cauldron

Can anyone help me with my scripting: I have seperate EWR in lone groups starting with groupname "sam" I have no AAA and no mixed sam types in groups also starting with groupname "sam" i load mist first, load iads script file next, then i run these two scripts: 1st: do iads.addallbyprefix('sam',{link={'main'}}) end 2nd: do local iads_settings = {['linked'] = 'coalition', ['level'] = 4, ['radarSim'] = true, ['timeDelay'] = timer.getTime() + 5, } end But there seems to be no different reaction to the sam units with these as without. Same behavior. Can anyone help out? Thanks. Integrated Airdefenses training 1.miz

And NO ONE's word should be accepted as a gospel, even if they have logged thousands of hours. Why? because without a sound argument backed by evidence, sound reasoning, and or math all you have left is a subjective informed opinion; which is not objective. Regardless of however pedantic you feel others discourse is. Waving your proverbial jedi hand around, and in general being demeaning to others in the very same forum of discussion does not speak very highly of you, or your claims. I have over 10k hours in real aircraft, and i would never pretend to give my word and have it accepted on my word only, nor would i be able to prove such credentials in a place like this. SO jumping in to a forum and claiming you are something is easy, demonstrating you are knowledgeable and able to have discourse is preferable. So, if your ret. buddies raise their noses at this aviation-sim discourse and shop-talk arguments that are usually superficial anyways, i am not impressed. least of all by someone raising their nose at this discourse in a second hand fashion. Wiser aviation veterans already know this, don't look down upon it, but rather see it for what it is, there is no need, and no desire to look down upon an aviation enthusiasts forum - if you do you need that chip knocked off your shoulder before nature or physics does it for you. In sum, if you have a point to make, remember that everyone is anonymous and you have to go through the effort of proving whatever point you have to make, mixed in with people in a forum that includes very ignorant but enthusiastic persons to very knowledgeable persons.

yeah 180kts is fast and it makes sense as a backup feature to not blow your gear, but Vr is never used as a decision speed in ref. to a go-no-go. Just nit picking. thanks for the guide!!!

I would like to offer a congratulation to Deka Ironworks. . . For me this has been the best day 1 launch of a module ever, from any developer. The least amount of bugs, flight model issues, interface issues whatever. There are some, but really its as polished as other modules after more than a year after launch. Looking forward to see and acquire your future modules Deka Ironworks! Cheers. Someone say J-8ll or Q-5 ? either would be a nice addition.

Good links thanks; a MIG-25 module would be a sure buy for me. Hope it gets on the dev. road-map.

A humidity and vertical physics engine: There is nothing greater than a global update that affects all player experience. It is my opinion that it is in these issues that ED should have the greatest concentration of efforts. For example better hardware integration (multi core, vulcan), global damage models, missile proportional navigation, radars and ecm,eccm global issues. But of all these in my opinion the one that lags behind the most is weather: A humidity physics engine upgrade can globally handle the following, not the least of which: all over wing vapor effects shock cone vapor effects rain virga cumulus clouds, towering cumulus, steady state Cb's, strato cumulus, fogs, mists icing hail radar rain reflections and attenuation, as well as rain radar shadows vertical wind (updrafts & downdrafts) and windshear, downbursts, microbursts etc These are important immersion criteria, especially for actual/retired pilots playing on the sim, as well as to show those who have not yet, or cannot fly into the real sky. The lack of winds, turbulence, updrafts & downdrafts, a physics model for cloud formation & dissipation and weather as a whole should be of primary importance. Just as getting the temperature and pressure model correct of the atmosphere which DCS already does, weather is a major step that is missing. Without a proper or an evolving weather physics engine DCS will become and feel "empty" If a pressure & wind model can co-exist with a vertical & humidity model it would be amazing, and will catapult DCS into a new era of flight sim. Currently, (this is not meant to be negative) DCS is an amzaing simulator that flies in laboratory conditions where for the most part there is no wind effects or weather, and when they are implemented they are minor at best (yet for most multiplayer servers even these are non-existent i.e. zero winds, severe clear and the player base has become accustomed to "simming' in zero wind, zero weather conditions. Most plane modules can successfully fly in IMC but most players are not even aware of this. The lack of weather will year by year become more and more evident in its lack there of. To the developers, please have this on your roadmap, implement it progressively. Here is a taste of the "world" DCS could enjoy. (it's mostly visual but it may help get my point across) it's from microsoft simulator where DCS should be much much better, regrettably its not. Weather in a flight sim is a core attribute, just as temperature and pressure are, its the atmosphere, its where everything takes place, without it you lose the joy of flying, give us this wonderful sandbox of weather, so we can experience what many of us remember fondly from our past flying experiences, and others dream of. To steal a "signature quote" from the late CarlSagan: "Witness mere F-14s taking off from adjacent flight decks, gracefully canting left and right, afterburners flaming, and there’s something that sweeps you away—or at least it does me. And no amount of knowledge of the potential abuses of carrier task forces can affect the depth of that feeling. It simply speaks to another part of me. It doesn’t want recriminations or politics. It just wants to fly.” ...or even better, one we have all probably read, but without weather, this poem would never have been written: Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings; Sunward I’ve climbed, and joined the tumbling mirth Of sun-split clouds ... and done a hundred things You have not dreamed of ... wheeled and soared and swung High in the sunlit silence. Hov’ring there, I’ve chased the shouting wind along, and flung My eager craft through footless halls of air. Up, up the long, delirious, burning blue I’ve topped the windswept heights with easy grace Where never lark, or even eagle flew. And, while with silent, lifting mind I’ve trod The high untrespassed sanctity of space Put out my hand, and touched the face of God. -John Magee

