跳转到帖子

Hammer1-1

Members
 查看个人空间  查看他们的动态

  • 帖子数

    3,225

  • 注册日期

  • 上次访问

 内容类型 

最新回复 发布由 Hammer1-1

    Best place and aircraft to learn IFR?

    在 Military and Aviation

    发布于

    5 hours ago, ThePops said:

    It's also a matter of what a "fix" really is. If it's given as lat-long coordinates as in the ME, then good luck translating that to bearing and distance vs a TACAN station without a map or some "black box magic" 🙂  In modern jets lat/long coordinates makes sense, because this is what modern not ancient avionics understand. Nevertheless lat/long is simply too abstract, cryptic and error prone also for everyday civilian use. IFR waypoints are used instead. Even for VFR (which is completely "random" flying), the best way to report your position to ATC when asked, is distance and bearing (in S, SW, W etc) relative a IFR waypoint. 

    This is the problem I face in the F4E takeoff and navigation tutorial. I vaguely remember how the TACAN works and radials and it snapped into place with me last night after I finished my last post (overthinking again), but yeah that still comes back to the HOW they navigate to LAT/LONG coordinates rather than TACAN. Can you even input LAT/LONG in the pilot seat? I havent really dug into the F4 yet.

    Best place and aircraft to learn IFR?

    在 Military and Aviation

    发布于

    16 hours ago, razo+r said:

    Google "intercepting radials".

    Basically, dial in the radial you want to go. Read your current radial via the bearing pointer. Depending how big the difference is, you fly a correction, 45 degree intercept or a 90 (then 45) degree intercept.

    Or if you want you can also do a station passing, which is somewhat similar. Just fly to the station, over it dial in the new radial and intercept that.

    Like already mentioned, you can easily find many of the basic IFR stuff on the new.

    The hard part is knowing what to look for. Ill put that in the youtube player for some review later!

    12 hours ago, ThePops said:

    Indeed, TACAN is about intercepting radials and following those radials. There are tons of Youtube videos about all of this. It's mostly VOR/DME I would think (MSFS and X-Plane and real flying), but VOR/DME is functionally identical to a TACAN. A TACAN is also a "VOR"/DME, only the VOR is a bit more accurate, but the DME part is the exact same thing. It doesn't really matters what flight sim you use as long as the technology is represented correct. Different aircraft may have different ways of visualizing, but the principles are still the same. I haven't flown the F-4 much (yet), but it seems to be a good IFR platform.

    Another important point is that TACAN/VOR is no substitute for GPS and INS or even DME/DME. It's an archaic form of navigation used before GPS/INS. Today it's RNAV. RNAV is short for random navigation, meaning you can set waypoints at "random" and fly between them, preferably on autopilot. "Random" points is what comes out from the ME, and that is really only good for RNAV or VFR. You can in principle do the same with TACAN, but not without transforming points to radials and distances to TACAN stations. The Mirage F1 has a function where you can set a random point out from a TACAN station. You set the radial and distance from the station, and the needle points to that point instead of the TACAN station. With a switch you can switch between that virtual point and the station. You can do the same thing manually, but it requires substantially more brain cells, and preferably a paper map.

    TACAN will pinpoint your position. The problem boils down to the fact that this information has to be transferred to a map. Paper maps were used for this, an essential part. To do it "properly" you really need a stack of paper maps. A second screen with maps will also do of course. Lots of usable maps on the net. 

    You have to plan differently using TACAN/VOR than what is possible or "default" with the ME. DCS isn't the best sim for this, but with some manual adaption and tweaks it works OK. 

    Im familiar with VOR/DME, m just not familiar with what the F-4E has AT ALL...its also one of the things that put me off the Tomcat of all aircraft. Pilots nowadays have it good, I recognize that...but navigating by HSI and VOR/TACAN with offsets is a survival skill and Im trying to learn the hard way!

    • Like 1

    Best place and aircraft to learn IFR?

    在 Military and Aviation

    发布于

    14 hours ago, ThePops said:

    I agree with others about DCS and IFR. X-Plane is IMO the best choice of sim for (learning) IFR, hands down. Having said that, DCS isn't far behind, it's more that it's inconsistent and contains idiosyncrasies regarding this. You will use lots of time sorting out those things instead of learning IFR.

    Then, it's a fact that IFR and autopilot fits together like hand and glove. No one in their right mind would today fly "hard" IFR (in the soup) without an autopilot. Learning how to use the autopilot is essential.

