Leaderboard

Hey guys, look at this: I saw on ED's twitter that they linked this: http://www.a-10c.com/en/downloads/mi...del_templates/ As you can see, a new domain: www.a-10c.com So I was thinking, If they wanna go on with this type of linking, they should have had registered the domain for their future product, so I went on: www.f-16.com www.f-15c.com etc. then this: www.f-18c.com. See for your self to which site it redirects! So what you say, next module F-18C? EDIT: Link is not working anymore, but it worked yesterday

Here the main improvements in this release: DCS: A-10C Warthog is now supported New HUD (F/A-18 like) Mach Number, Indicated G and AoA telemetry Charts tools (Professionnal Edition) GPX file support (Home Edition) ETOPO2 worldwide basemap (Home Edition) Optimized DCS and Lock-On LUA exporter to be faster on low-end computers Numerous improvements and fixes Enjoy! http://tacview.strasoftware.com follow the dev blog on Facebook

Hi, Before the launch of Black Shark, I remember talk about DCS being a sort of modular deal with new airplane modules coming on regular intervals. Now after the launch of DCS: A-10C we have two independent products and are waiting for a compatibility update for Black Shark to make it work online with A-10C. Sssoo. What after the release of 10th DCS "module"? Will we have 100 GB's of game installations, all containing 90% the same files (textures, sounds, etc the stuff that takes up the disk space) or will we at some point get real modularity and new aircraft sold like DLC's for current mainstream games? Not only would this save up disk space, it would make maintaining and developing the game much easier for ED, it would make modding easier (SDK's are coming for maps etc, right?) and editing any non-aircraft-specific settings would be a lot easier as instead of having to modify the same setting for 3 different games (KA-50, FC2, A-10C), there would only be one. I think I have a valid argument here. I do understand that making changes like this take time and effort, but I think it's worth it in the end. It's important to plan ahead into the future. I've noticed CCP (maker of EVE-Online) starting to pick up on this with their Corification efforts of various game components, like graphics, inventory system, ui, etc. This allows them to use the same bits of code in other projects with ease. /rant off -fragged disclaimer: I did not use search to look for possible previous discussions about this topic.

