Community A-4E-C v2.2 (October 2023)

[plusnine]

I don't generally recommend GR videos on the A-4E-C, as they are too often riddled with erroneous information.

IMHO, Sidekick65's channel on youtube offers some of the most high-quality instruction on the A-4E-C, especially when it comes to weapons delivery - While many of these videos predate the 2.0 release, he is usually conscientious about pointing out what users can expect to be different in the future from the beta versions he is flying in his videos.

[Coco]

Github is not very user friendly. I could not find the DL link and thanks to a friend he said, " it's all the way at the bottom of the page " which was about 20 pages of scrolling!!! I looked and still couldn't see the DL link, only to find out the "ASSETS" button was minimized and when clicked the zip file was visible. Honestly, that's terrible... 

[Bozon]

5 hours ago, =Skywarp= said:

"LABS is just a Toss Bombing Mode where you pull up until the bomb is released to giving it a ballistic path with an upward vector. Just Loft bombing

CMPTR mode is a pseudo CCRP with target preselection upon depressing the release button, to let the computer calculate the release point.

On the A-4 Mod maybe isn´t any difference. Yet. LABS was used first to accomodate the CMPTR mode, but now CMPTR is fully coded so no need of LABS. Maybe on the A-4 was an option for nukes and thats why in the mod is no difference because nukes are not modelled."

 

In the past: LABS mode was used. That's why there are videos teaching it.

After v2.0: use CMPTR mode

If I may take a wild guess at the (real world) difference between LABS and CMPTR - a ballistic toss to a target has 2 solutions: a flat one and a high one. Normal CCRP (CMPTR) solves for the flat solution. Perhaps LABS solved for the high solution - this makes sense when you are tossing a nuke and want to release the bomb at a higher nose attitude and a longer ballistic path to give you more time to get away before the bang.

I don’t really know, just throwing a wild guess here.

[Glide]

Syria never looked so good!

[Hiob]

I have a very minor issue with the A-4 regarding VR. The HUD is a little „cross eyed“ or out of focus. I can’t describe it better. As far as I understand, the projection should always be sharp and focused and with other modules (e.g. P-47) it is, so I doubt it‘s a problem with my VR settings. Everything else in the cockpit looks perfect for me.

Is it just me or can somebody relate?

[ataribaby]

Yep I got double sight image as well in VR. It is hard to explain and you cannot provide 2d screen of issue.

Imagine two gunsight images superimposed over each other with half gunsight width offset between each other. You need to close one eye to see just one gunsight. Happens only with A4.

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by ataribaby

[ExA4K]

Great work on getting the Skyhawk V2.0 out.  I have really enjoyed exploring your module's updated features and extended flight model.  I was fortunate to fly the A-4K for the RNZAF (20+ years ago, airfields only, obviously not from a carrier), so would like to offer some constructive feedback on some areas of the DCS FM.

Slat rigging - The slats should be rigged to be at 1/2 extension when on speed in the landing configuration.  They are extending way too soon in the current implementation and are fully extended at speeds significantly faster than optimum AOA. This manifests in high drag, too high power settings on final and buffet that didn't exist IRL. I'm not sure if this is a limitation of flight model or an area that can be further tuned.

Trim / Hori Stab - Currently too effective. Setting the trim at the correct t/o setting of 8deg NU leads to the uncommanded nose up at rotate or cat shot, where you would actually need a small pull on the elevator to fly the jet off the runway at Vr.  Currently approx 6 NU seems to work "about right".

Roll rate onset - The A4 was certainly responsive in roll thanks to the big ailerons, small wingspan and long control column.  You could always tell a pilot on their initial conversion sorties as they twitched from side to side on their first few climbouts.  However, the current FM seems to have too low inertia and drag for the roll rate onset up to the theoretical 720deg/sec.  The real aircraft would have a bit more resistance to getting to the high sustained roll rate.

Thanks again for all your hard work in getting the Community A4 to where is stands today.

