BlackLightning

I noticed a change some time ago and I also hoped that I had just figured out the Spit behaviour during takeoff, although I suspected a change in the flight/ground model. For me, taking off was really hard, while now I can do it quite relaxed; landing also seems a little easier but I haven't noticed a very big change. TBH I have seldom looked at the plane from the outside while landing, so when I saw the aircraft turning that much I thought that the tailwheel was just turning like the wheel of a shopping cart. Maybe the reason for which in the video it doesn't turn much and it starts sliding is the centering behaviour described here in the "Tail Wheel Castering" paragraph. In post #5 of that thread the OP says that he is "an aviation engineer, and have experience taxiing and operating Spitfires on the ground", so it looks reliable. Honestly I really can't feel like questioning this flight/ground model because I don't think I have the experience to do so, but one of the sticky threads in the Spitfire section of this forum is "Essay, PART 1: Why taildraggers are tricky and how to overcome it!"; I expect most of the Spit users to have read it. On the first post, the writer said that he is a very experienced traildragger instructor and also this: «I wanted to reassure those of you who are finding the ground handling difficult, that what you are experiencing is quite normal and to be expected. I’ve read several posts which question the overall difficulty levels involved and how they are modelled. Some suggest that the DCS Spit (and other TW aircraft) are perhaps too difficult. On balance, I think that they are pretty representative of what real world TW ops are like, and here’s why…». Now we still have a sticky thread in which someone reliable says that the ground/flight model is proper but it has changed so much... . I personally prefer to crash 3 times out of 5 in a realistic way then succeeding with an easier model.

Well, if you tell me that the turbulence is not modelled, the wobbling motion that I experience must be overcorrection of controls. I've found the wake turbulence listed as a wish in some Wishlist threads, so you must be right about it. I've watched some tracks of the training mission I've created and, provided they're reliable, the tanker flies at an altitude ranging from 4,999 to 5,000 meters, with a speed of 386-387 kmph and a constant heading of 355°, so its AI pilot does a great job and it's not the problem. This matches my experience with it: I don't use it either. It's a T16000m. I don't think it has ever lacked precision, but after a lot of use it has some jitter, probably too much, and that's why I set deadzones for the curves. By the way, talking about curves, I've found out that I haven't set them for the Harrier: I have straight lines, probably because in other kind of missions I didn't find it necessary. Iìll try and bend those linear curves: that should help with overcorrection. I was able to see it by pressing RCtrl+Enter during the replay. I have a hunch it doesn't on my computer because I've seen the plane moving quite weird and never making contact... Thank you anyway for having attached it.

The first time I did aerial refuelling was in the short version of the training mission, but after having read your post I tried the standard version, which seems to be the short one plus information about the fuel system before the refuel. I jettisoned some fuel leaving 4,500 lbs as suggested by the narrator and I tried. I don't know how much fuel I had when I got pre contact from the tanker, but I quitted the mission with 1,700 lbs and no contact with the probe. In both the short version I played some days ago and the longer one I played one hour ago I didn't make contact and at a certain point I heard the narrator yawning because he was bored :). The problem IMHO is that I may abide by the procedure, trim my controls perfectly and set AFC on or off according to my preference and all this will make my life easier but still hard without a lot of practice, because of the wake turbulence I mentioned before. At least, I learnt something about the fuel system and I managed to use little airbrake, this time. That's what I think, too, but how can it affect the numbers and letters of the HUD if it comes from the outside?

I can't say that's the proper way to do that, just that for a beginner it can be useful when one needs a quick way to reduce speed in order not to hit the tanker if he's getting closer a little too fast. I find it more effective than simply reducing throttle. Another way of reducing speed that I use is to pitch up and down. I have to say that, after having seen videos of multifarious aircrafts getting air refuelled, I can't recall a single one in which they used the airbrake like I do (and for sure no one pitches up and down :lol:), so I hope that in the future I will learn to just use the throttle, with the airbrake steadily deployed/not deployed. I've modified my aerial refuelling mission with the Harrier: now the tanker starts at an altitude of about 3k ft and reaches more than 20k. The reason is that I wanted to check whether the wake turbulence became negligible at some altitude, but it didn't. Using Chuck's guide reference points I managed to get a contact for about 1 second without looking at the boom. A little step towards success... . After having updated DCS yesterday I'm afraid that a bug has appeared: look at the attachment: how can the HUD be blurry for turbulence/maybe exhaust gas from the outside?

