m4ti140

DCS has no way of knowing what your curve in TIR is because it has no access to it, it only receives orientation and translation vectors, 6 numbers with zero context for them.

You can simply map the same buttons to in game switch and SRS switch if SRS does not already recognize the in game assignments for F-16C.

Any word on pricing?

All other HMDs so far - all the way back to Ka-50 and FC3 MiG-29/Su-27 work the same way. What you're suggesting won't really work as well as you might think it will, because the game can't tell where your head is actually pointing on the real screen - it just gets a head position input that is an arbitrary function of your head position mapped within TrackIR software, with no relationship with reality whatsoever. You'd need eye tracking to make this work.

Given that the cause was in the end determined to be just a misunderstanding regarding units used in the cockpit, could this thread is closed or - better - deleted? I keep seeing people on social media spamming about how horrible the Mi-8 FM is and then pointing here as a proof, never bothering to read past the OP.

Ah yes, let's insult and ignore when we can't come up with arguments to defend our position. And pretend things we don't like don't exist. LIKE THE MASSIVE F****NG MOUNTAINS YOU HAVE BETWEEN YOUR FARP AND THE MISSION AREA. Quite convenient when you need to stay safe from enemy air threats. Don't care, just stop spamming the thread, you're wasting storage space on the ED servers. Every single suggestion you bring up would halve the quality of this server if introduced.

It's not, I'm on a very outdated version of Windows 10 (from like January) and I also got this problem with latest versions of DCS. It's most severe on a map that I had to move to an HDD and symlink back to save space on SSD (Nevada to be precise). Something about the new memory management, I can run higher texture settings now and maintain stability, but I get this stutter, it's like it's reading from disk way more now. I assume reducing terrain textures to low might improve this, haven't checked yet.

CA doesn't count as flying. And no, we can't, the entire area around Hatay is a death sentence to red fighters if overflown. Not to mention if we have to grab strikers that means we end up with fewer fighters than blue. You can't just do a fighter sweep and switch to strikers, you need to maintain air superiority. You clearly have no concept of that. Try that mission on red side and see what you can do. Mi-8 cargo trips end in getting killed by F-5s on the way, something Hueys don't really need to worry about unless blue has literally 0 fighters in the air and don't bother with sams. Remember that blue also has a much better SEAD platform in form of the Viggen, unless we count the extremely limited supply of 29Ps (and that 25s can survive in an airspace held by numerically superior blue fighters). Also none of this matters regarding my point, my point was that a correctly designed mission will not give automatic victory to one side in absence of players. For PvP a mission does not have to be symmetric but it needs to be designed in such a way, that when the server is empty and only ground forces are fighting, they arrive at a stalemate. Then and only then you add air and try to balance air, again keeping in mind the inevitable asymmetry. If one side has an advantage on the ground the mission is not balanced, because its outcome does not rely exclusively on player skill and that's logic, it's not up to discussion.

@Pilot Ike 1. You don't fly anyway, so you have no clue about capability of any of them 2. Blue has 10 strikers in this mission, 4xA-10 and 6xViggen. And you don't really need to use any of them, you can just grab 100% fighters and deny airspace to the grand total of 6 red strikers - as if it was not already denied by shorads, until those are destroyed red only has 2 usable strikers, because you need the 25Ts to clean those up. And it's easier said then done in this environment. Meanwhile blue can get Viggens to Minakh without EVER getting spotted by going through the valleys to the north, fire off mavs and run with impunity.

^this. Alpen, there's an easy way to test missions like those - let it run with AI only a couple times and check the result. A balanced mission will have win ratio of roughly half for each side without player intervention. The setup above would quite possibly end up in blue win 100% of the time on the other hand.

What?

@Alpenwolf You do realize that SRS has its own client list, you can SEE who is connected and who isn't. I mean, obviously you do, you're the server administrator here, you're supposed to know this. Or don't you?

