cw4ogden

I started the thread with hopes it wouldn’t get implemented in the mi-24 module the way it is in the mi-8. and this thread is only half the argument, the other half was on the Russian language forums, and honestly, about 1/3rd of those guys were some flaming dicks. I gave the hell up rather than keep trying to revive the dead horse. I’ll provide an example of how painful it was: argue argue argue with Russian “expert” only to have same Russian expert ask me privately in P.M. what is ETL? We don’t have this concept in Russia. Lol Quite honestly, after picking apart their subject matter expert’s rudimentary understanding of VRS, I was somewhat surprised to not get a job offer . The error i found in my testing, yes it was a mistake, but it was honestly just an easy way to bow out of a three month long argument that ate hours everyday and added unneeded stress to my life. The problem is the Russian testers don’t see it as a bug. It’s no surprise seeing a perfectly good mi-8 succumb to VRS in some random real life video, it’s sad for sure. But when you see crash after crash with pilots not even attempting the corrective actions, you gotta wonder if their training program and lack of institutional knowledge of the topic is somehow to blame? The other reason I conceded the debate is: it’s damn close to being right. It’s not off by much. A slight tweak would nail it. But given my error, I couldn’t confidently continue to claim the subtle thing I was describing was a bug, or possibly an actual characteristic of the hip. And by the time I found my error, I just needed an excuse to bow out. It Would have been way less humiliating to vanish into the anonymity of the internet. Was very tempting to leave the thread dangling in hopes my pages and pages and pages of arguing wouldn’t be thrown out the window because of a flaw in my setup conditions. I got many P.M. from other pilots not wanting to join the debate; saying, “I agree with everything you’re saying, I fly XYZ helicopter doing logging in real life and no way you get into VRS under dcs mi-8 conditions.” bottom line: I don’t know if mi-8 is a VRS death trap, because I’ve never flown one. But all the anecdotal evidence points to it being over modeled. Someone still needs to find the smoking gun and show it to ED. I tried, and was rewarded with a virtual lynching for it.

It's unfortunately not well taught, nor even well understood in the community. Gonna send you a P.M.

@helipilot12 What you are describing is being below the VRS region, down in the windmill brake state. Often overlooked, one way to break out of VRS is by dumping collective (this is only an option with a lot of excess altitude to spare). Lowering collective to the point all the wind is coming upwards through the rotor will free the rotor from a vortex state. And for reasons stated below, you still need some lateral motion, or you will just re-enter VRS, when you pull power back in. If you try to come "up" through the VRS region, meaning if you try to arrest the descent, and wind up entering the VRS region from the bottom or the vertical speed axis, you will encounter VRS. On the diagram, coming in at a 60 degree approach angle (not unheard of for autos), you can see you will absolutely enter VRS as you try to arrest the descent. The same phenomenon is at play trying to do quick-stop landings. You dump the collective, enter the windmill brake state, all airflow is upwards through the rotor. But when you transition to landing, woe be unto the pilot who tries to pull up through the VRS region as a means of arresting descent. One caveat being for hovering autorotations, If you dump the collective (amount depends on hover height), the collective pull at the bottom is not likely to induce VRS. Full blown VRS is an equilibrium state, meaning it takes a moment to onset, even under the best conditions. So for hovering autorotations, you will likely arrest your descent without VRS becoming a factor. It's all happens too fast for VRS to develop.

He's not mixing issues. The sound going out in the F-86 is a two year plus known bug, if I recall correctly. I know it's been a problem as long as I've owned the module. He's stating it looks like the fix for sound position, (yay for the quick fix), unfortunately did not also fix the sound bug that has been around much longer.

One aspect of being on a collision course (i.e. a missile tracking you, versus one that has gone dumb) is that objects on collision courses appear to have no relative motion. This can be useful if you can see the smoke trail. Is it moving left right up or down, in your windscreen? A missile with any decent amount of relative motion with respect to you, should be a miss, because that relative motion means you're no longer on collision courses. It's also the phenomenon behind near misses, when pilot's often say "I never even saw him". Anything on a collision course should appear stationary in the windscreen. Any missile that you can spot it's movement, should be a miss.

I've had similar problems with the trim rendering the cyclic immobile. Very frustrating. For me, it appears to be caused by not centering the controls completely after hitting force trim. Still feels wrong from time to time, but a quick "letting go" of the controls when using force trim is what solved it for me. It's a workaround, for sure, but I don't notice the cyclic lockups anymore after adapting my trim technique.

I don't think it's a relative heading, but I can't find anything definitive on the web. Might have to test it out. Give what the original poster wrote, "a very strange flight path that often brings the bomb above the target (sometimes beyond it)" it sounds like his bomb is seeking a particular heading which led me to believe it's jdam terminal parameters getting him.

