Cgjunk2

Phasing effects happen in real life with multi-engine aircraft, so there shouldn’t really be any reason to want to eliminate the possibility of that occurring in a simulation. It’s natural consequence of having two identical engines turning at nearly the same speed. The phasing harmonics go away easily by simply running them at exactly the same speed. In any case, it basically sounds like part of the sounds are missing on the right engine. Not sure why this thread is marked as “cannot reproduce”, unless only some of us are experiencing engine sound differences, but others are not. If that’s the case, I’d like to find out how to fix it.

The English telelight panel was working in the initial release, which explains why you saw it. It’s only been in the latest patch, that the english cockpit got messed up. As mentioned, there are other issues related to choosing desired units, and maybe even unit labeling errors on the instruments. Oh, and also the VSI doesn’t work now. I think it’s natures way of saying that this airplane doesn’t need numbers to be flown…only feelings.

I’m still experiencing differing left and right engine volume (or“soundscapes”) after the latest update. Have the track files in this thread been investigated yet? edit: I don’t have any mods on my DCS install.

Good point regarding settings. In my case, hear in helmet and loud AB are both off. I hear the different sounds in each engine

The forces felt on the stick are an important part of aircraft development IRL. If in reality the Fulcrum’s stick forces in roll are 50% of the forces in pitch, then it seems that FFB is not accurately modeled at present. Has anybody else noticed heavier roll than pitch? @Raven (Elysian Angel) I wonder, if your settings have something inverted? I don’t have FFB yet, so I couldn’t guess if it might be inverted, but it seems odd that ED would have forces modeled exactly backwards to real life. As an aside, I’m hoping for a time in the near future where developers will use existing documentation to develop accurate stick force models, as much as they do for developing accurate flight models. I’m not referring to vibration or gun effects (those are nice as an addition), but actual intentionally-designed or naturally-occuring control forces felt by the pilot throughout the flight regime. Flight models and stick force models go hand-in-hand, and it would be a terrible loss (from a flight sim accuracy perspective) to continually expect the end-user and back-end software to create force profiles that that are essentially guesses as to the how the stick responds in the real airplane.

Just noticed the same issue last night. It seems like engine no. 1 one has a fuller sound model (turbine whine, combustion, and, with the sound of massive amounts of air being compressed and moved). While engine no. 2 only generates a quiet turbine sound. Both engines combined sound great, but not so much when you have an engine failure (confusing auditory feedback)

Some might think this comment is too much “iTs nOT a GamE, It’S a SIMulLatION!! Buuuuut… The basic point of FFB is to simulate the forces that are experienced in the real thing. It allows a sim to output actual real-life data through an entirely new sensory channel. Without FFB, sims only can simulate through the visual channel. Therefore, FFB in flight sims is a bigger deal than going from 2d instrument panels to 3d cockpits. Each plane has its own unique control feel profile throughout its flight envelope. That goes for aircraft with mechnical linkages, with hydraulics, and fly-by-wire. Without FFB, we are essentially completely blind to the aspect of how the controls of a particular plane feel, and how much is communicated to the pilot through changes in forces. Ideally, in a world where FFB was ubiquitous, DCS and any other sim developer would have to take FFB as a foundational aspect of their simulation Maybe we’ll get there someday. In the meantime, I can understand wanting to create a profile of forces when the sim does not simulate them, or if you know they are simulated incorrectly. It’s nice to have VPRhino’s software for that purpose. But it’s a bit like going to a restaurant and being expected that you invent your own recipe. Most people go to restaurants that have chefs that enjoy creating something that they think I should experience, because they are proud of the skill and artistry of creating and cooking their own recipe. Making our own FFB flight profiles should be viewed a stopgap only until developers start viewing FFB force profiles (throughout a flight envelope) as a foundational part of an aircraft’s flight model.

Yup it’s the only thing I do on DCS lol. I just enjoy exploring all the modules at the edge. My favorite spot to fly is in the mountains north east of senaki. Nap of the earth flight, 100ft agl at 15,000 feet msl over the top of the crests. Seeing your own shadow on the peaks as you lob yourself over them ballistically at 60kts. What an insane sight! Literally gets my blood pumping. In VR it’s better than having an IMAX movie theater strapped to your head. My previous fav in the mountain “skatepark” has been the Tomcat. But since release, the fulcrum has been the only plane I’ve flown. I just can’t bring myself to spend my DCS time on anything else, at least not yet. It has a fantastic feel in the air.

