Snappy

Hi, still relatively new to the Mi-8 , but slowly getting a hang of things. In the special options tab I use the "center position" mode for trim. One thing I noticed is that my trim seems to freeze at times and at other times its fine. What I mean is this: I press the trim button and it works , I get the trim click sound. But after that the helicopter controls seems frozen, i.e. its not accepting any new commands if I move my Joystick/cylic. The controls remain frozen in the trimmed position.Needless to say this is suboptimal in low altitude hover. Its happening relatively often, but not always, sometimes its fine, i. e. after trimming I can move the controls and the helicopter reacts out of its trimmed state. I let go of the stick of the stick each time after trimming, so the joystick should return to the center position, so this should not be the cause for this. Does anybody have any ideas what causes this or experienced the same issue? Am I doing something wrong or misunderstanding the trim system? My best guess for now is joystick(hardware) noise meaning the joystick might not always really move back to center position even if I let go of it. Its an old stick and has some small issues. Kind regards, Snappy

Are they even aware of it/ tracking it? This thread hasn’t even a “[REPORTED]” tag. regards, Snappy

This may be so, but it doesn't really help, because it could also be JF-17 overperforming in DCS. Best approach really is to check/flight test modules against the available data for them. Granted though this becomes a problem, when the data is not publicly available like for the F-18,JF-17 and other aircraft.

I'm not, but if I was I'd probably be put off even more by ED's fantasy weapon loadouts for the F-16, which has zero to do with real life. Thanks for trolling though. At least you're pretty consistent.

The issue at hand with the RWR notwithstanding, it would be nice if ED got some consistency into their approach to simulating aircraft/ building modules. Because its kind of annoying having one module not equipped with system XYZ with the reason being given: "yea, because the aircraft variant we base it on and/or the Air Force of Country X whose aircraft we model, is not equipped with it " , but then on the other hand you have other ED modules (F-16 being a prime example) being done with fantasy weapon systems (triple MAV racks , and the 4 HARMs on pylons ) despite the aircraft its being modelled on and the respective Air Force , not even having the wiring for it or the certification for use . This double standard and inconsistency is what ticks me off a bit. Regards, Snappy

Excellently put Like it. Personally I think, ED should've just left out the paddle switch's function. I get that this would likely freak out people who obsess about simulating 100% of the systems (like this is ever achieved) , but its a function of the FCS thats probably never used during a pilots career in reality or only in .025%(or insert whatever low number you like) of all hornet flights and then likely only to prevent an immiment ground collision. By leaving out the paddle function, the FCS simulation might drop down to 90 or so percent, but the amount of realism in how the aircraft is flown within its design limits would go up like 400% , especially in MP. Anyway, ED did it differently.

Jojo, thank you very much! I appreciate the large amount of work going into refining the systems and increasing simulation accuracy of the Mirage. Kind regards, Snappy

Yes, thank you very much Razbam . It's very refreshing to see the mirage getting such a nice rework and updated, more accurately simulated systems. Good job! Kind regards, Snappy

Thanks Skysurfer, would be good if ED got around to improving their side of things. Given how slow things are moving with the other missiles, I'm not optimistic though. Regards, Snappy

The Trim hat is moving?

Does it still do these violent yawing motions in the final phase when its coming down from a loft shot? I mean when you look at the missile in outside view and the missile makes some strange oscillating movements which does very little to change its actual flightpath but uses up a lot of energy? regards, Snappy

Same here, too little effect of overhead lights and in general too dark cockpit in version 2.7. It only gets halfway decent when the sun shines directly onto the panel. Hope this gets fixed. Regards, Snappy

Hey thanks a lot for replying ! Very interesting. It doesn't mirror my personal experience in MP, but I will monitor this more closely next time. Could well be that my flying is not as precise and accurate as your test programm. Thanks a lot for attaching the tacview readout! very nice of you Have a nice evening, Kind regards, Snappy

Ah ok, get it now. Thanks man!

Why would you keep 6 amraams under the wings for a close in fight? It's not like you get to use them afterwards if the other guy jettisons his to get light and kills you.

