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

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