Are you on VR ? Unchecking sequential mirrors and choosing the higher resolution option every frame returned performance to how it was for me before the update. But Im on VR

Thanks for the explanation. I won’t say I’ve fully digested it yet lol, but I have a better understanding of the other factors involved. Edit to add: it’s a bit mindblowing to think, not only of the interplay of the different parts of the control architecture, but of how that interplay changes in different flight regimes. It’s quite an orchestra that aerospace engineers are putting together!

1. That is very interesting. I hadn’t thought about the possible effects of the aileron being tilted up on yaw tendencies when rolling. But, I’ll be honest, I’m having a time understanding what factors go into negating the relative difference in lift/drag on wings being commanded to roll. Not saying that it doesn’t do what you say, but just that aerodynamics are complicated and I cant wrap my head around it. 2. So the rudders aren’t used at all in the simulation’s FCS currently? I could have sworn I’ve seen and felt them moving around.

I don’t know if I’m missing something or if I’m losing it, but the Mig29 doesn’t control roll through spoilers. It uses ailerons. Also, I haven’t heard the word “proverse” being used to described yaw tendencies. Generally speaking, only adverse yaw occurs when ailerons are responsible for commanding the roll. Ailerons will always cause induced drag on the wing that rises because anything being lifted results in more drag. That drag “pulls” the lifting wing backwards, which is the same thing as saying it yaws the airplane opposite of the roll direction. I know aerodynamics are complicated (especially on fighters), but I don’t think it possible for ailerons (being used on their own) to induce a yaw into the roll direction. The “proverse” yaw you’re seeing is probably the rudder input being commanded by the FCS/stabilization system. Most large/heavy airplanes have some sort of system that commands inside rudder to cancel out the adverse yaw and keep the turn coordinated. Recently I did see someone comment about both ailerons both resting at a positive angle, but for the purpose increasing the washout effect of the wing as a whole (not to address adverse yaw). Washout describes the amount of twist built into a wing. With the twist resulting in a wing that has less AOA near the tips, than it does near the wing root, which is meant to guarantee the root stalls before the outboard portion of the wing, which theoretically results in milder/more controllable stall charcteristics. Setting those ailerons to have the positive angle sounds like a neat little trick the designers used to simplify the process of producing the wing. As I would imagine that allows them to build a flat wing instead of one with a twist. Or say the wings are built with washout, using the ailerons in such a way could fine tune the intended effects if the designed washout twist was found to be insufficient during flight testing.

A little late to the party on this thread… I agree that the F-1 is very sensitive directionally on the landing roll out. However, I view this behavior as a very good simulation of what you would expect with tall, narrow track-width gear that are mounted so closely to the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. Essentially, the airframe can rotate around its long axis much easier than it could on gear mounted further outboard, or on the wings. And when you add the fact that trailing link landing gear often allow for a longer suspension stroke, it ends up in keeling around turns like a 1970s Buick Station wagon without sway bars. The F-16 has similarly mounted gear, very close to the long-axis of the fuselage. But the suspension design has a much shorter stroke (and is firmer) compared to the softly sprung trailing link arrangement of the F-1. A firm, short stroke limits how deeply the F-16 leans when turning at speed, making it more stable on roll out. It will still flip over, but it doesn’t lean as much before doing so. The F-18 also has fuselage mounted gear, and a trailing link arrangement with a very long suspension stroke. However, it probably feels way more stable on roll-out because the gear are mounted further away from the longitudinal axis, and the airplane is seems relatively lower to the ground with full weight on wheels. These both contribute to making the plane more stable, because it can’t roll about the longitudal axis as easily when experiencing side-loads. Basically, this behavior is what makes DCS awesome. It shows you can model the unique behaviors expected for different types of landing gear designs/arrangements. From my point of view, this is definitely a not a bug, it’s a feature (it’s not to say I can judge the minute details of the modeling, because nobody has lent me their F-1 to fly around. But the general behavior tracks with what you’d expect for its configuration). (Sorry, pun lol).

Please accept my apology, because I see now that you were clear in your first response saying that it would be revisited and improved. It seems the combination of me responding before having my morning coffee, and my memory of previous discussion of this topic, led me to not read and comprehend what you plainly stated above. As far as how long it takes, I’m content to wait until you guys can devote the time needed to the issue. HB has a long history of continuously improving their modules, so I’m confident it will eventually be addressed.

Does that mean that the real airplane does not actually have a stick-pusher? Or does the 17kg of force get pulsed through the stick every time you reach AOA limit ?