sinelnic

Yeah 11 vs 11 soccer over the wings!! hello Konami-DCS partnership for PES 2011. Let's see ED come up with a mathematical model for Messi. That's something I'd pay to see...

Depends on your midichlorian count.

Yeah I totally agree, especially for when I'm trying to fly straight it takes me quite a while to figure out if I'm sideslipping. Anyways in your case, sir, after seeing your aerobatics track, I believe it would be fair to the rest of the community to have you flying the Shark by using a mouse and a blank screen, only getting instrument indications in barely audible morse code. Just to level up. Not that I'm envious or anything. :P

Also consider that when slowing down you'll eventually lose "effective translational lift" (I think that happens around 25 km/h but not sure) so you must anticipate some changes in collective and corresponding rudder/cyclic when slowing down, maybe you want to re-establish you approach after slowing down that speed.

Take your time man! Learn to land in runways first, I'd suggest to take care on the approach rather than the point of touchdown, make sure you can make a nice straight descent while moving slowly forward, that will help you develop the skill to "aim" your landings. Don't worry about crashing, the gear is strong... Don't focus only on landing from hover, it is harder to control the descent from a not-that-great hover, and harder to correctly "aim" your touchdown point as well. Land diagonally :) This is incorrect, AH does not auto engage. Maybe you're experiencing rotor in-ground effect (higher lift when about 3m above ground, you get some "sliding")? But most likely you're over controlling the bird right before touchdown. Let her go a couple of times to learn her limits, bumping her into the ground is well within "specifications" :)

Thanks Panzertard! That would be the economic part of the answer, appreciate it. But since some integrations where made, I'm interested in the technical aspect of the difficulty, just to improve my knowledge of the systems. I have lots of curiosity and a little time to spare...

Hello there! I started studying the nav systems of my chopper with the assumption that the inertial and satellite systems were totally unconnected. It took me a while to make a rudimentary map of the navigational/targeting systems of the Ka-50, finding out that in fact the PVI-800 is a mere interface to a couple more systems that make the PrPNK which also feed the AP, targeting system, etc, with the INU/PNK-800 at its core. Now it took me little more to find out that there ARE some integrations built between ABRIS and the PrPNK, for instance the designation of target points for DL, and the display of the Shkval aiming point in the ABRIS. So basically input from the PNK-800 to the ABRIS is already in place, I assume with all the circuitry for data format transformation and communications protocol (input only). So my question is why is there not a similar integration for automatic or even manual INU calibration from the ABRIS (when satellites are up) or, more importantly, waypoint and targeting input from the ABRIS to the PNK-800? With little planning this could be done in a way that would still allow the pilot to seamlessly operate with the PVI-800 in case of satellite system malfunction. I'm currently theorizing that maybe the integrations were made directly from the I-251V (Shkval) to the ABRIS, so 3D positioning calculation is done in ABRIS from the directional info that the Shkval provides, and not coming in coordinate form from the PNK-800, hence no actual integration was built between the two nav systems because of a very good reason. But I'd like to know, if possible, the concrete technical answer to this, as it seems to me this lack of integration is a shortcoming on the design goal of lowering the pilot's workload (whereas in other cases Kamov went in great effort to provide good solutions for this problem), and the kind of problem that a young, smart and ambitious russian enginneer would have volunteered to solve! Well thanks in advance for any responses!

In my case: I just have less ground reference when flying higher:). Also, when decelerating one tends to begin playing with the collective to avoid a steep climb, which should be accompanied by corresponding antitorque pedal to avoid yaw... which I always forget to do and must correct later when lateral movement already developed. Hence when the "direction of motion" line appears in the hud, lots of times I get a diagonal line, even if I could swear by my loved ones that I was going straight...

Also favoured by lousy simulator pilots who cannot time their turns on final correctly... thank you lack of depth perception...

Could it be you're sideslipping? or, to avoid a long discussion, could it be that while decelerating you gain lateral speed, thus having a vectorial sum of both forward and lateral speed above 30km/h? It usually happens to me...

Got mine in a week to south america. Ha. I feel sooo pro going through the checklists to turn on my ride.

I'll drink your beer for free...