I have found a way to create all indicators of DCS viewports like MFCD. As you can see in the screen shot it's possible to create viewports for all the DCSW Indicators. Here is the way to do that : - First go to S:\DCS A-10C\Scripts\Aircrafts\A-10C\Cockpit - Then go to the indicator folder you want to use (Eg : AN_ALR69V\indicator - then open the init.lua file of your indicator (Eg : AN_ALR69V_init.lua here) - find this line : indicator_type = indicator_types.COMMON-And just paste below this code : [color=Red]-- Code below is used for the rendering when no viewport has been created[/color] purposes = {render_purpose.GENERAL, [color=DeepSkyBlue]-- Rendering in 3D View[/color] render_purpose.HUD_ONLY_VIEW,[color=DeepSkyBlue] -- Rendering In HUD only View[/color] render_purpose.SCREENSPACE_OUTSIDE_COCKPIT, [color=DeepSkyBlue]-- Rendering in External View[/color] render_purpose.SCREENSPACE_INSIDE_COCKPIT} [color=DeepSkyBlue]-- Rendering in In cockpit view but NOT in 3D cockpit [/color] [color=Red]-- End of rendering configuration[/color] screenspace_scale_initial = 3; screenspace_diplacement = {0,0} local x_size = 1 local y_size = 1 function update_screenspace_diplacement(zoom_value) screenspace_scale = screenspace_scale_initial + zoom_value; if screenspace_scale < 1 then screenspace_scale = 1 end local screen_height = 2.0; local screen_width = screen_height * LockOn_Options.screen.aspect; local scaled_width = SelfWidth * screenspace_scale local scaled_height = y_size * scaled_width -- for indicator all sizes is function of width scaled_width = x_size * scaled_width screenspace_diplacement = { 0.5 * screen_width - 0.5 * scaled_width, -0.5 * screen_height + 0.5 * scaled_height} screenspace_diplacement_arcade = {screenspace_diplacement[1], 0.5 * screen_height - 0.5 * scaled_height} end update_screenspace_diplacement(0) function set_full_viewport_coverage(viewport) local w = LockOn_Options.screen.width local h = LockOn_Options.screen.height local a = LockOn_Options.screen.aspect local x = (-1.0 + 2.0 * (viewport.x / w)) * a local y = 1.0 - 2.0 * (viewport.y / h) local width = (viewport.width / w) * a local height = viewport.height / h local scl_hgt_K = y_size * SelfWidth -- size always function of SelfWidth local scl_wdt_K = x_size * SelfWidth -- size always function of SelfWidth screenspace_scale_x = 2.0 * width / scl_wdt_K screenspace_scale_y = 2.0 * height / scl_hgt_K screenspace_diplacement = {x + width, y - height} screenspace_diplacement_arcade = screenspace_diplacement[color=Red] -- The code below is used for rendering When you use viewports comments are same as above for rendering[/color] purposes = {render_purpose.HUD_ONLY_VIEW, --render_purpose.GENERAL,[color=DeepSkyBlue] --Uncoment this line by removing the "--" to render in 3D cockpit.[/color] render_purpose.SCREENSPACE_OUTSIDE_COCKPIT, render_purpose.SCREENSPACE_INSIDE_COCKPIT} -- set purposes to draw it always [color=Red]-- End of rendering configuration[/color] render_target_always = true end -- try to find assigned viewport local multimonitor_setup_name = "Config/MonitorSetup/"..get_multimonitor_preset_name()..".lua" local env = {} env.screen = LockOn_Options.screen local f = loadfile(multimonitor_setup_name) if f then setfenv(f,env) pcall(f) local vp = nil vp = env.[color=Red]RWR_SCREEN[/color] if vp ~= nil then dbg_print("ok we have directly assigned viewport to CDU\n") set_full_viewport_coverage(vp) end end -Change the red value name to set your viewport Name -Go to \Config\MonitorSetup\YourMonitorFile.lua - And add Viewport like this : RWR_SCREEN = { x = 1000; y = 1245; width = 170; height = 170; }Enjoy!!! No cockpit avionics display render and ready for export in DCS-A10 1.1.1.1 and a Example LUA.zip

:D Many thanks to WarriorX for his mission data card, Eddie for the 9line card, and the 25th VFS for their checklists. Thanks guys :thumbup:

CMS button. Not sure what its called. Theres CMS Up, Down, Left, Right, and the fifth is what you want. But in the real hog you would push it down. Down as in down, not down as in aft. Some would call it in i suppose. Its the same motion for a thumbstick click for a console controller. wowie...sniped by not 1 person but two!

CMS hat push in, or "-"

CMS z-axis (the - key) activates the jammer when you are painted.. Nate

"This is not the model you are looking for....." "this is not the model we're looking for..." "move along please.." "now, move along please..." ;-) 'T'

Huh. Pretty good detective work if I do say so myself. Vewy intewesting.

Interesting........ EDIT:- http://www.f-15e.com/ DAMMIT :mad: Nate

<Nothin to see here.... move along please....> Nate

Thx Regards 'T'

Рад был помочь.

Keyboard 'A' key to enagage and disengage. With regards to EAC Arm / EAC off. There is no key assigned. if you don't have a TM Warthog, my advice is to map keyboard keys '5' for Arm and '6' for off. If you select it with the mouse, it will not stay in the arm position, but toggle back. Regards 'T'