I've tried and it does look simpler to me because: -I can see the probe, -there is an automatic thrust control which works like the cruise control in a car: you set a speed and it stays that speed. If you don't use that, thrust management will be harder than in the Harrier because the airbrake deploys way slower and the throttle itself is IMO less manageable. However, I didn't succeed with that airplane either. With both the SU33 and the Harrier the part that I find the most difficult is handling the wake turbulence, also described in Chuck's guide. You want to fly straight but the big tanker plane in front of you moves the air and so you are shaken left and right and up and down. I don't know whether the turbulent forces which act on the Harrier (or SU33 or other aircrafts) can be predicted. Are they cyclic? Or are they random? Sometimes track recording doesn't work properly: it's happened to me and other people who then wrote about it in the forum.

Congratulations for your success. I tried to do that the first time yesterday and after like a ten of attempts I gave up and I will try again for sure. I tried that about the same number of times some months ago with FC3 planes and never succeeded. Talking about the need of looking at the probe while getting closer to the tanker, I’d like to point out that: -I’ve watched some videos to check whether the pilots of the Harrier look at the boom while refuelling and it seems to me that usually they do it. It is noticeable especially in this beautiful video @2:21: as far as I’ve seen so far, the pilots usually get closer to the tanker looking at it and turn their head to the probe just before contact time and then turn it back to the tanker right afer contact. -It is true that some aircrafts like the F15/16/22 do aerial refuelling even if the probe connects behind the pilot, but those use the KC135, which have director lights and a boom operator. This doesn’t mean that in DCS it’s the best solution, especially without Track IR, but I’d like to do it like in real life... I think I’ll try both methods. Maybe training with the SU33 could be easier since we can see the probe and the tanker in the same view.

I've created a mission in which there are my Harrier and a KC130. The mission is set with easy communication disabled. I know the communication frequency of the tanker and the channel of its TACAN beacon because I've read them in the mission editor clicking on the tanker and reading the advanced waypoint section. At first I couldn't contact the tanker because I didn't find the F6 option for it. So, I decided to repeat the training mission where the narrator reminded me that communicating with the tanker is forbidden unless your flaps are set to cruise. Therefore, I went back to the mission and I found out that with the flaps set that way the communication worked. Unfortunately I have yet to succeed in an aerial refuelling, but that's another story!

I don't think that your point is totally wrong: this is a flight sim, but I don't agree completely either. I just think that this simulator is used by people who wants to learn something about air combat and possibly feel some of the excitement of it (although in real life it's war and it's a very serious thing: it's not just fun like driving a go-kart). One of the tasks that every pilot has to carry out is to survive and IMO, if a DCS user knows that he dies if he ejects at 700 knots, he will keep that in mind every time he will enter the transonic-supersonic range of speed, like real pilots probably do, I guess.

I don't know how much coding would be needed, but it wouldn't be amiss in a simulator whose main quality is realism. DCS users are definitely people who appreciate small details. I was thinking about something like: 0<IAS<400→no injury 400<IAS<600→ injury: when the pilot touches ground he can't walk or stand IAS>600→ death Besides, I thought that ejections at very high speeds were not that unusual: don't pilots sometimes try and outrun the enemy in a dogfight? If they are hit by bullets in the meanwhile, they may try an ejection. Or doesn't it happen that someone launches a missile at you and you start going fast hoping that the missile runs out of fuel and then you realize it's close and consider an ejection? P.S.: DCS will be an awesome simulator with or without this, but it would be better with.

Here is another case. Since I noticed that hitting ground targets with a volley of bullets is exciting and for me, so far, even more effective than dropping bombs, I started to drop bombs and then dive towards the targets in order to hit them with the machine guns and the cannons and, even if my altitude was quite safe for dropping, my own bombs still hit me. So I thought that maybe I dived into the bombs, i.e. the bombs were not hitting me: I was hitting them. I tried the experiment you can see in the video linked and the theory was confirmed. ${1} (If the player doesn't work: ) After all, bombs will fall at not less than -1 g of acceleration (I'm saying "less" because it's a negative value). At the beginning of the fall, the air drag should not affect them vertically, then when they will start being faster the drag will bring that -1 g closer to 0. So let's say -1 g at the release time; the Spitfire can probably dive at something like -2 or -3 g (I am guessing here) and that's why I now think that I should release them and pitch up immediately afterwards or maybe I should start pitching up even a second before the release.

