Tiger-II

Hi, The WMD7 only requires a single power-on cycle PER SESSION. ON causes spin-up/gyro align but subsequent aircraft do not go through this step.

Hi, Latest OB; the WMD7 picture is screwed up and IR mode is unusable. It's like the brightness/contrast is applied twice. It also does not remember brightness/contrast settings and gets darker on mode switch.

Interesting. Check my post "Flight Model Drag". @njoyyoursalad

Hi, Something seems wrong/different. 2x PL5 2x BRM-1 2x 800L 1x WMD7 Flying at 12000 ft, 10 deg. nose down at MAX. She felt to hit a brick wall at Mach 0.94 and would not accelerate 1 kt faster. I recall being able to go supersonic and rip things off. High drag does not prevent supersonic flight, even if it means breaking stuff. My imagination, or something change?

Sweep: 2x PL5 4x SD-10 2x 800L 1x SPJ CAP: 2x PL5 2x SD-10 2x 1100L 1x SPJ Anti-Armor: 2x PL5 2x BRM-1 2x tanks or bombs 1x WMD7 Anti-Radiation: 2x PL5 2x or 4x LD-10 2x or zero SD-10 2x 800L 1x SPJ Anti-Ship: 2x PL5 1x DL POD 2x C807AKG or C807AK 1x SPJ 1x WMD7 or none 1x CL 800L or none 2x SD-10 or none 2x LD-10 or none Attacking hardened structures/buildings: 2x PL5 2x or 4x SFW 2x or 4x GBU-10/16 2x 800L or 1x CL 800L or none 2x SD-10 or 2x LD-10 or none 1x WMD7 It depends a bit on the mission profile. I may either be offensive or defensive air.

A couple of things: * Check the gyros are not barber-poled * Check SAS is enabled * I found engaging the trimmer (not trim power) is required * Accurate flying before engagement I have had a couple of times where it failed to engage, but why I don't know.

The worst part of the FM is how it reacts to pilot input. Much of the flying in the video can be done by the behemoth that is the Mi-8. You just need more room and need to be a bit more careful.

The "corrector" is a MECHANICAL linkage to what we think of as "throttle". It's a device that automatically increases power (throttle) when collective is pulled IN ADDITION to the governor that tries to maintain RPM. The corrector literally corrects for a short-fall in RPM based off collective physical position only. It's a crude yet effective mechanism. Many piston helicopters have such devices, otherwise every change of collective (pitch) requires a throttle change, which can get tiresome. Less pitch, less throttle. More pitch, more throttle. A simple hack? Add a mechanism to make small throttle changes. :D

:megalol:

That's possible. Mistral flies at peak of Mach 2.6 and has a range of up to 6 km, so if he was < 1.5 km when you fired it, it would have the necessary performance to reach him.

I experienced this yesterday with the tail rotor. I found I was quickly accelerating sideways from a hover, and adding pedal just made it worse. I was doing 100 kph before I knew it.

From other posts (and Polychop themselves) it seems it will be after the Kiowa is released. Whether the update happens remains to be seen, but it is the current situation. Polychop say the new Gazelle FM will be based on the same technology currently going into the Kiowa.

You are understandable! Interesting you mention momentum. I think recently that all DCS aircraft seem to lack *inertia*. Sure, they seem to behave correctly, but they feel to have no mass. Instead of feeling to be flying an aircraft that weighs 30,000 lbs with 20,000 lbs of thrust, it's like they weigh 3,000 lbs with 2,000 lbs thrust.

Just a thought - I think on the previous flight I ripped the tanks off. Try this... takeoff, rip the tanks off (just exceed maximum forward speed for the tanks > 1000 kph TAS), land, re-arm (including tanks), and fly again.

I can get to about 70000 ft consistently. Any higher and I just stall. I was going to fly something with spinning wings, but actually I'm going to try this again. :joystick:

No problem! I'll try again and see if I can replicate it myself. Thank you!

As long as Polychop are serious about returning to the Gazelle after the Kiowa, and developing a new flight model that is in line with the quality of the other DCS helicopter offerings, they'll have my business. I don't expect perfect, but I do expect accurate. While the current Gazelle flies nicely and is otherwise a great aircraft, the flight model doesn't stand any scrutiny.

I've yet to try AA in this, but reading about the Minstral missile, it makes the SA342 Minstral sound like a flying SAM site. Wow!