Thanks, you can get even better if you can spare the mental gymnastics for a last adjustment, tke the final result and subtract 10% or a tenth... to more accurately adjust from the [m] per [sec] to [kts] term.

I think you're in the wrong forums. "The Expanse" season 4 fandom forums aren't here, and discussing MCRN ships is off topic :smartass:

good points, heli's are not so simple are they.

I didn't realize this had digressed into a tabloid, but since we're there, sure i'll take airwolf, but only if it comes with the music tracks.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4020528&postcount=73 That's a link where is posted a math experiment for rotor speeds and some quick mental math for rotorhead pilots. It uses the Huey as an example. applicable to any rotors.

For some quick mental math for pilots! V=w*r if you take a tenth of you rpm's you get radians per second, multiply that by your rotor radius in meters and you get angular velocity in meters/second. take that and multiply by 2 and you get approximately your blade tip speed in knots around the hub, then for an advancing blade add you air speed ! and subtract for the receding blades! Good approximate figure.

I got curious and did some math for rotor speeds vs. doppler gates: It has some math but i made it really easy to follow, can't do that with forum txt app so I made a pdf: To sum up: Huey rotor tips at cruise are moving at 480 knots and at about 2m out they are doing 133 knots and at 1.5m out they are doing 100 knots. With these results I would assume the rotation of the inner rotor connection and the hub to be invisible to an F-14 doppler radar (which i used for the experiment). But remember that these velocities are vectorially summed to the velocity of the helicopter as a whole, so the advancing blades will go higher and the retreating blades will seem slower (so viewed from the interceptor advancing blades should be easier to see, retreating harder, from the frame of reference of the searching radar of course) here is the pdf, its actually easy to read and you can use the equations to run this experiment on any rotors and any doppler gates you wish: It's also fun to see if the blades can come close to transonic! Rotor angular speed experiment for doppler gate 3.pdf

Well it was moonless night i could see perfectly in focus and sharp: my hands, feet, the farm and crops, and the stars were perfect dots among the little nvg flashing specks. Didn't have to adjust a thing. These were good commercial NVG's. I didn't own them just got to use them... literally a thousand times better than what i saw in my dcs flight. But ok... so you guys are sure its working as intended, ok then. But if that is the case they are simulating some seriously underwhelming nvg's. Maybe the ones i used were very goods ones and older ones are really kinda crap in comparison.

