zerO_crash

Linking a phenomenal interview, true goldmine of information, regarding a myriad of subjects with a test pilot and aerospace engineer:

The first picture is, as Ironhand stated: "ЦEНТР ЗОНЫ СТРОБ." - "Stroboscope zone centre" (i.e. marker hat) (The working of a stroboscope is very similar, in essence, to a radar. Considering that a radar illuminates a cone ahead, and gives you continuous, but cyclic, updates of the area, it is used as an autology in reference to the workings of a radar. "Zone centre", because with the marker, you are merely pointing out the centre for the RDR/EO to scan. The scan is, however, helical around that point. In layman's terms: "flashlight cone centre", but change "flashlight" with "stroboscope" because it works in principle like a radar, and "cone" with "zone" because from the perspective of the pilot, you are looking at the crossection of the radar beam, not the volumetric properties.) The second picture: "ВВОДА ДАЛЬНОСТИ" - "Range Input" (i.e. manual target ranging) (If you for some reason don't have a distance measurement to the target, you can adjust the range manually. A good example would be gun engagement while flying through clouds.) The wheel itself, is referred as this in the manuals: "Потенциометр ручной установки дальности до цели." - "Potentiometer of manual ranging to the target." (If you know what a potentiometer is, then everything falls into place.). Also, unless you would be doing a 1-1 replica of a specific bort number, don't worry too much about the wording. It both changes, and is removed (e.g. throttle - manual ranging) relatively early on.

Sad to say, but it's a complete mess.

Normally, this thread should be moved to "DCS Core Wish List". This isn't a AH-64D specific question, but one on general engine implementation. It would make sense to have this thread merged with others (prior to this one) in the DCS Core, to visualize the demand (part of it, most people within DCS don't even parrticipate on the forums.). Seeing, however, how people don't always know where to look, it can stay here with the label. That way, more will know that things are moving ahead. ED has been aware of some of us wanting FFB for pedals (multiple FFB output channels) for a way longer time than the threads above have been linked. The reason some of them are fresh, is because we have had to push on ED to not forget it. However, with the inception of Brunner, and Shwed having sent ED better equipment (they have, if I remember two MSFFB2 joysticks from before), things are finally picking up speed. Availability of cheap FFB overall, allows dor increased demand for these features. We should see improvements and even better support down the line from now.

Thought I'd share a list of all the V-80 & Ka-50 borts that were ever built, along with interesting details regarding those: The Kamovs (in general), are considered the safest helicopters in the world. Not counting ejection seats on the Ka-50/52, the helicopters are immune to many aerodynamic effects plaguing conventional helicopters. This get's further solidified, when one looks at the incredibly low accident rate of these helicopters. Adding to that, the inherent efficiency aspect of this design (all power goes to vertical lift), the helicopter becomes a unique and expensive product, but one stressing quality and performance.

To explain it simply: BS1/BS2 is a model of the Ka-50 bort #25. The BS3 is a bort #25, from a later time, with some mixed functionality from other borts of the same make. - BS1/2 are as they were. No updates, other than the necessary ones to keep them working in the latest core-updates. It looks "old". - BS3 introduces two modules: 2011 (BS2) with updated model (visual), effects (e.g. rotor blur, +++), wingtip pylons forced disabled (4-pylons in total) etc... 2022 (BS3) everything from 2011, plus added functionality, wingtip pylons selectable (maximum of 6 pylons, but can be reduced to 4), changes in the cockpit, etc... In other words, BS3 has everything that you want and need. Since you don't have BS2, you're better off with purchasing the BS3 standalone. You'll both be able to simulate the specific Ka-50 bort #25 at the timeframe it was made, and a more modern Ka-50 bort #25 with functionality mixed from different borts and timeframes.