Yes, if I release them at a higher altitude that doesn't happen. Watching the video, I see that I released them at 35 m of altitude and then I pitched up and, when I was at 43 m, they exploded and killed me. Apparently, in the few seconds needed for them to reach the ground you can't fly away far enough pitching up if you are that low. So yes, I can only drop them higher, although hitting the target will be more difficult... but still better than exploding! :)

I created a mission in which I drop bombs onto a convoy, but sometimes, according to what I read at the end of the mission, it seems that my own bombs kill me! Here is an example: ${1} If the player doesn't work: Maybe I was too low and too slow... I've tried the mission sometimes and it happened more than once.

Do you mean flight controls settings, things like button 1 for the flaps, button 2 for the landing gear, and so on? It happened to me, too, so I re-assigned the controls.

HEY GUYYYYYYS I've decided to give it a try and updated!! It only downloaded 15 GB and I've tried it and it works‼ I attach my settings, they are the ones I had before updating to 2.5... it's for sure different from 1.5: the Spitfire looks having different colors and so do the SU 33 and its carrier. It doesn't seem to me that I'm seeing less details than before, it really seems that it's at the same level. I had to check whether a spinning top stopped or not because I thought I was dreaming :lol:. I haven't tried multiplayer yet because right now I am a little busy but at least now I can try multiplayer. I'm one of yours now!!!!!! :pilotfly: Update: I've tried my usual missions: 3 F15s vs 3 Su27s, Landing the Su33, Spitfire vs P51 (the 109 is still a too tough enemy ihih) etc. and they work properly. I have good looking graphics and I've also enabled the rain droplets. Lagging occurs sometimes but quite rarely. The problem is that I've tried and joined a couple of crowded multiplayer servers and DCS crashes in the briefing process. Task Manager tells me that, when it does, the RAM is almost all used, so I guess that with 16 GB or maybe at least 12 I could solve the problem. Yes, I have an OEM PSU, but some more RAM should only take some watts. I don't know how to check how much graphics memory is being used. I also think that I'll buy the Harrier, since so far it seems to work when I'm not doing multiplayer. 2nd Update: I've installed the Harrier and it works fine; now it's my job to fly it fine! 3rd Update: After having found out the R-Ctrl+Pause command which lets me see the FPS, I've found out that I get about 15-20 FPS with the Harrier and 10-15 with the Spitfire. I'm little sensitive to FPS; I just noticed that with 2.5 it felt a little less smooth, so that's why I checked. I also tried and disabled anti aliasing gaining 5 FPS, but I could really tell the difference because the "stairway effect" was a lot more noticeable with AA disabled, so now I still keep MSAA 2X on. I love the look of the game I'm used to, so I doubt I'll set the textures to low and for me the FPS I have now are a little problem. I still say that playing with my specs is sensible. I think that learning how to use and control the aircrafts better would be more pleasant than having 80 FPS, but I have to say that I'd appreciate something more, so I'm not saying that better rigs aren't useful. My specs are: Pre-built Asus CM6870: The motherboard should be a poorer version of the P8H77-M PRO; reading the manual, it looks similar to what I have. Intel Core i7 3770 @ 3.40GHz 8 GB DDR3 1 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 AcBel HBA005-ZA2GT 350; it gives a peak of 350W for 30 seconds or 300 continously 240 GB SSD Windows 8.1 4th update, december 2018: I have upgraded my GPU to a 1050 Ti (the one having 4 GB and I also upgraded my PSU) and DCS now runs way better. In the same missions where I used to get about 20 FPS I now get 50-60, still with hi settings. I joined two MP servers and I have good FPS but it takes some minutes to load the first session and in the first minutes of the first session I have some bad stutter. Overall, I’m pretty satisfied with the upgrade.

Today I've posted a similar question on the following thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207163&page=4 found via Google. I've now noticed that it was in the Open Beta sub-forum while I have a stable version and besides this thread seems to be more proper to me. Could someone please move the post here?