[Hiob]

@ExA4K Cool insights! I have nothing to do with the developement, nor do I have any expertise on real flying. But your statement about the t/o trim confirms my experience. I feel a rather violent nose up with 8 units NU.

Can you give any advise on how to aim for your desired touch down point when dirty and on speed AoA? I don't have a general issue with landing vintage jets or warbirds, but I can't figure our the Skyhawk. I always drop short....

[Manhorne]

I finally downloaded this mod and have been learning it. It is a great Mod and excellently done. Good Work to the team on this.

I have found it very difficult to learn to land. im getting better but it wants to hit hard on touchdown. Not sure in I need to adjust the setting on my throttle or not . I thought maybe my current settings maybe adjusting the power too much.

It does seem to me that the trim control is way to much. It seems to adjust a lot when it is used. Just my observations on it.

[Chrisgaz]

Thanks for your job.

I've a problem with tacan. I dont sée ILS Switch but A/A Switch. Is it a Bad mod installation ?

[Hiob]

40 minutes ago, Manhorne said:

I finally downloaded this mod and have been learning it. It is a great Mod and excellently done. Good Work to the team on this.

I have found it very difficult to learn to land. im getting better but it wants to hit hard on touchdown. Not sure in I need to adjust the setting on my throttle or not . I thought maybe my current settings maybe adjusting the power too much.

It does seem to me that the trim control is way to much. It seems to adjust a lot when it is used. Just my observations on it.

You can adjust the trim sensitivity in the special options tab in the main menu. (along with cockpit shaking and nws steering helper)

[Manhorne]

5 minutes ago, Hiob said:

You can adjust the trim sensitivity in the special options tab in the main menu. (along with cockpit shaking and nws steering helper)

I did not know that..THANKS!!!!!

[Victory205]

On 1/13/2022 at 1:33 AM, ExA4K said:

Great work on getting the Skyhawk V2.0 out.  I have really enjoyed exploring your module's updated features and extended flight model.  I was fortunate to fly the A-4K for the RNZAF (20+ years ago, airfields only, obviously not from a carrier), so would like to offer some constructive feedback on some areas of the DCS FM.

Slat rigging - The slats should be rigged to be at 1/2 extension when on speed in the landing configuration.  They are extending way too soon in the current implementation and are fully extended at speeds significantly faster than optimum AOA. This manifests in high drag, too high power settings on final and buffet that didn't exist IRL. I'm not sure if this is a limitation of flight model or an area that can be further tuned.

Trim / Hori Stab - Currently too effective. Setting the trim at the correct t/o setting of 8deg NU leads to the uncommanded nose up at rotate or cat shot, where you would actually need a small pull on the elevator to fly the jet off the runway at Vr.  Currently approx 6 NU seems to work "about right".

Roll rate onset - The A4 was certainly responsive in roll thanks to the big ailerons, small wingspan and long control column.  You could always tell a pilot on their initial conversion sorties as they twitched from side to side on their first few climbouts.  However, the current FM seems to have too low inertia and drag for the roll rate onset up to the theoretical 720deg/sec.  The real aircraft would have a bit more resistance to getting to the high sustained roll rate.

Thanks again for all your hard work in getting the Community A4 to where is stands today.

I have just under a thousand hours in the TA-4J, most of them as an instructor, I taught FAM, Instruments, Formation, Tactical Formation, and ACM (BFM), no Air to Ground. The T was a bit nose heavy compared to the single seat versions, but I find the module quite pitchy longitudinally, especially changes in pitch moment with power application. Did you find that the single seaters pitched up with increase thrust and vice versa? The T would simply hold attitude and needed to be helped by the pilot to stay on speed. On a wave off/missed approach for instance, the pilot had to pull the nose up, or the aircraft would just accelerate and go faster at the ground. Was that different in the single seat models as depicted in the sim? You flew both, correct? Any thoughts on the differences between the two?

Same thoughts on roll inertia. Roll acceleration was quick, but it wasn't instantaneous, and required a slight opposite stick input to stop the roll.

