AeriaGloria

ALSO, when CPG takes control the pilot HAS TO TURN OFF the yaw autopilot. The yaw channel goes into heading hold of pedal microswitches are not pressed. And there are no microswitches in front seat. So this also probably caused your problems. Yaw AP off has to be part of transferring control to front seat procedure The CPG sight has two functions. Yes you can use it as a back up to fire guns and rockets. You will need to aim manually, but there are tables for that so it’s possible. It’s second, and only purpose in DCD that isn’t as a backup, is as your primary Bombing instrument. Since it can depress 30 degrees. And you have great view over nose in front, it is amazing for bombing up to about 200m. Beyond that altitude, you have bomb timers to delay release the correct time to hit targets under your nose. This is either described in the English translation of the Russian quick start guide. Or on the main page I have a thread title “Personal guides,” there is a weapon guide there that explains everything about bombing and includes tables for how to do it. In order to use door gunner with mouse aiming instead of track IR, press L Alt + T

Interesting thoughts. I would say though don’t test in a place where you hit top speed. Since top speed is intake limited, there is a considerable amount of power still available before it can no longer maintain max speed You see this with the pylons. The single pylon might not have enough drag, but it’s negligible enough to not make a impact on top speed. But in your tests, clearly the dual rack causes enough drag to use up the reserve power it has at top speed. That being said, I did always think the dual rack was a genius design to reduce weight, having large open spaces like that. But the same drag reduction structure obviously isn’t there for the single rack. If anything, I would expect the single rack drag to be most noticeable, and the dual rack to only be a little draggier. Perhaps the dual rack drag is close to reasonable, but the single rack drag is what’s lower then it “should” be.

Updated weapons to include new rocket lofting section, more bombing info, tables, and updated my past comments on the OFP2 to better align to my current realization of its power. See first post

I might be corrrected, but in my discussions with Volk I was told to the best of his knowledge there are no switches in the pedals like Mil helicopters. I think it’s a gameism trying to make the helicopters UI a little similar I still think Apache has best way to disable heading hold

Glad I could finally help. I would say your summary is exactly correct. As soon as trim is released it will fight anything. For what is happening In that scenario You have it right Also at one point you mentioned trim and I didn’t know if you meant you were holding 20% back, or had done it with trim button or trim hat. Trim hat can cause some weirdness. Since it tells AP to not recognize the change in stick movement, it makes AP often over react. I always tell people to only use it for small stuff.

River, what in your opinion should be fixed about the AP? Here I think you present a fallacy. You say it doesn’t work right. But you also say if it does work right, this would never qualify as a combat aircraft. Which, I’m sure that alot of us have learned from DCS that military equipment, especially from the 70s, doesn’t always work perfect. MiG-21 with vodka coolant and limited brakes. 3 gun recharges only using explosive bolts. Soviet stuff didn’t always work perfect, and obviously the Soviets worked to perfect it by adding the dampening to Ka-50 when trim is pressed. Is 70s military aviation asset supposed to be safe in every way? I click trim all the time when AP is giving max input. It is a small jerk, that is easily corrected with a stick movement and trimming again. I would hardly call that dangerous to real life. You have to prepare for it by trimming frequently or holdings it down like the manual says Real pilots have said it works this way. It’s in the manual. So if you could code what would you fix and where exactly is it wrong? Where is it returning to previous position? A centered stick doesn’t always mean 0 movement, it can react very fast to small movements. But anyways, I don’t think arguing that “becuase its not smooth the Soviet military would never have used it” will work, becuase I don’t think there’s many airplanes or helicopters that are perfect where there is Nothing that makes someone say “wow that doesn’t work amazingly and could never not be safe.” So avoiding that, what would you change about the system? let’s go through your video trim by trim. You say there is no movement, so AP has nothing to fight after you trim. Unfortunetly I’m not sure time stamping works for embeds. This is my best guess of what’s happening in your video At 0:40-0:41 seconds you trim, the AP giving down goes away when you press trim, causing a pitch up that still happens when trim is released and stick centered, so when AP re engages it has to go back to down input to stop pitch up. This also happens at 3:49-3:51 during your second mission It is the exact opposite with pitch down at 1;01-1:02, you pitch down, AP tries to pitch up, you press trim, AP goes away, causing pitch down, you release trim and center stick while down pitch still happens, so AP fights it with pitch up command like before. Same thing happens at 1:27-1:29 It works well at 1:18 here becuase you have very little nose movement during the trim release and stick centering. At 1:47 is more complex. You give 20% back, press trim and center. Understand that with spring centered stick and center spring trim, it is forcing you to release trim in exact same spot that trim trim is pressed. So when you give 20% back and press trim, you are also telling AP move itself at around 20% back. The AP will copy your stick movement, you can see this on the ground. So when you press trim at 20% back, then release in center, AP thinks your actual center is 20% back. So it gives a lot of down input becuse the AP sees you giving 20% down input from last trimmed center. If you hadn’t pressed trim while pulling up, but while already stable, you would have had no such issues. This is what I meant by pulling up while pressing trim. This EXACT same thing happens when you start a second mission at 3:15-3:16. And again even more severely becuase AP is giving nearly full input at 3:58 time River, if you want to try and change things. You should make a seperate post here, not in a thread about deceleration oscillations. Make your own thread with your own tracks and your own video and your own title like “Mi-24 possible bug trim might not recenter completely,” and see if ED can do anything with that. Good luck. If the reason it shouldn’t be this way is “Soviet 70s Autopilots should be better,” then there’s nothing I can do. My only advice after this and watching your video a lot is to try and trim while nose stays perfectly still. And if it doesn’t stay still after trimming then trim again.