To the OP, my answer. Looking for thrust to weight comparisons will get you no where fast in aerodynamics. Best to go read some performance charts between the two aircraft to get started, because its not so simple. But to answer your question thrust to weight is a very bad metric that is commonly abused. some examples: * level flight ( any altitude ) acceleration. thrust to weight you would think rules, but only in F=ma. But F has complications as it is opposed by drag, which is not as simple as one plane being better than the other. * vertical climb acceleration ( even at sea level ) neither plane can do it. period. Thrust not greater than weight + drag. they are airplanes, not dragonflies zipping about at over 20:1 thrust to weight. ( yup, the little ol dragonfly has the highest performance of anything flying today, as far as accelerations are concerned :P ) * turns, well to turn you need to do 1 of 3 things, high AoA maneuvers, sustained turn rate, or instantaneous rate turns... of which none are ruled by thrust-to-weight, except maybe moment of inertia has a heavy hand in high AoA,but that's not weight either. If you are curious, go get into how planes maneuver, get into some aerodynamics. A traditional read would be "Aerodynamics for naval aviators" NAVWEPS 00-80T-80. Ther are many more to choose from, usually the more math in it, the better :thumbup: Thrust-to-weight gets mentioned a lot because its an easy measurement to make and state, the real question is thrust/drag throughout the envelope, but is actually not easy to do or study. thrust to weight of an engine can tell a lot about that engine, but thrust to weight of an aircraft tells not so much really. It gets thrown around a lot in conversations just like this one, but in the end its a lot like politics, a lot of talking but very little being said.:megalol: cheers.

Is it just me or does the in cockpit NVG of the M2000c have horrendous depth of field issues? The cockpit is utterly out of focus. I can't find any commands for depth of field/focus or anything. its hard to imagine actual NVG's to be this bad. I have worn a pair recently and it is totally amazing the sharpness and clarity, both near and far, i can see my hand perfectly as well as the stars, and everything in between. So what am i doing wrong? something in my settings?

I am impressed, i did not expect to post again here. I did just want to point out this outlier happening. If the the ultimate load strength is assumed (mentioned here to be just above 13g's) to be of a said value then any loads above that not causing a cascade leading to a destructive event are extraordinary, and need solid reasoning to back that up. I don't know how much detail is in the FM or the physics modeling, but my guess is that the g tolerance is not the only thing going on here - the rate of g' onset [g/s] seems too high at high dynamic pressure, but that's your job, not easy i am sure, and i don't envy your bug squashing efforts. So far I think your team has done an excellent job. And again I do hope I have not wasted anyone's time with this issue, I know its at the edge of the envelope, but it was the test i was making at the time. My regards, and best of luck to you and your team.

I not too high on helicopter knowledge base, but i did stay at holiday inn last night :smartass:. SO.... i was wondering: If modern rotor blades are all composite wouldn't it be very easy to make the blades fairly stealthy - which would mitigate the doppler 'pulses' you guys have mentioned, as they would or could be just too faint to be picked up from the background noise until the aircraft is too close, and then it would have to be pointing steeply down, not a prob for AESA but the stealth feature would still be there right? Maybe that is the reason behind the current in game heligate issue (i mean the doppler gate for them). pun intended.:megalol:

I like to point out that you yourselves have made all the extraordinary claims; I came to this forum to try to help and point out that the wings are NOT coming off until some very high loads - I acknowledged that it is a fringe event at the edge of the envelope and not a high priority- and I was polite . It is clear you did not bother to even read the posts. Anyways you've made my point all by yourselves. Just make up your minds if its going to be 25g's or 13-18g's or whatever. Oh and by the way, I have not insulted nor criticized you or anyone else's programming skills, development skills or there person, so don't insult my piloting skills which are still not bad after retiring from a lifetime flying many aircraft and a technical education, thank you. Good Day.

So, this non bug-performance issue is awkward? I didn't mean to bug anyone or waste anyone's time, but i really thought that was the point of this exercise. My apologies for finding a fantastical result; outliers happen, i was pointing one out i came across. The F-14 module is amazing and this clearly is not a priority, as it is at the extreme end of the envelope. Some time ago the M2000-c module had a similar case, it was performing high speed Kulbits - a total outlier, not a high priority but they acknowledged it was happening and eventually got around to dealing with it. The difference is this is a sim, players are going to explore the boundaries of the envelope free from actual death and destruction that would be irl, pilots were given limits by the test pilots for reasons, those reasons fail in a sim where the only consequence is a need to respawn. In my humble opinion i'm going to say you guys need to consult with an actual aerospace/mechanical engineer, make the same claim of an easy 25g's and a massive g/sec rate and see what they have to say. Again, my apologies. And again thank you & Meteor for a great module, a truly enjoy it.