The Ka-50 still performs like it did before, overall. What's new, are certain effects that haven't been there before, which one has to consider now. Beyond that, it's all the same. The helicopter performs miles beyond any conventional helicopter, esp. given a competent pilot. What do I mean by new effects? Well, desintegration of rotor blades due to reaching mach 1.0 (and even exceeding). In the BS1 times (BS2 alleviated it, BS3 further improved and fixed), you could dive down at -90* pitch to 600 km/h, and only be stopped by the opposite force vector being equal (drag). You can not do it since BS2. I can reach speeds of 460-470km/h (if I wasn't treating my flying seriously), but above that, the speed of the rotor tips reaches x > M0.95, where the last warning in the form of flutter appears, followed by desintegration of the blades. The helicopter still performs as it did. If you feel different, show some me evidence. As someone who both has the right hardware, skill & knowledge, the helicopter dwarfs anything out there. You can overload the Ka-50 to 12.200kg (Ka-52 MTOW (real manual) - overloading is quite common IRL, esp. in wartime), and still fly/climb/dive/turn/yaw faster than an AH-64D with 50% fuel and nothing else onboard. Mind you, I treat my Ka-50 according to IRL procedures (something very few, other than real pilots, have a concept of). The "shake" is between 50km/h and 70km/h, basically modelling the entering/exiting of ETL. It was there before, but very subtle. Now, it's much more pronounced, both visually, as well as in terms of the general impression. The "shaking", is also encountered at higher G-load (logically), but also at higher IAS (simulating rotor blade flutter). Dynamic gas ingestion was not modelled before at all, which goes to show some of the major differences with BS3 vs. BS1/2. You can shoot rockets from hover (IRL manuals demand a minimum of 120km/h), but then single volley (with time inbetween), and/or with rocket pods om middle pylons (away from engines). Ultimately, people do not appeciate the Ka-50 (or any co-axial), in part due to certain important aerodynamic effects lacking in DCS (they are being worked towards). One essential such effect, is the LTE (Loss of tail rotor effectiveness). When we get that in DCS, you will understand just how much you need consider something as basic as wind, in a conventional helicopter, vs. a co-axial, which is a spaceship comparatively. There are other effects to consider. 15 AH-64s in Desert Storm were lost to mechanical-/atmospheric- related causes. In the recent 4 months, 4 AH-64s have been lost in US, with investigations ongoing, atmospheric conditions being the initial reported causes. One might say - that's a pretty advanced helicopter, to go down to atmospheric conditions...

To anyone monitoring/trying to reproduce this bug. Given how random, and seldom it is, one can likely expect it on a longer flying session. With that said, I saw ED mention on the RU-side that they have tools now to work on large tracks. What's important, is to deliver a track (doesn't matter if multiple hour long), and record the time at which it happened. They will be able to extract all the information out of it. If you have, even a recent track, note the time at which it happened, and upload.

Марковский Виктор Юрьевич has generally good publications, but not all are exhaustive, which is why I stated previously that it all depends on the specific aircraft one is interested in. Also, the type of lecture you are looking for, will matter (run down of history, scientific aspects and comparative studies, pilot & test pilot recollections, etc...). Марковский has a good, albeit short book on MiG-23 in Afghanistan - "Истребители МиГ-23 в Афганистане". He also has a pretty good release with Приходченко Игорь Владимирович on MiG-23. That's at least what I hear, haven't read that one myself, yet.

Thank you!

Another interesting video that I found in my library. This time, Ka-52 (initial production version). This is Ka-52's PrPNK Argument-52 on board radar station, with the frontal radar (РЛК) - "Арбалет " showing some of the basic functionality: Работа РЛК «Арбалет» ударного вертолета Ка-52..mp4 Also, first use of a helicopter ejection seat in combat - Ka-52: One can see how after being hit, the pilots trigger the ejection procedure, blowing off the blades (initial hellical explosions at the rotor centre), followed by a brief ejection of the crew (the co-pilot can easily be seen with the smoke trail going left of the helicopter (as seen from camera's position)). Enjoy!

For general Su-25A component nomenclature, you might find this schematic interesting: It's relatively old, but will give a basic idea on Su-25A components and their names. The nomenclature in cockpit will make more sense when you know what certain components/parts are named.

For MiG-29, here are some good authors: - Меницкий Валерий - Антон Павлов - Сергей Войлоков - Андрею Анатольевичу Симонову - Балаков Игорь Борисович - Борис Орлов For other aircraft, there are other authors. It should also be mentioned, there has never existed a book which is completely correct. To that point, the above-mentioned, are mostly correct, but there might be a wrong metric here or there. In general, fo books regarding history of aircraft, the knowledge to be extracted is more of anecdotal value. Don't get tok hung up on numbers. Otherwise, if you do, cross-confirm it with other sources (and multiple). Still, the books are fantastic, albeit written in Russian. I know, for a fact, that most are not available in English at all. You'd have to translate it for yourself. Esp. А. Павлов and С. Войлоков, have produced books, which are of especially high quality. Schematic drawings are basically 100% correct, they have photos not found on internet or any other book. Pretty unique material. They also have a book, created together, which is to be considered a bible on the MiG-29 изделие 9.12. (The whole book is purely about 9.12). I had to find a old post that I remember written here on the forum, regarding some of the commok mistakes and errors in the commonly found books - e.g. Mikheev (Александр Александрович Михеев). Here you can see just some of the mistakes of the geometric schematics (maybe you can translate it): The above, is not to say that you shouldn't read their books. They are still really decent, don't get me wrong. But as said, extract the anecdotal information, but don't get hung up on specific numbers or specific details. Михеев, Фомин, Мазепов (and two other authors), have for example a pretty decent book on the Ka-50/52 program. While it had some errors here and there (relatively few), the book ranks among top three on the Ka-50/52 design with unqiue photos and history on design evolution: Should you wonder about other aircraft (Ru/East), shoot

