Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Sadrat

Please support the infantry for only 3 cheese slices per month.

 

sad_rat_sidewalk_31.jpg

Edited by monotwix
  • Like 1

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Posted

Something is wrong, we hit 200 pages, AND 2000 posts....why has this action not unlocked the FC3 download? ;)

 

 

i5 3570k @ 4.3

560ti GTX 2gig

8gig RAM

Intel SSD

Win7 64bit

 

 

Posted
Sadrat

Please support the infantry for only 3 cheese slices per month.

 

sad_rat_sidewalk_31.jpg

 

You make less and less sense every time you say something like this :P

If you aim for the sky, you will never hit the ground.

Posted

300 baby!!

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

"If they can make penicillin out of moldy bread, they can certainly make something out of you"

 

-Muhammad Ali

 

WIN 7 64-bit SP1 | AMD Phenom II X4 955 | 8.0 GB RAM | NVidia GeForce GTX 550Ti | CH Pro Throttle | CH Fighterstick | CH Pro Pedals | TrackIR5

Posted

The artists are getting annoyed…

The art of top gun is gonna get u. just wait but don't cry then.

I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

Posted (edited)

Apologies to those who I saw the value I wrote of 4.95 ms. This is incorrect, the correct figure is 10 times higher (0.0495 s == 49.5 ms) and in addition the surfaces have rate limited responses (partially due to software, partially due to physical inertia, I guess). Here's the relevant section (Appendix A of NASA Technical Paper 1538 ):

 

The longitudinal control system also incorporated an angle-of-attack limiting system which functioned by using an alpha feedback to modify the pilot- commandednormal acceleration. The angle-of-attack feedback reduced the commanded normal-acceleration limit by 0.322g/deg between alpha = 15 ° and 20.4 ° and by 1.322g/deg above alpha = 20.4 °. This feature resulted in an angle-of-attack limit in ig flight of approximately 25°. The maximum allowable positive commanded normal acceleration is shown in figure 63. The stabilator actuator was modeled as a first-order lag of 0.0495 sec, with a rate limit of 60°/sec. The surface deflection limit was ±25 °.

So, everyone was write that 5 ms was negligible. 50 ms becomes noticeable (the average human can notice changes in video rates 25 Hz = 40 ms). Add on to the half-second or so control response rate from zero to full deflection and there is a bit of lag in the system. This is the fastest you can alter controls.

 

My understanding is that pilots are trained to progressively apply G over several seconds to decrease the likelihood of G-Loc.

 

Again, my apologies for writing the incorrect figure. The conclusions you made were correct for the data I wrote. I hope with the new figure you'll reconsider my proposition that there is human-noticeable lag in fly-by-wire systems (at least the older ones) coupled with mechanical rate limits. Even with that minimum lag additional commanded delays need to be made to reduce the chance of G-Loc.

Edited by Moa
Posted
My understanding is that pilots are trained to progressively apply G over several seconds to decrease the likelihood of G-Loc.

Pretty much. Pilots understand that onset rate plays a huge factor in G tolerance.

 

Again, my apologies for writing the incorrect figure. The conclusions you made were correct for the data I wrote. I hope with the new figure you'll reconsider my proposition that there is human-noticeable lag in fly-by-wire systems (at least the older ones) coupled with mechanical rate limits. Even with that minimum lag additional commanded delays need to be made to reduce the chance of G-Loc.

No worries. However I would still dispute that even 50ms of lag is very little, when you consider that every aircraft experiences a delay between input and reaction regardless of whether or not it incorporates "fly-by-wire." It depends on what aircraft you're comparing it to and a multitude of other factors, but I have never heard computational lag of a fly-by-wire system quoted as a significant problem for pilots.

Posted
28090308.jpg

 

That´s why:

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1573258#post1573258

 

Priorities have changed as anythings is subject to change.

AS ED realized that the new featurs will need a stable DCS World, they decided to focus on finishing DCS World first. So FC3 might really (unfortunately) take a while.

 

We´ll see...and as ED showed what they are able to do...we shall give them the time without rushing anythings...an old german phrase says...Gut Ding will Weile haben...roughly translated...a good things needs it´s time :thumbup:

Posted

Haha nice one guys. Seems like the general consensus after a bit of reading is that 1.2.2 is the priority and rounding out features such as the resource manager etc etc.... I doubt we will get any further specifics from Wags though so I suppose it's back to (in)patient waiting.

Posted

This friday is my birthday,and as my mum says I'm the most important thing in the universe

I can be pretty sure that devs are waiting till friday to give me a good present like I deserve :)

Posted

If it is released on Friday then I will buy it.......

 

 

 

 

...... But will not download it until I have had a proper play through of Dishonoured.

The only way to make sense out of change is to plunge into it, move with it, and join the dance.

"Me, the 13th Duke of Wybourne, here on the ED forums at 3 'o' clock in the morning, with my reputation. Are they mad.."

https://ko-fi.com/joey45

 

Posted
Pretty much. Pilots understand that onset rate plays a huge factor in G tolerance.

 

No worries. However I would still dispute that even 50ms of lag is very little, when you consider that every aircraft experiences a delay between input and reaction regardless of whether or not it incorporates "fly-by-wire." It depends on what aircraft you're comparing it to and a multitude of other factors, but I have never heard computational lag of a fly-by-wire system quoted as a significant problem for pilots.

 

I think you've misread my first post (or perhaps, it was mis-written?).

 

We agree that pilots are trained to apply G progressively to help with avoid G-Loc.

 

My point was that there was some irreducible lag due to the flight control system and actuator slew rate. I was heading off the argument that there is already lag in the system - but that lag is not enough to reduce the G onset effects - pilots must consciously soften their inputs as they go to high Gs (unlike us in simulations that can yank much harder and get away with it - which some people may not realise is not realistic).

 

So I think we are actually in agreement :)

Posted

Yo ED my fulcrum fueled and ready yet? My balls starting to ache in this gsuit. Im a peacock you gotta let me fly.

  • Like 1

Flanker, Flanker 2.0, Flanker 2.5, Lockon, FC1, FC2,FC3, BS1, BS2, A10C, CA and World

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Posted

oh boy, still NO FC3 release....

Intel I7 - 10700 K @ 3,80GHz / 64 GB DDR3 / RTX 3090 / Win 10 Home 64 bit / Logitech X56 HOTAS / HP Reverb G2  

Running DCS on latest OB version 

 

Posted
I think you've misread my first post (or perhaps, it was mis-written?).

 

So I think we are actually in agreement :)

 

I think we do... it's a violent agreement!

Posted

Nothing to see here, move along now!! ;-P

Don't ask me for advice on these Two Subjects:

 

1.. How to Take Off in the Dora!

2.. How to Land the Dora!

 

UNLESS YOU WANT TO DIE!

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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