All Activity

its fluid, just like body-boarding and surfing, the underside get sucked up. creating a vacuum. you would think surfing would of given them the idea of how to make a wing? Surfing (Water Dynamics): A surfboard moves across the surface of water, especially on the face of a wave. The wave face acts like a ramp of moving water, and the board uses gravity to slide down it. As the surfer moves, hydrodynamic lift is generated beneath the board — water is deflected downward, creating an upward force. The rail (edge) of the surfboard acts like a control surface, similar to an aileron on a wing — allowing turns and adjustments. Planing occurs at high speed — where the board skims across the surface, reducing drag, much like a hydrofoil or a speedboat hull. A Wing in Air (Aerodynamics): A wing generates lift by moving through air, a compressible fluid. Air moves faster over the curved top of the wing, creating lower pressure there (Bernoulli’s Principle), and higher pressure underneath — lifting the aircraft. Wings operate on angle of attack, similar to how a surfboard's nose and tail adjust pitch in the wave face. Control surfaces on wings steer the craft — like a surfer shifting weight on the board. Surfing and Flight: Why Didn’t One Lead to the Other? 1. Surfing is intuitive, not analytical Early Polynesians mastered surfing hundreds of years ago (possibly over 1,000). But surfing was practiced and passed down as art and tradition, not through formal physics or mathematical modeling. They understood how it worked through feel, not theory — which is very different from the scientific method required to understand flight. 2. Water and air behave similarly — but not identically Both are fluids, but water is ~800 times denser than air. Lift in air is harder to generate and requires more speed and larger surfaces. A surfboard gets obvious lift at low speeds on water, but a flying wing in air requires precise shaping, high speed, and aerodynamic understanding. 3. Lack of tools and materials Polynesians and early surfers didn’t have the materials to build light, rigid, curved wing shapes. Even in Europe, serious work on flight didn’t begin until balloons in the 1700s and aircraft in the late 1800s, when aluminum, engines, and fabric wings were possible. 4. No need or incentive for flight from surfing cultures Ancient cultures that surfed (like the Polynesians or Hawaiians) were seafarers, already mastering navigation across huge distances by canoe. Flight wasn’t seen as necessary — their needs were met through water, not air. In short: Surfing had the knowledge, but not the frame of mind, tools, or scientific culture to translate it into flight. AI answering my questions.

Replicate the issue and then attach your DCS log file so we can see if there are any issues with it starting up the OpenXR runtime. Attach your Virtual Desktop log as well.

The -34-1 is not the one on amazon.

Thank you for your very well informed reply to my extremely wry venting of frustration. Re: the Cessna/Fishbed quip, I was just being sarcastic, as it didn't refer to braking, it referred to a self-destruct command:. Personally, if I wish to self-destruct, I have a great key combo; LShift+Tab+RCtrl+Enter+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H+B+L+A+H. I program it into all the planes I fly; all the way from Cessna 172, to MiG-21. My son flew the Tomcat from '99 to '04, if I remember right. Good night.

Is this the second post and step four ?? 4. Enter the resolution into DCS and choose your config file.

That manual is on amazon N019 is a neat radar we are lucky to know so much about. SAPFIR documention is pretty hard to come by.

I really can't understand what's so hard to understand the issue. So, you try to explain, that DL on disables Radar functions, like make more than one tracked target with TMS right short to systems targets? It has nothing to do with the Radar building tracked targets, we already see big fulfilled squares, not the small ones. With the DL Mode on, you are unable to: 1. make more than one tracked target with TMS short right to a system target 2. see how many tracked targets are made into system targets 3. white and yellow hollowed squares system targets anymore, like in the actual official guide (page 342 and the following). If you do the exact same mission, and you disable DL, suddenly all the magic happen. Now you are able to make all the tracked targets with one single TMS short right into system targets, and on top of that you can see they all have become system targets because they are all hollowed. And all that under the 100 % exact times and ranges/conditions. So, PLEASE, I really would like to know, how I can get all the fancy symbology like in the official Access Guide and how I can make more than 1 tracked target with DL enabled with a short TMS right to system targets! Right now, I do something wrong, because I can't get even one hollowed yellow symbology with DL on, and I can't make more than 1 tracked target to a system target with TMS short right and bug it as long DL is enabled. If I am doing something wrong, what is it? I am asking this more than a year and all I get is an explanation about things I know, and they all have nothing to do with the issue.

Bump This still exsit in current version. So it's designed to do that?

Planning on testing ITJ tonight to see how its running. In the meantime, Taogs Hangar just released their OH-6A Cayuse for MSFS 2024 if anyone wants to get after it. HIGHLY recommend it. @tobi @Eight Ball If it was not for Tobi/Eight Ball's Cayuse mod, this would have taken longer to get acclimated to. Startup was spot on with their mod. Still have to tip my hat to those guys for the amazing job they did. Wish they could make an official mod like the one below for DCS. Thanks again gents, still continuing to fly her to this day. Still waiting on @ViolentNomad to get his Cobra out (I know he is busy and its still in work)

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… this thread is pure comedy. Anyway back to studying Swiss law in the absence of anything else more interesting to do

