Snappy

Yawn … no thanks. The whole AH-64 just being another gigantic push-to-win button for people to confuse with their own skill.

Yes, my thoughts too, so much for the "last ever windows version" tsss...

This mission still doesn't seem to work , even in 2.7. The Mi-28 makes only or max two actual attack runs, despite announcing more on the radio , but then it doesn't actually fire. Even if you move well aside to give it room for its attack run. Most of the vehicles stay intact after his one or max two passes and next step of the mission isn't triggered. Even after I shot up some more vehicles myself. I've tried three four times now in a row and even after waiting a long while, the Mi-28 just doesn't do its task well enough for the mission to proceed. Please fix this. Or alternatively change the briefing to make it clear, that the MI28 is just there for psychological support, but you're supposed to do the actual shooting yourself . This is really a bit annoying. I mean it’s nice that Flappie got ist working after „a few tries“ but not everybody likes or has the time for doing the Same missions 5 times over in their scarce free time, just because the AI can't do its job properly. Regards, Snappy

Alpenwolf, thank you very much! Given the circumstances, I think this is a very reasonable interim solution, until Heatblur improves the FM. Just to clarify, will this mean the RB-24J is going back in as available loadout or is it still removed? kind regards and thank you again for trying to accommodate all players! Snappy

Speak for yourself if you wish, but if you know where the Viggens strenght are, you can do reasonably well against the Mig. Of course not if you're still dragging your whole bomb load around with you or trying to turn level with them . But "quite unsuccessful" really is too much of a blanket statement. The "occasionally" referred to myself, not general usage on your server. Using exploits aside, I still don't get why the Viggen should be forced into the A/G role exclusively and can't be loaded with A/A weaponry only. I mean, its not like the F-5 is unable to carry A/G weaponry as well. How about those guys going for the ground targets for a change once in a while ? Or are you basically saying, if I'm interested in air to air on the cold war server I have to buy either the F-5 or the Mig-19/21? Serious question. I agree with you 100% on the Heatblur part though. But I would prefer Sideburns suggestion though instead of removing the RB24J for everyone . That way hopefully only people who exploit the FM bugs would be affected. Regards Snappy

Yea, well too bad with the negative drag and people exploiting it..speaks volumes about DCS multiplayer culture , but not surprised given the proliferance of paddle pulling on the F-18 in the dogfight servers. People want their push to win buttons.. To be expected but still somewhat disappointing..I hope Heatblur gets on top of that . No sorry, I'm not missing the point. I 'm well aware of its primary A/G role in real life, however this is still a sandbox after all and I can do what I like in the Viggen I bought ,even on CW server (cheats&exploits notwithstanding). , if I feel like occasionally loading it up exclusively with air to air weaponry and going into a furball or whatever , thats up to me and it still can hold its own, unless you get yourself in silly situations, where you re outnumbered or at a serious disadvantage from the get-go. That being said, it had a secondary air to air role (hence the J in AJS) , plus for self defence it should be adequately equipped with self defense weapons and GeneralMav well explained why the RB-24 is unsuitable for that. I get the server roles too, but my experiences so far is, very few people care for the A/G targets or providiing strike escort and most just head for instant action, i.e. nearest enemy contacts, which is fine. But so can I then. Just because I own the VIggen and have no interest in buying the F-5 or Mig 21 doesn't mean I can't do that too from time to time. Regards, Snappy

Pardon my ignorance, but could someone kindly explain to me what the issue is/was with the RB-24J? I mean its already a pretty ancient missile and not the newer RB-74 variant. I know the Viggen has some FM issues down low (knowing DCS MP I can easily imagine people exploiting this) and besides I too would’ve liked to see Heatblur fix a lot of its many remaining bugs by now, but it isn’t.. Restricting it to the rubbish RB-24 seems pretty harsh, since the only other remaining air to air weapon are the gunpods which then further restricts other loadouts options and don‘t get me started on the Viggen fixed gunsight. Regards, Snappy

@dundun92 thank you a lot for the manual and making it available to everyone . Can imagine a lot of work went into that one! Out of curiosity , is it a formatting problem on my side ( I had the issue on two seperate systems) with my pdf viewer or do the following 3 missiles appear only in the index at the beginning, but not in the actual Threat air to air missiles chapter? PL-5E, Matra Magic II, Matra Super 530D? They are listed , but in the actual threat chapter, they re missing completely? Instead there are the Aim-54 variants in the actual threat chapter, but those are again missing in the index themselves ? weird.. Regards, Snappy