Bits of what you want to do are fairly straight forward. Basically you need to combine several concepts into one giant logic loop. Also you need to use a single trigger to decide whether to choose a mission. "Timer Start" Once> Time more than 1> Set flag 30, Set flag 32 To choose a mission Switched Condition > Flag 30 is True && Flag 20 is less than 3 && Flag Z is greater than 0> Set flag 31, Flag 30 off, Flag 20 increase 1 For each mission Once> Flag 31 is true && Random 20%> Flag 31 Off, Set Flag 1 (to ID the mission), activate units or whatever Once> Flag 31 is true && Random 20%> Flag 31 Off, Set Flag 2 (to ID the mission), activate units or whatever .. For each mission Time since flag 32 is 15 minutes && Random 5% && Random 5% OR Time since flag 32 is 30 minutes> Flag 32 Off, Flag 30 On This creates a minimum limit and an upper time limit. I used double random 5% because it adds to the delay. You can also use a single random 1 to 2% for about the same delay. Be warned though that they way this is setup that if 3 tasks are running at once and the upper limit is reached, a new task will be assigned instantly once the task is completed. Use a common activation and deactivation trigger to add and subtract a value from a specific flag. This flag will be part of the conditions for whether or not to select a new mission. For instance each time a new mission is selected have the action "Flag 20 increase 1". When an objective is completed use "flag 20 decrease 1". Use the condition "flag 20 is less than 3" to limit the concurrent missions to 3. Once Group1 Dead && Flag 1 is true> Flag 20 decrease 1 Once Group2 Dead && Flag 2 is true> Flag 20 decrease 1 ... and so on. Ok, this is the tricky one. There are a few different ways to go about making this via triggers, it is simply a question of the possible range. The quickest and easiest to build is similar to the mission selection triggers. Basically we are going to let random variables be active for a set time, each will add 1 to a counter. This counter will act as the upper limit of tasks given. Once> Time More 1> Set flag Y Once> Time since Flag Y is 20 seconds> Clear Flag Y Once Flag Y is true && Random 5%> Flag Z increase 1 Once Flag Y is true && Random 5%> Flag Z increase 1 ... and repeat how ever high you want to go.

I agree. I always hated contorting myself into strange positions so I could get my foot to activate the button on my HOTAS. :smilewink:

Спасибо за ответ, который не содержит более бита информации. В ответе на мой вопрос: "Можно ли обрабатывать файлы группами?" подразумевался не бинарный ответ, но ответ типа "как?". Т.е. подразумевалось объяснение конкретных действий, в конкректной программной среде. Если не правильно задал вопрос - прошу прощения.

In an unfortunate coincidence, Eagle Dynamics got the controller from Reagan National to code the ATC.

все равно будут делать не то что хочется

No just remove the -- before and leave it as is.

С одной стороны да, но с другой стороны не нужно будет писать короткие сообщения типа: "Автор молодец", "Согласен", "Не согласен", "+1", "+2" .и т.д. Допустим, один автор пишет о наболевшем в своем посте, а его единомышленник, вместо того, чтобы излагать то же самое, но другими словами — просто ставит благодарность. В итоге: меньше текста, удобнее читать форум и осуществлять поиск.:smilewink:

Как ты представляешь ближний бой без вывода самолёта на предельный угол атаки? У нормального самолёта с СФМ как и положено, при выводе на такие углы начинается бешенная потеря скорости. Поэтому опытные вирпилы всегда стараются не перетягивать ручку. Но почти всегда наступает момент, когда это надо сделать - быстро довернуть на противника, чтобы поразить его пушкой, или бой может перейти на сверхнизкие скорости под 300км/ч, там вообще сплошная закритика. А вот нелетабы, когда выходишь на предельный УА, начинают крутиться с УА 20-30 на скоростях 500-600км/ч, без потери скорости, сохраняя этот УА. Я не знаю, даёт ли им это какое-то премущество, но так самолёты не летают, и это достаточный повод не использовать их в ближнем бою. Если интересует, могу выложить трек, где F-5Е устойчиво крутит вираж на скорости 500 с УА 30, РУС отклонён на полный ход.

Мои хотелки такие: Оставить то что есть только добавить АФМ. Добавить F-15E vs Су-30МК именно двухпилотные, и хотелось бы новых ястребов (rafale, jas39, eurofighter, более поздние версии f-15 и su-27) Еще хочется чтобы были новые актуальные локации, и главная хотелка чтобы в будущем между ЛО и DCS не было различия, чтобы они были полностью совместимые.

http://i414.photobucket.com/albums/pp226/BloodnGuts/DCS%20A10C/A10-34-lo.jpg About 0.4 m in front of and 0.2 m lower to the US Air Force star insignia. http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/001-100/walk003_A-10/images%20Burkhard%20Domke/2-02.jpg http://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/AWA1/001-100/walk003_A-10/images%20Burkhard%20Domke/4-94.jpg

