Environmental effects

[Germane]

Are there plans to implement environmental effects such as icing or conopy fogging? This would give the Air Conditioning Control Panel a practical function. If it does not come for the F14, I would like it to be considered for the upcoming modules like the F4 or EF.

[WarbossPetross]

17 часов назад, Germane сказал:

Are there plans to implement environmental effects such as icing or conopy fogging? This would give the Air Conditioning Control Panel a practical function. If it does not come for the F14, I would like it to be considered for the upcoming modules like the F4 or EF.

Canopy fogging is present in JF-17, along with the transonic cone, so definitely doable. That being said, it's something that should be implemented by ED centrally all across the board, so you'd better bring that up in ED general sections.

[Germane]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb WarbossPetross:

Canopy fogging is present in JF-17, along with the transonic cone, so definitely doable. That being said, it's something that should be implemented by ED centrally all across the board, so you'd better bring that up in ED general sections.

In a video about the MB339 you can also see the icing. I agree, it should be a core feature for all modules. However, I don't see it coming from ED anytime soon.

[Victory205]

The ECS put out such a high (loud) volume of air that assuming that the cockpit temp was set reasonably, the canopy didn't fog in flight. Might get into an aircraft on deck that had moisture on the glass, but once the engines were started and airsource was on, that was all gone forthwith. The center windscreen panel would occasionally pick up external ice, but windshield heat removed it in a few seconds. 

Sometimes the ECS would put out a blueish haze when at very high mach numbers, other than that, there isn't much to say. The ECS made conditions pretty comfortable overall.

[LanceCriminal86]

22 minutes ago, Victory205 said:

The ECS put out such a high (loud) volume of air that assuming that the cockpit temp was set reasonably, the canopy didn't fog in flight. Might get into an aircraft on deck that had moisture on the glass, but once the engines were started and airsource was on, that was all gone forthwith. The center windscreen panel would occasionally pick up external ice, but windshield heat removed it in a few seconds. 

Sometimes the ECS would put out a blueish haze when at very high mach numbers, other than that, there isn't much to say. The ECS made conditions pretty comfortable overall.

Were ECS failures in flight an issue?

[Victory205]

Not a chronic issue, but a concern. Anytime there is a failure in 400ºC bleed air, things could get sporting.

At least one F14 was lost in a bleed duct failure of unknown origin (maintenance error or pure failure), but a bleed light in any jet aircraft was an immediate action item and something to take seriously. 

[Gunslinger22]

2 hours ago, Victory205 said:

The ECS put out such a high (loud) volume of air that assuming that the cockpit temp was set reasonably, the canopy didn't fog in flight. Might get into an aircraft on deck that had moisture on the glass, but once the engines were started and airsource was on, that was all gone forthwith. The center windscreen panel would occasionally pick up external ice, but windshield heat removed it in a few seconds. 

Sometimes the ECS would put out a blueish haze when at very high mach numbers, other than that, there isn't much to say. The ECS made conditions pretty comfortable overall.

So if one were to forget to select an air source fogging and the such would be present? I’d like to see further development of the effects of not correctly selecting an airsource as I’ve frequently seen people turning it off during flight in DCS to remove the noise. 

[iantron]

Jester should probably complain about the gas odor if you don't set left engine air source during AAR. I'm not sure if there would be a visible effect though, guessing not.

[Victory205]

29 minutes ago, Gunslinger22 said:

So if one were to forget to select an air source fogging and the such would be present? I’d like to see further development of the effects of not correctly selecting an airsource as I’ve frequently seen people turning it off during flight in DCS to remove the noise. 

A crew isn't going to "forget" the Airsource. It's obvious when it's off, the crew will be uncomfortable in short order.

As to gamers turning off Airsource for performance reasons, that's another kettle of fish that I'm not going to waste time on. The avionics overheat, the weapons system cooling goes south, the gun doesn't work, etc, etc.

[Gunslinger22]

1 hour ago, Victory205 said:

A crew isn't going to "forget" the Airsource. It's obvious when it's off, the crew will be uncomfortable in short order.

As to gamers turning off Airsource for performance reasons, that's another kettle of fish that I'm not going to waste time on. The avionics overheat, the weapons system cooling goes south, the gun doesn't work, etc, etc.

I was referring to everything purely in game, I wouldn’t suggest that a crew would ‘forget’ such a procedure unless I had read it anecdotally. 

Those failures you’ve mentioned are what I would like to see modelled in game. 
 

 

[Dragon1-1]

Yeah, I managed to forget the air source once. Found out after trying to shoot the bandit with the gun.  I now remember about it, although it should mess up more than just the gun. If nothing else, Jester should complain about it being uncomfortable in the cockpit. 

[Germane]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb Gunslinger22:

Those failures you’ve mentioned are what I would like to see modelled in game. 
 

 

Absolutely! It would be also very nice if it could lead to an engine failure when you get the airsource from the right during air refuelling.
@IronMike Any chance that this will be implemented?

[Victory205]

The engine wouldn’t fail based on airsource selection during IFR. It was switched to the left engine to prevent fuel ingestion into the cockpit during disconnect or a basket problem.  

If there was a catastrophic failure, ingesting basket or IFR door parts was the concern. A massive amount of fuel might stall the engine or worse, but airsource wouldn’t make a much of difference with respect to the engine function in those conditions.

Not sure about the avionics or AWG9 overheat modeling, the gun function is modeled correctly AFAIK. 

[Germane]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb Victory205:

The engine wouldn’t fail based on airsource selection during IFR. It was switched to the left engine to prevent fuel ingestion into the cockpit during disconnect or a basket problem.  

If there was a catastrophic failure, ingesting basket or IFR door parts was the concern. A massive amount of fuel might stall the engine or worse, but airsource wouldn’t make a much of difference with respect to the engine function in those conditions.

Not sure about the avionics or AWG9 overheat modeling, the gun function is modeled correctly AFAIK. 

Ah ok. Thank you for the Information! Was fuel ingestion into the cockpit very problematik?