I was in Walmart today and happened to see this gaming rig. iBUYPOWER Y40BI7N5701 Gaming PC Desktop - Intel Ultra 7 265F - NVIDIA RTX 5070 12GB - 32GB DDR5 Non-RGB RAM - 1TB NVMe SSD . It's listed at $1599. I am currently running: Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER - Intel (R) Core (TM) i7-10700F CPU @ 2.90 GHZ - 16 GB RAM My system is a little out dated and just meets the requirements to run flight sims. I can play DCS just above minimum settings without too many issues but my FPS aren't the greatest, and would sure love to up the detail and performance of it. And yes, I know that the new rig will outperform my current rig by a wide margin. BUT After seeing the rig today I figured that I would probably pick it up because it seems to be much more in line with flight simming. Like many of you I have several sims installed but DCS seems to work my system harder than any other sim that I use. When DCS kicks in I can hear the card start to really whine. Much more than any other sim that I fly so I thought that I would ask here first. So does anyone here have the rig that I am looking at and if so, is it something that any of you would recommend? Keep in mind that I am by no means an expert on any of the internal workings of computers. I know just enough to understand how to replace or add to memory, install second and 3rd hard drives, replace cooling fans, etc.... But the specs are always fuzzy to me. Thanks guys!

Bump

Does it mention bug fixes and FM changes?

Do you mean an absolute top speed possible under given circumstances in level flight (such as infinite fuel burn at a given gross weight) or a particular climb and acceleration profile?

What are you talking about? Iraq and Afghanistan (the parts that have been completed so far) look absolutely stunning...

Yeah, I’m sure it isn’t … Why don’t you try the maps before purchasing?

Well got my new Viper stick put it on the AVA base and it works no problem. I do have to remap but that's ok, I needed a new stick anyway. It is deferent feel to it nice and smooth. I have not heard back from Thrustmaster support about why the old A-10 stick would not work. I am more curious about if they find anything. Thanks all and Salute to Hoss.

That's nice that ED started to work on updating blast radius for weapons. Hopefully we will be able to use bombs reliably without that splash damage script.

I actually suspect that the Corsairs FM is just fine, but we have trouble "feeling" it because most of us are flying on spring centered joysticks that give the same pressure at 80kts as they do at 300kts. It's the same for rudders, it's super easy to overshoot how much movement you'd need causing wild yawing. I had a lot of problems with the huey and how it felt fake, until I really thought about how much movement I was commanding with my stick. And since every overcorrection on one axis affects all other axes, it just felt bad. In a way, I had to train myself to imagine forces on my joystick that weren't actually there, once I did (and when I got a joystick extgenstion), things started to feel more real. Most warbirds in DCS have a one to one relationship between the movement of the joystick and the movement commanded to the control surfaces, regardless of the speed. There is good reason for this because that's how it works in real life. The only exception is the Bf109 once airspeed gets high, where the virtual stick becomes stuck in cement despite your input...in order to simulate very high IRL control forces. The whole idea of keeping a one to one relationship between joystick movement and control surface movement is really a philosiphical choice in how airplanes are simulated. You could argue that forces are more important to model and then model things to where you have to move the stick more at speed in order to simulate forces experiences. Either way, you can't have both displacement and force accurately simulated at the same time...unless you have force feedback. I suppose there's something to be said for a "filter" of sorts that would dampen your input a tiny bit in order to minimize the effect of micro-movements on our light spring-centered sticks, which could be done by delaying the transmission of signal from the stick to the simulation very slightly.... I could see a variable filter where micromovements are increasingly damped out with speed, but don't ultimately affect total control throw range. It could give the impression of "weight". I suspect that some modules might use something like this. This isn't the same as curves, because curves just shift the sensitivity of the stick from center point and shift it to the extremes.

Thanks for that info!

It's contract law 101, regardless of jurisdiction. If the terms of the contract are violated, then the contract is rendered void, and the penalty clauses (if present) kick in. Since the contract is what tells ED company to pay RAZBAM, should it be violated by either party, there would be no basis to pay out any money that is not already due. You're free to read up on the particulars on some Swiss government website, however I highly doubt that it's very different from how contract law works in the EU. In any case, this could be further complicated by the exact wording of the contract, which we aren't privy to. I suggest you stop getting high on hopium and actually look at all the evidence, including Ron's past antics, not only ED's. You're the one showing bias here, steadfastly refusing to see that RAZBAM's statements are pretty obviously designed to manipulate the audience, and ignoring facts that you find inconvenient. Thankfully, you seem to be the only one who actually bought into that.

A friend and I did a night flight and found that the external lights appear to have a very short draw distance. Rejoining into formation was quite challenging. Notice in the last two photos I am looking down from my plane at the airfield, and while I cannot see the lights on my friend's aircraft, I can see the reflection of the light by the tailhook off of the ground. Could the visibility range of the external lights please be greatly increased? I am talking about a factor of say 100 the current distance, maybe even more. Thank you so much for the Corsair I continue to have the greatest fun with it!

In the end, I believe, it should be less of a drab court drama and more of a rousing musical number. A little West Side Story, I reckon. That is not in any way precluding either of the actors to work in a satisfying Nicholson, I just think it would do us good to put it in an overall livelier setting is all.

At the moment there is around 3sec delay for the script to end the mission automatically once all of the a/c on either side are destroyed. Please increase this to either few minutes (1min at minimum) to give time any active radar missile already in the air launched from aircraft already destroyed, still heading for "you" (the player) so that you need to defend from it (or get hit by it) so that engagement outcome is more realistic. Or better, why not add an option for the mission generator script to not automatically end the mission and allow player to RTB if they wish to do so (sometimes I'd like to do that)?