I'm afraid you'd need a collimated display for that to achieve :)

Вот она

Thanks for the help Accipter. I haven't had the chance to reinstall yet, so I will try that when I get home. I did seem to find an answer for my stutters. I read on the forum here about reducing the resolution on the cockpit displays, so I changed it to 256 and I am almost stutter free :thumbup: Will try reinstalling it in a different folder and see if that helps. Thanks for your help

Yeah, but my point is that I'm a bit confused how, given the third design, we'd find a situation where this happens. Not impossible of course, and I don't know exactly how the model handles this. But IRL I've never encountered a frozen static OR dynamic (though I once saw someone get perilously close to taking off while having forgotten to remove blockage - lots of hand-waving happened to make him stop :P ), so I don't have any first-hand experience to rely on. Pitot heat does seem a likely culprit though - a track would have been golden to be sure. :)

Лично у меня полеты на нелетабах с левыми кокпитами ассоциируются с сексом с резиновой женщиной в особо извращенной форме:doh: Существующих летабов вполне хватает для выполнения задачь ИМХО. Политика сервера - свести к минимуму ракеты с АРГСН (потому, что иногда будут разгрузочные дни:pilotfly:), а не скатывание в каменный век.

Это и сейчас доступно в акуле-выводим шквал на второй монитор, даём сидящему рядом напарнику в руки геймпад и полетели :thumbup: Как в старые добрые времена сидения возле телека с денди) Как ни странно, я бы предпочел роль стрелка. Не забывайте, что после выхода ДКС:истребитель придет снова черёд ДКС:вертолёт и возможно разрабы добавят штатный совместный режим. Поживём-увидим..

А не надо на ЗАКРИТИКУ выводить, во-первых, там, как и положено, ничего не улучшается, во-вторых, подразумевается, что в кабине - строевой летчик, а не Дункан МакЛауд, проработавший испытателем с 30-х годов прошлого века.

http://yuplay.ru/story.php?title=%D0%9A%D1%80%D1%8B%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%A5%D0%B8%D1%89%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8-7

I'm running two 7" USB monitors and the size issue really isn't that big of a deal to me. It took some playing around to get the MFCD sized right, but it works great now. The major issue is one of the monitors will not refresh properly when the game first loads, but cycling the power resolves the issue. It will creep back up though, either from alt-tabbing or over time. A power recycle always fixes that though. I also bought a 7" touchscreen to use with Helios to make a CDU, but the touchscreen is so horribly inaccurate it's unusable. There is no reason I can think of to use touchscreens for MFCDs, so you can save a little bit of money there. Oh, if only I could find a cost effective solution for the CDU. :(

Yeah your poll implies that having AP is somehow less responsive or smoother than without and that's flat out wrong. I can manoeuvre just fine with AP on and the proper use of the trimmer. This includes all situations from manual hovering, avoiding SAMs/AAA, to landing on a building, whatever. There was a video of an actual BS pilot which was split into multi screens. One showed what his hand was doing and every time he made course corrections you could hear the trimmer being depressed and released. I learnt to fly the BS properly from that video. This all reminds me of the FD arguments in the early days of the release where it was already established that it's Russian military doctrine to fly with the AP channels on and to use the trimmer!

Here some answers to your questions: In coming releases you will be able to select and analyze up to 4 objects at the same time The free version is really free (for home users). You don't have to register to use it. Obviously, at the end of 21-day trial advanced features will be disabled, the rest of Tacview will work as usual without popup or ads. Latest DCS: A-10C Warthog export scripts are available here: http://lomac.strasoftware.com/tacview-dcs.php I will probably work on the online-debriefing tool for Tacview 1.2 (the 1.1 release will be "dedicated" to Falcon 4 users ;)) The main differences between each edition are listed here: http://www.strasoftware.com/buy/tacview