    Nevertheless, the basic skill is hand flying without external references. This means zero external references, like in a thick cloud. The main instrument is the AI, Attitude Indicator (artificial horizon), with other instruments as secondary. Traditionally this is the "six pack". AI, ASI, alt, turn coordinator, VSI and heading indicator. Today it's typically a Garmin G1000 glass panel or similar. It contains all of that in the main screen, but with a different layout. The principles are the same though, AI is the principal instrument. Then it's just a matter of training until you can fly, turn, climb etc. at will using only those instruments. This can be done in almost all planes in DCS.

    Then you can start navigating, flying ILS's and so on. I don't know what the best plane for practicing is. In a sim you can just hit esc and start over. I like the Mirage F1 CE. It has it all regarding avionics and it has a good autopilot. But it's also fast of course, things happens fast. Perhaps a good practice is the F-5E shooting some TACAN approaches. TACAN is perhaps the most intuitive navigational instrument there is (same as VOR/DME), and you learn to use the HSI, setting vectors looking at distances, in combination with the AI. It's all hand flying, but it's also rather simple because there's only one instrument, TACAN/HSI. The F-5 is nice to fly as well. When you can fly the F-5 with TACAN, then everything else is simple. It's more a matter of learning the instruments/navigational aids than actually learning something new in flying the plane. The F-5 is in many ways as simple as it gets because you don't have to think about anything else but TACAN, but also as hard as it gets due to lack of autopilot, LOC, glideslope, GPS and INS.

    I havent flown X-plane in such a long time either, mostly because Im really not much into civil aviation and there are no training missions for it. About the only thing I use MSFS for is the gliders (yeah that shts fun for me as its more of a science than anything else). The reason why I ask this question is because I really want to learn the F-4E, but you're basically navigating by the HSI and using the TACAN for the most part. The one thing I cant wrap my head around is how to navigate to a certain point from your current location using only the TACAN as a reference. Lets say Im near wp2. I want to navigate to wp3, and wp3 is bearing 135, 15 miles from TACAN X. The only thing I know how to do is change my radio to TACAN X and follow the needle...but that will take me directly to  the station. I can do it if I have the map right in front of me, but thats really not an option. I would think this is what a flight plan is for, but most flight plans I see use only LAT/LONG appendices, not course lines or things like TACAN X radial 135, 15 miles. Guess I can simplify that question to how can I navigate from my current position using only the HSI and TACAN to get to TACAN X with the appropriate radial and distance?

    • Like 1

    Best place and aircraft to learn IFR?

    在 Military and Aviation

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Hammer1-1编辑

    8 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

    I agree with this. The training missions, and the other included missions actually try to teach you this. Even comes with a hood.

    Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
     

    its been a LOOOONG time since Ive flown the 101....I didnt know about the training missions, Ill have a look-see at it, thanks!

    As for IFR in another sim, I have MSFS and all those missions there. My biggest pet peeve for that sim is setting up my controls for ANY aircraft. They've made that whole thing an ordeal.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1

    Best place and aircraft to learn IFR?

    在 Military and Aviation

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Hammer1-1编辑

    looking to learn actual IFR in DCS, basically learning how to navigate properly using the HSI. what would be the best aircraft to train in as well as where could I find some decent training material to learn from?  Id like to learn the essential navigation stuff before I get too old to learn this stuff and would love to be pointed in the right directions! Theres only one aircraft in DCS I dont own, so pitch an aircraft thats best suited for it if possible. Thanks!

    DTC for DCS - new version 7.2.0 - Apache added

    在 DCS Modding

    发布于

    2 hours ago, Swiso said:

    Hi, by chance did you released an 8.0.0 version ?

    I received a GitHub notification but when checking I saw that the last version was still 7.2.2...

    it hasnt been touched in a long while now. its likely not going to be fixed any time soon either since DTC is one of the things being developed next for most of these aircraft.

    DCS : F4U-1 Corsair

    在 F4U-1D

    发布于

    31 minutes ago, Tom P said:

    My kids think so

    yeah but we know better. its not likely this corsair will be available until at least another year. Mag 3 seems to be deader than dino turds found in the riverbed. I cant remember the last time we had an update for ANYTHING they made: Mig21 or the Christen Eagle. Last update showed them detailing the gun bay which looks like it was just started and the flight model had some sort of issue to overcome with real world performance not being readily available. why that is, I dont know, there ARE still flying examples around

     

    Dont get your hopes up unless M3 chimes in...which is about 99.99956789% guaranteed they wont.