Well, I play DCS like every other day, even if for just a quarter of an hour per time, and every time I think that I am using 1.5 and that I won't get any updates anymore, etc., so I am tempted to click the Update button. However, before starting a 50 GB download I'd like to read your opinions; maybe someone has the same rig and it works well. Here are my specs: Pre-built Asus CM6870: The motherboard should be a poorer version of the P8H77-M PRO; reading the manual, it looks similar to what I have. Intel Core i7 3770 @ 3.40GHz 8 GB DDR3 1 GB NVIDIA GeForce GTX 650 AcBel HBA005-ZA2GT 350; it gives a peak of 350W for 30 seconds or 300 continously 240 GB SSD Windows 8.1 As far as I've understood reading other people's experiences, the RAM and the GPU are likely to limit the performance. Buying another stick of 8 GB of RAM wouldn't be too expensive, but replacing the GPU would cost way more and would also mean replacing the PSU: a better GPU needs more power than my current one.

Thank you for your reply. So, if I got it right and according to the news, the Harrier module was released on the 29th of November 2017: 1.5.8.12162 BETA 1.5.8 BETA RELEASE / AV-8B Early Access Release / ED Keyless DRM 1.5.8 Update Change Logs 11-29-2017 My version is the number 1.5.8.12823.414, so it should support that release. Is there a way to buy the Harrier (or other modules preceding 2.5) and download an old release?

It still works, but will new modules work in it? Until some weeks ago, in DCS' website, in Home > Products > Planes something like "you need DCS 1.5 or 2.5" was written aside the name of each module except the Hornet and maybe some others. Now I read, instead, "If the product description does not have information about which DCS World version you should install, you only need to have the "Stable" version DCS World 2.5 installed on your PC.", so I guess that, if I buy the Harrier like I had planned, it won't work in my 1.5.8 version... .

The first time that it happened to me it was in the TF51 while I was holding the brakes and decided to bring the boost past 30. It seems sensible to me that one reason for which it happens is the air flow generated by the propeller, which causes lift. I also think that the thrust of the engine pushes the aircraft forward and makes the plane rotating because the front wheels become a rotation hub; see the attachment.

Another point to consider in the realism is survival at very high speeds. You can quickly find information on the internet about that pilot who ejected while being supersonic: he was almost killed by the impact with the air. I tried ejecting while being supersonic in DCS and it just looked like a usual ejection.

Hi everybody, First post for me; I am Matteo from Italy. I haven't found an “Introduce yourself” thread; please tell me if there is one. Back to the topic: I don't think that there is a realistic curve everyone can use, because I guess that every joystick already has its own curve and so when we edit the one in DCS we are making the curve on another curve. It seems to me that most of the times either the exponential or the logarithmic curve (or approximations of them) can be used (see the attached file). The log. one has a quicker response for small input and the exp. has a slower response for small inputs. I see that most of the people use an exponential curve and that doesn't surprise me. According to the Weber-Fechner's law, for a lot of our senses, the sensation we get tends to depend on the logarithm of the intensity; you can find a lot about it online (where I found it out). Therefore, an exponential curve compensates for our logarithmic brain. As a matter of fact, they install logartihmic potentiometers behind the volume knob of stereos: those have actually an exponential behaviour. Anyhow, my Thrustmaster T16000M seems to have a built-in logarithmic curve. In my T16000M, after a lot of use, the Hall Effect sensors still seem to work fine; however, the joystick has some jitter at center which, IMO, is caused by its mechanical components: the stick doesn't always stay in a precise centered position: it can wiggle under its own weight (maybe even due to wear) and so I use a deadzone of 5, which seems to have helped me. Well, you can tell from the graph attached that my hand is not that precise! Ahahah. I don't feel like I need a curve to smoothen the transictions between the dead zone and the active zone. I find that I just want a straight line with the SU 27 and 33 because they already seem not very reactive at little stick input and I prefer a quick response when approaching the carrier: sometimes I have to correct my heading/pitch /etc. quickly. On the F15, on the other hand, I find that a curve of 10 helps me when I am shooting a target with the cannon and I should also try that with the aerial refuelling, which I have never managed to do successfully.