One recent update you can now input desired heading for the bomb to track to target. If you leave it unset, I believe it defaults to 000, so if you're attacking from north to south, bomb has to fly over and turn back around. Possible your bombs are maneuvering to get on course. You select heading by toggling bomb pushbutton on MFD, then two push buttons on the data input panel thing, then set the course via up front controller.

Pretty sure that's a tail rotor strike, but can't switch to external view to be sure. Definitely not retreating blade stall or VRS.

I've seen a few fellow multiplayer friends order those. I don't use a home cockpit. I convert my couch to a cockpit so seat shaker would be an unwelcome addition to the myriad of wired devices and usb hubs that linger at my feet when I'm not playing DCS. My son is getting a VR for his birthday, and I'm gonna "borrow" it to see if I like VR enough to make the move. I appreciate the suggestion though. But what I was trying to point out was a subtle, nuance of the flight model, that ultimately was attributable to faulty test setup. I've long since had difficulty avoiding VRS in the sim. I only questioned the phenomenon's susceptibility range. I don't know if I buy into the haptic feedback argument, which may not be what you are asserting, but I am trying VR soon, so maybe I'll feel differently after. The reason I don't buy into it is take for example the FOV limitations of the simulator. Sure a TV screen is a limited field of view, but so do NVGs. The complete lack of peripheral vision and more specifically the lack of motion parallax cues coming from your periphery translate into a layperson, and trained individuals from being able to spot large speed deviations. Said another way: with lack of peripheral vision, it is really hard to detect speed cues, and also to detect drift at a hover. But with time, the limitations are overcome by a combination of muscle memory and techniques. Much like driving a car, or flying a plane or riding a bicycle, flying with a limited field of view of 40 degrees takes a level of practice that is somewhat dependent on training the subconscious. The analogy here being head tracking most people use. *It is also one of three very perishable skills, the other two being IFR flight and Navigation. Most pilots can take years off and hop back in and go day VFR flight essentially. That aspect is very much analogous to "riding a bike" you really don't forget. Not the case for NVGs, and pretty strict currency requirements exist, because recently really makes a difference. But if that's the main or only mode of flight you fly, eventually, you get to that riding the bike phase, and your perception / situation awareness returns to near day flight levels. Anyhow back to the haptic feedback argument. Once you overcome the initial adjustment, your sense of the aircraft approximates your sense during day flight. The example I'll use, and my only mea culpa with respect to this entire thread is: I asserted early on the flight model felt like it was operating at around 6,000 feet. Unbeknownst to me, I actually was. So my point is, with only a similar style aircraft background, flying from my couch, out of the real world flying game for a decade and with virtually no haptic feedback features, I was able to approximate where the aircraft "felt" like it was flying. I found the "bug" finally, and was pretty spot with respect to the cause, even if it was my own fault. Maybe that's a case of the the sun shines on the dog's butt once in a while, but I'll take it as an affirmation my senses were right, if ultimately, my conclusion was wrong based on my unknown erroneous initial conditions. And, I can't think of a better testimony to the flight model honestly, to have it unknowingly feel like it's acting at a certain altitude, only to discover that it actually was.

Sorry no translation posted. If anyone can translate feel free otherwise I will provide one when able. I think I must have fallen for the VRS hype. I read about it, and said nothing for a long time because mi-8 is not my bird. But then, I have a friend who is mi-8 pilot and it bugs me, so I ask him. This gives me enough confidence to wade into the discussion. But I shoot myself in the foot because I don’t know mission editing or video hosting or even how to do a track file. These things I’ve learned now. But my point is this, it would be very easy to say oh my, every is going to know I’m an idiot. I should just throw around more smoke and hope no one figures it out. It remains a mystery, but I save face. I think this is anyone’s first instinct. I would not try to smoke an mirrors my own mistake to save face. Although it is tempting to disappear into the internet and everyone wonder what is what. I want the sim to be better, and maybe this discussion can put to death the VRS debate.