I think the issue here is your poll options. You are saying that using the AP during normal flight makes you lazy, at least according to your third poll option. I don't think it makes me lazy at all. Your final poll option also implies that if you want full control of the aircraft, you need to turn off the autopilot. Again, this is not correct, you can have full control just fine with the autopilot on. You seem to think that there is some restriction any time you have the autopilot on. This is not true. I get what you're hinting at, and I'm 100% for you playing the game the way you want to play it, I've always said that. Basically, you seem to be saying that during normal flight, one should fly with the AP off, when really, the only time you should be flying with the AP off is during emergency procedures training. Are you even using the trim button? Maybe this is why I seem to have no AP problems, no fighting, and no restriction of flight performance. Interestingly enough, while I am no licensed pilot, I have flown the Mi-17 with and without autopilot (not same but vaguely similar to Ka-50) and I am quite practiced at hovering and traffic pattern work. As far as who I'm speaking for, I will have to apologize if English is not your first language, since I tend to assume that on here, like most typical Americans, so I apologize for that. What I said was "the rest of us" by which I was referring to those of us who are missing out on something by always using the AP unless there is a specific reason not to (i.e. battle damage or training).

Aren't those functions commended out, I recall having looked at it last night and it said you need to uncomment it out for it to take effect from this file (otherwise they are using from different file/location) For me the camera jiggle does work but then again I have not made any changes to these functions in lua files PS: I only wish the shaking would be applied to cockpit only as in reality the ground is too far away to have any visual effect on your eyes... plus the eyes/brain compensate for the shake... the only thing it can't compensate is the difference in position of the object (cocpit and ground) as your point of view changes during shake... which is why shaking should really be in the cockpit only (cockpit should be visible to shake in respect to ground, not the whole image on the screen)

This is what i use to lauch my arma -mod=@CBA;@ACE;@ACEX;@ACEX_USNavy;@ACEX_RU;@ACEX_SM;@USSOCOM_core;@USSOCOM_maps;@cba;@JayArmA2Lib;@ACRE" "-nosplash I don't know which mods ur using, but try to use the auto updater tools which can be found on the net (I forgot their names so...)

ммм, пасиб ... (чет не могу плюсануть, говорит нужно коментраий оставтить, а он не ставится :doh:) А в смысле" по центру"? по центру непосредственно ручки (рукоятки) или по центру самого рычага? если поцентру мерить то еще меньеш получается, или я чет пойму никак:huh:

Да, работа над дискретной индикацией можно сказать практически закончена. На данный момент сделано: 1. СПО-Береза 2. индикатор остатка ДО,ЛТЦ 3. Пилотажно-Посадочныйиндикатор ППИ 4. индикатор СУВ 5. Светосигнальные табло: - ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ, ЗАХВАТ РЛС, ЗАХВАТ ОЛС, ЗАМЕР ДАЛЬН, ПОМЕХА - АП, АВТО, ПРИВЕД К ГОРИЗ - ЗАПРИ ФОНАРЬ 6. Табло отказов: - ПОЖАР, УПРАВЛЯЙ В РУЧНУЮ, СДУ, ГИДРО (не сделано а,ПУ критич) - СМ ТАБЛО 7. Разное: - ЗАПУСК ЛЕВ, ЗАПУСК ПРАВ - ФОРСАЖ ЛЕВ, ФОРСАЖ ПРАВ - ШАССИ ВЫПУЩ

I try to welcome rookies and push them in the right direction of learning a hardcore sim and I'm not the only one. It obviously takes some time and effort. This kind of ideas and frivolous attitude towards training makes it harder. This is why I will welcome such initiatives with a caring although firm :smilewink:

Well, the two photos with the C-47 were rejected for being 'soft'...right. Anyways, I'm thinking of putting this photo on there: What do you guys think? Regads, Diego

The only difference that I noticed with Diveplane's sound mod was in external views..i.e.F3 flyby sound.

