Jump to content

Feet or meters ?


sylkhan

Recommended Posts

As nice as metric is (and it really is), I've had to utilize imperial my whole life in the US. I seriously wish we'd convert, but that's neither here nor there. Flying the MiG-21bis in DCS was probably the first time I really steeped myself in metric use.

 

I can't even describe it as being easy, it was without any effort what so ever to adapt. You fly jets by the numbers. Don't concern yourself with what the figures represent, but rather just focus on number values. If it says rotate at this speed in km/h? Then match up the numbers on your ASI. It isn't difficult. The same applies of your ASI reads in knots instead of km/h.

 

Plus, given the kind of money we dump into DCS (Doubtless the most expensive gaming expenditure most here have), is anyone unable to access a 4 function calculator of some stripe? And despite protests to the contrary, it'd be quite stupid to have civil aviation use one standard and the military use another. I mean, it sounds like a great way to tally up Cessna-shaped kill markers on the side of your C-17 or IL-76, but citizens do tend to complain about flaming general aviation bits falling onto their homes.

 

Something about "lowering property values" and "flattening my 8 year old when he was on a swingset." I don't know, I don't understand non pilots.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feet/knots/nautical miles are *strongly* recommended by ICAO and the vast, VAST majority of air forces use imperial for all aviation-related purposes. In 2017, even Russian civil aviation regulations finally began complying with this.
Have you read ICAO Annex 5?

 

It clearly states that SI-units (metric system) are to be used. As far as I know it is the only agreed upon international standard. The document does not, however, give the foot and nm a termination date. Although it is abundantly clear that they will be terminated at some point.

 

Can you tell me where ICAO strongly recommends the use of foot, knots and nm?

 

The metric system might be evil, but the imperial system is retarded. I'd rather be evil than retarded.

 

Also, the definition of the foot is 0.3048 meters, so we're all flying metric already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read ICAO Annex 5?

 

It clearly states that SI-units (metric system) are to be used. As far as I know it is the only agreed upon international standard. The document does not, however, give the foot and nm a termination date. Although it is abundantly clear that they will be terminated at some point.

 

Can you tell me where ICAO strongly recommends the use of foot, knots and nm?

 

The metric system might be evil, but the imperial system is retarded. I'd rather be evil than retarded.

 

Also, the definition of the foot is 0.3048 meters, so we're all flying metric already.

 

 

Well, AFAIK, as someone with a PPL and the ability to google, the only countries that *actually* use metric in aviation are China, Russia, and North Korea. And Russia actually changed *from* meters *to* feet for high altitude airspace in 2017. So whatever the ICAO says, it's pretty clear the international standards are Imperial and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, AFAIK, as someone with a PPL and the ability to google, the only countries that *actually* use metric in aviation are China, Russia, and North Korea. And Russia actually changed *from* meters *to* feet for high altitude airspace in 2017. So whatever the ICAO says, it's pretty clear the international standards are Imperial and will remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

 

Thanks

 

I know that all the world (more or less) is flying imperial and that the trend is more feet, not less.

 

But it's a little known fact, even in aviation circles, that ICAO has already decided to go metric. So it's worth mentioning.

 

The U.S., Myanmar and Liberia use the imperial system. All the rest of the world uses metric. I predict that when the U.S. in general finally caves in and goes metric, aviation will follow. That might not happen for a while, but it will happen.

 

P.s. Lately I've been listening to some emergency radio communications on YouTube, and it's painful to hear when the ATC asks for fuel and souls on board and the pilots answer X souls and Y kilograms of fuel. And the U.S. ATC keeps pestering the pilots to give them the fuel in pounds. The pilots might be flying half an aircraft and the ATC can't do the conversion. It's so stupid. You'd think you could just double the kilograms to get pounds and call that close enough, but no.


Edited by Katj
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read ICAO Annex 5?

 

It clearly states that SI-units (metric system) are to be used. As far as I know it is the only agreed upon international standard. The document does not, however, give the foot and nm a termination date. Although it is abundantly clear that they will be terminated at some point.

 

Can you tell me where ICAO strongly recommends the use of foot, knots and nm?

 

The metric system might be evil, but the imperial system is retarded. I'd rather be evil than retarded.

 

Also, the definition of the foot is 0.3048 meters, so we're all flying metric already.

