic maneuever in a helicopter such as reducing the airspeed. You pull the stick back, which initiates breaking (negative acceleration), making you feel pushed forward. That is the opposite force, than the one required on the cyclic, to reduce the airspeed. Having looked at it, it appears that civilian helicopters (x > 2000kg), have adjustable friction on the cyclic. Still, that is not representative of a military aircraft which have very much expanded flight envelopes in the first place. Not that you mentioned it, but it's typical sim-forums when members start talking about the day the tried a Robinson or some other piston piece of crap, not even remotely representative of a high performance aircraft (Hiob - looking at you). A pilot might want to have a lighter stick, but then no pilot, esp. military one is taught to perform hard maneuvering with trimmer pressed in (friction offloaded). That, is an accident waiting to happen. Well, even in the sim. It might be that we have a different concept of what stable is (from any videos I've seen online, I consider most to be really poor flying - imprecise most of all. Granted, poor hardware.). Try to fly a highly maneuverable aircraft (Ka-50, MiG-29, etc...) at a optimal speed, where you have high excess power available and the airframe is in its aerodynamic optimal. You'll notice that micro-control will result in e.g. 3-5 degree pitch jumps. Remember that the *35kg of force, is not a flat line, from the moment you move the cyclic. It is the maximum yield, for which you would have to deflect the cyclick very far (from trimmed position). Realistically, you are looking at something closer to 15-20kg maximum, before trimming. For precision (close to trimmed position), you are no higher than 1kg - 3kg, maybe 4kg. That is fully realistic on the machines we are flying in. I never mentioned "10 litre", nor "rice cooker". Any argument can be twisted around, but ultimately, I left the details out, stipulating same duty vehicles. If you want to assume that 90HP to be 10L, then by all means, consider the 400HP a 45L. Case still stands. The lower one will typically wear out quicker (countinf external factors as well). I specifically mentioned hp, not torque, because as you know hp is the speed of an engine. I didn't mention heavy duty engines, common family type (sedan if you will). To alleviate lack of torque, you will have to up the RPM. That's my comparison, and completley valid at that.

We'll have to agree to disagree. Not sure why you got it from that helicopters have zero forces on their cyclics. Light helicopters like Robinson (under two tonns) will have lighter controls, but then they are operated often in a small range of movement. Anything bigger than that, and you are having heavy controls and a reason to trim. It seems you haven't explored enough biodynamics. Absolutely yes, the heavier the controls are, the more precision. Why? Because no matter how much you'd orherwise wiggle the controls unloaded, with weight on them, they act as a dampener.

Let me help the community in understanding a couple of things: - With regards to general control of the aircraft, more force is better, until the point where simulated equals the real. The very simple reason for that, is that one of the ways to achieve precisiom in control, is to make controls heavy. Thay's what's being done IRL by aircraft makers, and that's what makes sense in practical applications. If you think for a second about all the bumps, PIO, +++ - they are a function of too light controls. For the same reason, a FBW aircraft, while technically capable of having a feather for a stick, will never have it, as the probability for the above is too big. Therefore, more power (up to the level of IRL specific aircraft design), is perfect, because it increases your overall precision at the cost of more energy spent on operating the aircraft. As someone with Brunner, I can tell you in this case that FFBeast is the most logical choice for those lacking the big bucks to go Brunner CLS-P (even stronger, but well above the budget of you all put together, trust me). - While physics doesn't lie, it seems that many have deficit in it as well. The thermal capacity of a coolor, is in big part affected by its size and mass. Heating up 20g of copper, vs. 1kg copper block, is a major difference. That is, not considering the 1kg block having more surface to cool down, as well as temperature falling/increasing exponentially either above or below room temperature. It isn't even a discussion about effect (electric) over prolonged time - the bigger block will have a greater ability to cool itself down, meaning it will dissipate heat faster than it stores. Putting this knowledge to practice, means that strong electric motors, will have more efficient coolers (even though using more electric power), and often be used less at extremes, due to the forces that need to be overcome - if you haven't learned to trim before, you will learn now. Additionally, a higher-end product is generally industrial-grade, meaning it has to sustain loads on common basis. It's built for it. Whether you were to limit the maximum strength of the FFBeast to the VPforce-levels, or simply understood why more is better in this regard, and therefore used the force that FFBeast provides dorsn't matter. At a physical level, FFBeast is made to tollerate more. The fact that it doesn't have any need for temperature protection (much like the Brunner CLS-P), speaks for itself. Explained in simple terms: You are comparing a 90hp car (VPforce) to a 400hp one (FFBeast), and claiming that both will do well in hilly terrain. Where the 90 will stay on red line, the 400 one will have plenty of excess force and not be strained at all. Do the math for yourself. Therefore, it makes all the sense to go for stronger, and more solidly built. Price being close to equal, there is no competition whatsoever.