Hey Reflected, thank you very much your reply. I understand the idea of wanting to emulate some overhead civilian traffic. How about taking one of the military 707 derivate versions like KC 135 or Awacs aircraft as stand ins? They are actually pretty close to the actual Boeing 707 airliner that flew back then. Or as another alternative, even if less similar the B-52? I mean, if they 're just meant to be able to fly high enough and produce contrails for the setting , those should work well. Kind regards, Snappy

Dear Reflected Simulations, first of all, thanks a lot for this fun and very immersive campaign! It's proving quite challenging but very enjoyable due to the great atmosphere you and Bio created for it. One minor gripe with it. I just finished mission 3 only, but I think in the first three missions already there are C-17s flying around as general AI traffic and sometimes Jester even spots them and calls them outw,which is a bit immersion breaking, since the aircraft didn't exist at the time. Maybe you could remove those and replace them by something like C-130? The campaign takes place in 1987, the C-17 had its first flight in 91 and entered service in 95, so this really is misplaced. I know you can take era-coherence only so far, and nellis ramp , plus some other stuff probably is not really like in 1987 but this one should be easy to replace. Kind regards, Snappy

No offense, but your problem was, your tests (even your updated ones) were hardly scientific to begin with ( you said so yourself in the initial post ) and you argued basically on hear - say, guessing and "everything you read about about suggests otherwise" and so on.The next question is, how would you know the Hornet performance is accurate as it is now since you seem so bent on testing by comparing? So it really is not big surprise that no one from Heatblur acknowledges your tests or test results. They would likely need a lot more scientific setup from you to do that and not just your feeling on how the Tomcat fares vs the Hornet in acceleration and so on. That being said, this thread has evolved quite a bit in its course and covered several FM points. Fat Creason stated that the FM is still being tuned, that it is work- intensive and will take time and is best done in a specific order of things. So my suggestion would be to wait what happens when the FM update gets released and not to dive prematurely into pessimism. Regards, Snappy

„This purely indication issue does NOT affect DCS FM under any circumstances.“ while this statement from ED might not necessarily be false in itself, I find it’s oversimplifying things a bit. The FMs themselves may still be unaffected, but if your cockpit indications are wrong (yes I know they’re almost never totally accurate anyway)by an increasing margin in some aircraft , then you actually are in a different part of the performance envelope than you think you are based on your instruments.(mach indications are hopefullly semi correct at least). So your aircraft would not be giving you the performance you would expect. Anyway the whole discussion is very interesting and educational to me, but it hasn‘t exactly increased my confidence in the degree of simulation realism provided by ED,given the number of incorrect basic speed indications either in cockpit, HUD ,F10map or infobar. If this basic core stuff is buggy I don’t wanna know what else is. food for thought.. But I‘m thankful that Heatblur and Victory are taking a different, more meticulous approach. kind regards, Snappy

Aileron drag itself no, not necessarily.But it would vary automatically with speed and amount of control surface deflection due to its nature, so if the aileron system is well-rigged/constructed , it might go a long way in helping with it. Also these aircraft may have various forms of mechanisms or stability augmentation systems like yaw dampers, mechanical or non-mechanical ARI etc, that help with coordination without having to add manual rudder, at least within a certain AOA range. Some you can switch off, others probably not, however even in a simulation like DCS the abnormal system simulation may be lacking, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. But also, despite their marketing claims , some parts of their FMs are likely not as accurate as ED likes to portray them. For a multitude of reasons. But my personal opinion , in regards to this specific issue , at least for the F-5 and A-10 , I think it’s simulated correctly, as least for normal operating conditions For the F-86 and Mig-15 I can‘t say , since I simply don’t know enough about their systems and real world flight characteristics. regards, Snappy p.s. Kermit ist right though in his point, if you want to get something changed, provide solid information from flight manuals or other valid sources and not blanket claims like „ all aircraft exhibit adverse yaw behavior“.

I give up. You are clearly superior in your knowledge of procedures, aircraft systems, flight characteristics and manuals.

Of course it's not a magical /digital 0-1 boundary. I didn't say that, I just quoted the manual. It basically says without using additional manual rudder above this approximate value maneuvres become uncoordinated. Probably this handling characteristic becomes clearly pronounced above that value. Below that point you should also coordinate I agree , but I personally think the stab aug yaw system will do that for you , but this is only based on my experience with this type of system. However of course I have no hours in the F-5. I can't say how well or not it works there. So sure, everyone can have their own opinion or interpretation. Regards Snappy

Have you switched the STAB AUG YAW on or off for your test?

