Flys like a dream now. Thanks for the solution!
Posts made by Smokin hole
-
RE: AV8B Hover Controllability in 4.37
-
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
Very cool! Thanks for figuring it out so quickly.
-
RE: AV8B Hover Controllability in 4.37
In the game, clean and 2/3rds gas is light enough to lift to a hover. Which for testing purposes that’s all that matters. It’s axis control, not performance that separates 4.36 and 4.37.
Also, it looks like the mystery has been solved (per the other thread). Some code was deleted while working on another module.
-
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
There may be multiple things to complain about but in my case, I am not talking about performance or the ability to sustain altitude or to takeoff or to decelerate quickly to a stop. I am talking simply about the ability to apply any sort of control over pitch, roll or yaw with zero speed over the ground at any weight in calm wind.
-
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
MOD(s)
I posted a similar thread in the Technical Support section. Please merge or delete. Thanks!
-
AV8B Hover Controllability in 4.37
This thread is a repeat post of one I started in the General Discussion. I am repeating here because I believe that it is a confirmed bug. In 4.37, the Harrier seems to have no bleed pressure to the axis control nozzles. When flown referencing the DED INS display, one can see this clearly as you slow below 30 knots. Faster than that you have very weak control but still some. Slower and control degrades to nil, best observed in yaw. That DAT files between 4.36 and 4.37 are essentially identical but 4.37 does add an AI Max AOA in the “AOA and Sideslip Limits” section, line 24.
The best confirmation is to test the single AV8B+ in the WASP TE with zero loadout and 5000 lbs. 4.36 demonstrates very good controllability and responsiveness where 4.37 has none of either. At speeds above 80 or so, both versions seem close, if not identical. Moving the .dat files from 4.36 to 4.37 and adding the max AI AOA value of +25.000000 (to avoid a CTD) yields a model that is unchanged from the original 4.37.
-
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
I doubt in matters but line 24 of av8b.dat are different between 4.37 and 4.36.
But anyway, if curious, just try hovering with the two versions. Take the training AV8+ in the WASP TE and remove the loadout.
Lift to a hover in each version. One is easily controlled. The other has no control at all. -
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
In editing the av8 (dot) dat files I porked my install. Reinstalling now but there is a difference between the two av8b.dat files. It’s line 24 or 25 that reads something like “AOA Max AI” and has a value of +25.000000.
-
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
I went back to 4.36 and the Harrier is easily controlled in hover. And quite responsive. Totally different than 4.37. I tried moving the DAT files to 4.37 but that caused a game crash.
-
RE: Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
It feels to me as if air available for axis control is proportional to airspeed now. At exactly “0”, there is little or no control at all.
-
Has 4.37 Changed the Harrier FM?
It seems just a year ago I was able to hover relatively well. Now I find it impossible. It’s as if all bleed pressure to the control nozzles ceases once the groundspeed approaches zero. FM change or just me getting old?
And even if the answer is the latter (it’s true) there is zero ability to yaw in hover so something is amiss beyond my own skill level.
-
RE: 4.37 VR cockpit scale feels off
The F-16 and F-18 are acceptable to me. (Pretty d*** great, actually!) But they are slightly off and some respects, as has been mentioned above. This is also true for me in other VR sims as well. What is hilariously off is the Harrier. I feel like I am 10 feet tall flying a jet designed for 10’ pilots.
-
RE: Hornet FM
It’s fine as is. When the current Bug was released I was totally satisfied. The year or two of anticipation was well worth the wait. It feels correct, flies nicely and otherwise operates much like the F-16–even though it’s not really supposed to. I see that as a feature, not a bug. (You see wh… yeah, of course you did.) I mentioned VR a few posts up. That was not intended as a nudge. I actually like BMS in 2D. I can take notes and easily review them. And I hate a 3D GUI with a passion. Truly it is the worst part about DCS’s VR implementation. If I want to use the editor I have to revert to 2d and wait 10 minutes for the sim to reboot. So, from my perspective, if VR comes to BMS, great! But if not, equally great.
-
RE: Hornet FM
I wouldn’t even claim to want people to move from that sim to this sim. I love THAT sim. And I really love VR in THAT sim. BMS is the quiet corner of the library where I know I can study, learn and grow. That OTHER sim is the cookie jar at midnight. Sometimes growth be damned!—you just gotta have a cookie. In other words, one sim is my quick fix; a romp in the sandbox. The other is a longer term commitment which rewards me with a less ephemeral level of joy. I am too old to keep anticipating hoped-for improvements and “IFF”s. My commitment to the sim requires me to be satisfied with the bug in her current state and to be grateful for what I have.
-
RE: Hornet FM
you and the hornet dev team made happy a lot of people, i think the most interesting thing is the FM because it doesn’t make sense fly a plane with a beautiful cockpit but a poor FM code, anyway i think the hornet has a good future in BMS, some people left the project but new ones will come to finish it up, for now WE are happy flying with viper avionics, i mean, there are people like me that can’t pay for a DCS hornet or another one sim, the hard work behind this sim is amazing, i hope the hornet will become a plane with a fully avionics implemented, not soon of course, it will take some time, just to say thanks to the dev team, as i said before, you guys made happy a lot of people, that’s important
I’ll second that. I’ve just finished a Balkan campaign flown exclusively with the F-18 off the TR. Total joy! I love the boat. I love the ATC. I love the plane.
-
RE: What's your favorite historical theater, where either side can win?
I am in the final days (I believe optimistically) of “Under Siege” in the Balkans. I have mostly flown it off CV71 with the F-18C and am having a great time. It’s not historic but certainly '90s plausible.
-
"Set by HQ"
I get different results from the Priorities “Set by HQ” box than the behavior described in the manual. There, the implication is that adjustments may be made within the three tabs while leaving the HQ box filled. On the next page it invites the reader to step up to top level campaign management by unchecking the box but to now be prepared to take over assigning certain ATO tasks like support frags. But I find Priorities behavior to be the opposite. If I adjust anything, the “Set by HQ” box unchecks itself. But, even with the box unchecked and priorities now managed by me, the fraglist seems to be nicely populated with both combat and support sorties only now they mostly honor my priorities. Am I reading this wrong? I know (or think I know) that the “HQ” box in the Squadron window behaves differently. Unchecking that one really does require you to frag all flights in your squadron. Well anyway, as you can see, I am a little bit confused. What I’ve been doing without much success is unchecking the box at first and using the first day or two to win the air war and then rechecking the box for the remainder of the campaign.
-
RE: AWACS/COMMS Discussion – What Would You Have Changed?
I’ve just come back to BMS after an extended VR break. I am shocked at how good ATC is. I’ve never experienced anything like it in a sim. The field and carrier overhead breaks are slick as snot. You guys are amazing.
-
RE: Thought on the distribution of BMS
This just clouds an already slightly cloudy process. Get Falcon in whatever legal way you wish. Add BMS. Enjoy!