I´m mentally bashing this Area 51 thing every day since I learnt of its existence. Not that I will do it here. But I do. I´ll keep it to myself I promise. But God how I bashed them!! Mentally. I myself am perfectly happy with having the guys motivated to release more quality stuff if they want another fifty of my hard earned cash, which is anxiously waiting in my wallet for their next quality stuff. If ED devised a good business model for DCS (and I pray every night that it´s really working) then it´s great! I think that´s as hard, or even harder in this business, than reaching the level of quality they put on their sims. I sometimes find myself praising their business model just as if it were another fancy feature of the sim.

Спасибо!! So the plural makes all the difference in correct grammar? or you're implying that there are multiple offenses in my text? :cry: My native tongue is spanish... I can only be blamed for trusting google...

What you are experiencing is not a bug but a feature. It's called Automated Training Assessment Unit (in russian "Нет преступления, предназначенных, мой друг"). Since there's no two-seater trainer version of the Ka-50, some way had to be devised in which flight instructors could evaluate overall student aptitude during their first flight, from a safe distance. The ATAU is cleverly implemented as a relatively small probe situated in the bottom of the pilot's seat. It consists of a very precise accelerometer that measures force on the probe, and yields a fail-proof assessment of the pilot's suitability during a solo, AP-off hover. This accelerometer is then connected to a series of electronic equipment that activate a plasma field generator outside the helicopter located in the tip of the right winglet. The plasma field would in turn then polarize the light bouncing off the Shark's surface according to the electric signal generated by the mentioned equipment, generating a color coded response that you appreciate as "brown". This is of course fully modelled in DCS:BS. When the Red Army pilots where initially introduced to the BlackShark, they where delighted by the advanced targeting systems but expressed some concerns about the appropriateness of the mentioned instrument. Kamov's scientists then found that by using less reliable equipment in some other areas they could spare enough generator power to install a more advanced, pupil dilatation measuring device on the HMS. The airmen where much more satisfied with the enhanced prototype and the Army approved the mass production of the Hokum. When the first units got delivered to combat squadrons and the pilots found they had to keep a mental track of the times their lasers where used, during combat, and that they'd have to find a way to take a 30 minute pause in hostile airspace while their targeting equipment cooled down, Kamov's internal mail system collapsed with energic requests to bring the probe back, bigger if necessary. Kamov's top scientists where at the time quite busy figuring out a way to make a coaxial tail rotor helicopter with no main rotor, (poker bets where taken very seriously in Soviet Russia), and the job of modifying the production units was then assigned to a lower team of "interns", a management innovation introduced from the West by a then young politician with a strange forehead birth mark. The interns, of course, took the pilot's request literally and installed back the probe, never replacing the laser system. They where proud of their efficiency and developed a strong team spirit that helped them very well cope with their next assignment in deep Siberia. All this matter did not make the Red Army specially happy, they would discontinue the use of the Ka-50, and some of the more radical elements even suggested using the Ka-50 as a test probe for the now not-so-young politician ability to govern the country. Luckily for us all, the moderates triumphed and after a casual light cold, the politician was deemed not necessary any more and the world became the multi-polar paradise we enjoy today. As for the DCS:BS implementation, this feature is the reason why you must combine a series of key presses in order to force the virtual pilot to take a seat. In the default mode the pilot will stay comfortably enjoying a warm coffe in a Starbucks near Mineraln'ye Vody giving you a very slight finger every time you fly by. DCS AI is not so dumb, after all...

Hi Ron, please waste 15 minutes trying the following: 1- Set up a mission with just you starting on any airbase. No payload, just fuel. You can start on the runway if you like. This is very easy to accomplish with the Mission Editor. 2- Before take off, hit LCtrl-A to remove autopilot (this is called "Flight Director" mode) 3- Turn Arm to On and hit "c" to bring up the cannon 4- Try blowing up all vehicles in the base If after this you don't end up sweaty, smiling, and loving the sim, the beer is on me!

Could you please give more detail on what kind of improvement? I suppose not big improvement in FPS but less stutter? Thank you!