Yea you're right, I just checked. Indirectly it does though, under flight characteristics sections-> control effectiveness-> Roll/YAW . (Its section 6-2 in the manual from 78) It says quote: ...."Above approximately 20 Units AOA, roll control with aileron is less effective and rudder is required to coordinate the maneuvres" . You can possibly deduce the inverse from that statement, below 20 units of AOA no rudder is required to coordinate otherwise they would've written it differently . Which is pretty much what everyone told SMH, i.e. : Semi-modern jets typically do not require rudder input for coordinated turns until you enter the higher AOA part of their envelope. This is a super generalized blanket statement I know and there are exceptions to this, but you get my general drift. I personally would not expect to have to add manual rudder for a normal coordinated turn at reasonable AOAs. Regards, Snappy Edit : This also correlates to Belsimteks own F-5 manual statement on this : "Above 20 units AOA rolling effectiveness of ailerons rapidly degrades due to wing stall as well as to adverse sideslip generated by aileron deflection. The latter can be reduced by proper blend of rudder with ailerons for roll control of the aircraft at AOA greater than 20 units."

You have some misconceptions I think. I flew an aircraft with a yaw damper&without FBW and it required zero additional manual rudder for coordinated turns. Also even large transport category aircraft like the 747 still have a ball. It's just visualized differently on the PFD. But if you must google a bit and take a look at the lower part of the ADI cockpit instrument of the older 747-200 or even Concorde . What do you see there? Do you honestly think these were still flown with manual rudder during normal turns? "Why would you need one in a plane that never side-slips?" for system malfunctions/limitations ,asymmetrical thrust situations, incorrect , unnoticed manual input etc.. Regards, Snappy

I can‘t speak for previous iterations of the FM , whether it was different or not.However even aircraft without sophisticated FCS can have simple or more complex yaw dampers and the F-5 does have yaw dampers far as I‘m aware.These can and do remove the need to add manual rudder for flying coordinated turns within a reasonable envelope .So the current FM is not necessarily the unrealistic one. Did you check a real F-5e flight manual by chance? It should say whether or not manual rudder is required for coordinated turns.Theres one in download section of DCS homepage, check that. regards, Snappy

Hey Unknown!, sorry for my late reply , I hadn't checked the forums for a while . Thank you very very much for adding your video with the control indicators overlay and explaining your way of doing it step by step!! Adding the track file was an additional bonus That was most helpful! I'll give it a try later on after updating my DCS installation to the current version. Sometimes I'm amazed how kind people can be on this forum. Thanks a lot again man! Hope you are well. Kind regards, Snappy Edit: Made it work somehow with your tips..Not consistent nor elegant but at least somehow

Could someone kindly tell me the general order of control inputs to perform this maneuvre in the Mi-8? Is it : 1. cylic forward and then freeze it in forward position 2. add left / right cyclic depending on intended turn direction 3. add anti-torque pedal input to keep nose pointed at reference points? or all simultaneously? So far I'm not very successful in my attempts.. Thanks a lot , Kind regards, Snappy

The Win 7/8 compatability mode is not really supposed to be the permament solution for this, is it? Regards, Snappy

Neither does the Mi-8 require pedal input when flying (relatively) fast. Once you hit 200kph you can completely remove anti torque input, unless you really pull the collective up. I really don't see much communality between the Black Shark and the Hind, besides both being attack helicopters Edit : To make this a bit more precise, if you set blade pitch angle to 7 degrees, this works nicely on my side.You can chug along at 200kph with zero anti torque input.

In Aviation, ATC facilities use different seperate frequencies in order to not get this problem of having tons of unwanted transmissions to other stations filling up their frequency and because transmissions & receptions have to be made at much longer ranges than just 15NM. I doubt that you will find two ATC facilities within 200 NM(or likely even more) of each other that use the same identical frequency. (with the exception of guard frequency that is monitored by all , but that is something entirely else and on purpose for emergencies , probably very similar to same concept in marine use. ).

OK, disregard this, I think I have finally found the problem after further testing. I'm just writing this in case somebody else has the same issue in the future. It was not my joystick. This was a combination of 2 things that caused this behaviour. Number one, a while ago I enabled the rudder trim option in the special options tab, after first flying with it off. Now the 2nd thing was, because I initially flew the module without this rudder trim option I had gotten used to keeping in anti-torque input with the pedals (my rudder set). I unconsciously kept doing this even after enabling the rudder trim option. And this caused the mentioned problem. My Joystick was centered after letting go of it, but because my hardware rudder pedals were not centered as well, the trim system did not register center position and did not accept new control inputs. Kind regards, Snappy