rogorogo Posted January 18, 2022 Posted January 18, 2022 The Mi-24 inflates the door seals after the cockpit door (Pilot Commander Cockpit) and the canopy (Pilot Operator Cockpit) are closed to aid with rudimentary ABC (well BC actually) protection of the assault helicopter crew. Depending on the operator the label might be placed differently but the process is always to open the pressure valve by turning the corresponding valve knob (which literally is the valve) counter-clockwise top open, and clockwise to close. A status light is also available (Doors sealed/hermetization) - although that is slightly miselading (how global in military logic.. we should take that as a hint to unite as a species and find someone else to throw sticks 'n stones at each other with) .. as the cabin is never hermetized (see below). When the seals are inflated, they press against the door, and while opening it is still possible (for very good reasons) but not advizable (seal damage) and reserved to emergency procedure context , closing the door and canopy is not or not without inevitably either doing damage to the door/canopy or more likely the rubber seals (which by then would be oversized and overstretched due to the lack of a surface to press against. But in the module the seal inflation and hermetization state (which also includes the air condition running the cabin at slight overpressure - the cabin in not pressurized but run at light overpressure like fe IFVs an MBTs do) seem to make no difference. One can close the door / canopy with seals inflated. The cabin overpressure can be safely ignored as it makes no difference to door and canopy procedures. One can also open/close the door canopy with seals inflated repeatedly without any damage state or malfunction in the pressure line, seals, door, canopy. This does not apply to the passenger compartment door/hatch iirc, As we as consumers cannot tell what the planned endstate is, this might or might not need attention (low priority, bottom end of the PM tools, lists, open office calc files). I cannot tell if there is a boolean state-chain planned, or any further audio-engineering, Petrovic lines, anything.. but at the moment, this seems like insular animations and state-sounds with no crossreference or logic-chain/statecheck requisites. Again, this is an absolutely minor issue in this state but and issue is an issue, thus an attempt was made to feed this into the... "bug tracker". No trackfile needed, permanent issues, applies to SP and MP, reproducable on all systems and settings. 1
admiki Posted January 18, 2022 Posted January 18, 2022 Disregarding door opeing with seals inflated, on which I agree with you, it looks you got caught up with semantics. It does not matter if you hermetize it or run overpressure, result is the same. IF there is a need to keep it sealed, there is a hatch that can be put behind pilot's seat, separating cockpit from cargo cabin. 1
rogorogo Posted January 18, 2022 Author Posted January 18, 2022 I think I may have failed to eradicate ambiguity for what the report is about, despite trying to be extensive for the sake of clarity. When the seals are inflated before or after opening both the door and the canopy they expand beyond the targeted size. And even if they did not closing the door and the canopy would either mechanically not be possible at all or result in damage to the seals at the least. This currently is not the case - and applies to mechanics, not situational needs. Again, I was just typing about mechanics and physics for that contributing part of "hermetization" as it is currently represented (or not) in the module and may be bugged (or not), planned (or not), not yet implemented - not hermetization (which it is not btw, it is slight overpressure.. nothing else..) and the contributing systems themselves.
BaD CrC Posted January 18, 2022 Posted January 18, 2022 (edited) This report was so professionally written that I got lost into marveling the semantics instead of trying to understand your point. Lol. After second reading, you would like to see some pressurization failure for opening and closing the doors without depressurizing first, right? I think this would be cool, but since there is no NBC threat in DCS, it wouldn't make much difference. (actually wouldn't it be totally awesome to have areas with NBC threats where you must fly/drive in NBC resistant vehicles? Adding this to the whish list) Edited January 18, 2022 by BaD CrC 2 1 https://www.blacksharkden.com http://discord.gg/blacksharkden
rogorogo Posted January 21, 2022 Author Posted January 21, 2022 (edited) Am 18.1.2022 um 16:44 schrieb BaD CrC: This report was so professionally written that I got lost into marveling the semantics instead of trying to understand your point. Lol. After second reading, you would like to see some pressurization failure for opening and closing the doors without depressurizing first, right? I think this would be cool, but since there is no NBC threat in DCS, it wouldn't make much difference. (actually wouldn't it be totally awesome to have areas with NBC threats where you must fly/drive in NBC resistant vehicles? Adding this to the whish list) well.. that would be quite far beyond beyond the scope and confies of what I was pointing out - but intriguing nonetheless. So while I simply stated "you should not be able to close the door with seals inflated without something breaking.. and vice versa to a lesser gradient" - your suggestion of course would be something to wish for - but with how the product provide is and what methodology and practices it applies (or not) going forward. This is as likely to happen as world peace. Too much would have to change, and the prerequisites or rather backlogs are too mountainous for it too happen. Nonetheless a few thoughts: ABC (NATO, PfP, non-alligned) or NBC (US) would likely be confined to BC. There is a reason the Nuke is not modelled with DCS AI and not with the Mig-21 and while there may have been well less in thought and more in engine confines behind the notion back then this accidentally was a very sensible choice (as with most things DCS, what is +++ is purely accidental without prior cognition) If either BC topics were to be implemented as placeable AO zones or deployable munitions (resulting in zones by player agency) this would require attention to PvA or PvP topics at least, something the product provider has not only failed to do and abysmally failed in (on levels far beyond and far more fundamental thant most product consumers would think and/or understand) but actively dismissed for how long now.. 15 years? employment of any related mechanic would indeed be very interesting - but the question remains if the player/flightsimmer cooperation and interaction would be there, moreso since what servers there are are run by community members.. and most of them, especially the most "populated" ones and their runners (and population) are.... well.. let us leave it at that.. technically the prerequiste would be so introduce industry standards in many aspects instead of proprietary, first core only, permanently clientside waypointed assets - background dormancy, multi-core, authoritative services would be required to make this actually work - imho ofc but still... But in the end, sure this would be interesting. Very interesting. This is - supposed to be - a simulator after all, right, Right? Edited January 21, 2022 by rogorogo
Recommended Posts