cw4ogden

I'll go out on a limb here and say it's not lack of practice and you missed the point. I can fly it fine. It's just absolutely unrealistic. I'm glad you are a hip fan, but it's still a fugazi. It's not an approximation of real life. It's broken. Because we can work around the broken doesn't make it unbroken.

The 300 feet per minute can be disregarded. I understand the unit's and that the instrument has lag. You don't need to look at your VSI honestly in real life, as a primary instrument, nor should you in DCS for the environmental conditions i.e. density altitude and G.W. settings we mostly fly at. VRS modelling in the Mi-8 happens too soon, and onset to fully developed state is way too quick and far too hard to recover from. It's absolutely unrealistic to need to pay so much attention to VRS in a normal flight profile, frankly that ought to be enough to relook it. Near vertical descents yes, you're gonna throw the VSI in to your scan, but VRS in the hip doesn't seem to need much in the way of "vertical descent" I'd add the VSI to my scan in any near vertical descent if the situation requires a vertical descent, but VRS in the mi-8 will kill you on a VMC approach (term for standard 3 degree approach under VMC conditions) and that's just unrealistic. VRS is not something one normally gives two shits about. VRS is very much something that will kill you, just not in the way DCS models it for the hip. You need some severe aggravating conditions, or severe pilot inattention to flight profile for VRS to be a killer. At sea level with 60 to 70% fuel load, a full load even, VRS should kill you once in every hundred thousand hours and even then, it should clearly be your fault.

I'll add then that I'd half expected him to say: "It's no joke in the Mi-8, you gotta watch your rate of descent." But he made no such indication. And had that been the case I'd be singing a different tune, altogether. And let me say as a former real life pilot, I don't like to come on here and claim omnipotent knowledge of anything. It's hard to not sound like a washed up has been, but when it comes to SMEs and what the community has to offer, I hope we don't sound like douche-bags. But for VRS in cargo helicopters, I'm putting forward: I am an SME. And where I found my experience lacking I sought out and actual SME who's messaged from after a flight. I'm not seeking anything but to re-open a can of worms. But I hope I'm attempting to stick to a scientific methodology. I'll reiterate, had he said VRS = bad news in the Mi8. End of debate. As it stands, I will say definitively: VRS is absolutely unrealistic as currently implemented. And the historical evidence proves it as well. There is not a laundry list of dead Mi-8 crews resulting from the slightest inattention to near vertical descent flight profiles. I have read some of the many post on it, so I know it's not a new debate. But in my opinion, it's broken enough I'll be that dork who comes here and claims to be the expert

Thanks. Haven't seen that video. I know it's an ongoing issue among DCS players. I'm hoping eventually someone will concede VRS in the mi-8 is wrongly implemented.

I wasn't intending to get wrapped up in 300 feet per minute. The main point was I have no reference for the hip because I didn't fly it, to be able to speak with experience. But my source and I served together on CH-47s. He has thousands of hours in both airframes. And his assertion that they behave similarly was my main point. It is a lot harder to encounter VRS in a CH-47; a lot harder. And by association and his assertion, being they are similar in regards to being prone to it, I'm hoping we'll get some momentum going to relook VRS. I've known or suspected VRS is broken in the hip based on my time in CH-47s but was hesitant to speak because I have no first hand experience actually in the Mi-8. This is my attempt to appeal the ruling of the SMEs who seem to think it's modeled well.