Надо перед интро-роликом пустить титр: "Здравствуйте! Вас приветствует коллектив ED. Мы благодарим вас за покупку лицензионной копии игры. Если же вы используете нелицензионную копию игры, мы проклинаем вас, и детей ваших, и детей ваших детей! Да будете вы прокляты, где бы не находились - в доме или на поле, на большой дороге или на глухой тропинке, в лесу, или в роще, или в храме! Да будете вы прокляты в жизни или в минуту смерти, за едой и за питьем, голодный, жаждущий, постящийся, засыпающий, спящий, бодрствующий, ходящий, стоящий, сидящий, лежащий, работающий, отдыхающий..." и так далее по тексту католической анафемы. И эскейп отключить, естественно. Больше, пожалуй, наших сограждан ничем не проймешь.

В любом случае 2 An.Petrovich и Chizh. Хотел бы выразить вам благодарность за разъяснение некоторых конкретных моментов. Дело в том, что я изначально подумал, что по всем направлениям беда. Да, тема авиасимуляторов конечно больная тема. Но все же будем надеяться что спрос на нее потихоньку будет расти. Увы, но на этом участке могут работать только истинные фанаты.

This turned into a bit of a paper. Important points italicized. The main focus is pitch control, but lateral (aileron) control is essentially the same, just in a less changing context. First off, Chops is the one who got it right. Think of trim as a helper to relieve the pilot of large and/or constant control forces. On many gliders, the trim is simply a bungee which can be made to pull on the stick with a variable force. Early implementations of trim surfaced during WWI. The planes were built for low speed flying and manoeuvring, which meant you had to push the stick forward to stay level at high speed during cruise. Pilots solved this with a bungee cord attached to the panel which they could hook to the stick. Voila! Instant trim! This, however, has its drawbacks. The elevator position, and hence the stick position, effectively determines the angle of attack the aircraft will seek. Google for "static stability" for more background reading - there's plenty. The stick (and the connected elevator) is an angle of attack selector. A constant angle of attack means that for a constant airspeed, lift will remain constant. Another way to put it is that as lift is (more or less) constant due to the non-changing weight of the aircraft, an aircraft will when stick-fixed maintain a constant airspeed. It will do this through adjusting the rate of climb, either at once or through a series of climbs and descents at decreasing maximum climb/sink rates (google "dynamic stability")*. A constant angle of attack means an aircraft which will seek a constant indicated airspeed. This stick-fixed behaviour is desirable. However, the stick force required for a given elevator deflection varies with airspeed. You need a larger force to keep the stick forward in a constant position at a higher airspeed. With the bungee cord solution, the trim force is constant. Hence the stick position will vary with varying airspeed. Not really what you want for trouble-free hands-off flying. Ingenious minds considered this problem and trim evolved. The trim tab was invented. Rather than pushing the stick forward manually to make the elevator go down, or have a bungee attached to pull the stick forward, someone decided to use the same aerodynamic forces which pulled on the bungee cord to replace the bungee cord. If you have a trim tab at the trailing edge of the control, it will apply a force to the control surface as it is deflected. This force will be proportional to the airspeed - just as the force on the main control surface. As the trim tab is deflected, the position the control surface returns to if left to move freely in the airflow is changed. Remember that the elevator position determines the angle of attack. The trim tab changes the position the elevator will return to if you take your hands off the stick. Trim tab deflection changes the stable hands-off angle of attack of the aircraft. Of course, to make the nose go up (increased angle of attack), the elevator has to go up (stick aft) and the tab has to push the elevator up. This means the trim tab has to deflect down in order to make the elevator go up. This is, as we have seen in this thread, counter-intuitive to some people. To raise the nose through elevator up deflection, the elevator trim tab deflects down. Now, as aircraft got bigger and faster, the control forces increased beyond what humans could achieve through control wires and pushrods. One way of countering this was to introduce servo tabs. These are similar to trim tabs, but automatically move as the control surface moves. As the elevator goes up, the servo tab always goes down in order to assist the pilot to move the control surface against the air flow. There have also been light aircraft where anti-servo tabs, operating in the opposite fashion, were used to increase the control forces and achieve better control harmony. Some aircraft have no direct connection between the controls in the cockpit and the control surface, relying on servo tabs to fly the control surface which then flies the aircraft. This too has drawbacks, so eventually powered controls were introduced. Hydraulic