Если вы не видели. Я нашел то, что, по моему мнению, является источником моей жалобы, и это моя первоначальная установка для тестирования. Я выбрал аэродром на карте Невады, предполагая, что он будет небольшой. Долина Смерти на самом деле находится ниже уровня моря, поэтому, честно говоря, подойдет любой аэродром на этой карте. Совершить очень небрежную ошибку, не перепроверив начальные условия. Но путаницу усугубляет то, что в Ми-8 используется высотомер, настроенный на высоту поля, что означает, что я видел ноль в кабине и предполагал, что я действительно выбрал подходящую площадку для испытаний. Посмотрев свои треки, я наконец понял проблему. С самого начала я утверждал, что проблема ощущалась так, как будто самолет летел на большой высоте. Я предполагал, что моя высота была на уровне моря, и даже заметил, что это похоже на птицу, летящую на высоте около 6000 футов. Итак, обнаружив, что на самом деле я тестировал около 5500, я не могу жаловаться, что птица, работающая на уровне моря, чувствует себя как 6000 футов, хотя на самом деле я был фактически на 6000. Другими словами, я не могу и не сказал бы, что что-то является ошибкой, если бы я описал это как подходящее для 6000 футов, когда выясняется, что моя ошибка заключалась в том, что я полагал, что я установил стандартные дневные условия и уровень моря, а вместо этого был работая на высоте, я сказал, что похоже. Я действительно чувствую себя глупо из-за последовавшей за этим обширной дискуссии, но я чувствую себя лучше, зная, что нашел источник своей жалобы, даже если это была моя собственная вина, и меня немного утешает то, что моя оценка того, как должен себя чувствовать МИ-8, 6000 футов, видимо, чертовски близко. Так что я чувствую себя несколько менее глупым, зная, что, по крайней мере, мое восприятие было правильным, самолет чувствовал себя как 6000 футов, потому что он находился на высоте 6000 футов. Но мое усердие в научном методе с треском провалилось. Надо было раньше перепроверить начальные условия. Я действовал на основе ложного предположения, что я создал сценарий на уровне моря или около него с момента самой первой публикации. If you didn't see. I found what I believe is the source of my complaint, and it is my initial setup for testing. I selected an airfield on Nevada map assuming it would be low elevation. Death valley is actually below sea level, so I honestly though any airfield on that map would be good. It's a very careless mistake to make, not double checking the initial conditions. But adding to the confusion is the Mi-8 uses altimeter set to field elevation, meaning I was seeing zero in the cockpit and assuming I had indeed selected an appropriate testing area. Upon watching my tracks, I finally caught the problem. From the beginning I asserted the problem felt like aircraft was operating a high Density altitude. I had assumed my altitude was sea level and even remarked this feels like a bird operating about 6000 feet. So in discovering I was actually testing around 5500, I can't complain that bird operating at sea level feels like 6000 feet, when indeed I was essentially at 6000. In other words, I can not, nor would not say something is a bug, if I described it as feeling appropriate for 6000 feet, when it turns out my error was believing I had set standard day conditions and sea level, but was instead actually operating at the altitude I said it felt like. I do feel silly for the huge discussion that followed, but I feel better knowing I found the source of my complaint, even if it was my own fault, and I take some comfort that my estimation of what an MI-8 should feel like at 6000 feet is apparently pretty damn close. So, I feel somewhat less silly knowing at least my perception was correct, the aircraft felt like 6000 feet because it was at 6000 feet. But my diligence to scientific method failed miserably. I should have recheck initial conditions sooner. I have been operating on a false assumption that I had created the scenario at or near sea level since the very first posting.

It’s hard to complain that the flight model feels like 6000 feet when your test conditions are actually at 6000 feet everyone has my sincere apologies for all the drama.

I could not find an explanation for the results I was seeing. But I was operating under the false assumption I’d setup the test properly. Knowing the conditions were not sea level, I’d say that accounts for what I was seeing. I flew several iterations at sea level, after discovering my error. Had I set the test up properly, I’m not sure I’d have opened this thread, so that’s on me. it seems to be working as it should and yes, I’d say the density altitude mistake could be enough to account for my most likely invalid findings. I am willing to test more, but I believe I found the error to be in my testing methods, not the flight model.

@randomTOTEN I'm not sure if you saw this. I incorrectly used an airfield at 5500 feet elevation for the testing, thinking I had chosen one near sea level. I finally noticed it making the videos. I even stated once or twice it felt like an aircraft operating at 6000. Turns out I was.

Yes, this is the result. But I did so unintentionally. And I tried to always leave room for an error on my part, by stating there could be an alternate explanation. This may be poor translation, but I never intended to be right or wrong. I intended to present data. In the course of the discussion many points were brought up that were erroneous explanations. This lead me to have more confidence in my results, as it seemed there was, and remains a lot of genuine misunderstanding of VRS. But this fault is clearly on me. For the wild goose chase I apologize. I hope only that in proving myself wrong, education on the topic was served. Да, вот результат. Но я сделал это ненамеренно. И я старался всегда оставлять место для ошибки с моей стороны, заявляя, что может быть альтернативное объяснение. Это может быть плохой перевод, но я никогда не собирался быть правым или неправильным. Я намеревался представить данные. В ходе дискуссии было поднято много моментов, которые были ошибочными объяснениями. Это привело меня к большей уверенности в своих результатах, поскольку казалось, что они были, и остается серьезным непониманием VRS. Но эта вина явно на мне. Прошу прощения за погоню за дикими гусями. Я надеюсь только, что, доказывая свою неправоту, теперь для всех этот феномен стал понятнее. Это лучший способ взглянуть на мою ошибку.

