Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'w.i.p'.
-
There seems to be inconsistencies with fuel flow which worsen as altitude and speed increases. As speed increases fuel flow starts high, dips, peaks, then declines again. There is also a disparity with the amount of lbs/nm of fuel being used in FPAS vs lbs/hr that is shown on the IFEI. The actual fuel usage appears to align with the lb/nm displayed in FPAS. This data was taken on the Syria map, 29.92 barometer, 20 degrees C, clean jet with no pylons, and 50% fuel load. Infinite fuel was used to negate any airspeed changes due to decreasing weight of the aircraft. The final mach number in each chart is the maximum speed attainable at that flight level. Y axis is lbs of fuel, X is speed in mach. IFEI lbs/hr usage is 100x times the value on the chart so an IFEI value of 142 on the chart = 14,200 lbs/hr and for FPAS a vaule of 42 = 42 lbs/nm. In most tests throttles were advanced at .4 mach and I started collected data at .5 to allow for engine spool time. The 40,000 test data starts at where the throttles were put into AB, this is due to the aircraft struggling to maintain attitude control below that airspeed at that altitude. Acceleration in full MIL at 40,000 feet was not recorded due to the aircraft needing nearly full MIL just to maintain altitude. Unfortunately, I am unable to go back to the prior version and run these tests in that environment. There are no tracks because each test was 100% just the jet flying in a straight line with me pausing every additional .02 mach to record data. I can't say I'm particularly knowledgeable of all the exact variables that go into calculating fuel flow vs speed and altitude, but something certainly seems off and there are usage shenanigans happening after the FM update. It doesn't seem logical that the lbs/nm burned should start to decline as if air resistance is falling off as the aircraft approaches the maximum speed for a given altitude, all while the IFEI fuel value keeps climbing. The transition point from where lbs/nm usage is increasing to it all of a sudden leveling and tapering down seems very suspect to me as well. FWIW, playing on Gray Flag prior to the update I would typically take off from an airbase and do CAP in an orbit up at 48,000-49,000 feet around mach 1 +/- .1 and with a loadout consisting of 3 tanks, 6x120C, and 2x9X. I would have a loiter time of 45 minutes to an hour before coming down to tank. I can't go back and check prior to the FM patch now, but I seem to recall up around those altitudes fuel consumption was something around 7 or 8 lb/nm in full AB. Now a similar loadout barely has the ability to maintain an orbit up around 43,000, is not able to reach mach 1, and fuel consumption is in the 40ish lb/nm range.
-
Currently in DCS the F-16 has 700 steerpoints, as far as I know the F-16 could either have 127 or 999 steerpoints. 127 with an INS + GPS solution (which we have in DCS) or 999 with an EGI solution. The allocation for steerpoints is also wrong, you should be able to select threats as steerpoint (similarly to how you can set most things as a ACQ point in the Apache), because that's what the steerpoints are for. I have attached a track and can PM evidence of the correct steerpoint allocation if required. stpt allocation bug.trk
-
So, for the last few versions I have started to get an issue with the Power Levers when in the CPG cockpit: I have "Power: Both" bound to an analogue axis for AH-64D CP/G There is no other axis bound to that function for AH-64D CP/G There are no DirectX button binds for any of the Power Lever actions There are no axis binds or DirectX button binds for any of the Power Lever actions for AH-64D Pilot. The axis input shows as smooth and non-jittery under Tune Combo Axis, so I don't think there is any real noise. When the Power Lever axis is at 100%, the lever is stable and in the "Fly" position. If I position the Power Lever axis anywhere between 100% and 0%, the lever position in the cockpit jitters by maybe 10-20%, and always towards the FLY position from where I have the lever actually set. If I pull the Power Lever axis back to 0%, the Power Lever position jumps immediately up to the FLY position and stays there. It is acting as if some other binding is trying to push the lever to 100%, but as I said, there does not appear to be any other binding for that axis. Furthermore, if I remove the CPG binding, then go to the pilot position and re-bind the same axis in the same way for the pilot's Power Levers, they work fine and smoothly - the problem seems to be unique to the CPG position. I wonder if George-as-pilot might be trying to push the levers up to 100% when they shouldn't be allowed to? If while CPG I hand control over to George-as-pilot, he certainly does push the power levers back up to FLY immediately (but then I'd expect him to do that) My CPG axis bindings, just for reference...
-
Hi, DCS 2.9.0.47168 Open Beta -- mentions only one known issue: Added New pilot model from first person (Work in progress). Known issues: The salute command doesn't work when using option Afterburner detent. However, another one is the kneeboard that seems to skip on displaying pages from the or the information brought by the past update (DCS 2.7.14.23966 Open Beta): Added Additional carrier data to the kneeboard - ATC frequency, TACAN and ILCS channel.
