Snappy

Hi, maybe you could buy this book from DACO ? Seems to have pretty detailed pictured from various angles. With luck you might find it used for a low price. http://www.dacoproducts.com/KDCB022.php Kind regards, Snappy

Very nice update presentation! Its hard to see from the screenshot, but I wanted to ask, did the radar gunsight update include a reworking of the centerdots thickness and brightness? In the current version it is not very visible on the snake. On the real aircraft HUD it seems to be brighter and slightly thicker than the snake itself. See pictures in this thread: Besides that very impressed with the work that went into this update and the new level of system simulated! Kind regards, Snappy

Yes, those two instruments can both be powered off completely, which is what I resorted to. Its not ideal. Main reason for my post was to find out if I’m doing something wrong in regards to cockpit setup for night operations or if this a bug/glitch ,from ED introducing the lighting changes (it has other odd effects on the Mi-8 too) or if this is just not a helicopter really suitable for NVG operations. The manual makes close to zero mention of them unfortunately. regards, Snappy

Ok this is basically a shot, where both the radar warning light and doppler drift indicator OFF light are on. You can see the cockpit with NVG basically becomes a bloom mess and unusable. This is with all instrument lights set to lowest possible light intensity. The only way to reduce the bloom is by reducing NVG gain.But you have to reduce it so much that the outside world is black again, so the NVG become useless. Not sure if this is a graphics issue introduced with lightning changes,or whether the MI-8 version modelled in DCS is basically not suitable for NVG operation, but then you gotta ask how are you supposed to get the campaign missions done in total darkness, where you have to find ground targets and land in obstacle rich environment.

Basically just the missions the standard campaign that comes with the Mi-8 throws at you , i.e. night search & destroy and CASEVAC. Sure you can fly initially IFR enroute, but in the target area you have to switch to VFR to find&attack the targets / identify the landing zone, the obstacles . Unfortunately it is seemingly ill suited for that. This is what I mean for example: This is all 6 (Commander, Copilot , Engineer ) light reostats, plus the Doppler light rheostat behind the copilot seat turned down all the way. Still the radar altimeter warning lights blooms like this: The Doppler Drift indicator OFF light has the same effect, it's just off at the moment, otherwise the entire cockpit would be just a white mass. This is an image from the Briefing of Campaign Mission 16. I don't know if Belsimtek edited it somehow, but I never managed to get even close the level of clarity and brightness both inside the cockpit and outside at the same time, also the Dopper Drift OFF light is illuminating ,without the extreme bloom effect. I also tried the NVG Gain adjustments, but it doesn't help with this. @Hawk 09 Yes, I know about the light controls, like I wrote.The problem seems to be that the light controls only affect the instruments main indications, but not their warning lights. Sorry can't help you with implementing IR strobes, cool idea though, I agree. Regards, Snappy.

Hi, don't know if this due to lighting issues introduced with the 2.5 /2.7 DCS version updates or just inherent in the module, but I find the night mission very hard to fly with night vision goggles . My current approach is, I dim all the cockpit lighting almost down all the way , but despite setting the lighting control for the Doppler/radar instruments behind the copilot all the way down, the Doppler Off Light in the top right of the instrument as well as the radar altimeter height warning light are still extremely bright , so much that they bloom bright in the NV goggles and make the surrounding cockpit unreadable and you have to look elsewhere or get white- out. My only solution is to switch these instruments off completely, which makes hovering and landing much more difficult . Or to reduce NVG gain, but the outside world gets darker and darker , which isn't good either. What are your settings for optimal night operations in regards to cockpit lights and NVG? BTW, not sure if it matters, but I have global cockpit illumination set to "ON" in the DCS graphic settings. Thanks a lot , regards, Snappy

This is where I would put my money too. Unfortunately, due to the lack of publicly available data it is hard to prove. Maybe the F-18 FM review will bringe some change in that direction. Regards, Snappy

You conveniently ignored my arguments. I seriously doubt flying TACAN approaches or PAR approaches in IFR is suicide, if you know what you’re doing and the equipment is working correctly.Military aircraft all over the world did it regularly and probably still do to some extent, even with the omnipresent GPS nowadays. And stop bringing up the updated versions. It’s not like IFR was invented in 1980s or that you need a modern radar or GPS or even INS to fly . But I can already guess that this going to be a pointless discussion ..

Not sure which country your statement is referring to, but I’d cut back on the blanket statements.Maybe your country had restrictions on it. The aircraft certainly is capable of IFR flight , even the “old” F-5e models. The current bugs in DCS notwithstanding. The real aircraft certainly could fly IFR with Tacan , Tacan approaches and PAR approaches even in bad weather.Of course not down to zero visibility but countries like Norway flew it too and they have some interesting weather and certainly couldn’t afford too use their aircraft only in good weather..Besides Nav equipment also was most likely a customer option.Maybe your Air Force ordered the daytime fighter equipment only. Also statements like “radar is completely useless” are plain hyperbole.Of course it can’t compete with todays radar or doesn’t offer remotely the same search&track capability but it wasn’t intended to either at its time. It provides mainly gunsight solution and rudimentary target information. Edit: Talking about the version simulated in DCS,even with just “only “TACAN approaches you have fairly “low” minima, take a look at a few TACAN approach charts online ,specifically their minima section. Far below the 7-10 miles you were talking about. The main issue is, the Tiger in DCS has some navigation & instrument related bugs and the guy who flies it needs to know how to fly basic IFR in general.

? The post you quoted is 3 years old... The simulator in the upper picture is modelling a Saab J35 Draken and not a Viggen and the lower cockpit picture is from the JA Viggen variant, so completely different. Very confusing. Regards, Snappy

Post a track? Or video. That way maybe people can better tell you what exactly you re doing wrong.