    • Like 3

    Noobie cant finish tutorial, generator failure. Its a bug

    在 DCS: AH-64D

    发布于

    The APU warning is just to let you know the APU is running. There really isnt much of a consequence of leaving the APU running except just generating time on the engine and wasting fuel. It "should" be off because if you leave it on, you run the risk of forgetting about throttle lever settings and you could very well be flying around with your throttles at 80%. Done that a few times myself....

    ..

    .....

    !

    Its not a bug; every aircraft in DCS that has an APU (that I can remember of) will tell you the APU is running when you throttle up or pull pitch. Its not supposed to be on unless you need it on for power.

    F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

    在 DCS: F-35A

    发布于

    Just now, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

    ED has grown immensely since then and having it being a first party project is the only way it'll have a chance.

    That said, I'm still keen to find out a *LOT* more about how they handle fidelity etc.

    Yeah I agree 100%...but with that said, personally I think they need to finish a few modules first, and frankly Id seriously like to know how ED thinks they could model the AESA radar to such a high fidelity without just making it "work" like a video game radar like in easy mode. If they can pull it off and fool even the professional F-35 drivers around then have at it...but I got my ass chewed out for posting an ITAR image once, and knowing after Ive worked at Lockheed once upon the time, the entirety of the F-35 is ITAR controlled. Man, I have serious conflicts right now with this info....

    • Like 3

    F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

    在 DCS: F-35A

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Hammer1-1编辑

    1 hour ago, MiGCap1 said:

    Don't You see what the critics mean? We all are sure You will bring the "best possible simulation", no doubt. But "best possible" would be around 35 per cent of the real thing and that's lower the DCS standard considerably. And that is our (the critics) problem: The sacrifice of the standard which makes DCS standing out above other flight sims, for a project which anyone involved in working with the real thing can tell that You cannot get any near of it - that's what our point is.

    I do like this aircraft very much. Actually, despite all the problems listed in the public it is by far the most sophisticated combat jet in the world - and it looks awesome.

    (My pic, but "only" made out of an Eurofighter Typhoon):

     

    QngAFx.jpg

     

    But You won't do this bird justice by creating under the label of DCS a cripple module which is only a shadow of the real thing.

    Do Yourself a favour, @Wags: Use the manpower working on this one for a project where You can better succeed according to Your standards.

    Or at least tell the community the truth: That You will deliver them a product which mostly consisted of fantasy and guessing because You need the money it brings. That would be a honest move and could be well accepted.

     

    I agree. The first time it was announced, it crashed and burned because the community figured theres no way in hell they can make it accurately, and 13 some odd years later my feelings are pretty much the same. That was a huge mess then...still considered to be a huge mess now, and quite frankly it looks like everyones opinions havent changed either.

     

     

    • Like 8

    F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

    在 DCS: F-35A

    发布于

    35 minutes ago, Canada_Moose said:

    To confirm my opinion that I’m looking forward to this I asked myself as a C172 pilot that’s earmarked for an upgrade to a C182 if I thought this was a good choice for a DCS module.

    I said that it was a good choice because I will never get to fly one in real life and it would be great to have a sim of one that is as good as ED can make it. Thank you. 

     

    I flew a C172 once a bunch of times

    • Like 1

    F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

    在 DCS: F-35A

    发布于

    21 minutes ago, nooneyouknow said:

    Great. More Blufor with nothing to fight against except out of date low fidelity modules. And a piece of crap at that. First time I've actually said "no-buy" to DCS

    what makes you think the F-35 is a POS? I can very much assure you that it is not.

    • Like 1

    F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

    在 DCS: F-35A

    发布于

    Id really like to know what block they are intending to build, because the current iteration of the F-35 series is a tech demonstrator for the most part. What about its stealth capabilities? Helmet mounted optical sensors that can see through the airframe? AESA radar? I really do find it weird that they would pick this aircraft after that F-18E/F were turned down solely because of classification of the secret sauce and the AESA. I worked on the F-18 Blk 3 for a while and I never could see the full aircraft without a security clearance or escorts.

    • Like 2

    F-35A Announcement discussion mega thread.

    在 DCS: F-35A

    发布于 · 本帖最后于，由Hammer1-1编辑

    Its easy to make the F-35 quite honestly. Aside from modeling the actual aircraft in full, just turn labels on.

    edit: did someone mention the F-117 being in progress? I have to ask because Ive seen a few comments mentioned in discord saying so, but I have a hard time believing that.

    • Like 1
×
×
  • 创建新的...