The aircraft was rolled with rudder at high alpha. Rudder inputs in the module seem to induce yaw only at high alpha.

One interesting aspect of the slats is that during a cat shot, they would slam shut due to simple inertia during the acceleration. At the end of the stroke, there would be a moment of buffet until the slats had time to extend aerodynamically.

Referencing slats and buffet. I've only flown the module for an hour, and didn't see the slats extend at all, resulting in massive buffet. I need to sort the slat behavior out before further comment.

Edited February 2, 2022 by Victory205

[Vettefan]

Hi!

Anyone else have the problem that you cannot enter the pilot seat (AI flies the bird and I am only a spectator...    )? - Mod is properly installed and in ME the plane is set to be controlled by "player" or "client" - neither options work...

Last time I encountered this problem it was related to the T-45 and Norton Antivirus (quarantining a .dll file) but I think I can rule that error out this time...

 

Thanks!

[=Skywarp=]

2 hours ago, Vettefan said:

Hi!

Anyone else have the problem that you cannot enter the pilot seat (AI flies the bird and I am only a spectator...    )? - Mod is properly installed and in ME the plane is set to be controlled by "player" or "client" - neither options work...

Last time I encountered this problem it was related to the T-45 and Norton Antivirus (quarantining a .dll file) but I think I can rule that error out this time...

 

Thanks!

Did you install it at the SAVED GAMES folder?

[Hiob]

I really love the thoughts of real A-4 pilots on the flight model. It gives a sense on how difficult it must be, to properly emulate the FM to a certain level of „realism“.

It really only multiplies my respect for the developers!

[pashtet]

32 минуты назад, =Skywarp= сказал:

Вы установили его в папку SAVED GAMES?

yes, same problem

[plusnine]

1 hour ago, pashtet said:

yes, same problem

If you are unable to take control of the aircraft, check the following:

• Your DCS version is 2.7.9.18080 or higher
• You have have installed Microsoft’s Visual Studio 2015, 2017 and 2019 Redistributable libraries

Edited January 13, 2022 by plusnine

[pashtet]

26 минут назад, plusnine сказал:

If you are unable to take control of the aircraft, check the following:

• Your DCS version is 2.7.9.18080 or higher
• You have have installed Microsoft’s Visual Studio 2015, 2017 and 2019 Redistributable libraries

 

Thanks, the second option worked.

[JNelson]

15 hours ago, ExA4K said:

Great work on getting the Skyhawk V2.0 out.  I have really enjoyed exploring your module's updated features and extended flight model.  I was fortunate to fly the A-4K for the RNZAF (20+ years ago, airfields only, obviously not from a carrier), so would like to offer some constructive feedback on some areas of the DCS FM.

Slat rigging - The slats should be rigged to be at 1/2 extension when on speed in the landing configuration.  They are extending way too soon in the current implementation and are fully extended at speeds significantly faster than optimum AOA. This manifests in high drag, too high power settings on final and buffet that didn't exist IRL. I'm not sure if this is a limitation of flight model or an area that can be further tuned.

Trim / Hori Stab - Currently too effective. Setting the trim at the correct t/o setting of 8deg NU leads to the uncommanded nose up at rotate or cat shot, where you would actually need a small pull on the elevator to fly the jet off the runway at Vr.  Currently approx 6 NU seems to work "about right".

Roll rate onset - The A4 was certainly responsive in roll thanks to the big ailerons, small wingspan and long control column.  You could always tell a pilot on their initial conversion sorties as they twitched from side to side on their first few climbouts.  However, the current FM seems to have too low inertia and drag for the roll rate onset up to the theoretical 720deg/sec.  The real aircraft would have a bit more resistance to getting to the high sustained roll rate.

Thanks again for all your hard work in getting the Community A4 to where is stands today.

Hi thanks for the feedback (I am one of the developers of the A-4), I would be interested in hearing more of what you have to say. We did have an ex A-4M pilot vet the flight model but obviously two sources for feel are better than one. The A-4M pilot was telling us you could feel the buffet with very little stick aft at low speeds. Your comments on the trim are completely understandable I reworked the CG and stability system to actually have a dynamic CG position and this messed up the stability a bit specifically the horizontal stabiliser, as such it is a little too sensitive at the moment. 