I have found the error, and it appears, it is indeed my fault, and related to my test setup conditions. I intended the test to be done at or near sea level. I was fooled by the cockpit altimeter reading zero in the mi-8, zero set to airfield elevation. These tracks are taken at approximately 6000 feet MSL which would almost certainly explain the deviations from the chart.

Я намеревался найти область VRS, а не продемонстрировать, что при полете каким-то определенным образом все будет хорошо. Да, это плохой полет, но вопрос в том, соответствует ли он условиям полета? Что меня беспокоит, так это то, что к вашему профилю прикреплен бета-тестер, что указывает на то, что кто-то позволяет вам проводить тестирование на летной модели, и это немного пугает, учитывая вашу грубость и полное нежелание что-либо тестировать. При этом я уверен, что вы обрадуетесь, услышав следующее: Я обнаружил ошибку, и похоже, что это действительно моя ошибка и связана с условиями моей тестовой установки. Я намеревался провести тест на уровне моря или около него. Меня одурачило то, что высотомер в кабине вертолета Ми-8 показывал ноль, ноль установлен на высоте аэродрома. Эти треки взяты примерно на высоте 6000 футов над уровнем моря, что почти наверняка объясняет отклонение от карты. Бета-тестировщик спуска должен был найти мою ошибку, как и я. Вы не удосужились ничего проверить. Я повторно провел тест на аэродроме на уровне моря и могу сказать, что моделирование проходит нормально, ошибка была на мне при тестировании на большой высоте, не зная, что это такое. Я действительно был неправ. Мои извинения тем, кто внес свой вклад в публикацию. I intended to find the region of VRS, not demonstrate that flying any particular way keeps everything fine. Yes it is poor flying, but the question is / was does it conform to the flight envelope? What bothers me is that beta-tester is attached to your profile, indicating someone lets you do testing on the flight model, and that is a bit scary, given your rude discourse, and complete un-willingness to test anything. That being said, I am sure you will rejoice to hear the following: I have found the error, and it appears, it is indeed my fault, and related to my test setup conditions. I intended the test to be done at or near sea level. I was fooled by the cockpit altimeter reading zero in mi-8, zero set to airfield elevation. These tracks are taken at approximately 6000 feet MSL which would almost certainly explain the deviation from the chart. A descent beta tester should have found my error, as I eventually did. You didn't bother to test anything. I have re-run the test at a sea level airfield and can say the modeling feels fine, the error was on me for testing at high altitude unknowingly. I was indeed incorrect. You have whatever apologies are due someone who's sole contribution was trolling my posts. Enjoy your victory.

The marked spot on the graph is close to 55 km / h as the lines are graduated in 20 km / h increments. The DISS unfortunately loses signal, so it is off for portions of the videos. It's tough to say where VRS actually starts, but I think you can see in the videos I'm near 60 km / h and about 3 to 4 m/s (on VSI so some lag) when it starts to form, and remain in the 40+ km/h range fully developed. Additionally, I would expect the transition to a vortex ring state to be accompanied by a loss of nearly all forward speed, and transition to near 90 degree approach angle, i.e. straight down. VRS susceptibility is a low speed phenomenon, but once you get fully into it, it's a NO SPEED phenomenon. My assertion is That DCS models VRS something like the annotated diagram posted below, with the curve encompassing airspeeds well beyond 40 km/h and approach angles shallower than would be expected according to the original diagram: In the last video, VRS 2, you can see the beginnings of VRS near 70 km/h. Nearly twice the maximum speed as indicated by the Mi-8 VRS diagram.