 

Agreed upon by organizers and lawyers, sure. But, in practice? Imperial is much nicer for vertical separation for the same reason why metric is superior in every other facet of life; easy, instant math. While, it could be wise for reporting weight, the other aspects like distance, speed, and especially altitude? It's better suited.


Edited by MiG21bisFishbedL

Reformers hate him! This one weird trick found by a bush pilot will make gunfighter obsessed old farts angry at your multi-role carrier deck line up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you read ICAO Annex 5?

 

It clearly states that SI-units (metric system) are to be used. As far as I know it is the only agreed upon international standard. The document does not, however, give the foot and nm a termination date. Although it is abundantly clear that they will be terminated at some point.

 

Can you tell me where ICAO strongly recommends the use of foot, knots and nm?

 

The metric system might be evil, but the imperial system is retarded. I'd rather be evil than retarded.

 

Also, the definition of the foot is 0.3048 meters, so we're all flying metric already.

 

This is a 41 year old document that has not been implemented and has no plan for implementation. Meanwhile, the few holdouts using metric have generally went towards imperial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well as a french, we use metrics in all everyday life task. But when we talk about aviation, we standardise to imperial units.

 

From my step, Imperial units are great, i grown with it, learn with it, fly as civilian, and fly military in DCS with imperial. On the other hand, metrics give me trouble in aviation because it seems un natural. As well as MPH in good old fashioned warbirds/early jets.

JF17 is built, design and sold to be cheaper NATO aircraft rival over more Seconds hands F16 for army with smaller budget. So to compare those aircraft, and as 90% of the country fly with imperial, the JF17 IS IN IMPERIAL! Final! Get use to it or pass your way! (btw china may build it, but since they don't buy it and don't fly it for their own because it's only built for export... They don't care if it's in metrics or not)

 

With that said, remember that IRL Pilots, military moreover, train and learn to be able to convert any value from metrics to imperial and from imperial to metrics, as well as train to convert fuel from tons to LBS... JUST LEARN TO DO SAME! Dcs is a simulator, and if you play DCS, you want a simulator! Here it is. If learning how to fly real jet as they are build is bothering you, go back to ace combat! This is not the place for lazy kids that don't even try or don't care about realism.

I dont mind some level of standardization even if its not realistic.
Yeah... You can uninstall DCS allready then!

And remember that as virtual pilots when you learn the plane you learn it in the units from manual. So learn the numbers and then fly the plane you wont get any trouble. Practice make it perfect.

 

For what it's worth, you wouldn't ask a F14, F16, F18 or Harrier in metrics. And even if some of them (like mirage) got some tweaks to get somewere meters altitude, they are not meant to be in metrics. Deka is giving us one of the most finised Gen 4+ aircraft in DCS, putting a lot of time and effort to get there. They want a full fidelity aircraft as precise as they can. Also as it is their first module, they want it to be almost perfect on release so it will be more advanced than actual F18 and F16. So no unrealistic features, payloads, displays, stuff, effects...

If you want metrics russia is the only way. Or really fast and good at math brain ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If the aircraft is sold, used, or possible to be programmed to be used both Metric or Imperial values, then this module should offer that same choice as example L-39 does by offering both.

 

If the aircraft doesn't support at all by any means metric/imperial but just the other, then that is how module should come out.

 

What comes to the other (off-topic) topic about standards in aviation, the imperial system should be quickly and swiftly abandoned and replaced by the metric system. Give a 3-5 years period for all the aviation to create and test a new software updates etc and then transfer to metric system in very short quick period. And the same thing to do on the maritime as well, syncing the change.

 

It would quickly harmonize everything that is on the ground, in the air and on the sea. It would be easy operations in the future between everything. But old schooled/minded people definitely would put all their efforts against it.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it's imperial.

 

 

OK, that's a surprise.

 

Let me put it this way, for those people who lives in place where they use metric system and are willing to pay $80 for supporting your module, you should give us the options to use metric system, right. To you, it is just a simple conversion program, but to us, it will make a world of difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ THIS

 

Since the jf-17 will be mostly use in the red side, that will ease communication with su/mig, and we are used to use Meter :)

If it's only imperial, it will be a big disappointrement for us.

I am sure the devs understand this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^ THIS

 

Since the jf-17 will be mostly use in the red side, that will ease communication with su/mig, and we are used to use Meter :)

If it's only imperial, it will be a big disappointrement for us.

I am sure the devs understand this.

 

 

That's an interesting point. I always thought a DCS module should be like the real thing when it comes to OP's question. So: feet only.