Fact: The above content has a few facts with a lot of opinion...placed purposefully to deliver an OpED. "... all bugged over." - Opinion "Very bad bug... community management" - Opinion "In terms of release date, as also in terms of quality." - Opinion just which module went on sale that has "stopped"? really. I've bought all the modules they have put on sale, and they are all constantly getting improvements. We are all entitled to opinions. and to write them - its what forums are for. But i haven't seen this kind of entitlement on these forums in a while. Keep your opinion, but please refrain from publicly stating your opinions are facts. reading the above has made me wonder if you are confusing razbam with veao, :megalol: The thread and the content posted imo i fantastic news!, it may start a trend as others not just the ada see the advantage in this. Either way i can't see a downside to this.

GGTharos, I agree with you, something is suspect, and needs investigating. Extraordinary claims like "easily 25g's" needs some commensurate extraordinary evidence. Also... the rate of g' onset m/s/s/s is suspect as well, because afaik only unstable fighters can manage rates that could be dangerous, and they have the computer limit them. I don't know how far FM's in DCS can go on this, but i'd hope it gets some attention. For ref. the test history of the F-20 tigershark. someone mentioned the torque: the moment arm for the outer wing does not change with sweep. What may change is its share of the load for a given g load upon the plane as a whole. It may well diminish thus transferring load to other lifting bodies of the plane to attain the said g. I was aware this was to be modeled with a flow and pressure model. But 25g's is very high indeed to reach. For momentary vs prolonged loads on structures... its not so simple. Complex structures fail under rapid loads in a cascade of weaker components failing much earlier than the ultimate load as the loads increase to failure. This is designed for and planned for, how close to the limit this occurs is different for everything, and unique, but the ultimate failure occurs in mere fractions of a second. An optimal structure for strength may hold loads much higher but may not be desirable to a lower load limit due to a sudden and abrupt uncontrolled disassembly event, and may actually be not the best design - that's the engineers job and its a hard one at that, how this applies to this topic depends on a lot of things. But its clear it can be approximated to a reasonable level (and it already is), the question really is in the details, and is there enough information to support the claim above? Altitude is a non factor, the loads and rates of loads are there or not regardless of altitude. Do you happen to know of how much the F-14 static load to failure test got up to? That would be a great benchmark. The most vulnerable configuration as stated [see paper ref. below] was a transition from full sweep outwards as it would cause a friction lock and divert the load focus. If you are interested (needs some math and structures knowledge but its a good read) I have done my part in this posting, the developer has a clear opinion on this and that's that I guess.

Don't get me wrong, i am appreciative your response; i just wished to avoid going off topic in a bug report that actually took some effort for me to make.

I don't see how that has much relevance to the specifics of my post. Maybe they repeated what i did, it doesn't change the fact that this needs to be addressed. btw, in my tests the plane DID NOT break up to 20g's and was flyable w/o damage and no blackout.

I am a fan of the F-14 since childhood, so this comes from a fan. posting pics and non-replay short vids showing the F-14 holding 17g's for more than a second and up to 20g's without a failure/damage or structural failure of any kind. to break it i needed over 21g's. I did get it to break with wings extended at 13.6g's which also seems too high imo, but i don't have any real data to say where, i'll leave that to the devs to figure out. the following vids and pics were made in 3rd person w/o the replay function as its not working. the links to see the vids: 13.6g breakup: 16g no damage: 18g no damage: 21.7g before breakup: My questions are, How is the acceleration of the g's [m/s/s/s] and is it with constraints? How are the pilots not blacked out by the accelerated GLOC if its outside of the margins? Why can the F-14 attain over 20g's without breaking up, while in a slower wings out config breakup approaching 14g's? Which imo seems a little on the high side already.