default762792

Fantastic, so far. Coming back to DCS after a long but instructive time flying Boeings and Airbuses in X-Plane, and it's delightful to be in an armed Warsaw Pact aircraft again. I've just done a few "start from runway" flights to see how it feels before learning the aircraft properly but my initial impressions of both DCS 1.5 and the L-39 are very positive. Also looking forward to the ZA. FAB-100s and UB-16s are great, but the GSh-23L...

I fiddled with it a bit more. The Mi-8 seems to fly well enough and the switching between pods (and separate systems within pods in the case of the GUV YaKB) works as if they were mounted symmetrically. I don't know of what utility it is, other than marginally greater flexibility in engaging troops both hidden and in the open as well as light armored vehicles at the cost of only carrying half the ammunition for a given weapon and whatever accuracy penalty asymmetric recoil imposes, or for training purposes if one had to cram getting a feel for the ballistics of four separate types of projectile into one flight. Other than aerodynamic and recoil issues, I was mainly wondering if there was some electrical or mechanical reason this sort of configuration wouldn't work, which I suppose is a pretty obscure question and maybe one with no definitive answer.

I figured out that it's possible to put a GUV YaKB on one side and a UPK on the other, or even better, a GUV YaKB on one side and a UPK as well as GUV AP-30 on the other. The helicopter flies fine and both or all three pods can be fired (one at a time, of course). Leaving aside the question of whether or not anybody operating Mi-8s or Mi-17s in real life would want to do this (I came across the phrase "operationally useless" in a thread about asymmetric loadouts in the Ka-50), should this be actually be possible if perhaps silly or is it something Belsimtek either forgot or didn't bother to make impossible in the sim?

Ah, okay. I suspected that mission scripting might have something to do with it, but I was reading the frequency input as if it were the same as the R-863, not taking into account the different range. Thanks very much!

I've figured out the R-863 and ARK-9 reasonably well, but I can't seem to get ATC, at least at Beslan and Novorossiysk, to respond to the YaDRO-1A. As far as I can tell I'm doing everything right - radio, not ICS is selected, laryngophone off, source selector set to YaDRO, the appropriate frequency dialed into the control panel to the right of the copilot's seat, etc. The unit is on, I've tried it in both AM and SSB modes, fiddled with the squelch and volume, and I'm using the cyclic radio trigger or rAlt+/. I figure I'm doing something wrong, it doesn't work at those specific airfields, it's broken, period, or it has to do with the simplex nature of the device in some way that doesn't appear to be addressed in the manual. Any ideas?

Huh. Interesting.The other pictures of Molnija AChS-1 cockpit chronographs I looked up have the chronograph minutes register numerals ascending clockwise in conventional fashion. Yet there's your picture. Is that either a dial misprint or a version meant to be used as a one-hour countdown timer? The module has been out for almost a week, this bug subforum has been open for day or two, and this is our biggest problem. :D

Tumansky R-25-300 outdoor space heater.

MiG-28 apparently had no problem with sustained negative gs. Unlike a certain other, realer MiG. :music_whistling:

http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1052970/

Frustratingly but amusingly, the real manual, which was very helpful on stuff like instrument lighting rheostats and setting up my HOTAS realistically, is very vague about one of the things that intrigues me the most about the F-86. I quote: "Operation of Low-altitude Bombing System (LABS). This information will be supplied when available." So, Belsimtek is just being faithful to the real thing. :D Seriously though, it's an excellent module even in this beta state.

Some of these screenshots show empty cartridge cases from the MG 131s falling out. For some reason I don't get the empties when firing the machine guns in my install, even with no mods running and a repair having been run. Is there some option or line in a lua somewhere that I'm missing? Some great screens by the way, and the skin makers are really rising to the occasion with the Bf-109.

This happens to me too, with FAB-100s on MERs. Drop all 8, but 6 remain on the pylon. They can't be dropped, but the pylon, including the bombs, can still be ripped off by excessive g-loads. fab100merbug.trk

First off, overall it's a fantastic module, and I appreciate all the hard work that Leatherneck has put into it. It's beautiful. But it does seem strange that the magic ASP altitude data and 25% rudder authority on the ground are concessions for the sake of gameplay. Without even referring to the example of the (presumably far wider in their appeal) Fw-190 and Bf-109 modules, which even many deeply experienced simmers find extremely difficult to get off the runway in, just on its own the MiG-21 presents so many other peculiar challenges (flimsy pylons, proneness to negative-g flameout, alcohol-cooled radar that barely outranges the 23mm cannon, etc.) that the limitations of the gunsight and awkward differential braking seem like they would disappear into the background for someone who wasn't already a fanatic.

I messed around with this for a while - the engine will start with no pumps, but for the throttle to be set at higher than idle, at least the drain tank pump must be switched on, and with that switched on you can go to maximum RPM and afterburner, at least for awhile. I've included a (very boring) track showing (I think) that the engine will stop above idle with either or both of the first or third fuel tank group pumps switched on but with the drain tank pump switched off. fuel pumps.trk

I just checked this out. Yes, it will start without switching the fuel pumps on, and I'm pretty sure before this version, a few times I couldn't start the plane until I figured out that I'd forgotten the pumps during the startup sequence. However, in the current version, once the plane is fully started without switching on the fuel pumps, if you advance the throttle it increases RPM a little and then the engine stops. So the pumps are not necessary for startup, but are for RPM above idle. I assume this is a bug/error, unless there's some system in the engine that provides enough fuel pressure to start but not maintain operating RPM...?

