Leaderboard

Не поможет :) У разрабов неизлечимая звездная болезнь и перманентная мания величия.

http://aviationintel.com/?p=4322

careful, any disagreement with the ED team is termed as a violation of rule 1.2, warrented or not. It's only ok to disrespect the normal users of this product, and only then if your a moderator, thx GGTharos got your PM about posting something that doesn't completely support/agree with your posts. I've been warned.

Well at first I was not sure if I want to share my home built cheap pit. But I cant let you be without it :) I started building the consoles provide by Dimebug. First Left side, made with MDF, with a few panels, made from scrap 6mm wood panels I got at home. Made 2 layers for getting right the height to the Throttle. Then I printed out a overlay and laminated it and punched hole in it for switches. Then I thought that I should make so many switches that I don't need the keyboard to start up the A-10, so I continued to build on right side panels by panels, no rush here! cant afford to do it to fast.... Then I started to use MDF as panels to. But still I was not satisfied, after reading how some ppl make there panels I now days use 4mm acrylic as top and 6mm MDF as bottom. And I think this is the best solution I can use for now. So fa I havent done much flying :cry: only building. I started out buying GP-Wiz40 USB interface, first one, then I buy two more, then I realize that it wont be enough with 3! Then I found out about brydlings interface and got me 1:) It is mounted in right console and the GP-Wiz is in left for now. I gone buy 1 more from brydling when he fixes so it can handle encoders. So far so good. I will NOT build the whole front of the pit, only the MFCD and UFC and some switches underneath, I don't have the space to do it, because I use my computer to racing to and other games, so I need my desktop for that... I use 3 monitors, 1, 27" and 2, 19" and I use TrackIr. I will buy the THRUSTMASTER MFD Cougar Pack later and try fitting LCD behind. I made UFC by my own :joystick: It works, but its not as fancy as some makes them :music_whistling: I use switches of medium size and small size, toggle is about 17mm on medium and 10mm on small. Cant afford real thing.... So if you have any questions, ask me! BTW! I have my computer under the seat!! Feels nice and warm......

The highlights of the Virtual Blue Impulse on VFAT 2011. Click pictures for full resolution. For all screenshots, click here to go to the VBI picture gallery.

They hacked the drone with chinese help:

Ну и очень бы хотелось, что бы боты поумерили свой пыл и приобрели хоть какой то разумный предел. А то Су-25, на высоте 8000м, с тангажем более +30 гр, несётся со скоростью 900км/ч. Это снаряд какой то,а не штурмовик получается.

As has been stated many, many, many, many times, because they are not ready to. When they are, they will. I really don't see the issue.

Oh I completely agree regarding carrier ops, it'd more than double the usable area in the Caucuses for a start with the Black Sea coming into the equation. I have no doubt that the Hornet would make for a good sim, and be under no illusions, I'd be all over it like a fat kid on cake. But people would soon find out the limitations of the Hornet. DCS:Hornet would be great, DCS:Viper would be fantastic, but DCS:Strike Eagle would redefine epic.

Actually with DCS series as of late with more graphics features there are quite a few cases where CPU is no longer the bottleneck. Right now to run the sim at its best you need both top end CPU (preferably overclocked) and Graphics card :pilotfly:

I don't understand why there is so much secrecy behind the next aircraft, but that's ED's choice. All we can do is keep taking the prozac lol

Да ну... Лучше девушки в бикини на пляжах... и на улицах... и на стадионах... Или без бикини... но везде -))

