Jump to content

m4ti140

Members
  • Content Count

    218
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About m4ti140

  • Rank
    Member
  • Birthday 07/22/1994

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, X Plane 11, Falcon BMS, Orbiter 2016+SSU, Kerbal Space Program?, Elite Dangerous??
  • Location
    Poland
  • Interests
    Linguistics, Fantasy, Sci-fi, Simulation, Gaming
  • Occupation
    Aerospace engineering student

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Given that the cause was in the end determined to be just a misunderstanding regarding units used in the cockpit, could this thread is closed or - better - deleted? I keep seeing people on social media spamming about how horrible the Mi-8 FM is and then pointing here as a proof, never bothering to read past the OP.
  2. Ah yes, let's insult and ignore when we can't come up with arguments to defend our position. And pretend things we don't like don't exist. LIKE THE MASSIVE F****NG MOUNTAINS YOU HAVE BETWEEN YOUR FARP AND THE MISSION AREA. Quite convenient when you need to stay safe from enemy air threats. Don't care, just stop spamming the thread, you're wasting storage space on the ED servers. Every single suggestion you bring up would halve the quality of this server if introduced.
  3. It's not, I'm on a very outdated version of Windows 10 (from like January) and I also got this problem with latest versions of DCS. It's most severe on a map that I had to move to an HDD and symlink back to save space on SSD (Nevada to be precise). Something about the new memory management, I can run higher texture settings now and maintain stability, but I get this stutter, it's like it's reading from disk way more now. I assume reducing terrain textures to low might improve this, haven't checked yet.
  4. CA doesn't count as flying. And no, we can't, the entire area around Hatay is a death sentence to red fighters if overflown. Not to mention if we have to grab strikers that means we end up with fewer fighters than blue. You can't just do a fighter sweep and switch to strikers, you need to maintain air superiority. You clearly have no concept of that. Try that mission on red side and see what you can do. Mi-8 cargo trips end in getting killed by F-5s on the way, something Hueys don't really need to worry about unless blue has literally 0 fighters in the air and don't bother with sams. Remembe
  5. @Pilot Ike 1. You don't fly anyway, so you have no clue about capability of any of them 2. Blue has 10 strikers in this mission, 4xA-10 and 6xViggen. And you don't really need to use any of them, you can just grab 100% fighters and deny airspace to the grand total of 6 red strikers - as if it was not already denied by shorads, until those are destroyed red only has 2 usable strikers, because you need the 25Ts to clean those up. And it's easier said then done in this environment. Meanwhile blue can get Viggens to Minakh without EVER getting spotted by going through the valleys to the north, fi
  6. ^this. Alpen, there's an easy way to test missions like those - let it run with AI only a couple times and check the result. A balanced mission will have win ratio of roughly half for each side without player intervention. The setup above would quite possibly end up in blue win 100% of the time on the other hand.
  7. @Alpenwolf You do realize that SRS has its own client list, you can SEE who is connected and who isn't. I mean, obviously you do, you're the server administrator here, you're supposed to know this. Or don't you?
  8. OK, I have a winner. Rossmum was right, there are gamebreaking exploits that occur naturally just by following normal procedures and let you go stupidly fast. I haven't checked the fuel pump exploit yet but just by starting with all pylons occupied with Rb-24Js and center tank, then jettisoning everything and launching the remaining two missiles (so in the end, I was not fully clean, I should have had additional drag from the sidewinder rail) I got the aircraft to go over 1650 kph at sea level... this is just stupid. Also note that that chart shows Mach 2.0 max at ISA-15, not +10. So lower
  9. The problem is that the Viggen is one of those aircraft that can reach speeds where this would become an issue with no effort. In fact it takes effort to keep it within safe operational limits. No one would complain about inaccurate supersonic modelling for an A-10 or Su-25. If the negative drag bug is what's happening here, then it would explain a lot. And definitely needs attention. It would be one thing if it was A-10. It's another when it's an aircraft designed for speed and the sim puts a black hole into its nosecone.
  10. No there won't be, which is why anything outside of the envelope requires numerical analysis and careful modelling of known physical phenomena ocuring in this regime. Either that, or just break stuff apart once it goes out of envelope, like some modules do. The problem with the former approach is that no you won't find much vanguard for this kind of stuff because no one does this these days for any professional applications of flight simulation software, you cross the envelope - the simulation stops, the instructor walks in and smacks you in the head. And if you're doing failure simulations th
  11. Here's the documentary I mentioned btw: Note however that JA-37 uses the RM8B engine, with an additional fan stage. It's hard to tell how that will influence performance at max speed without data for both engines at hand.
  12. Fair enough. I made some tests myself in a Viggen, default cold start so OAT 2 °C (where it is I don't know, it's DCS, but I assume it's gonna be SL temperature), clean config. Reached 1556 in ground effect at the moment of running out of fuel. Considering that I've seen documentary where a pilot claimed they could go 1470 kph I can believe that, though I don't know how accurate that claim was either. What I find hard to believe is that it would be as smooth as what I've experienced. I was flying 4m above the water surface at over 1550 kph and it felt almost on rails. Not to mention that I
  13. Bachelor's. And I'm not making "claims". I didn't make any claims and I don't care why it happens since it's irrelevant to your post, I made an observation - in DCS the F-16 goes into oscillations and tears itself apart at those speeds. I didn't say anything about why it loses stability, I only acknowledged what I've seen happen in DCS. And what I've NOT seen happen in the Viggen in the same situation. Go shitposting on reddit, not here.
  14. No, it can't. It loses lateral stability and tears itself apart at 1590 kph. DCS Viggen goes faster. Stop lying.
×
×
  • Create New...