OK, I have a winner. Rossmum was right, there are gamebreaking exploits that occur naturally just by following normal procedures and let you go stupidly fast. I haven't checked the fuel pump exploit yet but just by starting with all pylons occupied with Rb-24Js and center tank, then jettisoning everything and launching the remaining two missiles (so in the end, I was not fully clean, I should have had additional drag from the sidewinder rail) I got the aircraft to go over 1650 kph at sea level... this is just stupid. Also note that that chart shows Mach 2.0 max at ISA-15, not +10. So lower temp. This here was done in ISA on the other hand. Mach 1.34 on indicator. I didn't even bother expending all fuel, and ground effect barely changed anything, like 1kph difference in and out, I could have flown a proper mission profile like this, using the warp speed to give myself an unfair advantage on egress. Track file https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArMDWm49dN3CgdcvTtDYg-XimM-BGQ?e=Sdo2uJ I think this explains the ludicrous speeds we've seen online. I'm gonna see if I can replicate the fuel exploit, I can smell 1700+. This is bad and people who use it in PvP should feel bad.

The problem is that the Viggen is one of those aircraft that can reach speeds where this would become an issue with no effort. In fact it takes effort to keep it within safe operational limits. No one would complain about inaccurate supersonic modelling for an A-10 or Su-25. If the negative drag bug is what's happening here, then it would explain a lot. And definitely needs attention. It would be one thing if it was A-10. It's another when it's an aircraft designed for speed and the sim puts a black hole into its nosecone.

No there won't be, which is why anything outside of the envelope requires numerical analysis and careful modelling of known physical phenomena ocuring in this regime. Either that, or just break stuff apart once it goes out of envelope, like some modules do. The problem with the former approach is that no you won't find much vanguard for this kind of stuff because no one does this these days for any professional applications of flight simulation software, you cross the envelope - the simulation stops, the instructor walks in and smacks you in the head. And if you're doing failure simulations there's no point in reaching this level of abstraction in the first place. Stuff like this would have been done back in the day though, in fact it must have been done by Saab when they came up with those limitations, so it doesn't mean no attempt should be made because DCS is the one environment where it does matter, otherwise people will just exploit it. DCS is not an arcade shooter, if we're to stand by "lul it'z a shitty game who cares about accuracy" then we should have stuck to Flaming Cliffs, but that's not what they're doing, the mission statement of DCS is to get things as close to realism as they possibly can and enforcing physical limitations should be the priority here, higher priority than all the "cockpit clicking simulator" stuff. If you look into sim racing market you will see that all resources there are poured into driving model and accurate replication of tracks while system modelling is the lowest priority. Because that is more important in a PvP environment where people compete against each other. In DCS, the same should apply to performance limitations and weapon limitations, this is why HB did CFD on their missiles for the F-14 instead of relying on official data - which is inaccurate by design - as well as why there's so much flaming over targetting and countermeasures modelling, globally, which is laughable at the level of fidelity they are aiming for. And as it stands, cold war servers that feature Viggen while using 3rd gen jets as primary A2A platforms devolve into Benny Hill simulators, where Viggens fly perpetually at Mach 1.3+ immune to all acts of aggression. Or better, go UP, where the FM is definitely inaccurate and where HB admitted in the past it's inaccurate, and go at completely stupid speeds. I remember reddit posts boasting about Mach 2.75+ at high altitude (while simultaneously the ceiling is lower than it should be). Perhaps that's what we should check next. IMO this warrants attention and should be researched more by HB, that's what I'm saying. I know that they're busy with the Tomcat but Viggen really needs some love, it seems to have been sidelined over the last year. FM inaccuracies are not its only issue these days.

Here's the documentary I mentioned btw: Note however that JA-37 uses the RM8B engine, with an additional fan stage. It's hard to tell how that will influence performance at max speed without data for both engines at hand.

Fair enough. I made some tests myself in a Viggen, default cold start so OAT 2 °C (where it is I don't know, it's DCS, but I assume it's gonna be SL temperature), clean config. Reached 1556 in ground effect at the moment of running out of fuel. Considering that I've seen documentary where a pilot claimed they could go 1470 kph I can believe that, though I don't know how accurate that claim was either. What I find hard to believe is that it would be as smooth as what I've experienced. I was flying 4m above the water surface at over 1550 kph and it felt almost on rails. Not to mention that I could hold this speed indefinitely, only limited by fuel usage. Here's the track file, take a look if you want. https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArMDWm49dN3Cgdcu0mGRz66oRTnxUA?e=v9a8J0 Almost every single sentence in your previous two posts was a sophism, that's what I call shitposting. And "it's a broken game" or "other modules are broken too" is not even an argument, it's another sophism. You don't need to take the game seriously, just take people you're talking to seriously. Are you for real? Because you started it.

