Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SMH

  1. Yeah. As a two seat trainer MC sync should be the highest priority.
  2. Just AI or flyable? Even just AI would be greatly appreciated, but of course flying one is the dream. And we need an equivalent on the German side. Ju-52 being the obvious choice. But the C-47 would fit in scenarios right up until the '80s and even modern times for smaller militaries. And if they think nobody wants to fly transports (we do! bombers too!) then they can give us an AC-47 loadout for it. How awesome would that be? (Unfortunately no equivalent for the Ju-52 though at least it does have a defensive dorsal gun turret.) Oh and of course functioning paratroops to drop from them. Field capture is currently uncommon in DCS WWII I think mostly due to this. Yeah, the current parachute animations for the pilot bailouts aren't great and are inconsistent across modules. Even the better ones feel like static animations with no physics. But still way better than nothing. I wouldn't hold off adding paratroops just because of lack of chute physics. That'll come. (I hope anyway!!! ) I get the feeling they're working on something regarding this. Maybe even troops that can get on and off aircraft in a visible animated way instead of just being imaginary as they are now. (Would explain why we're seeing downed pilot locations on the F10 map lately.)
  3. I would imagine some of that was the drag they caused as well. I know the FB variant was a bit slower than the bomber due to the flat windscreen vs. the split one on the bomber. I'd think the night fighters would have all had them. No?
  4. Oh, interesting. So would the props be slightly forward on the bomber compared to the fighter/bomber? (Also interesting that the earlier bomber variant actually had a better engine with two-stage supercharger. Seems backwards, though I can understand it having a greater need for high altitude performance vs. the mud mover variant.) Thanks!
  5. Also remember, the Spit V and earlier had shared exhaust stacks for each cylinder. What the advantages/disadvantages are and and why they changed, I don't know. I think some of it was trying to squeeze a tiny bit of extra thrust out of the stacks. Oddly the earlier Mosquito bomber variant seems to have 6 individual stacks per side. They're often covered by a flame dampener too as they were night bombers. I've been wondering forever why the FB had two shared but I've never gotten a convincing answer for it. (And it's also quite possible there's no real reason at all. Could just be that's how that particular model of Merlin engine came.)
  6. The two rear-most cylinders share the same exhaust stack.
  7. So, ideally, the keybinds for all of them should be toggles that flip their current state.
  8. They left the visual model off the Hind entirely.
  9. I have this too, FFB axes appear inverted. You trim the stick to one side and it re-centers to the other side. And it's never been a problem with FFB in any of the other ED choppers (Mi-8, UH-1H, Ka-50). Where exactly are you finding this trimmer axis setting? [Never mind, found it! I haven't had to use this on any DCS aircraft until now so you might want to change the default FFB axis directions.] And rudder normally doesn't trim in helicopters. But in the Special Menu there's an option to enable it. (I don't use it as I have pedals. Can test if you need though.)
  10. I've actually asked a real MiG-15 pilot (who confirmed my assumptions) to join us in this discussion. Perhaps he will.
  11. That sounds right to me. So how is it I can do this with no rudder input at this low speed? (There is a very slight deflection of the ball here. But if you go much faster than this there's virtually none.)
  12. SMH


    Same issue. If people are seeing different things it's probably an uninitialized variable. (Are you able to turn it both On and Off, BIGNEWY?) And clearly it shouldn't be defined by the mission, if that's what's happening. We see these kinds of bugs a lot, ambiguity of state between Mission and user settings. And just verified... ["Supercarrier"] = { ["Use_native_ATC_text"] = false, ["enable_FLOLS_overlay"] = false, }, ...is in my options.lua file.
  13. Again, apparently I'm wrong that it should do it and also wrong that it doesn't do it because it does. How can it be both? So long as I'm wrong, I guess, that's obviously what matters here.
  14. Yeah, it's called a vertical stabilizer. But you still need some rudder deflection to maintain perfectly coordinated turns. There is no automated system doing that.
  15. I disabled the yaw dampener in my test track.
  16. So if I can prove they used to exhibit far more adverse yaw you'll admit something changed accidentally?
  17. Yeah, fly-by-wire planes. These aren't. When was this change implemented? It didn't used to be this way. And again, the F-86, MiG-15 and A-10C behave this way now too. I'm sure they didn't before, I used to have a reason to use rudder.
  18. "Rather, it generally creates inefficiency in flight and possibly physical discomfort among passengers as the aircraft skids and slips from side to side while conducting uncoordinated turns." https://inspire.eaa.org/2020/08/12/adverse-yaw-what-is-it/ " However, in the beginning of a turn, when the ailerons are being applied in order to bank the airplane, the ailerons also cause an adverse yaw of the airplane. For example, if the airplane is rolling clockwise (from the pilot point of view), the airplane yaws to the left. It assumes a crab-like attitude relative to the wind. This is called a slip. " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skid_(aerodynamics)
  19. What about the F-86, MiG-15 and A-10C which now do the same? When was this changed on all these planes? Why? Also, is "slipping and skidding" not "adverse yaw"? It used to. When was it changed? I feel like I'm flying an oversimplified sim now. Also, you seem to be contradicting each other. cofcorpse is saying we should see adverse yaw and that we do and that my track shows it (despite my screen capture showing none). Yo-Yo is saying that we shouldn't see adverse yaw at all and that we don't. How can it be both?
  20. Almost everyone here has been telling me it shouldn't exhibit any adverse yaw, so nice that you agree it should. Maybe there's just the slightest bit of yaw showing. The ball is still well within the lines but perhaps just slightly towards the direction of turn. I'd expect more and could have sworn it was more in the past. (And again, the F-86 and MiG-15 are doing the same thing. I know for sure the MiG-15 changed as I used to fly it a lot, then put it aside for a while, and coming back to it now, it's a very different plane. Feels too easy.) F-5Turning01.trk
  21. It was a global option. I forget if it was called auto-rudder or easy-flight or what. It was defaulting to ON, so many people didn't know it was affecting them. Working on getting you a track. Same result regardless.
  22. It was a feature that appeared for a while then was removed. I'm thinking it might have stuck on when it was removed. I'll try to find the Changelog where they said they removed it. AFAIK it was never announced, it just snuck in there at some point. Defaulted to ON too and caused a lot of confusion. And I never said the ball is centered during split throttle. (But what DOES happen is turning will make the ball go to center! Regardless of which way you turn!) And you're telling me the ball isn't dead center when you're pulling hard in a level turn? Really?
  23. Try turning in these aircraft. The ball goes hard to center. Tight, loose, slow, fast, doesn't matter, even with a thrust imbalance in the F-5 or A-10C, as soon as you start turning the ball magically moves to center. (Even when your thrust imbalance should push it out. Like, a thrust imbalance shouldn't help turn in BOTH directions, right?)
  24. As I already mentioned, I tested with Yaw SAS off as well as on and saw absolutely no difference either way. (All my tests were done with my feet off the pedals.)
  25. Not according to T.O. 1A-10C-1 - Flight Manual - A-10C (02-04-2012) . "ARI" never occurs as a single word and "interconnect" is only mentioned 6 times, in connection to the fuel system, elevator to elevator connection, ejection handles, and radio keys. And again, all these personal attacks when I'm just trying to help. Some of you seem to think ED can make no errors, but they've changed this recently so if it's perfect now then it must have been wrong in all of these planes before. You all know if I had come in here a year ago saying it was wrong to see adverse yaw in all these planes that the exact same people would be attacking me, telling me I have no right to an understanding of the physics of flight, exactly the same as they're doing now. Very ugly and unhelpful!
  • Create New...