 

 

 

But since we will close to never get modern red side modules it would be a huge advantage for the JF-17 if it had a (not totally realistic) metric option. Also economically, you know what I mean? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is more about comfort than about problems. I'm used to flying imperial system planes since 3 decades and I always choose the imperial option of a module if there is one.

 

 

So I totally understand the wish for a metric option for those who prefer it.

 

 

If we had as many modern red side planes as F-XX's I would say: let's be as realistic as we can. But we don't have and never will.

 

 

I don't say the JF-17 has to have a metric option. I just say it would pay off bc there are no other full fidelity modern modules out there with metric system.

 

 

 

I can live with both decisions in this case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an interesting point. I always thought a DCS module should be like the real thing

 

Like the real thing is not possible, a public simulator can only try to be as close as possible to the real thing but often, it as far from reality due to limitations and public datas.

Then no, there is no simulator like the real thing :)

 

The simple 3/1.5 division/multiplication works just fine enough to cooperate with the other system, I don't see the problem there.

 

Is it so hard to understand, that when you are in combat action, you have a lot things to do/think and when you communicate with your buddies, to be efficient, you don't always have time for divisions/multiplications

 

Read this :

 

Thunder do not use metric units, just because it have to be compitable with PAF Viper pilots,...

 

PAF will never want their invaluable Viper pilots to be sitting duck in military actions if Vipers are not availabl ...

 

@razo+r, it seems that PAF pilots do not share your thougts

 

So I totally understand the wish for a metric option for those who prefer it.

 

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the real thing is not possible, a public simulator can only try to be as close as possible to the real thing but often, it as far from reality due to limitations and public datas.

Then no, there is no simulator like the real thing :)

 

 

 

Actually is is quite easy for a sim to be like the real thing if it comes to the question "Feet or meters?" ;)

 

 

I never meant anything else than OP's question to make myself clearer.

 

 

But I get your point. We have a lot of compromises in every sim. I won't mind if we get one here to have a better balance between modern red and blue. This might not be the main task of the DCS JF-17 project, but it could be an outstanding opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it so hard to understand, that when you are in combat action, you have a lot things to do/think and when you communicate with your buddies, to be efficient, you don't always have time for divisions/multiplications

 

Read this :

 

 

 

@razo+r, it seems that PAF pilots do not share your thougts

 

 

 

Thanks

 

You just need practise. I perfectly understand what you mean, but if you do it often enough, you will be able to do it automatically. And when you reached that stage, then you realize how minimal that additional workload is. (That by the way is also a criteria to become a pilot (in some countries), the ability to do calculations while under heavy workload.)

 

The PAF may not share my thoughts because they can modify the plane. We, the potential customers of DIS, do not have the possibility to alter and modify the plane avionics

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You just need practise. I perfectly understand what you mean, but if you do it often enough, you will be able to do it automatically. And when you reached that stage, then you realize how minimal that additional workload is. (That by the way is also a criteria to become a pilot (in some countries), the ability to do calculations while under heavy workload.)

That's the old Soviet way of thinking. That was why all Soviet planes had such messy cockpit, which reduced pilot's situation awareness. Chinese planes are not like that. Chinese engineers will do all they can to reduce a pilot's reaction time.

 

 

The PAF may not share my thoughts because they can modify the plane. We, the potential customers of DIS, do not have the possibility to alter and modify the plane avionics

Not exactly true. Last time I checked, PAF can only produce about 42% of JF-17's components. So depend on where do you make the order from. If you order it from China, they will definitely customise it for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • ED Team
Not exactly true. Last time I checked, PAF can only produce about 42% of JF-17's components. So depend on where do you make the order from. If you order it from China, they will definitely customise it for you.

 

 

It's a glass cockpit aircraft, unit conversion should be achievable through software alone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand this debate.

 

Imperial -> metric and vice versa is stupid easy and if you can't do it then you just need more practice.

 

We've been flying with mixed systems per-side in DCS for a while now (I regularly fly Tomcats as Redfor, you don't see me asking for a metric Tomcat).

 

The reality is that IRL only China, Russia, and North Korea use metric in aviation. Russia is converting to imperial because, like everyone else, they've realized that imperial & knots is actually much better for aviation and aerial navigation than metric on its own merits, and if you'd spent any time flight planning IRL you'd know why.

 

There is no JF-17 flying IRL with metric and there won't be, any more than a metric Tomcat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...