Actually "people across the pond" do it the same way . Maybe take a look at european IFR charts. Unless you meant the other "pond"...

There was already a previous discussion about this, somewhat inconclusive too I think, sounded like the rails weight is already included all the the time in the basic empty weight in DCS. But no official answer from Heatblur. edit: Just saw you participated yourself in that thread, sorry guess you know about it then. Regards, Snappy

Don’t confuse “we” with “you”. You really can’t let it go , can you? Why don’t you simply wait until performance has been adjusted across the altitudes, as fat creason announced he would work through them with time? Like he said, there is no point in testing at the moment . I get your deep interest in performance, but how about simply stepping back for the moment or doing your thing without announcing results on these forums.

This doesn't seem to work for me,although I placed the objects as static structures in the mission editor. I did a test mission in NTTR, where I placed static objects ( Hangar) on a waypoint. Used the cue to WP mode on the waypoint in question and even though the Hanger is the only object and very clearly visible object directly in the Lantirn FOV (after Jester cues to the WP) , Jester never targets it. I used search for targets -> any . He starts scanning right past it and then moves in circles but never picks it up, even though , as mentioned it is the only and by far largest visible object on the screen. Am I doing sth. wrong? Regards, Snappy Edit:BTW , could there be "structures" field addded in the the search for targets menu?

Ok, I hope you do know which instrument the HSI is. If not, check the manual or search the internet. Above its rotating compass rose is short vertical white line(at the 12 o’clock position so to say).That is the marker for your own aircraft s heading. Now simply fly a turn and watch the compass rose rotate until the 30 (stands for 300 degrees, the last 0 is omitted from the instrument) is under that white line. Now you re flying on heading 300 towards the awacs target. hope this helps, regards, Snappy Edit : I attached a picture, 1 is the vertical line, 2 is the 30 for heading 300, sorry for the bad quality,writing on mobile

@aac1730& @Johnny Johnny Johnny This is a known and unfortunately very old bug. See bug report here: Heatblur is aware of it and hopefully it will get fixed with the supposedly big november update of the Viggen. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Snappy

At this point it seems prudent to simply ignore whatever ED announces it has in the works or is supposed to come.

Yes, you’re right - I looked at the limits with a certain stores configuration.

At the moment the only thing that would make me buy modules directly from ED (third parties I view differently) are significant updates to core, especially AI and better use of hardware/ more efficient engine. I think most people are happy or at least content with the current level of visual quality, so I don’t really understand why ED tries to cram ever more eye-candy into the already squeaking engine we have now. I mean DCS right now is lacking heavily in the entire AI spectrum and it’s not as if improvements in that area , along with an improved FM for AI will come without their own cost in processing power. So personally I’d rather see them stopping to try to get ever better graphics out of the current engine and leave some buffer for other stuff that requires processing power, even if that will most likely be drawn from CPU alone. Sure they maybe can offset some of that with multi-processor support and the graphics stuff with Vulcan,but until it’s here I m sceptic if the gains will be that big , given the age of the engine.

Well for the purporse of this discussion I would say this makes no real practical difference. Because in the end G is G. You are talking about the indicated/measured G by the accelerometer which may differ slightly with speed. But this is about the actual G force on the airframe and the point at which it makes it come apart. And this actual G force limit at which damage occurs should be more or less constant under ideal conditions, which we have in the sim. ( putting aside real world factors like airframe age ,fatigue, prior damage etc..) BTW, I don't think the difference between G measurement by the cockpit accelerometer and actual G force on airframge will ever amount to several Gs within the practicable speed range of the aircraft .That would make the acceleromater highly unreliable for use at higher speed, which is something a figher jet is expected to be employed at in combat , with maneuvering. The F-5 has a symmetrical load limit of +6.5 and -2.0 G. Plus the 150% design safety factor, we're at +9,75G. Like I said , 11 G is generous, I don't mind if ED makes the airframe starting to take damage at 10G or even 9,75 Galready. But I have severe doubts the aircrafts should fall apart at around 7-8G indicated , even at higher speed. Plus the design safety factor is very likely based on calculated real G load during the stress testing , not measurement by the accelerometer. So in my opinion at up to at least 9,75 (actual ) G the aircraft should not fall apart in its entire speed range in DCS. But proceed as you must.

Ah, thanks for your quick answer ! Would never have guessed these Mozambican markings

Best wait for @Northwind to reply, but I really think this is not about the airplane breaking apart at 11G , which is a generous limit. But the point is if (in the simulation) the airframe gets damaged/breaks up at X amount of G, then this should be consistent across the speed range where the aircraft is available to generate that x amount of G. I don’t see why it can take 11 G at somewhat lower speed and only 7-8 G at higher speed to cause damage. After all it’s the G-load that damages the airframe, not the speed. I think whatever upper limit ED wants to employ , be it 8, 9, or 11 G should be consistent across the speed range. Sorry I really can’t explain it any more clearly. As for your last question, no of course not. Below a certain point it should be impossible to reach even 7G , because the lower the speed the less G you can generate due to physics.(see my bold)

I think his point is not what the actual limit should be , but instead that this limit , at which structural damage begins to occur , should be consistent across the speed range. G is G . There is no reason the airframe can sustain up to X G at low speed but not at high speed.It’s not like the G amount itself becomes more dangerous the airframe structure.The only thing that happens is at high speed the Gs usually come on quicker with less of a pull, so you are somewhat more likely to inadvertently pull more G than intended

Sorry for sidetracking again, but which countries markings are on the F-1 and the Mig-17 on this photo? The F-1 looks like a soviet star, but that can't be it obviously and the Mig-17 has me completely clueless.. Any information on the occasion of that photo? Regards, Snappy