Here, mortals, enjoy some interesting material: If English is all you can do, these are good books: (Piotr Butowski, while being Polish, is among the top writers on red aviation. He is a prime investigative journalist, writing for "The Warzone") (Not the average Jane's stuff. It's a more specific and correct lecture.) (Also pretty good, albeit from export models (Warsaw Pact.). (For pure pictures and general history - certain things are off, esp. on the details.) And something more specific and interesting: (True, it was "stolen" per se, but then Sukhoi exceeded the initial cobra by reaching 90* - 120* AOA, and by that, derined their own maneuver. Su-27 is inherently unstable, whilst MiG-29 has inherent neutral stability (most people don't know that). This is also why in regards to sheer AOA-banging ability, Su-27 does have the edge - also, for a limited maneuver. The AFCS inhibits a good degree of the AOA advantage so as not to enter unrecoverable and destructive AOA regimes.) Finally, pleasantry at its best:

Never looked for any agreement. It takes a competent person to admit fault in the event of lack of argument. Going back to topic. Hope HB can get back on this. Needless to say, with Kola created and a solid chunk of Sweden present, it's almost a crime not to have more Swedish units. Be it AI, or human controlled.

Gotcha, thanks!

Noticed the same glitch on another skin, US Apache with Axe-symbol on engine cowling (3rd or 4th from top in editor selection). Occurs in the exact same way and with AN/APH-78 mounted. #MOD Can you guys verify it?

You also have to learn about the idea of perspective and narration. The lack of modelling of a knob or switch related to temperature adjustment in the cockpit or mobile lavatory, is not to be confused with requesting a F-15C without its radar or datalink! Don't twist arguments around! While I personally (and likely other veterans) would gladly pay big $$$ for everything modelled, I cannot see people generally willing to jump to $200 per module or more. This is not a question of knowledge, but rather budgetary means. Price vs. value - read up on it. And just to decimate your argument, all of the three modules you mentioned, are in "Early Access". With everything being #SubjectToChangeTM, I don't know what you are trying to build an argument on... modules still in development? You want yours, and that's fair. Do, however use some sense and make those requests for the appropriate product line. Case closed.

No, my dear Hans. Picking an aircraft to model, is not about slicing it into pieces and modelling based on whim. There are integral parts to every aircraft, where upon exluding the following, would be changing the metric and outcome of the final module. You have a widely different view to what customers seek with this product (authenticity and realism) - it is absolutely not up for discussion. Generally speaking, make wishlist items in the wishlist-thread. Such low-fidelity items are what MAC/New-FC is being made for. With time, when that product line is more defined (and separated), it might become potentially feasible. The inherent request, has nothing to do with DCS however, no matter how you try to angle it. (You have a poor conceptual knowledge of what a simulator is, if looking for excuses, thereby lack of knowledge or information, to detract from its very nature.).

Yes, but then you have a very subjective concept of a proper product. Just as all us purists, I can guarantee you that most customers would be lost at; "Almost J35, except US datalink...". There has to be seriousness, credibility and authenticity to a module. I'm sure you'd find a mod with such a spec. Point is, while we all would love it, if there real barriers/objections to its creation, then we'll have to wait. If early variants didn't have the datalink, thay could be something (as I understand, that is the main reason for it not having been made). Still, the silence on the issue from HB, seems to be a answer in itself. Whether budget, potency or pure will, I doubt we'll get anything more for now.