-
Hi, first of all the new pilot model looks really great. So far I've already found some bugs: 1. When looking back, you "zoom out" of the head and the helmet obscures the view. This is actually severe, because as of now, you cannot look back in the Hornet it seems like (2D, don't have VR). 2. The (oxygen?) hose disappears when looking more forward 3. The cord runs through the belt
-
Hey there ! I noticed that the FARM report does not seem to work with the AI wingmen. When I request one it says that it is not acknowledged. But if I ask a PP, it works. Is this a bug or is there datalink limitations with AI wingmen at the moment ? If so, what can they do or not do at the moment ? Thx ! Fly safe
-
In many cases it's so difficult to boresight the Maverick, because of the font color on the display. Check how is the font color compared to the sky in the background. Impossible to see anything. Can the font color be changed to something different? null
-
w.i.p Apache (George Pilot) ability to steady hover is very poor
mdee posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
Hi, I have quite severe issues with George AI when hovering, the hover is unstable and makes operating from the front seat very difficult, sometimes impossible. The heli oscilates from left to right, 10-20 degrees each side. I have tried all George modes, doesn't make any difference. I have tried with an empty heli. I am using latest beta, I have triple checked my controls, no trim, no wind. I can hold a stable hover from pilot seat. Any ideas? -
Haven't try other modules, bnullut in the A10Cv2, the TGP is visible without NVG in IR and BTH mode. See attached screen.
-
I'm an Oculus Quest user, my spotting before wasn't the best, but I could see like most of us - an average mkI eyeball user. With the new spotting update, I can see way more, and by that, I mean everything, every dot is huge. Honestly, this is War Thunder level of mega dots you can see across the map. I can see everything and everywhere in the range of what I can estimate 50km. I know I can revert back to the old way. The problem with this is now I am going to be at a disadvantage compared to people who use the new spotting. Also, DLSS which I actually need makes them even bigger. I honestly think you guys have overdone it. Please consider reworking it. Kisses and hugs
-
Spotting dots are very large in VR. With my Valve Index, at certain ranges, both the dot and model are rendered. In this situation, the dot can obscure the aircraft, such that I can't see the aircraft model and its heading and attitude. I'd like to see some kind of slider to reduce the dot size. Dots disappear seemingly at random based upon where I'm looking and whether I'm using no zoom, VR zoom, or VR spyglass zoom. Aircraft at ~2nm (3.5km) only have the model rendered, no dot. With no zoom, aircraft can be extremely difficult to see at this range*. The abrupt change from a huge dot to a tiny model (or vice versa) is extremely jarring. Maybe add a slider to adjust the minimum dot range? *I'm a pilot IRL and I can easily spot tiny aircraft like the C172 at 2nm
- 123 replies
-
- 11
-
-
-
- investigating
- spotting
- (and 1 more)
-
After the last updates, the Spanish pilots have disappeared. The ejected pilot and the pilot outside the Hornet have lost their insignia. This is what it looked like before the update:
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
According to the manual, selecting SP on the TGP should command the TGP's LOS at half the distance of current FCR range. This is currently not the case. Instead the TGP's LOS is commanded to the current steerpoint, into the sky if these points have altitude. In the attached track I select SP on a SOI'ed TGP while flying towards a steerpoint set to 6500 ft altitude at 12 oclock. It's commanded into the sky instead of the ground. After TMS up I have to slew the TGP down towards the ground. Switching to a second steerpoint roughly colocated with the 1st, yet on 40000 ft makes the SP command the LOS even higher into the sky. The FCR range is 40 in both cases, yet the LOS is clearly commanded to the steerpoint instead of half the FCR-range. TGP SP elev.trk
-
Hi, I started with AH64. Now the problem i get when i switch to gunner (after get in sort of hoover) is that the helo drops down. Sometimes slowly sometimes erratic and unsavable. Then its game over again before i even got 1 shot. Most of time it is higher elevation (10K feet in mountains e.g.) so might be too hard for G to hold it? Is there a way to not crash with G on the rudder? Or is he always jealous? AI these days Regards
-
w.i.p Delayed fuse no longer available on JDAM penetrators
Viper1031 posted a topic in Bugs and Problems
Not sure if this has been mentioned or if it's actually correct, but I cannot set the fuse delay for the GBU-38 penetrators now.. -
I´d like to get some advise: I tested the VRS mode several times but failed to gain an advantage with it over RWS. I basically tested 4 scenarios 1st Mig-29 M0.8 2nd Mig-29 M2 and the same with the Mig-21. All were Head on. I would be happy for some input if this is "Correct as is" or i make a mistake of some kind.