What change is there since before last patch? I see now change. Perhaps. But the matter still is the the AP isn’t perfect, and even if you aren’t deliberately pulling back or not, it will only work properly when trim button is released while aircraft is in perfectly stable flight. All your problems seemed to happen when you weren’t perfectly still, I have the same problems becuase the AP has it’s own issues. I trim two or three times until it’s stable. I’ll fly and voice chat with you but your video didn’t show anything to me but the AP trying to fight your movements left over from after trimming

oscillation from pitch is seperate from what you think trimming should work…. Let’s not confuse them What data or evidence shows the trimming is wrong? Every real life source and data says ED has it right. And I have tried to show as many of those sources as possible, especially since English language Cold War museum manual ks available online and describes whole autopilot The AP doesn’t care about what you think of it’s implementation….. it does not care what you think is possible or not….. it is an analog computer designed to shut off and re align when trim button is pressed, and every real life source refers to this. If someone doesn’t like the way that works they can take it up with Mil…. Who’s dead now, so someone else at the company…. Or the pilots that have verified that the trim button shuts off AP pitch and roll and re aligns them at current altitude when released……. So if we can talk about pitch oscillation and not trim… and discuss trim issues in trim threads…. I have not experienced any pitch oscillations in the most recent patch….. feels really good….. I see nothing wrong with Rivers video, he keeps pulling up during trimming, so no matter how much you trim the AP will keep fighting the pitch up. Becuase by pulling back the AP has to both dampen the change in pitch rate, and the GROWING difference between last trim attitude and current attitude. So as he keeps pulling back the AP keeps fighting it even after he trims. Even if it only did attitude hold it would still fight River as he keeps pitching up. Same thing when he pitched down, if you pitch down while trimming and keep pitching, the AP will continue to fight it as your attitude goes below last time you trimmed……You can tell in video when he released trim when in still stable flight, it works perfect. As for jerking causing pitch, that is a real issue also, and the reason you are supposed to trim a lot or sometimes hold trim if desired. This is also why Ka-50 AP added dampening when trim pressed….. turns out 1970s analog autopilots aren’t perfect……. I just trim twice to get rid of jumping issue if I trim while AP is making large input. You pull up, AP fights it with down, you press trim, down input goes away and your pitch rate increases. You just need to be aware of that, it’s not a problem on a 1970s AP If you trim level, pull up to 15 degrees, press trim, add down input to stabilize at 15 degrees then release trim. Or Atleast trim twice at 15 degrees so it stays there, trim will work perfect and be centered. It only has 18% authority, I can’t really blame it when you pitch up and it fights it but it can’t 100% stop it with its 18% authority…… You can do same thing with 15 degrees roll…. Works how the pictures I’ve attached says it works, yes it isn’t perfect…. If you use it as intended, trimming when stable and still to let AP help you fly straight and stabilize manuevers…. It will work great. I don’t know why you would want to keep pressing trim while still pulling back on stick….but if that behavior disagrees with the sources from Cold War manual below, why don’t we take it to a trim thread? Becuase river is not having pitch oscillations that this thread was made for If there is a source or piece of info I’m missing, let me know

If you follow the newsletter, the future of Petro was laid out on the November 11th newsletter https://forum.dcs.world/topic/304804-official-news-2022/?do=findComment&comment=5087388

In the LUA, there is a cumulative value for armor penetration. A figure of 1.0, is 1000mm penetration. For example, Hellfire is 1.2, for 1200mm armor penetration. If armor penetrated is les a then armor penetration value, then often a 2-4x bonus is applied, 3x in case of hellfire. The M282 gets no cumaltive armor penetration value or bonus. It has a 50% Coefficent for concrete structures it seems. That is it, so does even less damage against concrete. You can compare all the rockets and missiles here, rockets are in G/weapons_tables/nurs https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine

I agree with this…. But with one caveat….. The r-60 you see in game, is made by Magnitude 3 for MiG-21bis. It is not ED missile. In addition, if we look at its specs, it is superior to even M! R-60M has a seeker sensitive of 10 km on Su-27, and a flat rejection factor of 1.0. However, the OLDER R-60, with worse seeker, while it does have only 7500m seeker sensitivity, 75%, it has 0.66 flare rejection. Giving it a 33% advantage when it comes to flares. Its seeker that should be worse, is also listed as cooled, even though R-60 uses uncooked seeker. This means that like the M, it also has limited all aspects ability. In addition, the R-60 has a 6 kg warhead explosive. The R-60M, which should have a slightly bigger warhead, only has 3 kg warhead. I would guess Magnitude 3 made the warhead more powerful so it could reliably take down larger fighters. The R-60 is given a 40 G limit, the R-60M has a 30 G limit (to likely help conserve energy.) this means the older R-60 is even more maneuverable Basically, if ED added the R-60 in game as it is now, compared to R-60M, using the base R-60 from MiG-21bis would actually be an UPGRADE. The upper 25% of sealer detection range is only loss, and with helicopter speeds and launch ranges of this short range missile that is a very negligible loss. And for what it’s worth, Magntitude 3 gave the R-3S the SAME EXACT flare rejection figure…… Magnitude 3s missiles just need overhaul or taking over by ED to be similar and comparable to the rest we have. So we don’t have things where the old R-60 is actually better then the M….both even have a 3m proximity fuse! Source https://github.com/Quaggles/dcs-lua-datamine/blob/master/_G/rockets/R-60.lua

In LUA, the M151 has 1.04 kg explosive mass, with a 1.33 Coefficent in direct hit and blast radius. So 1.38 kg effectively. the 282 has .4 kg with a 1.17 Coefficent on both as well, Giving you 0.47 kg effectively. So M151 is over twice the strength. By comparison, the 229 has a 2.18 kg explosive mass with 1.33 Coefficent, giving you 2.9 kg effectiveness. So 229 has over twice the effectiveness of M151

Yes

Do you know common conditions for jamming? Material from the 80s make it sound like when Yak B overheats the symptom is round cook off, using the rest of the rounds onboard uncontrollably.

That is different. Lets says, you are in F-16 following a F-18. Both traveling at same speed, 700 knots TAS. Your ground speed is 700, but the closure speed is 0 knots. That’s a 700 knot difference! Pretty easy for a radial velocity gate to not filter that out. But if your ground speed is 700, and the F-18 makes an instant 90 degree turn, no matter the speed of the F-18, your closure speed is now equal to your TAS, 700 knots. Since the difference between ground speed and closure speed is 0 knots, the F-18 falls within the notch/radial velocity filter. There is equal speed gates, range gates, and doppler filter. The doppler filter is only based on 0 knots closure speed if your F-16 is flying at 0 knots. Without being able to hover or 200 knots winds, just flying in formation behind someone with 0 knot closure won’t be enough to make them fall in the notch.

He works for ED. Coriolos theorem and Kalman filters are implemented as part of the new AIM-120 seeker model. Different variable speed and range gates. INS errors. Beyond the seeker even the speed of the electronic actuators for the fins are simulated. Stability changes throughout flight as motor burns and shifts weight. And a couple years ago, proportional navigation and advanced proportional navigation were the hottest missile seeker tech in DCS the AMRAAM is being simulated as deeply as possible using reverse engineering to get around classification, I think some people see the seeker issues that haven’t been worked out and call it crap. But when it’s done and works proper it will be an incredible simulation. I’m pretty sure one of the only really things that hasn’t been addressed about the seeker yet is husky modes.

Notching isn’t determined only by aspect, but by difference between TAS of the radar and the closure rate of the radar and target. The doppler filter in many planes usually covers about 50-100 knots from the TAS of the radar. If the closure speed is within that range, it will notch.

This supposedly happens to every single aircraft in DCS. Including when being targeted by guns

The re load button is a Soviet thing. Soviet guns often have pyrotechnic charges to clear gun jams or just load the gun. You have 3 of these to load the MiG-21/JF-17 gun and to clear jams. You have the same thing in MiG-15/19. Since the gun can’t jam in DCS Mi-24P, and it doesn’t need the pyrotechnic charge to load, it has no function other then to make a “CLANK” sound

Detailed description of MicroSwitch logic, Yaw autopilot, and special settings are in my AP guide. For this thing, go to Section B for Yaw channel. Section II covers DCS simulation and special settings. Section 1 of part B only covers the real life operation of the system.

If you have a FFB stick like Sidewinder or G-940 or the new one, you select default trim. Works amazing. That being said, using the stick without springs setting for FFB stick gives you identical function as long as FFB boxes are check marked in controls. For rudder, you can select trim or not it’s your choice. Obviously you can’t detect center without a spring on your pedals, so for pedal trim with springless pedals might want the instant/default option or delayed. But remember any trim reduces your total authority. The real thing has springless pedals and no pedal trim. I could see how’s someone could use pedal trim to correct the the yaw channel auto trimming to hold heading, but I just prefer to have always have my MicroSwitch pressed and only released for straight and level cruise.

6 o’clock on speed gauge is cruise speed. 12 o’clock on altitude gauges is 0. VSI is 0 at 9 o’clock. It works, but it’s still a pain

It is awesome, doing it yourself can be awkward. Doable, but awkward

It’s about a 2% decrease in power according to the manual. 85 kg of weight. By comparison the dust protection costs you 4.5% power and 200 kg take off weight. Here is some tests, they do have 1/3rd reduction in signature, which probably comes from applying inverse square law to the stated 60% reduction measured by the Soviets. People say it also helps make flares work better, and it can certainly be a handicap that we can’t release our flares rapidly

Do they not? I thought ED added it, but maybe only for F-16/18/A-10