Tiger-II
-
Posts
1361 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Tiger-II
-
-
I would like to see corrected:
* Flight model incorrectly responds to ground speed not TAS
* Drag corrections at high alpha (currently there is too much drag)
* Fix the engines incorrectly being affected by wind
* Correct the weird aircraft behavior with wind present
Some of the above are all the same cause.
-
1
-
-
The F-5 AI was massively over-powered, and can be seen in the LUA files.
I did previously correct this on my local copy, but I think the file locks now make this impossible.
If you can reduce the AI afterburner thrust to realistic values, the AI is a much better (NOT easier) opponent.
It prevents the AI making wholly unrealistic accelerations to get away.
After all, we are supposed to be in the same aircraft with the same performance.
The AI behave like they have rockets.
-
It never ceases to amaze me how many people do not know how to correctly stall an aircraft.
The maneuver described is entry into a loop, but too slow over the top. The increase in alpha precipitates stall rocking and pitch down (relative to the aircraft axis) which results in the aircraft pitching up (relative to gravity) and losing even more speed. This pitch down over-powers the input for the loop, and the combination of low speed and negative g/and high negative AoA results in yaw (secondary effect of roll) and entry into an inverted flat spin.
At high angles of attack yaw rate induces roll rates to rival aileron input. Such is the strength of this, use of rudder at low speeds is PROHIBITED.
Secondary effect of roll is yaw.
Secondary effect of yaw is roll.
Earlier this year a T-38 was lost during a training flight because the pilot under instruction touched the rudders during landing to correct a small runway mis-alignment. They rolled over the top of the lead aircraft and crashed off the side of the runway, killing both crew.
A related topic:
Coupling Dynamics in Aircraft: A Historical Perspective
https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/88484main_H-2106.pdf
-
On 10/29/2020 at 4:42 AM, nikitatattoo said:
I keep hearing about f5 as a good first full fidelity jet. I was also suggested it by some guys. What's so good about it for beginners over any other modules?
No EFIS, no FBW. Just you, the jet, and some missiles.
-
2
-
-
Get the F-5.
IMHO it doesn't look "dated", either simulation or otherwise.
It's extremely functional, generally flies very well, and is a proper "old school" fighter.
It has a great weapons capability, and pre-dates the glass-cockpit era of newer fighters, requiring actual pilot skills to score kills.
I own nearly every other module in DCS, and the F-5 is up there as one of my favorites. All we're missing is an F-16A Block 10.
-
1
-
-
On 12/25/2020 at 3:13 PM, Felipe Antonio said:
Great to see some data on this! It is my biggest complaint with the F-5. It is supposed to be competent at ACM, but the current flight model requires that more thrust than necessary is required to fly at the desired performance, which in turn burns too much fuel and shortens the fight (fight, not flight) time considerably.
Between this and the engine problem when wind is present, are the two biggest items that need addressing, IMHO.
I'll try and get tracks tomorrow for a second view.
-
The fundamental problem with all of this is people grossly UNDER-estimate the time required to develop anything of this level.
There are literal Ph.D thesis on the topic of how much man-power/man-years to write a piece of software, and yet, despite all that research, the only conclusion they all agree on is: IT'S VERY HARD.
Unless you write a piece of software, count the lines, count the time it took, can you say how long it will take to write THAT piece of software and solve THOSE specific problems.
If you change anything (solution, or problem), then that goes straight out the window, and you're back to guessing the mass of the Universe without looking.
What annoys me the most, is there is a basic level of expectation with anything like this. DCS is a high-end simulation platform, and developers are expected to reasonably develop a product as accurately as possible.
If a product can't be modelled to sufficient detail because something is sensitive, classified, or whatever, then that project should be scrapped before a single line of code is written.
If you say you're going to produce a specific model of an aircraft, then people will reasonably expect a certain level of accuracy. Even if some things are pure guess-work, it's possible to add something that feels realistic even if it isn't to the eye of someone who knows how it really works.
There are plenty of things in many aircraft for DCS that could be added that aren't there, but for whatever reason, they are missing. Some stuff must be omitted due to legalities, and that's fine, but we generally know what they are and they're unlikely to change between aircraft (IFF being the famous example, but there are others).
This disparity however between one module having a feature while another skips it, defies logic, especially as most things are pretty central to the entire simulation. Your RADAR simulates jamming targets and inability to lock them (JF-17), while mine laughs and doesn't care (F-18/F-16/F-14)? Naaaawww... that must be fixed, to level the playing field if nothing else.
-
I think this has always existed?
Has the vertical scan reduced such that it is no longer +/- 3 degrees wide, so it is more noticeable?
Try setting a zero deadzone if you have it assigned to an axis.
-
Even if the HUD in the Jeff has a low update rate, the brain soon compensates and you don't see it. Part of the slow upodate could be due to processing "up stream" of the pipper, e.g. interpreting RADAR data and computing target position for the sight.
There are lots of reasonable explanations for slow pipper update, vs. airspeed or altitude display.
That alone doesn't explain the jumpiness. That will be due to target position prediction algorithms not liking the position jumps (which simply wouldn't happen in reality).
Note that real-life gun sights are not perfect! There are plenty of examples of F-16 HUDs lagging during maneuvering, and the pippers showing their vintage on the display.
-
Yet again for no reason, (last time I even tried emergency o2 and descended to 10k with ram air. this helped but didnt save the day. this time I did none of it but want to illustrate it - Im distracted trying to input a new WP - Anyone who DLS this PLEASE PLEASE do not spread it around EXCEPT for bug testing. its NOT my mission!!)
AeriaGloria should remember I had this issue before..