This, so much! Well put. Thank you. Kind regards, Snappy

So how exactly do you know how good the overlay in the scorpion helmet is and that its superior to what has been around for some time in other aircraft? Do you have pictures? System description? Regards, Snappy

Agree. I also think, this has more to do with the Viggen being a niche aircraft, that not many people know a lot about or what exact capabilities it brings .Even within the cold war - interested group it still seems to remain something of an outlier, compared to the omni-present F-5 and Mig-21. Like in all other aircraft, what you have to learn is which switches / button you need to press to achieve a certain goal. Whether the switch is labeled french,english, swedish makes little difference for me, at least when we are talking about aircraft with a system structure level like the viggen. Its not as if you have to programm 20 pages of FMC in swedish as preflight. Kind regards, Snappy

The paddle switch on the Hornet is a bit annoying. I actually wish ED hadn't implemented it, because I guess its exploited big time in DCS and on the other hand it's a function of the FCS thats likely never really used at all in reality. It would be ok if it was used as a one time pony like Hammer said, to expend all energy at once to grab angles for a shot. Because if the Hornet misses that shot, then it's stuck motionless in space. But what I really don't like is that people habitually use the paddle switch on the other end of the spectrum. I.e. at higher speeds to get above the Hornets 7.5G Limit . And due to its uprated engines( or overpowered /underdrag FM, I don't know) the Hornet can, with use of the paddle switch, do quite a bit more G in sustained turns .And btw this is also where it seems to outrate the Viper in sustained rate. For many people this seems standard procedure going into a merge. But its a more or less a philosophical decision. I can respect Dundun, who says, in the end DCS is a game and its irrelevant whether its used in reality or not and the downsides of it are not modelled anyway.Thats his way of playing. I find it just strange that some other people keep hyping DCS's realism and how great the FM is and then happily put it ad absurdum by pulling paddle all the time during a fight. The real Hornet pilots have said it is not used for that. Sorry , I digressed into a pet peeve of mine. Gotta take my calm-down pills now

Interesting.. did you even read what I wrote? why should anyone be out of energy or altitude, just because of a tiny advantage above a certain speed range that the viper has- in DCS that is. Actually I just wrote why this is not the case if you keep droning around at mach.8., going for rate. The margin is not big enough or there at all to exploit against semi-capable opponents, in DCS.You’re lucky to outrate anything 4th gen at all. The Mirage yea. But then again, no sound Mirage Pilot will keep fighting 2C. Anyway this whole topic is leading nowhere. You can put out Viper braggadocio all day long if it makes you feel better. We’ll see what the status is after the FMs are complete.

I'm failing to see the point of doing that at such a high speed . At those speeds in a 2C fight, even if you re a few degrees further around your circle due to your small advantage in sustained rate, the distance between aircraft is so large than any semi-capable opponent could just rate around the remaining degrees using instantenous rate until pointed neutral at you again and then use the long drive to the next head- to- head merge to regain energy. If it's a fight with fox 2 missiles, even worse.

NIce to read, but unfortunately this is far from the substantial data that would get ED to change their models. I'm not at all saying the statement is wrong, the source is good, no question. But there is too little specification for applicability in DCS ,as it's not mentioned which variant and which engine variant of both aircraft the paragraph is about. Don't get me wrong, I too wish the hornets performance was toned down in DCS. But the big problem is, contrary to the F-16 , there is little data available for the Hornet with the engine variant they simulate. So it's hard to check against documents / verify the flight model. You have to trust ED, but then again, they've gotten things wrong before too, even in their much acclaimed flight modelling. (i.e. F-5 ground speed bug, or the A-10 getting an entire 1G more in capability with its A-10CII upgrade a while back). Nobody's perfect.. Regards, Snappy

The way the data is represented is very nice. However I 've some questions about it. Is the "turn speed" page supposed to be sustained rate? or instantaneous?Seems to low to be instantaneous. Unless I m missreading it, the Mirage in your data seems to outrates the F16 acrosse the entire speed range , which it definitely doesn't in DCS. At least not if we re talking about sustained rate. Regards, Snappy

Very nicely flown! Wish I was nearly as good with helicopters

Hmm, can you elaborate? Is it possible to release single bombs with which switch?! Regards, Snappy