Сделай глубокий вдох, товарищ. Для новичка на форумах ты слишком переживаешь. Если тема вызывает мигрень, мы можем остановиться прямо здесь. Бессмысленно метаться туда-сюда. Я уже говорил, если ЛД доступен, уравнение простое. Не нужно ничего, кроме дальности до цели, ориентации машины и шквала, а также места на карте. Решение выполняется простыми математическими вычислениями. Без ЛД покажет, как работают системы. Даталинк не будет работать хорошо, забудь. Основное наведение оружия сработает. Я вижу, что ты не понимаешь советскую доктрину. Миссия была всем. Только потому что ЛД не сработает, никто бы не отменял операцию. Кажется, ты живёшь в пузыре. Послушай, ты знаешь, что это за режим ИЛС? Точно так же сегодня логично соединить ГНСС и Инерциальная навигация (ПВИ-800). Тогда было другое мышление. Скептицизм по отношению к электронике и всё такое. Другой пример, тот же смысл. Я понимаю. Система была бы менее точной, чем QFE (главная проблема). Также миссии планируются заранее. Разведка предоставляет пилотам высоту цели. Ты ошибаешься. Это могло бы быть приемлемо, но тогда разговор гипотетический. Нет никаких доказательств, что в каком-либо самолете есть такая система. В экстренной ситуации (без ЛД) не сработает. Строго говоря, я продемонстрировал больше, чем ты. Похожесть на другие машины, и Чиж подтверждает мои ожидания. Ты также сделал ошибки в знаниях истории и бросаешь обвинения. Мы не увидим документы от Black Shark (#1.16 (1980)). Я доверяю компетентности ED. Где неясно, компетентный обмен решит проблему. Ты много экстраполируешь. Изменения могут быть вызваны многими причинами (техническими ограничениями симулятора). В общем, ED сделали что-то правильно, если Камов ЦКБ одобрило. Более правильно спросить у ED, почему произошла эта изменение. Вместо личных наездов, элегантный человек аргументирует объективно. Я знаю у ED неполная документация. По их собственным словам - у Ка-50 не было правильного руководства на таком раннем этапе. Я всё ещё верю, что можно прийти к выводу о том, что правильно, а что нет. Я также осведомлен, что не существует ни одного самолета, работающего на основе того, что ты описал. Ближайшим к этому был бы Вигген, но он работает так, как я приблизительно определил. Я не против новых идей, но тебе придется показать мне намного больше, прежде чем я начну воспринимать твое предложение более серьезно, чем гипотетическое. Добавлю, что отсутствие документации у ED не является соревнованием за лучшие идеи. Например, недавно выяснилось с "PilotMi8", что продукт 9М114, везде называемый "Кокон" в сети, неверен. Даже "Штурм" используется только в одном техническом руководстве. Во всех остальных документах - только 9М114. Сотрудники обсуждают, что было бы наиболее правильным. То, что казалось простым и логичным, вовсе не таковым.

Well, for one, videos of Ka-50s are not to be compared. There were differences between the airframes, even with the most basic configurations and instruments. Such details can therefore be overlookeded, as there is no certainty in their representation of our bort. The most famous videos, that you likely refer to, have changes even in the HUD and basic AP autonomy. About ADI, there are two cases where the "DIR" would work as desired (flag off, pitch/roll/bank indicators working): - In Route Mode and standard AP configuration (Pitch/Roll/Heading), any deviation from the flight plan (when "Route Mode" got engaged), would be indicated. This goes for PVI-800 either used or not. Speed deviation would be shown (from entering Route Mode or using trimmer). Altitude deviation would only show if Altitude AP (Alt. Hold) would be engaged, with that as reference height (use collective brake to set new reference). - In Route Mode with standard AP configuration (Pitch/Roll/Heading) plus Flight Director. In this case, whenever you would trim the aircraft, just as our HUD shows today, a deviation for pitch/roll/bank would be shown. This goes for PVI-800 either used or not. Speed deviation would be shown (from entering Route Mode or using trimmer). Altitude deviation would only show if Altitude AP (Alt. Hold) would be engaged, with that as reference height (use collective brake to set new reference). Otherwise, the altitude and speed deviation indications would work outside of Route Mode. Trimming would set new desired speed, whereas collective brake would set a desired altitude. (! For altitude deviation to work, Altitude AP (Alt. hold) would have to be engaged.). That's that.