I think your reasoning is very well aimed, although I think you´ll get better OC results overall with the i7, I understand you get bigger L1 and L2 caches. Faster RAM bus and controller will help also. But you´ll never get anywhere near twice the bang for twice the money, though. That will come when ED implements multithreading, I hope they do it soon... Could I ask what FPS are you getting with your current setup, and with what settings?

I´d suggest to use: - Water: Normal - Shadows: Active Planar - Heat blur: Off Also try searching the forums to find what file to edit to use Effects=2 (I´m sorry I just don´t remember). All the rest could remain at high, with a similar setup I get around 40FPS in 1920*1200. Worthy of note, at least in my system the bottleneck is the processor, I´m running with 8x AA and 16x AF no problem. RCtrl+Pause gives you on-screen FPS.

Hahah just a joke GGTharos! I´m certainly up to the challenge of taming anything you guys throw at us :joystick:, so keep 'em coming :). What´s certain is that there will be no military contract around the F-14, that´s for sure...

+1 to this, I started simming on C64's F-14. Also, variable geometry would pose a nice challenge to those brains at ED... well, that´s assuming they ARE up to the challenge, of course :music_whistling:

But is it ED? If not, looks very familiar to LO... almost illegally familiar...

A couple of things worked for me: 1- work your ergonomics, find a joystick position where your shoulders are "up" and make sure you´re not curving your back 2- turn down detail to get very good framerates, you need them for relaxed operation. At least until you´ve really learned to fly 3- Make sure your joystick is not playing against you. I, for example, have an X45 which has a terrible design failure and the stick has a "mechanical deadzone" that made precise flying a nightmare. I had to mod the joystick to solve this, but it terribly paid off. 4- If possible at all, make/get a mod for your stick and throttle so you get proper cyclic (long stick) and collective (horizontal stick) controls. They made a huge difference for me, and took only one day and about USD 10 to make. 5- After fullfilling the need to try the weapons and missions and discover how unaccessible proficiency in those areas is, I got totally back to the basics and realized I needed flight school, so I turned on Flight Director and started doing a daily routine of airfiled traffic patterns at set speeds and altitudes. Sounds boring, but it´s one thing to perform an elliptic oscillating "just good enough" pattern, and a correct one, and there´s a lot of fun in discovering why the damned thing won´t stay on course but slightly slide to the left, and managing to correct it. 6- I did a lot of reading about helicopter aerodynamics and handling. Found this (http://www.scribd.com/doc/13027591/Rotor-Crafts) particularly useful. I get back to it whenever I experience something I don´t understand during flight. 7- I finish my daily routine with a series of simple aerobatics (roll, loop), flying under a bridge, and landing "on the exact spot of my choice". I quickly realized there´s a tendency to say "I want to do this", and then doing what the chopper wants, and saying "well, that was good enough", I´m trying to counter this by applying the documented procedures to the letter. It´s harder but you learn a lot. For instance, just yesterday I found myself in a vortex ring state about 50m above the ground, managed to detect it while it was developing, and able to counteract it knowingly and continue the flying. There is an enormous satisfaction in doing that because I really knew what was happening and what I did to solve the problem! I think the learning process I´m following is to gradually build instinctive handling of certain aspects before moving onto the following areas, which in my case will be hard weather first and then navigation and IFR. I approach the whole thing as if I´ve been given a chopper for christmas and so far the ejoyment is enormous, whithout blowing a single thing up. The simulation of the machine is so detailed that there´s unlimited fun in this approach. At least my two cents!

Thanks for your response Alpha. One more time, impressive job! AFAIK ground resonance requires shock waves to be modelled propagating from the landing gear to the rotor. That would be too much to ask, I can assure you I won´t ask for my money back if it´s not there :D

Thanks for your response, I´m referring to the first case, rotation along the mast axis. I´m well aware of the other two, they must be there in order to simulate realistic conditions such as blade collision or, of course, just controlling the aircraft. But the first one is AFAIK related to structural tension management and as such not immediately mandatory to actually simulate in BS, hence my curiosity on if it´s indeed fully modelled. Reading further, there´s something called ground resonance which can destroy your chopper if you land hard on a single gear, which happens because an individual blade gets out of "sync" with the others. I´ve not yet tried to reproduce this effect in BS, but if it behaves as I describe, then blade lead/lag is properly implemented...