There are three main issues/considerations with anything simulator: * Control hardware (most people use standard "home" joystick type controllers) * Control simulation (how much hardware input = simulated control surface deflection) * Flight model (what happens as the result of the virtual flight control surface deflection) I fly "stick" aircraft IRL, and already I know the differences/limitations between real and simulated fixed-wing flying. To say the simulated version is realistic is also to avoid the topic, BUT it is easier to get the control feel vs. a something far more dynamic, like helicopters. I've never flown a real helicopter, but I know quite a bit about real helicopter physics and control characteristics (it is my intention to get some real helicopter time when finances allow). This is where the Polychop flight model completely falls apart. Allowing for the limitations of the home controller device, if you ignore what you must do with your hand to get a specific input, when you look at what the sim is seeing and how the flight model reacts, it's clearly not right. From the moment you "pick up" the helicopter to establish a hover, something just isn't simulated. My opinion? I don't think the blades are being simulated. I think they are point forces in the vertical axis (main rotor) and horizontal (tail rotor). I do not think there is any interaction between the two, and just some basic simulation of the behaviors (e.g. when certain conditions are met, the aircraft will simulate the outcome of RBS by rolling towards the retreating side, but not because the simulated rotor actually stalled and lost lift). Try flying the simulated Gazelle backwards. It tells a lot. The tail should enter the downwash of the main rotor, and become quite ineffective/the helicopter should want to rotate around the main rotor, but instead we just get a bit of buffeting and an otherwise stable flight path. Nearly all conventional helicopters hate flying backwards for this reason. The reason the stick control position moves as the helicopter transitions from hover to forward flight is in part to do with the changing center of pressure. Lift is not equal across the rotor disc in forward flight vs. hover. Consequently the front of the rotor produces more lift than the rear (clean air) and wants to pitch up as the lift vector is ahead of the CoG. This requires more forward cyclic to compensate. None of the above really has anything to do with the controller hardware, and everything to do with physics. I think the Gazelle physics model is extremely simplified. It also explains why it doesn't support FFB - the forces required to drive it are simply not being computed. I'm not buying the Kiowa until the Gazelle has an updated (and correct!) flight model. The fact that in December 2019 they are still wanting data from the real aircraft really makes me think they used a few YT videos to try and develop this aircraft. It is otherwise a solid and very enjoyable aircraft, EXCEPT for its flight model. It flies, and is fun, but it's not "real". The equivalence to flying an RC helicopter is not far off the mark. As for VRS, it's the only reason I don't like flying the Mi-8 (it is far too prone to it), otherwise, it is my favorite (I have the Ka-50 as well). I also tried the Huey during the free month, and that thing feels like the rotor is attached to a big spring and not a mast.

If there is wind and you want to VLAND, approach slightly downwind, and as you approach the landing spot, turn into wind before completely reducing GROUND speed to zero. This makes it easier to station-keep should the wind not be what you expected.

The model is most of the performance in DCS.

Yes. "New aircraft" syndrome. I managed 1 hour 24 mins so far with mostly supersonic flight. :thumbup:

I thought that is what you said (you already flew it without problems). What happens when you try to fly it? It just behaves as if it is not activated?

:doh: Excuse me for thinking you couldn't mix them AT ALL. :doh::doh::doh:

Wow. Not where I expected the thread to go! Just to clarify I'm trying the MiG-19 as part of the free month, and was just messing around with it. You did however gain a customer! How did I pull off this fete? I think I have an idea. First, I just continually climbed from takeoff. If you do this with a low fuel load you can't get high enough. I don't have a track (I fly DCS often and any temporary stuff gets lost quickly). Try this (IMHO I don't think the load-out matters): * Full load of fuel, rocket pods, tanks, and missiles. * Takeoff and just fly an optimum climb profile * Keep climbing Atmosphere is whatever the default settings are when you create a mission. I did fire some rockets, and the guns (a few rounds), before I dumped them. I dropped the tanks first, when they were empty. I then dropped the rocket pods to reduce drag as I climbed higher. I just kept climbing, slowly. At around 68,000 ft, something interesting happened. The flight model "bumped" as if I entered a thermal (I fly gliders IRL - natural reaction LOL). Nothing outwardly changed, but the VS increased very slightly. I kept climbing. Eventually leveled out at 80000 ft. It took about an hour to get there, and I just flew in a straight line. Seeing as you're looking into this, the flight model does have a problem with lift calculation vs. AoA. Another test: At an altitude of your choice, accelerate to about 800 km/h (level), and pull and HOLD for a +4 g loop (hold, as in do NOT move the elevator once set at +4 g. It's the elevator position you hold, not the g loading). As the aircraft loses speed, g INCREASES, and rather suddenly. This should not happen. g should reduce gradually as the aircraft is losing airspeed, and both lift and elevator effectiveness should reduce.