All of them are, and most are confirmed by ED themselves. Again, they sit on the documents, but are not allowed to share. I see no reason to not take them at face value. Afterall, the information exhanged between the devs/community here, is typically on a much higher level than what you'd find, even in univerisities (to mention one). The resr is confirmed in history books concerning the Kamov JSC, and their history. I won't be too harsh with you, as I've always claimed that the manuals are too simplified and lacking in information. With that said, I see why they do it - people barely bother to skim through ED manuals as is. Far fewer would even consider modules based on IRL manuals (complexity, amount of information, +++). Quite frankly, much of the critical information, is often found here in posts going all the way back to 2003. That's why, you'll have to take my word for it. You edited your post, after I replied to you. The point being, the manual explains the different functions of the ADI. I don't see how that was relevant to your initial question. Regardless, to answer you on that; no, the altitude and pitch/bank indicators have never been implemented (since BS1). While the manual explains how they should work (what they indicate), they aren't usable in DCS. I'll also add, that as I looked at the ME, the height setting for waypoints is correct to be displayed. That's to say, the altitude will be neglected in its pre-flight input into PVI-800. However, ABRIS, does have altitude associated with waypoints. If you don't enter it specifically (ME or in mission), then it places them on the ground. Check the "VNAV" section. For all intents and purposes, you can think of ABRIS like a separate GPS in a car. It will show indications and information, but it is completely detached from the functionality of the vehicle. In Ka-50, that is almost true. ABRIS does have a couple connections (datalink, PrPNK (target waypoints), IT-23 (creating target waypoint based on Shkval input), etc..). You also didn't understand the situation with datalink. Let me explain: The PVI-800 is 2D, meaning no information on altitude is conceived. That does not mean that the reference altitude is SL. Quite the contrary. On low altitude (x =< 500m), the radar altitude is used nominal altitude. If you are above that, it's a mix relying in part on air data sensors. In other words, if you are at a 1000m tall mountain with flat top, then regardless of how high you hover, the markpoint you make with datalink, will be at 1000m. That is, because the PrPNK understands that Ka-50 is hovering 100m above the ground, but it doesn't know whether that ground is at SL or 1000m altitude. That's the basic working of the system. It is overall a bit more complicated, as with the use of laser designator and Shkval orientation, it will be able to place markpoints "lower" than the ground the helicopter hovers above. To further support the above, as per Chizh and ED confirmation; the system is meant for flatter terrain. As soon as you move into a terrain with severe altitude variations, the accuracy will suffer accordingly. With that said, you don't need altitude per se. Instead of using the datalink to locate your markpoints, you can just as easily uncage Shkval, and by the use of laser ranging and ABRIS, locate the contacts. Depending on the zoom level of ABRIS, the dead-zone will be bigger/smaller. In this instance, you are getting relatively close to the target, so much so that you will find and identify it. This method can be used in all kinds of terrain. Finally, while there are things lacking with the BS3, some of us keep pushing ED to implement everything. Right now, I've been pushing for having the hydraulics simulated with independent damage models (they are simulated properly in workings, but share the same damage model - either both get damaged or none. There are other requests ongoing.). I consider that a higher priority than the ADI-functionality. In due time, I will press on for the ADI to have all its functionality implemented. People being poor, doesn't help with getting modules with everything simulated. I, for one, would gladly pay $1000++++, if it only had everything included, no shortcuts taken. The average consumer, however, complains about the the amount of liveries modules ship with, because it might cause them a $100 expenditure (SSD) down the line. It's simply ridiculous. With BS3, we got many improvements, yet the average comment was - "So, how many times do I have to buy the shark again?". Stupidity has no borders, even here, where one would assume a higher average intellect.