Regarding the formerly made requests about separating FFB-channels, I'd also like to request from the team a separate channel for collective/throttle output. There are already products out on the market which feature this functionality. I myself, will be getting one in some time. Example of a collective with FFB: https://www.brunner-innovation.swiss/product/cls-p-collective/ Since this wasn't mentioned in the previous threads, I'd like to remind that it's worth going all the way with this implementation. Thanks!

My pleasure!

Su-27/33 throttle (both have the same, but you posted picture of Su-33 (cockpit in strong blue color)): Сброс - discharge (i.e. deploy) Ложные тепловые цели (ЛТЦ) - False thermal targets (i.e. flares) Дипольные отражатели (ДО) - Dipole reflector (i.e. chaff) Su-25: (КЛЕН-ПС) - (KLEN-PS) This is the name of the laser rangefinder in the Su-25. КЛЕН ПЗ - KLEN FOV (i.e. Klen irradiate) (ПЗ - поле зрения, FOV. FOV, because when you irradiate, the cross moves within HUD glass FOV.) If you wonder about more, shoot!

Some parts are green and less tundra-rocky. Depends where. Otherwise - "WIP".

None of those are reliable sources. One notices mistakes made from books on MiG-21s and onwards. There are very few books, let alone authors who have done their research. (Some mistakes become replicated by the pilot community as well.) That's the reality of it.

Не могу сказать это баг или нет - в ИЕ нет информации. Когда система анти-обледенения включена для обоих двигателей, обороты правого двигателя (#2) будут ниже, чем у левого (#1). Разница в оборотах двигателя заметна при РППК (РОШ) более 9*. Это происходит как на Ми-8МТВ2, так и на Ми-24П. Верно ли? Если да, то почему? ТЕСТ.miz Ми-8МТВ2.trk

On the Kola map, the moving doppler map doesn't show any map at all. The whole space ("screen") is empty - black. This is to be expected with new maps, but still needs a fix. Shouldn't need track, to reproduce; - Create mission on Kola-map. - Place Mi-24P in the mission. - Launch mission and join Mi-24P as pilot.

To put it straight: If you have FFB pedals (like me - though still waiting for ED to implement separate FFB output channels), you can simulate the operation of the Mi-24P/Ka-50 AP). Wherever you put the microswitch from the pedals, as long as you use it correct (I have mine on the pedal-brakes), the AP will not interefere when you have control. Also, should you let go of the microswitches, the pedals will always move according to how the AP offsets them (provided heading-hold AP-channel is on). If you don't have FFB pedals, you can forget the whole shebang. There is a reason I requested from ED the special-setting which let's you turn off "AP pedal offset". This is not a matter of preference, this is a matter of logic. If you fly with with such a setup, even with a microswitch, it doesn't matter. As soon as AP starts trimming your pedals (microswitch depressed), your non-FFB pedals will be offset to the virtual pedals. The problem that you can imagine then, is that if AP trims them left pedal-heavy (wind, turn with slip, etc...), and you chose to come to hover, it will result in the following - you will max out your right pedal to counter torque of main rotor, whilst virtual offset is (in the worst case) equal to neutral pedals. That means, you are spinning and crashing baby. As you should understand, this is not a matter of perspective. Allowing the AP to trim anything that doesn't have FFB, is actually a catastrophy, as it limits your movement. In the same way that pedals will get trimmed by AP when you let go of the microswitches (on the pedals), the AP will move the virtual position of your cyclic when in auto-hover AP-mode. You have to be aware that the AP can offset your virtual position (the important one), without you realizing it. This isn't a matter of preference, it's a recommendation based on what works and what doesn't. If you seek an experience alas that of flying a rocket with pedals and a steering wheel, have fun. You'll notice soon enough that what is being shared here, is a culmination of experience and practical application.