Future Projects Road Map

[amalahama]

Actually depending on the aircraft, UAV engines represent a wide range of temperatures and thermal characteristics. Which UAV are you referring to? I'm a qualified instructor and test pilot of 4 different systems.

 

None in particular - I wanted only to point out the fact that turbine engines are much hotter than piston engines - even if external casing is properly isolated you still have the problem with the plume. I assume that small UAV's engines works in the same temperature range as car's engines, therefore 1600 hp P-51 engine might be hotter, but still much cooler than conventional turbines.

 

Regards!!

[Wichid]

The russians will be helpless against our attack of mildly warm air balloons.

[EtherealN]

None in particular - I wanted only to point out the fact that turbine engines are much hotter than piston engines - even if external casing is properly isolated you still have the problem with the plume. I assume that small UAV's engines works in the same temperature range as car's engines, therefore 1600 hp P-51 engine might be hotter, but still much cooler than conventional turbines.

 

Regards!!

 

Even the early Redeye was able to lock on to and engage WW2 era planes during testing. I don't know how well and what the engagement envelope was, but from what I recall it would even do it on approaching props.

 

Doesn't guarantee other missiles can do it, and engagement envelope would be interesting to know, but the idea that props are immune to IR missiles doesn't hold. ;)

[Laud]

I lately saw a picutre of a F-4 through the seeker of an IRIS-T: You can count the rivets on that crystal clear picture! I bet it could even lock on to a fresh fart...

[ARM505]

This is my area of expertise, well into the second decade of my career as a UAV pilot, so any chance to go on about it can't be left alone.

 

Say you're talking about an MQ-9 Reaper (who's absence in this game is a GLARING omission IMHO), that's got a Honeywell turboprop on it. Think Pilatus PC-12 class, which has the venerable PT-6 (not to insult but I don't know what you do or don't know).

 

My MQ-1C Grey Eagle (Army Predator variant) has a Thielert engine on it with EGTs anywhere from 100-925 C.

 

Shadows have a rotary engine that kettle along at a max CHT of 249 C.

 

It's been nearly 8 years since I've flown a Pioneer (but the numbers were similar to Shadow with it's Sachs 250 motor) but our Marines from 3rd LAAD Bn couldn't lock it up with a Stinger at a mere half mile, and the seeker on a Stinger is decent.

 

The Hermes 450 I flew had a similar engine to the Rotax on a legacy Predator A, so think of the powerplant signature from a homebuilt aircraft. SUAS like Scan Eagle and Aerosonde have engines smaller than my dad's prostate.

 

Wow, nice to know there's a UAV operator around here. The way of the future! What's a UAS? I've just googled the Scan Eagle, since I'd never heard of it - it seems one has crossed the Atlantic, unless I was reading wrong!

[Eihort]

Even the early Redeye was able to lock on to and engage WW2 era planes during testing. I don't know how well and what the engagement envelope was, but from what I recall it would even do it on approaching props.

 

Doesn't guarantee other missiles can do it, and engagement envelope would be interesting to know, but the idea that props are immune to IR missiles doesn't hold. ;)

 

So then why was the Redeye limited to engaging dramatically hotter Jets only from the rear?

[hassata]

I'm a qualified instructor and test pilot of 4 different systems.

 

Did you run across an ED product being used as some sort of trainer? There was a pic floating around of a class full of (I assume) cadets on stations running what looked to be ED software.

[EtherealN]

Did you run across an ED product being used as some sort of trainer? There was a pic floating around of a class full of (I assume) cadets on stations running what looked to be ED software.

 

That was DTS A-10C

[EtherealN]

So then why was the Redeye limited to engaging dramatically hotter Jets only from the rear?

 

As I said:

"engagement envelope would be interesting to know"

Something being "possible" does not always mean practical.

 

The key point is that they tested it, and it worked. If a 1960's shoulder-fired weapon can discriminate a prop from the background, I believe it's a fairly sure bet that modern weapons can - especially newer AIM-9s and similar.

 

Regarding why you'd limit a weapon to tail-on - it might just be because it radically increases your PK. If you have one shot, which indeed is all you do have since you won't be reloading that thing fast enough to launch a second one, you want to make the shot count. If you have a 20% PK on a head-on aspect target, but 60% on tail-on... Then you would be instructed to take the tail-on shot. Fairly simple and such procedure only tells you what is most practical, not what is "possible".

 

Indeed, in the case of a prop, you might not have this difference - since the jet will give a much better target for the weapon when tail-on, the aspect on launch will have a massive difference on your PK, but with no jet plume this might not happen on a prop, in which case things might be different.

 

Think of it like "shoot the tank from above and behind". This does not mean it's impossible to kill the tank from the front. Just that it's a lot easier to do it from above and behind than from the front, so if you have a choice that's what you would do (or just decide to abstain from the shot and keep yourself hidden in reserve for when a better opportunity arises.)

 

We'd need someone who actually operated the Redeye (or a Stinger operator, since that's a derivative) to clarify that aspect.