Please - if theres any doubt Ill fly it again with about 99% certainty itll happen again .it struck last time I flew this mission. The last time this incidentr occured I was flyign a DCE ,campaign. it wouldnt go away until I skipped the mission entirely. It seems the bug somehow borks the mission.
* Check you connected the virtual hose to the seat
* Check you FULLY opened the regulator! Anything less than FULL will lead to hypoxia. Once it really sets in/starts blacking out, recovery is nearly impossible, even on autopilot with restored O2 flow.
* Check you have oxygen in the tank (it runs out fairly quickly, especially if you AA refuel - your flight time exceeds the O2 time after about 4 hours, which I think is incorrect).
-
And thanks for the tip, will try AG2 mode.
I was also thinking to trim nose down, so that I need constant stick back pressure to keep level. Would this essentially bypass the breakout and reduce the input lag?
It helps, yes, especially if you have a small deadzone for controller (not sim) purposes.
I never had any luck ever changing the tanker speed. It always slows down to 280 kts. Annoying. Jets are refuelled at 300-350 kts, typically.
-
Check the switches on the FCS panel left side, just above the standby radio panel.
If they are set correctly, hit the RESET button.
Also, make sure you have the AC and DC gens ON (elec panel, next to the battery switch), and the engine generator is selected ON (left side, by the throttle).
-
Hi,
Not flown in a while, and wondering what I missed regarding the Jeff?
It seems there is still much work to be done on the RADAR modes?
What is the deal with the SD-10A? It seems the flight model/guidance logic has been changed again (temporarily)?
Not to beat a dead horse, but can we have a "current progress" thread so we can keep up-to-date with the current state of things?
What is the situation with the BRM missiles? Did they get corrected? They were so wild they were almost unusable in some situations, and fine in others (particularly shallow shots where it could miss by flying wide and impact behind the target).
-
This again?
Search the forum for historic posts by Chiron and myself. There is a ton of discussion on this by AeriaGloria, Harlequin, and others.
I spammed the forum with links to numerous articles and "other information" about the SD-10*A* missile that we should be carrying on the Jeff.
Did that ever get changed?
The SD-10A is one heck of a missile, and yes, it is superior if flown correctly to the -120B model AMRAAM. It's closer to the C, but with higher terminal-phase speed and maneuverability, and slightly longer range if fired at optimum launch parameters.
The SD-10A is so good it is even used as an AD missile, which reportedly has 80%+ PK.
I linked evidence of all of the above after hours and hours of reading information. As already stated, this stuff is classified so data is scarce.
Before anyone goes screaming "Chinese propaganda!", it is a Russian missile built in cooperation with the Chinese for EXPORT. There is much already known about the missiles it is based upon.
EVERYONE lies about their capabilities, either positive or negative, to lull the enemy into a false sense of security (or fear).
-
I am not flying enough!
THANK YOU DEKA!!!! :thumbup::worthy:
-
Interesting design choice to make bars and azimuth fixed to each other in TWS and unable to be changed?
I'm not sure why this is. IIRC on the F-16 it is to make it constant-time, but here that isn't the case it would seem.
I don't think it is processing, as it is simply changing the sweep and not the number of contacts it is tracking.
Great to see this update!!
-
Did they do this?!
Does that mean the JF-17 will be showing up for real at RIAT 2021?
-
I'd guess the aircraft are prepped before the pilots even get out there. The pilots aren't going to show up and ask "hey - I want 2x Mk-83 and remove the refuel probe".
That stuff will be handled by the mission planners in advance, and the aircraft will be readied before the pilot even shows up.
-
It's better if it is defaulted off, but I find it's not a big deal to call up the ground crew and ask for it to be removed. I do this as step 1 before anything else. Works fine and doesn't add to the time required to start.
-
I figured the delayed tests were exactly that...tests.
I haven't seen systems failures beyond forgetting the ECS a couple of times during start-up.
-
I notice that when you toggle between master modes it does not keep your last radar setting for that mode. Switching to AG mode and setting SEA1, 15 degree azimuth, and 80 mile range then switching to AA mode and back to AG will reset it to MAP, 60 degrees, 40 miles. I have seen this for all master modes. Is this intended behavior or should we actually be allowed to 'save' map settings for each profile?
I keep bug-reporting this for the TGP, but no reply yet. Seems strange that it won't keep the last setting on mode switch.
-
Posted recently...but not here, where it would be actually relevant.
"It's real, guys. Trust me."
No - it's in one of the SD-10 discussion threads. I'm hiding nothing.
I have posted dozens of links in the past month or two and read a ton of information. Finding a specific link will take me several hours; time I do not have right now.
-
I'd like to see where you read that. Specifically for the KLJ-7
I hope you're not taking my word as 100%. I'm not even sure. Am I even confusing it with the Tomcat? Who knows.
To be honest, I didn't really notice. I had noticed it seems rather quick to pick up contacts, but tracking them seems to be OK? It doesn't seem "magical", as least as far as the display goes.Also it has nothing to do with the magical update rates we see for targets.If you have a specific example, I'd be interested in what is actually going on.
:lol:Like a fighter? You just shot at? -
The intake is above the smoke plume. The other consideration is local aerodynamic effects.
It could be the local airflow causes the smoke to move towards the intake, exacerbating the situation.
F-5 vs F-5 guns. Someone can tell the difference between rookie, trained and veteran AIs?
in DCS: F-5E
Posted
The stock AI F-5 is over-powered. If you look at the SFM LUA script the afterburner thrust is more than double what it should be. It gives the AI virtual rocket boosters and ability to accelerate in the vertical, which is why you see the crazy, unbelievable performance out of the AI.