Jump to content

JACN

Members
  • Posts

    205
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by JACN

  1. Yes, I got the replies I was asking for from him and HB team. Thanks,
  2. Hi, I´m getting a CTD everytime the FFB feature is enabled in the miscel menu. I know the "unofficial" Thrustmaster drivers needed to make it work under windows10 are rather problematic in other sims like P3D or MSFS2020...but I have no issues with the (great) FS Force external application in P3D. My question is this: is anybody using this hardware with DCS?. If so, is there any way to make the FFB feature work with it?. Thanks in advance,
  3. Great!. I have not tested it, actually few flight hours on the F-14. But, sorry for asking, is your statement confirmed by developers (perhaps you belong to the HB team.. ?). Thanks!
  4. Hi, First of all, congratulations and thanks for the impressive F-14 recreation!. I have a question related to the aerodynamics effects of external stores: are they modeled?. I assume they are not, at least in terms of aircraft stability and control impact. I´ve read that you´re working on a more realistic drag model for external stores configurations (fuel tanks and under fuselage weapons, right?). So, my question is if you have planned to include some directional stability degradation due to external stores as points the Natops. Yes, I am fully aware how difficult is to do it without real data....but, according to real jet flight manual, perhaps some (and always conservative) CNb reduction could be implemented with increasing Drag Index numbers. For sure it will not yield the exact jet behaviour...but definitely it will be closer than a 0 directional stability effects version...like the current one?. Apparently, the Natops states that it is not the result of a single store but the addition of several ones...and so my suggestion of a DI correlation and incremental approach. Probably, former F-14 pilots could help tweaking it by providing valuable info on more critical configurations. Best regards,
  5. Will this mod be compatible with ED´s next patch?. It´s supposed they will tweak some AI engagement behaviours there.
  6. Definitely, ED should look into this in their next patches. Although SAM threats can be *easily* handled by human piloted aircrafts, it results absolutely frustrating and disastrous for the rest of the AI flight... :( Álvaro
  7. I do believe something that easy would help A LOT against manpads, aswell as some restriction in the maverick use. It would be great if minimum maverick distance to the target could be commanded to the flight. Right now the flight keep their track firing mavs until they almost end above the target and at very low altitude. Then they start a quite stupid break manouvre which only further delays their *hot-zone*egression, bleeding at the same time all their energy in an useless turn which leaves them without true manoeuvring capability against a SAM. Aside, reaching this point, and given the proximity to the threat, it would be better if they´d try to overfly at higher speed the target or try to climb for a safer altitude instead of that useless high energy bleed turn. All in all, those aditional "escape" manoeuvres are observed in the DSMS setup... Álvaro
  8. Hi, Any hint about using flight (and wingman) to attack a target defended by iglas/stingers?. I´ve found *quite* easy to handle my flight to deal with -the easier to spot- SAM armour threads...but SAM manpads are always a nightmare for them since always almost all the flight result badly damaged or downed at the begining of the attack. I think ED should improve the flight AI on this respect or at least (a good improvement I think) giving us the chance to force the flight to employ a minimum safe altitude (3000-5000 ft). I´ve not found such possibility in the comms menu and once a flight member attempts even a *stand-off* missile attack they are hit because their altitude at the end of the run is too low and well inside the manpads range. Aside, I´ve seen they use very poor CMS tactics, since they drop few flares and at a very low rate. And I´m talking about high skills flight... A little desperated here :( Álvaro
  9. JACN

    Microsoft Flight

    Making the most of what my partner has mentioned. SE Superbug still is not the highest standard in realism FSX can offer since our PRO version development is in (good) progress and will use a 100% custom Flight Dynamics Engine, which basically will mean: no realism limitation. The limit will be the data used in the aerodynamic model and Control Laws (real Hornet code based, btw)...and of course the PC computational capability. But so far, you do not have to worry about this.:smilewink: Please, for *informed* discussion about VRS products...please, go to www.vrsimulations.com. Thanks Álvaro PS: our apologizes to ED for the interference.
  10. Patch v.1.0.4.x released! :) Álvaro
  11. Upgrade payware Aside of a completely new and -WAY- more advanced Flight Model (Aerodynamic data-set and Flight Control Laws) it will include aditional features as is ACL and systems/avionics upgrades. Álvaro
  12. No it´s not, trust me...;) PRO will be FAR closer to what a real life engineering simulator is. Amongst other things it will use a 100% custom Flight Dynamics Engine, different than the native MSFS one. It will be a completely new sim inside MSFS shell. Only FSX (NICE) visuals will be used... :) Álvaro
  13. If you like it because of realism...wait until the PRO version :music_whistling: ;) Álvaro
  14. Guys, just a clarification on the VRS Superbug FSX release date: End of March http://www.vrsimulations.com/forums/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=2407&start=15 Álvaro
  15. JACN

    Does it worth?