actuators move the control surfaces in accordance with commands from the pilot. All fine and dandy, except for the fact that the amount of control surface deflection needed, desired and allowable changes with aircraft speed. This didn't use to be a problem. The pilot's limited muscle force automatically limited control surface deflection at higher airspeeds, meaning x Newtons of control force created a smaller control surface deflection at high speed than at low speed. The physics work out so that the anticipated aircraft response to a given applied control force is reasonably similar across the speed range, albeit with a much smaller control deflection at the higher airspeed**. The controls are loose at low airspeed, and as speed increases they feel as if they are stuck in a concrete block. The aerodynamic forces on the control surfaces stop the pilot from applying large control deflections which would overstress the aircraft. With powered controls, the pilot could move the stick full aft at any airspeed and the elevator would go full up. At high airspeed, this would mean instant disaster due to violently over-controlling the aircraft. The pilot also lost the feel for the aircraft and airspeed normally given through the feel of the forces required to move the controls. This was solved through artificial control forces, or q feel (as the letter q is normally used to designate dynamic pressure, a fancier name for the part of air pressure felt on the deflected control surfaces due to airspeed) was introduced. Actuators are used to increase the forces required to move the controls proportional to the airspeed, just as they would be increased by air pressure acting on the control surface in a non-powered control path. (Another method, commonly seen in FBW aircraft, is to have a spring loaded control, with constant control force for a given deflection, but to limit the deflection of the control surface for a given control deflection depending on the airspeed.) Obviously, as powered controls negate the forces created by the airspeed on the control surfaces, they also negate the forces created by the trim tabs, rendering them useless for trimming. With powered controls, trim has to be introduced by somehow biasing the control system actuators instead. This is what we have in the A-10. Powered controls, with a trim system to change the control surface deflection at which the control force felt by the pilot is zero. However, pilots still need to be able to fly the aircraft if the hydraulics go out. Thus, the trim tabs are still there but are only used for trimming if the hydraulics are lost. In normal operation, they augment the hydraulics which also means they will be in more or less the right position if a transfer to a non-powered mode has to be done. On the A-10, the elevator tabs will act as trim tabs in manual reversion (lost hydraulics) mode, while the aileron tabs will act as servo tabs. No trim tabs on the rudders, as they should normally never be out of center for normal flight. Lose an engine with unpowered rudders and you can expect to have one tired leg upon landing, and try to find a runway without too much of a crosswind. As with most things (except flutter and navigation), indicated airspeed is what matters. You trim for an indicated airspeed, which the aircraft will then essentially maintain if left to its own devices (hands-off flight). Cheers, Fred *) Some aircraft are dynamically unstable and will climb/descend ever more violently. That's not a nice behaviour at all, and beyond the scope of this discussion. **) What you are really looking for is essentially a constant G load for a given control force, which makes things nice and predictable. You know what happens when you apply a given force to the stick, regardless of airspeed.

Есть такая игра. Называется Steel Beasts Pro PE. На Сухом говорят, что в одной маленькой темке отметились почти все люди из России, которые его приобрели. Англоговорящим оффлайнщикам конечно на это плевать. Но кто летал в сети знает, как быдет выглядеть Локон без РАФа и ещё нескольких русскоязычных серверов:music_whistling: Кто хочет изучать сложную технику исключительно на английском языке - велком в ВВС США, кто вас держит??? Вам ещё платить за это будут. А я сим покупаю не для того, чтобы за потраченные деньги сидеть со словариком над Х00-страничным мануалом:mad: Только это им нужно для работы, за которую им деньги платят, а не для хобби.

Question In one of your video you mentioned that we can use usb interface cards from an old joystick and configure its keys on the command options on DCS A10C... i just attached an extra joystick along with my actual one on my pc... in the options menu it is now showing both of them at the same time with same buttons configuration... what i wanted to check was if i could use the slider for throttle on one them and the stick on the other... will it work or no... and it didnt... there was no clash of configuration or something... any clue why it is not working... by the way the default joystick i am using is Microsoft forcefeedback and saitek evo for the slider... Idea: thinking of opening the saitek and coverting it into a Homemade HOTAS... Need guidance...