Bachelor's. And I'm not making "claims". I didn't make any claims and I don't care why it happens since it's irrelevant to your post, I made an observation - in DCS the F-16 goes into oscillations and tears itself apart at those speeds. I didn't say anything about why it loses stability, I only acknowledged what I've seen happen in DCS. And what I've NOT seen happen in the Viggen in the same situation. Go shitposting on reddit, not here.

No, it can't. It loses lateral stability and tears itself apart at 1590 kph. DCS Viggen goes faster. Stop lying.

Because it's not the same kind of wing rock you encounter with conventional wing, it's a departure in yaw, wing rock is a secondary effect that is the first thing you'll notice, because of how violent it is.

None of what you just said is true. The performance manual (real life one) for the 21 describes what happens at critical AoA and why you shouldn't go there. The wing rock happens before lift starts to drop off. And yes, delta wing doesn't stall in the same sense conventional wing does. It transitions to vortex lift, and then the lift starts slowly dropping with increasing AoA (more or less rapidly depending on whether the wing has leading edge extensions), while drag keeps increasing until L/D goes to drain. What you get in that video is correct, the vertical stabiliser ends up in the aerodynamic shadow of the wing, and the aircraft starts rapidly yawing to whichever side it had more sideslip on, until the tail encounters free flow again, which throws the aircraft to opposite side, rinse and repeat. Look at your sideslip indicator when the wing rock happens. Keep in mind that the guy who coded the flight model is an actual MiG-21 pilot. So you need good sources to base your claims upon when you say something's incorrect. Remember that this is a delta wing with conventional elevator layout and no FBW or even SAS, it won't behave like most conventional aircraft do.

1. 21 is a delta wing, it doesn't stall the same way straight or swept wings do, what limits your AoA is stability and engine thrust first, as L/D goes to drain past a certain point even before lift starts falling. The previous behaviour where at a certain AoA the aircraft turned into a brick was wrong, not even a rectangular wing stalls as violently as the 21 did in game back then, a delta loses lift more gradually and at angles of attack significantly higher than a conventional wing. 2. And the wing rock is precisely that stability limit, it's a real phenomenon with this aircraft and is what limits the operational AoA, this is what the yellow and red regions on AoA gauge warn you about. As it is in game right now there seems to be a second region of stability if you survive the wing rock and increase the AoA even further, not sure if this part is correct, nor if the lift should be sufficient for level flight at that point but even then, once you enter this region you don't have enough thrust to overcome the drag while generating enough lift for level flight, unless you're very low on fuel AND have emergency afterburner on. And you have to go back through unstable region to recover from that, so it's generally not a good idea to go there.

Dude, do you realize WHY those GCIs left? I died 2 times, first was a teamkill, second was a berserker Viggen that almost killed me without wings with missiles that he pulled out of hammerspace, because they have fallen off long a go, before I got gunned by his wingman as I was trying to put a 3rd missile into him, since the previous 2 were not enough apparently. Same happened to Hiromachi, then he got TKed again... both GCIs RAGEQUITED AFTER WITNESSING THIS STUPIDITY. And they couldn't even do anything because those guys were not on comms. Something like half of kills on red side were red on red. And what do you even mean "one side does and other doesn't"? If no one was on the slot why don't you jump in yourself? It's not as easy as you might think, there's skill involved in controlling fighters like that. And it's an indispensable part of Cold War air to air combat.

In Mi-8 both AC and DC ground power work correctly, so it's a matter of module's implementation. As it is it's completely borked, because the annunciation light signalizing AC offline turns off when AC gen switch is on and ground power is connected but despite that none of the systems requiring AC work. I presume no one bothered with it since it's lower priority then things like radar or ASP - which we can see the state of in this thread.

The flight manual for bis is available freely on Polish Aviation Museum website, you sure it's not the same one?