Отмеченная точка на графике находится ближе к 55 км / ч, поскольку линии градуированы с шагом 20 км / ч. Мне нужно научиться размещать видео на YouTube. К сожалению, DISS теряет сигнал, поэтому он отключен для части видео. Трудно сказать, где на самом деле начинается VRS, но я думаю, что вы можете видеть в видео, что я около 60 км / ч и примерно от 3 до 4 м / с (по VSI, поэтому некоторое отставание), когда он начинает формироваться и остается в диапазон 40+ км / ч полностью развит. Кроме того, я ожидал бы, что переход в состояние вихревого кольца будет сопровождаться потерей почти всей поступательной скорости и переходом к углу приближения почти 90 градусов, то есть прямо вниз. Восприимчивость к VRS - это явление на низкой скорости, но как только вы полностью погрузитесь в него, это явление БЕЗ СКОРОСТИ. Я утверждаю, что DCS моделирует VRS что-то вроде аннотированной диаграммы, размещенной ниже, с кривой, охватывающей воздушные скорости, значительно превышающие 40 км / ч, и углы захода на посадку меньше, чем можно было бы ожидать согласно исходной диаграмме: The marked spot on the graph is closer to 55 km / h as the lines are graduated in 20 km / h increments. I need to learn how to post videos to youtube. The DISS unfortunately loses signal, so it is off for portions of the videos. It's tough to say where VRS actually starts, but I think you can see in the videos I'm near 60 km / h and about 3 to 4 m/s (on VSI so some lag) when it starts to form, and remain in the 40+ km/h range fully developed. Additionally, I would expect the transition to a vortex ring state to be accompanied by a loss of nearly all forward speed, and transition to near 90 degree approach angle, i.e. straight down. VRS susceptibility is a low speed phenomenon, but once you get fully into it, it's a NO SPEED phenomenon. My assertion is That DCS models VRS something like the annotated diagram posted below, with the curve encompassing airspeeds well beyond 40 km/h and approach angles shallower than would be expected according to the original diagram: alternate track file: In this one VRS begins near 70 km/h

@Wadim If you want to participate, refute the data collected. Why does it appear we get VRS at red X? It should be impossible. Если хотите участвовать, опровергните собранные данные. Почему кажется, что мы получаем VRS на красном крестике? Это должно быть невозможно. 2.trk

I asked forgiveness because I was shown to be in error. I retracted and asked for this, because I was shown to be wrong. This is ok, to be wrong on occasion. being wrong on one video does not sink the case I’ve made though.

«Я просто лучший пилот в своей стране в прошлом, а теперь я один из лучших инструкторов на симуляторах. Если вы думаете, что английские аббревиатуры должны знать все, то глубоко ошибаетесь. " Вы, сэр, по общему мнению, лучший пилот в своей стране! Простите меня за то, что я не признаю вашего величия, замаскированного глупостью ваших слов. И простите меня за то, что ожидал, что вы будете говорить или быть знакомы с официальным языком авиации. Чего-то я ожидал бы от лучшего пилота, когда-либо летавшего в вашей стране за все время. Пилот-супергерой! Или ожидать, что вы можете ознакомиться с терминами, используемыми в дискуссии, прежде чем разрешить ее. Глупо ожидать, что вы ознакомитесь с темой, по которой у вас есть мнение. "I am simply the best pilot in my country, in the past, and now I am one of the best simulator instructors. If you think that everyone should know English abbreviations, then you are deeply mistaken. " You, sir, are by all accounts the best pilot in your country! Forgive me for not recognizing your greatness masked by the stupidity of your words. And forgive me for expecting you to speak or be familiar with the official language of aviation. Something I would expect from best pilot ever in history of flying in your country for all time. Superhero pilot! Or to expect you might familiarize yourself with the terms being used in a discussion before enjoining it. Silly me, to expect you to familiarize yourself with a topic you have an opinion on.

@ Wadim That's not you ??? If you participate in the discussion ten times before the secret evening. ask me: "What is ETL?" I don't consider you a subject matter expert, anyway. "What is ETL?" hell! And that doesn't mean I haven't included my own ETL DEFINITION yet. So it is clear that you are not reading the messages. You just came to troll. Do you still want to throw darts at me? Это общая сумма вашего вклада в эту тему, чтобы зажечь меня, а затем спросить в PM. какова самая основная концепция полета на вертолете. У вас нет Google, сэр? Нет поисковой системы в Интернете? Is this not you ??? If you chime in ten times on discussion before you secretly PM me to ask, "What is ETL?" I don't consider you a subject matter expert, not by a long shot. "What is ETL?" holy hell! And it's not like I hadn't already included the actual DEFINITION OF ETL. So it's clear you don't read the posts. You just come to troll. Any other darts you want to throw at me? This is the combined total of your contribution to this topic, to flame me then ask in P.M. what is very basic concept of helicopter flight. Have you no google, sir? No internet search engine?

Yes, you can expect there will be much that you don't understand in life with your comprehension level. Go away now fanboy. Or make an actual point. Many points made over and over you do not take the time to understand, and I think you still can not wrap your head around. Belsimtek, or ED, please send someone better than this guy as your representative.