-
I did my best to search if this has been posted before, but I could not find anything. Problem is fairly self explanatory, once CPG engages the target and if that target is not neutralized CPG will not re-engage unless you de-was the gun. Currently I am not running any mods on my installation. Below is a short track. Of course, there is always a possibility that I am missing something here. 64D Gun.trk
-
You can eject in the air by opening the canopy and then pressing the eject key 3 times (LCtrl + E). The pilot will then jump out the helicopter without a parachute. He will also forget his rifle. The pilot may bounce off the rotor blades until he slips through or slips off. Pilot will be unharmed The pilot will then gently float down to the ground in a sitting position The pilot will stop near the ground and do a climb down animation from nothing The pilot will then spawn a used parachute behind him after he stood up FloatingPilotEject.trk
-
When at close range, the target state estimator consistently misses the target by about 10m when the helicopter is in motion. Track only shows with LMC off, but LMC is not a part of it. It does the same thing with LMC on. I only tested with an image auto track, not without it. To reproduce Fly towards a target at some speed (~100 kt) with a slight offset and somewhat high up (500-1000ft) When close (< 800ft) start shooting the gun Observe gun consistently missing behind the target Track attached TSA_bad_close_range.trk -
Hello all, reporting some behaviour I've noticed following the latest update, I will keep it brief: when we have an uncorrelated (hollow) Hostile Link16 track and we spot it with the radar, it turns into a Suspect track (yellow filled). At first glance this does not look like correct behavior, as the FCR has no say in determining ROE and no reason to change it from Hostile to Suspect. No IFF was involved here, just the mere painting of the target with the radar turns it into a Suspect. I'm sure many would appreciate if this could be taken a look at, if it's a bug, or WIP. Thanks and have a nice week ROEchange.trk
-
When locking onto the same target with both the FCR and the TGP, the target locator lines for both of these will point in vastly different directions. It seems like the FCR TLL is pointing in the correct direction while the TGP TLL is off by quite a lot. Track attached. B_TGP_Target_Locator_Line.trk
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
Hello, A jamming target outside burn-through is not giving range information on the radar. However, when doing an IFF interrogation, the ambigious symbol appears on the radar on the real position of the target. See the attached track file for demonstration. I am using the open beta and have no mods except a modified countermeasure lua file. Best regards F16-IFF-ECM-bug.trk
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
-
Greetings, In training mission for the F-16C "Lesson 24 - JDAM Employment" at the very beginning of the mission when he says to switch to the CNTL page on the SMS and then select the OSB that has AIR next to it and change it to Ground mode, the button does nothing, it doesn't change. Is anyone else experiencing this issue? I went to WAGS Youtube videos and it's working great in all his JDAM videos on his SMS page, so I don't know if it's isolated to me or if nobody has noticed this isn't working anymore. Thanks everyone,
-
see title. tested with GBU31 and GBU38 JDAM_Fuse_option_bug.trk
-
When starting a cold aircraft the INU says it's 55m confident. When creating a new point, that new point's default coordinates is on the north pole. The TSD waypoints and routes are visible, despite the aircraft either thinking it's on the north pole or 55m confident about it's position. And when selecting CTR they line up perfectly with the aircraft. The TSD PP (Present Position) is perfectly accurate before alignment The confidence jumps instantly from 55m the second power is applied to a couple of meters after alignment. The confidence doesn't go down anymore (less accurate), even if the INU is reset (new points on north pole again) or power is lost. In fact the INU's position confidence is 0m accurate after power down and restart, except the rest of the aircraft behaves as though it was a cold start after aircraft selection. None of that makes any sense, at least to me. I would expect the INU becoming more confident about it's position over time during the alignment, not instantly jumping from 55m to 7m. I would expect the INU to not know where it is at when the reset button is pressed. I would expect that the present position and the default for new waypoints becoming the INU's best guess and that they are the same. I would also expect the symbols for waypoints on the TSD to shift with the INU's confidence in the aircraft's heading and position. And I would expect the map to be available as soon as the INU thinks the aircraft is somewhere in some area that has a digital map stored, only shifted and rotated according to the INU's idea of where the aircraft is. Maybe some logic applies if the two INUs disagree by some margin that I'm not aware of, and in which case no map is shown and the aircraft is considering itself to be at the north pole. But then I would expect that PP is also on the north pole and any waypoints be a couple thousand km away and thus not visible on the TSD. INU_makes_no_sense.trk
- 1 reply
-
- 1
-