[hawk66]

"DCS Flying Legends" ...does that mean there is a possiblity that you guys also simulate vietnam-era planes like the 'F4' and 'A6 Intruder'?

 

So, a 'Flight of Intruder 2' basically...men, that would be really cool :).

[hawk66]

I don't know why people are so hung up on two-crew airplanes. They're not gonna do an entire sim where you can't function without two people. It's just not gonna happen. F-14, F-15E, F-4, A-6, F-111 are 100% pilot and BN/RIO/WSO dependant for combat operations. No, it will be a single seat jet.

 

I see the challenges and I do not expect it for the next time. But for the devs it would be a new challenge in a couple of years...to simulate a (believable) WSO.

And how much fun would it be to fly such a plane together (multiplayer)?

 

Multi-station was/is very popular in the naval sim 'Dangerous Waters'. People really liked to play together in the same platform and I do not see any reason why that should not be a success also in the flight sim genre.

[dikkeduif]

Depends, maybe you will be able to choose what seat you take and the other seat will be taken by the AI. I'm not sure how complex it will be to do something like that, but still it sounds doable.

[Inseckt]

Well, I think the entire concept of AI needs to ascend to a whole different level before that is feasible, but that said, I don't think ED fears two seated-ness. Remember that they once said they would do apache:) I even saw cockpit screens! :)

[lobo]

Originally Posted by hassata

Did you run across an ED product being used as some sort of trainer? There was a pic floating around of a class full of (I assume) cadets on stations running what looked to be ED software.

 

That was DTS A-10C

 

 

USAF needs to get these guys better stick and throttles though...

[sobek]

USAF needs to get these guys better stick and throttles though...

 

The DTS is a procedural trainer, not a flight simulator. As such, the students learn procedures with it, not actually handling the airplane.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I did not read the whole thread, so this might be a repeated question.

 

When it comes to a future projects, I don't see a Dedicated Server on the map?

 

Currently, we are paying a lot's of money trying to keep =4c= dedicated server up and running. I am not sure how much longer we will be able to do it.

[lobo]

The DTS is a procedural trainer, not a flight simulator. As such, the students learn procedures with it, not actually handling the airplane.

 

I understand that. An accurate HOTAS controller ie TMWH connected to the DTS could only benefit the student. There is a fairly steep HOTAS muscle memory learning curve required to employ the DCS A-10C. I've found this to be the most challenging part of this sim... maybe thats just me ;)

 

Maybe the USAF/ANG use another trainer/sim/cpt for this purpose...

 

Cheers :pilotfly:

[EtherealN]

I would suggest that as far as learning to fly goes, they use actual aircraft, not a DTS, and of course domes. You can't get the same airmanship training on a DTS because so much depends on feeling G-forces and so on.

 

Hajduk, ED are working on Dedis, but there's no specific due date yet, AFAIK. News when appropriate. But be assured that ED wants to make one available.

[SimFreak]

I understand that. An accurate HOTAS controller ie TMWH connected to the DTS could only benefit the student. There is a fairly steep HOTAS muscle memory learning curve required to employ the DCS A-10C. I've found this to be the most challenging part of this sim... maybe thats just me ;)

 

Maybe the USAF/ANG use another trainer/sim/cpt for this purpose...

 

Cheers :pilotfly:

 

 

I used DTS and I have nothing to do with A10.... there are other uses for it....

[lobo]

I would suggest that as far as learning to fly goes, they use actual aircraft, not a DTS, and of course domes. You can't get the same airmanship training on a DTS because so much depends on feeling G-forces and so on.

 

I'm not talking about learning to fly... I'm talking about learning the HOTAS specific to the A-10C. I suspect that one way or another they have this down before they sit in the aircraft.

[lobo]

I used DTS and I have nothing to do with A10.... there are other uses for it....

 

Predator Reaper DTS or DTS AC-130?

 

(also interesting to see Carl Norman of TIS still with links to TFC)

Edited November 19, 2011 by lobo**

[july865]

would ED/DCS consider a HMS (helmet mounted sight) into the A10?

also will the new added plane contain this new feature?

[Jona33]

would ED/DCS consider a HMS (helmet mounted sight) into the A10?

also will the new added plane contain this new feature?

 

The JHMCS for the A-10 was in a later suite (might not be ready yet so don't know). If the next aircraft is capable with that then it might be in there.

 

USAF needs to get these guys better stick and throttles though...

 

I love that stick.

[topol-m]

36 pages?!

2 simple questions: DCS A-10C was announced way before its actual release, is it going to be the same with DCS Fighter? Approximately when will the particular fighter be announced? I can hardly imagine mentioning something like say "1st quarter of 2012" is so hard and such info has to be that secret. At the very least you guys must have several possible announcement dates, I don't see any harm in sharing them with the community.

Edited November 20, 2011 by topol-m

[july865]

The JHMCS for the A-10 was in a later suite

i thought that the A10 avionics was as updated as it was going to get. you mean there's more?

if im not mistaken, isn't the JHMCS already incorporated? you would just need the new helmet?