Hey Ed, I’ve got an Mi-8 question hoping you’d be up for fielding. No rush, but you’re the perfect guy to settle a debate. So the question is regarding the Hip and vortex ring state in a game / sim I play. I finally got the bug to fly again, if you will, a few years back and play one called DCS. Anyhow, it's a great module (mi-8), but it's so prone to VRS I suspect it's unrealistic. My question is essentially, is the hip more or less similar to say a 47, or is a more pronounced phenomenon in the hip and much easier to get into? In the sim anything above exceeding 300 feet per minute near vertical descent, regardless or G.W. or density altitude and you are likely to crash. My supposition is they just used the 300 feet per minute number, that's actually more a rule of thumb for pilots. So in a nutshell, is VRS more problematic than the 47, and if so, are we talking night and day or slightly more susceptible? I’m assuming you’re looking for the differences/similarities/correlations of vortex ring state as it applies to settling with power in a vertical or near vertical descent for landing (or for any other reason we may find ourselves in that position for anything other than fwd flight with airspeed. Given that assumption, then I would say that the Mi is more comparable to the 47—you can definitely get into it but not as easily as a smaller airframe/smaller power capacity. A more accurate statement would probably be that the Mi IS more susceptible to all things in the aerodynamically scary closet—vortex ring state, dissymmetry of lift, settling with power etc—than a 47 simply because the Mi is a tail rotor aircraft (huge tail rotor, but a tail rotor nonetheless), but only by a matter of degrees. Not sure why your sim behaves in that manner other than your observation that the coding has to pick a specific number “trigger”, 300fpm, or a specific flight profile, 300fpm and vertical descent—once reached it may simply execute the predetermined coding result. One other obvious note is the Mi rotors turn clockwise as opposed to our US counterclockwise blades. All relevant aerodynamics still apply, but some with diametrically opposite results , i.e. dissymmetry of lift for the Mi = pitch up and roll left as opposed to US tail rotor aircraft.

There is a thread in Bugs section you might want to bounce your list off of to see if all you listed are included or not.

Tried both the A-10 and the F-18 and neither were to my taste. The harries fits a unique role: decent weapon loadout, but very rapid turn-around. The module is complete minus the fine polish (key bindings still missing) and the promised in the future items. On a regular multiplayer server, enemy air makes the harrier a bit tricky, but if you play on a dedicated air to ground with no real red air, it really shines as a ordinance over time platform. It is all I fly lately for about two months now. It is also quirky and frustrating to learn, but most problems I ran into were user error.

I could be mistaken, I'll test it again. Edit: Yes, you are correct. Not sure what I saw the other day.

Can not rule out user error, but I have seen this as well. What should be a perfect setup, 3-5 nm pipper on the target, lasing target actively. But the shot just misses by a wide mark. Like it's unguided. One thing I learned just recently is either have an actual point track or use area track. Having point track selected and not achieving a point track, the laser seems to not fire.

I'm asking if the range of frequencies is correct, as modeled, or if it should drop another MHZ and be inclusive of 30.000, or whatever the bottom of the range is. The mission piece was just pointing out it's a very common FM frequency and currently un-tunable. No beef if it is technically correct. Sorry no track file, I understand the purpose but this was, I believed, fairly simple to test.

I'll admit I have no knowledge of DMT and I rarely if ever have used iron bombs. Those things could well be broken and I'd just not know it. What's wrong with the FLIR? I hadn't noticed anything and I use it day or night.

I did read the TGP North arrow is slated to be fixed next patch. And I read the back and forth; seems it is more difficult to get a bug addressed or even acknowledged than it should be. My comparison was indented to be along the lines of most modules have some issues, and to me the Av8b doesn't seem to be the shit-show to me, the forums would have you believe. I can't speak to it's full fidelity accuracy, or if modelling of systems is accurate, but I can say the module, to me isn't inhibited in it's ground attack role bug by rampant bugs. There are annoyances and polish problems for sure. But it can be employed quite effectively as an attack asset, as it is. There is very little, if anything still, that is "game-breaking". I'm not advocating it is complete, just that it is no where near as bad as some of the pile on crowd would have you believe it is.

Don't know the max range but I just got successful tracking kills from 5.0 nautical miles, assuming that is the unit of measure on the hud distance to target readout.