As far as the roll is concern was the A-4K hydraulically limited to 360 degrees like the A-4M? If that's the case it may explain the discrepancy in the roll (that and you usual controller issues with any flight sim).

Lastly the slats simulation while using a physics model are rather poor when it comes to the A-4 they are a reasonable approximation but ideally I would like to rework them anyway.

Thanks for the feedback I would love to speak to you more on this so we can make some improvements. Please join our discord (https://discord.gg/XxCGSwZf7h) and send me JNelson a message.

6 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I have about a thousand hours in the TA-4J, most of them as an instructor, I taught FAM, Instruments, Formation, Tactical Formation, and ACM (BFM), no Air to Ground. The T was a bit nose heavy compared to the single seat versions, but I find the module quite pitchy longitudinally, especially changes in pitch moment with power application. Did you find that the single seaters pitched up with increase thrust and vice versa? The T would simply hold attitude and needed to be helped by the pilot to stay on speed. On a wave off/missed approach for instance, the pilot had to pull the nose up, or the aircraft would just accelerate and go faster at the ground. Was that different in the single seat models as depicted in the sim? You flew both, correct? Any thoughts on the differences between the two?

Same thoughts on roll inertia. Roll acceleration was quick, but it wasn't instantaneous, and required a slight opposite stick input to stop the roll.

The aircraft was rolled with rudder at high alpha. Rudder inputs in the module seem to induce yaw only at high alpha.

One interesting aspect of the slats is that during a cat shot, they would slam shut due to simple inertia during the acceleration. At the end of the stroke, there would be a moment of buffet until the slats had time to extend aerodynamically.

Referencing slats and buffet. I've only flown the module for an hour, and didn't see the slats extend at all, resulting in massive buffet. I need to sort the slat behavior out before further comment.

Hello two A-4 pilots in one thread!! I would love to hear your comments on the flight model, we did have an A-4M pilot vet the flight model but there have been a few minor changes that resulted in the pitch stability as you say.

 

Please join our discord (https://discord.gg/XxCGSwZf7h) and send me JNelson a message.

Edited January 13, 2022 by JNelson

[Victory205]

The T wasn't restricted in roll. I have a video around here of a max rate roll and it's staggering. About the time you hit the lateral stop, you have to instantly remove the input to stop at one rotation. It's on VHS, however.

I've managed to find the notebook I made for every aircraft that I flew for the A4, but haven't looked closely at it in years. I also gave the "flight characteristics lecture" for students, which got me involved in handling evaluations and discussions for decades. Again, I only flew the longer, heaver TA-4J, which is why I was asking the K driver about the single seater. You might be amazed at how pilots much forget about the nuances with the passage of time. They just naturally compensated for pitching and so forth, and aren't able to articulate what the aircraft was doing based on certain inputs.

One thing that you have pretty close is the nose strut compression with braking inputs. The longer T would bounce up and down foot or two during taxi.

I'd rather wrestle a rabid alligator in a pool of radioactive quicksand than log into discord.

[ExA4K]

8 hours ago, Victory205 said:

I have about a thousand hours in the TA-4J, most of them as an instructor, I taught FAM, Instruments, Formation, Tactical Formation, and ACM (BFM), no Air to Ground. The T was a bit nose heavy compared to the single seat versions, but I find the module quite pitchy longitudinally, especially changes in pitch moment with power application. Did you find that the single seaters pitched up with increase thrust and vice versa? The T would simply hold attitude and needed to be helped by the pilot to stay on speed. On a wave off/missed approach for instance, the pilot had to pull the nose up, or the aircraft would just accelerate and go faster at the ground. Was that different in the single seat models as depicted in the sim? You flew both, correct? Any thoughts on the differences between the two?

Same thoughts on roll inertia. Roll acceleration was quick, but it wasn't instantaneous, and required a slight opposite stick input to stop the roll.