    Yes, he was right... Álvaro
  16. Trust in me he´s spanish, I know him very well...;) Álvaro
  17. Formerly EADS-CASA, currently Airbus Military...and he´s spanish ;) (Sorry for the clarification :)) Álvaro
  18. Wrong!:doh::D... X-Plane calculates aircraft elements aerodynamics based on a physics model like Vortex-Lattice, Datcom, basic CFDs algorithms and whatever. Don´t get me wrong...that´s ok and indeed it´s a quite complex and accurate way for PC based simulators. But it will never be as much accurate as a table (point to point) data based simulation. Basically because IF you do own the real (flight test obtained) stability and control derivatives for a given aircraft NO mathematical model in the world---even those run in Cray computers---will predict the real aircraft aerodynamics. A lookup table model system, on the other hand will reproduce it with as much accuracy as resolution and cross aerodynamic dependecies you can model. This is how the real life engineering simulators are built, like MSFS and not like X-Plane. Of course, MSFS data tables are (too) limited in terms of resolution and some (many) aerodynamic effects missing...BUT -I agree with you in this- with some external coding work, some developers (at least the one I know...) have managed to expand the MSFS FDE posibilities to reproduce a real aircraft aerodynamic data-set to the limits of the available data. However, I have to agree with you again, this is not and never has been the rule...but in the right hands (enough skills and knowledge) and with enough data, the simulation of the same aircraft would always be more accurate in the MSFS than in X-Plane. I will not keep discussing about which simulator is best, I think it´s stupid because "depends on" what and how you compare. I simply consider that many times a categorical statement needs enough information behind...from both sides :smilewink: Álvaro EDIT: an example of an advantage of the MSFS FDE system: given a real aircraft aerodynamics, X-Plane physics engine will never be able to reproduce "subtle" aerodynamics effects like a transonic wing-rock effect (not even noticed during the wind tunnel but in the Flight Test phase!). IF aerodata available, MSFS could reproduce that effect matching that real aircraft specific behaviour...X-Plane could not.
  19. Excluding helicopters, that statement is not true. Indeed MSFS can be (way) more realistic in terms of simulation accuracy than X-Plane. All depends on how much info (aero-data) do you have for a given aircraft. If you have no data of an aircraft, X-Plane internal algorithms will give you a "quite" realistic behaviour (let´s say 70% accuracy at best) if compared to the "addon producer guessed aerodynamics MSFS model"...Sadly in MSFS world only perhaps a 1% of addon makers takes the effort in research for accurate data. This is the reason of the MSFS bad reputation. Some recent born companies, like Dodosim, have aditionally found the true potential of the MSFS Flight Dynamics Engine. MSFS is not more than a (beautiful) raw simulation engine, it´s up to addon maker´s ability to whether make the most of it or not. And speaking streactly about helicopters...I really doubt X-Plane allows such a richly customized helo physics as the Dodo Jet Ranger displays: loss of tail rotor efficiency, main rotor vortex interference, tail rotor vortex ring state, for not mentioning the "basic" ones: rotor droop on torque application, vortex ring state, weathervane instability, etc...or aircraft components aging!. In summary X-Plane can be considered in the 99% of the cases better than MSFS...but in that 1% MSFS can literally c-r-u-s-h X-Plane´s physics. Let´s wait a few months ;) Álvaro
  20. That´s exactly what I meant with the rockets. The Apache can use the cannon and missiles from a perfectly estabilized hover condition...as can the Ka-50. BUT, the Apache can also use rockets in that condition...which the Ka-50 cannot. See from the point of view you want but that is a disadvantage because both aircrafts do not have (speaking strictly about rockets) the same capabilities: Apache can do the same as Ka-50 about rockets firing plus using them while hovering. The ones who don´t consider it as a useful technique....do they use cannon and ATGMs from a "moving"=not hovering condition?. Is for them easier to lock and fire ATGMs or cannon in forward (backward or lateral flight) than in hover flight?. So, if its easier (and sometimes safer) to use those weapons while hovering...WHY the rockets should not?. As I said in my first post, some wrong considerations during the design phase can be the root of it. Perhaps I´m wrong but I find too many similarities with the SU-25´s FCC rockets management...perhaps both aircrafts share the same FCC module?. It´s fast, easy and cheap to retrofit a proven technology in engineering, but many times it´s not the best solution, specially when the use enviroment has (even slightly) changed. And all of this could have to do with some comments people have made about an "unfinished" Ka-50 and old philosophy design applied at the end of an era. Or said in other words: born in the wrong moment Anyway it´s a superb machine with MANY MANY other capabilities other attack helos do not share. Of course, with the right piloting skills some of the disadvantageous points can be mitigated (though still will be there) putting it at the same level of any other helo if used in the correct scenery. This post was not a malignant criticism to the Ka-50 but an objective mention of some weak points in this aircraft that could have been avoided and perhaps someday will be fixed...maybe in the Ka-52. Álvaro
  21. Perhaps we should ask about it to Apache pilots in Afganistan... :smilewink: Álvaro
  22. Sorry but I have to disagree with you at this point. Always the fire solution in the Apache will come sooner since only it will need to be aligned in the horizontal axis. Indeed always if the aircraft is aligned with the target moving forward or hovering (of course, within a reasonably limits) you can fire rockets. And that is already an operational advantage. And not being able of using rockets capability while hovering is an operative disadvantage. Better sensors is another one ;) Álvaro
  23. No I didn´t mean navigation, of course ABRIS is as complex as any other navigation system could be. I meant general (chaotic) cockpit arrangement with many many indicators, switches and systems -even at your back!-. A modern glass cockpit allows different systems indications to be integrated into only one screen avoiding the claustrophobic sensation not found for example in an Apache or Cobra. You don´t have to turn back your head to both sides and back to know -with a "quick" look- if everything is ok, just to look forward and if any press a MFD button. Yes of course, a matter of practice to get rid of those PIO´s...but still a big disadvantage if compared with an Apache in which you can fire your rockets while hovering. Aside of any skills...it´s an operational disadvantage. Said in other words, for the same piloting skills, who has more chances to survive an attack run with rockets, a hovering and hidden Apache 4 km away from the target or a Ka-50 which has to fly towards the target (flying exposed over hostile/unknown terrain) while manually flying and aiming the weapons (perhaps a 33% of pilot´s attention put on SAM)?=> high operational disadvantage. As I said its and acceptable rockets attack technique -and the only one possible- for an attack aircraft but never for a helicopter. Álvaro
×
×
  • Create New...