This may be correctly implemented, but when tuning FM range, programable frequencies start at 31.00 mhz. My question is should the radio be able to tune 30.0mhz and up instead of starting at 31? If it is accurate, it is what it is, but right now many FM mission frequencies are 30.00mhz by default and therefore unusable in Av8b. To summarize, should it be possible to tune 30.00mhz in the harrier? Thanks,

Most of what you describe is cosmetic stuff or quality of life issues. The harrier is very effective in air to ground role. I find the module to be fairly complete by DCS standards. Most of its bugs are actually features meaning what I'm convinced must be a bug turns out usually to be something about the aircraft I just didn't know. I am trying out the A-10 during the free to play with its vast weapon load, but the Av8b is no slouch in comparison, especially given how much quicker you can get to and return from the battlefield. All that said it took a long time to get comfortable employing it as a strike aircraft. The systems are nuanced and at first it seems like pure voodoo the combination of switches and button pushes only to get no Maverick launch or a bomb miss, but as well these always turned out to be my misunderstanding or incomplete understanding of the system, not the module itself. A datalink would be a nice addition, but the module feels very polished to me.

APKWS code is only able to be set with engines off via the kneeboard. Not sure if there is a workaround, but seems you can only use JTAC lase if you contact them prior to crank so you know the code?

AFC on versus off are two different flying styles for me. I use AFC nearly all the time, except when doing excessive maneuvering. The trim button works like a trimmer when the AFC is off, but with it on, it is more a direction button. You can hold down the left trim for example and roll into a left bank, the roll movement stops when the button stops, same for pitch. Dropping bombs I used to always chase the roll attitude but if the AFC is engaged, it will level itself given a few seconds. For me once I stopped fighting the AFC, and embraced flying via trim button, the harrier feels like a modern jet. You can do stick movements as well I believe, if you don't like trim button flying but at some point stick deflection seems to turn AFC off. Sometimes it takes several attempts for me to get the AFC to reengage after a big maneuver, but it beats trying to hand trim this beast, which as you point out is even more difficult with asymmetric loading.

Force Vsync through Nvdia control panel not DCS. There are a ton of threads on optimization but one titbit floating around is to delete Users\username\saved games\DCS (or DCS.openbeta)\fxo and metashaders. Purging those folders periodically. Terrain textures low seems to help me on syria and nevada maps which both lag more for me than caucases / PG. ALT - Enter once you are playing adds a few frames for me. Going to 32 gigs didn't make much difference but HD transfer speed was huge when I went to an M2 SSD on the installed directly on the motherboard. Load times dropped from minutes to seconds. Also made periodic stutters virtually disappear. I'd recommend perusing reddit or here because there are some really obscure windows'y tips floating around as well. Best of Luck!

Verify the autopilot route mode and the hover mode are not turned on. I've seen the issue you describe and for me it was caused by failing to turn off hover mode I believe.

Carburetor icing possibly?

Could be the throttle wasn't at idle. Had it again just tonight, this time first aircraft start, not a restart. But I do have the throttle mapped to a slider and I sometimes forget to check it's all the way back. Have to see if I can reproduce it, but of what you listed the throttle is the only variable. Maybe try a ground crew repair as well if I can reproduce, to see if it is a bug or a feature.

A few of the mod community aircraft require FC3 to install, namely the F-22 you mentioned. The biggest bang for the buck is the F-18 IMO, even though I don't fly it much. With that one module, you get access to damn near every aspect of DCS. A/G A/A and carrier OPS. But it isn't the king of any role. There are better modules if you prefer a certain role. A/G I love the Av8b, personally. The new A-10 arguably even better. A/A I prefer the F-14. My top three in terms of play time would be the av8b, the Ka-50 and the F-14, but if I was limited to just one module, it would be the F-18. Best of luck!

The only issue with the F-86 module is sometimes the sound cuts out. I haven't flown it in a while, but it still happened last time I flew it.

Much obliged. I was trying 30.0 which was autogenerated by the instant mission. I must have just assumed the radios only spanned VHF / UHF when 30 wouldn't populate.