The aircraft was rolled with rudder at high alpha. Rudder inputs in the module seem to induce yaw only at high alpha.

One interesting aspect of the slats is that during a cat shot, they would slam shut due to simple inertia during the acceleration. At the end of the stroke, there would be a moment of buffet until the slats had time to extend aerodynamically.

Referencing slats and buffet. I've only flown the module for an hour, and didn't see the slats extend at all, resulting in massive buffet. I need to sort the slat behavior out before further comment.

I don't recall that there was any appreciable pitch/power coupling and there was negligible difference between the 2 variants.

Like your recollection, mine is that the longitudinal stability (speed stability in pitch) was slightly less positive than depicted here - in that it was easier to hold a constant aimpoint with smaller pitch inputs while using power to get to and hold optimum AOA.  However, the aircraft was definitely positively stable.  It will be interesting to reassess the approach stability in the sim if the slat positioning can be corrected on approach as there's obviously an interrelationship with high AOA, high drag, and high power setting.

Directional stability-wise, the TA-4 was definitely not as positive as the single seat model, thanks to its longer nose and bigger canopy forward of the COG.  Nose high, low speed departures during BFM were fairly much a non event in the A-4 but had the potential to get a bit more sporty if mishandled in the T-bird.

 

A-4s Forever!!

[ExA4K]

Test flying schedule from NATOPs (section III, part 6) showing slat rigging check with 1/2 extension at optimum.  IRL the simultaneous and smooth movement of both slats was assessed in accelerated and unaccelerated flight which is no problem when simulated here.

[ExA4K]

3 hours ago, JNelson said:

Hi thanks for the feedback (I am one of the developers of the A-4), I would be interested in hearing more of what you have to say. We did have an ex A-4M pilot vet the flight model but obviously two sources for feel are better than one. The A-4M pilot was telling us you could feel the buffet with very little stick aft at low speeds. Your comments on the trim are completely understandable I reworked the CG and stability system to actually have a dynamic CG position and this messed up the stability a bit specifically the horizontal stabiliser, as such it is a little too sensitive at the moment. 

As far as the roll is concern was the A-4K hydraulically limited to 360 degrees like the A-4M? If that's the case it may explain the discrepancy in the roll (that and you usual controller issues with any flight sim).

Lastly the slats simulation while using a physics model are rather poor when it comes to the A-4 they are a reasonable approximation but ideally I would like to rework them anyway.

Thanks for the feedback I would love to speak to you more on this so we can make some improvements. Please join our discord (https://discord.gg/XxCGSwZf7h) and send me JNelson a message.

Hello two A-4 pilots in one thread!! I would love to hear your comments on the flight model, we did have an A-4M pilot vet the flight model but there have been a few minor changes that resulted in the pitch stability as you say.

 

Please join our discord (https://discord.gg/XxCGSwZf7h) and send me JNelson a message.

 

Hi JNelson, and thanks to you and the team's solid work on this module.

The K had the same basic airframe limitations as the rest as it was based on the F.  The subsequent Kahu variant that I flew was a substantive avionics update, but the underlying engine/airframe combo remained untouched.  The 360deg roll limitation wasn't a hydraulic limit, it was an aerodynamic and handling one.  Full control throw was always available, but continued high rates of roll would lead to aerodynamic cross coupling and potential loss of control thanks to the adverse aileron yaw (aileron drag causing yaw opposite to the direction of roll).

[Victory205]

Yes, we were limited to a single 360 roll with further limitations based on external stores and or fuel in the drops. The Blue Angels used zero G rolls to mitigate the adverse yaw that ExA4K mentioned. It was instantly evident, in that you'd feel light in your seat during a max rate roll, the inertial coupling/dumbbell effect was there too.

Concur, half slats on speed. I dig my notes out of the safe tomorrow if possible.

I haven't observed the slats deploy at all in the sim, but only have had one go at it. I may have fouled something up in settings or installation, so haven't looked a high alpha maneuvering yet.