Nice chart, thanks! To get it in the kneeboard put it in: DCS World/Mods/aircraft/MiG-21BIS/Cockpit/KNEEBOARD/indicator/CONTENT

I've been wondering about this too. Possibly related, it does seem as if the pitot tubes can't fail. If I'm understanding the systems correctly (that's a big "if"), the ASP in the absence of radar is entirely dependent on gyroscope and pitot tube data to estimate slant range. If I disable the gyros, the range needle on the scales at the bottom of the gunsight stops working (along with a lot of other things). But if I set instant pitot tubes failure in a mission, it still continues to work. As does the IAS gauge and barometric altimeter. However, the mission debrief shows a pitot tubes failure. I did some mountain flying too and the barometric and radar altitudes were going in opposite directions as I ascended yet got closer to the surface, which seems correct. And then there was some weirdness that I couldn't repeat where the throttle pipper/radar rotator (which I have mapped to a hat switch on a CH throttle controller) would move the ASP range scale needle. Also I repeatedly confirmed that 6g is about the limit for FAB-100 MERs and UB-16 pods. :rolleyes:

Purchased. I knew I'd wind up buying it eventually but the trailer, the first look from Froogle, and all the pre-purchasers here made me pull the trigger. Looks fantastic.

Huh. I have never been so frustrated and baffled by a sim. But, on the other hand, I have never purchased an Eagle Dynamics product that didn't eventually wind up being well-worth the time sunk into it. So, anyhow, I've tried every gimmicky and not-so-gimmicky technique I've seen here, thought up myself, and various combinations thereof. Full flaps, tail-heavy trim, stand on the rudder, dance the brakes, MW-50 + full throttle the second I enter the cockpit, not locking the tailwheel, and so forth. But as it turns out the official method appears to work. I thought that's what I was doing originally, but maybe not. Stick back to lock the tailwheel, slowly advance the throttle to 2500-3000rpm, while using rudder to keep centered on the runway. At around 170km/h, center the stick, and it gets airborne. Maybe the gentle buildup of speed, gentle centering of the stick, and gentle control inputs as the aircraft takes off are the key. Also, it seems like right rudder only - center the rudder to correct left, but don't apply left rudder. And as you center the stick, you can kind of feel the plane's control surfaces (other than the rudder) getting some tentative authority, although at that moment it's still very departure-prone. More practice is required, but for the first time I'm seeing fairly consistent results.

It's possible or even likely that it's user error, but it does seem hard to believe that the aircraft was accepted for service if this takeoff behavior is realistic. Predictable, stable and responsive in all flight regimes except for a fleeting interval during the takeoff run where absolutely no margin for error exists. Of course, these people also accepted for service a rocket interceptor with hypergolic propellants armed with cannon whose muzzle velocity was barely twice the aircraft's maximum speed. :D For the record, I have auto-rudder and takeoff assist off, I use rudder pedals, I have confirmed that there are no axis conflicts, no funny curves or deadzones, I move all the controls before starting the takeoff run to clear out any positional memory from the previous attempt, and so forth. I have managed perhaps three successful takeoffs out of who knows how many attempts. I got this frustrated with the Huey and Mi-8 at times, but all the while I knew what I was doing wrong and had a path forward to improve. With the FW-190, no matter what, drift off to one side, the left wing drops, and boom. I get the best results with the tailwheel locked by full rear stick deflection and centering the stick at 60-100 km/h, correcting direction with brakes and rudder, but it still seems either random or requiring an impossibly precise control input that I happened to drift through at exactly the right second by sheer luck whenever I manage to get airborne. In any case, early days. It's a great module, I'm glad I bought it and both the software and user knowledge base will improve as time goes by.

So far so good, but is there any way to disable the rendering of the crew when in the cockpit?

Four views of the same event. It's not perfect, but it's more or less a loop, and I didn't break the helicopter (until my second attempt during the same flight). Sim mode, 25% fuel, all done from within the cockpit. I used the technique I hazily recalled from the Ka-50 - dive to maximum speed, climb while gradually maxing out the collective, drop collective to zero at the apex of the loop, try to keep centered on the exit. Nice Aeroflot skin by kolyakar, by the way.

Great work everyone, thanks! How about a Gazpromavia companion to the Rosneft-Aviashelf skin?

It's definitely important to pay attention to altitude and speed when releasing bombs. This is how I learned that severe tire damage is in fact modeled in DCS: Mi-8MTV2. :D

I was wondering about this, thanks for posting. Deleting the keyboard.lua worked for me. Actually, the setting of the "pod variant" rotary switch matters. Setting "II" is if you have six bombs loaded, there are other positions for a mixture of bombs and rockets, etc. I actually managed to land a FAB-500 close enough to a vehicle to destroy it.