Gross dysfunction of low-level flights in LOMAC, FC2.1 and DCS A-10C These DCS A-10C v1.1.0 low-level flight experiments were kept deliberately simple and prosaic. Nothing complicated was attempted and basically the AI takes-off then flies over a coastal plain, over a few small hills, up a steep valley and over a dam wall and lake, then over a few ridge lines connecting classic deep glacial valleys, at a suitably low-level to avoid early detection and warnings by medium range GBAD radar. All waypoints in the flight are thus set to 65m AGL (~200 feet AGL). This is a very low level of flight, but strike pilots are typically trained extensively to do this consistently. I of course realise the Ai in this program, nor any human or aircraft can fixate rigidly on maintaining that sort of height, in practice (though pending death would help). But what I do expect and what should occur is that the Ai will try to smoothly and efficiently attempt to approximate a 65m AGL within the smoother valley floors, and also to not exceed 65m AGL by much as it noses over any high ridgeline, and to be back well below it again within a few seconds. I wanted to see if the Ai would again begin to fly over the dam lake at a steady 65m AGL, and it did, but as soon as it reached the end of the lake and met terrain again any semblance of low-level flight became a debacle, leading to crashes into terrain, and the ludicrous 'heavy-metal yo-yo' behaviour as the AI repeatedly over and under reacts to the changing contours of rising and falling terrain. The flight plan follows the valley WNW for about 150 km and the flight emerges from terrain masking, back toward the edge of the coastal plain near the SAM site, thus unmasking from cover at waypoint 16, and either attacking, or else RECON of the SAM site, then a rapid dash back into steep terrain. I tried this exact same rout and SAM placements for SEAD, CAS and RECON modes with Western and Russian types, to see the effect of weapons on the Ai. All the aircraft in these tracks were set to EXCELLENT AI setting, and the opposing SAMs are set to AVERAGE AI level. The tests were done with a Tornado (1 & 2), Su25T (3) and Su34 (4). TRACK NOTES: TRACK 1 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?325zlbv6mj8m0cd The first track shows a 4-ship Tornado EXCELLENT SEAD flight armed with ALARM and Sidewinders, that takes off then completely ignores the mission flight plan's waypoints and instead flew almost directly on a track to the nearest (Buk) emitter and attacked it from about 2,000 feet up (despite being set to 65m), where upon all 4 aircraft were systematically destroyed. Some of the SAM units were destroyed. There were no tactical 'pop-ups' of pincer manoeuvres used by the Ai, to find it's targets and fire, then dive back towards radar degrading clutter, and terrain-masking. The Ai RWR should sense the emitter type and thus fly an appropriate arc to avoid a direct pass over or too close approach to the SAM (Buk, with TORs and Tunguskas nearby). Instead the SEAD aircraft simply flew straight in at about 1,800 feet AGL toward and over multiple active SAM systems, in full and continuous radar view. Naturally all aircraft got wasted. Thus tactical target 'addressing' was a complete FAIL also, and thus egress and RTB observations were not applicable. FAIL TRACK 2 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?815j26xrrxhp2oa This attempt worked only slightly better -- i.e. extremely badly. It is exactly the same scenario as Track 1, except this time I removed the ALARMS and other weapons and set the Tornado to EXCELLENT RECON role. So a 4-ship RECON flight takes off and does attempt to follow the mission waypoint plan this time. The usual absurd yo-yo routine as aircraft leap vertically up to 5,000 feet AGL soon develops. But it's worse than what you see in LOMAC and FC1 and 2, because the DCS aircraft fly an open formation in transit, so only the lead aircraft flies down the actual path plotted through the valley, so it the only one able to meet the time speed and alt requirements. The rest are all over the shop and the flight becomes very disorderly, disconnected and uncoordinated. Thus it can not reach the waypoints as planned and tactical surprise and coordinated time-compressed attacks are also completely out of the question with such a chaotic nonsense of yo-yo-ing aircraft. They are highly visible to any EW or AEW or even fighter radars, much of the time, thus completely defeating the point of planning a low-level undetected approach. And keeping ultra low most of the time is the only way you're going to minimise detection and break tracking by AEW and vectored fighters. The manic yo-yo-ing finally stopped only when one crashed and the others finally ran low on fuel while still about 120 kms short of their closest approach to the recon 'target' area. Yeah, that's right, they got about 50 kms along the flight path before they ran out of fuel, caused by a combination of the aircraft not having the flight performance envelope necessary to reach the next turnpoint, due to the ridiculous afterburning climbs to avoid a ridge line that is soon >2,000 meters below! Pure FAIL insanity - DCS - digital COMBAT simulation The mission planner provides no feedback of the intended flight path's consequences regarding topographical profile changes directly along the planned flight path transect, and it does not calculate the turn radius arc and pitch radius arc sizes required to pass smoothly at about 65m (instead of >2,000m) above the ridgelines. The mission planning system itself needs to be forward-looking, even as the plan is being manually created, in order to anticipate and calculate to and inform the mission builder something like; "This aircraft type at that height and temp, with that load-out, at that speed, in that flight formation, can not make the turn radius requirement to the next waypoint, or else it can not pitch sufficiently to nose-over the next ridgeline. Please manually move the waypoint further away until it can, or else allow auto adjustment to speed, load-out or waypoint location (in that order) so the aircraft can make that turn. Do you want to auto adjust now? [Yes] [No], etc. The mission planner should simultaneously recalculate if the aircraft is going to have sufficient fuel to complete the planned waypoint route for the attack and RTB. If no, the fuel should be increased, or waypoints edited, or else speed reduced, until it can achieve RTB at the planned base, with a sufficient fuel reserve buffer for emergency evasion needs. I personally think an emergency evasion from actual direct attack by fighters or SAMs, or from mechanical failure and damage are the only valid reasons for ANY aircraft to autonomously disregard flight plan waypoint details. In which case a low level flight SHOULD STILL KEEP FLYING AT LOW LEVEL, and the aircraft should RTB as a soft 'mission kill'. You should be informed of its failure to achieve its planned task. TRACK 3 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?9fyu1bah2n6p1b6 With this track I took exactly the same scenario as the first two and simply replaced the Tornado with the Su25T, and swapped the Russian SAMs for NATO medium and short range Hawk, Avenger and Chaparral units in unchanged locations. I gave the Su25T EXCELLENT CAS role, with no weapons. The track developed in much the same way as Track 2, except the combination of the Su25's lower performance and the open formation within a narrow valley led to it being more prone to collide with high terrain. But the three surviving aircraft eventually simply gave up on terrain-following yo-yo-ing altogether the moment they flew high enough (thousands of feet above a ridgekine) to be detected by the Hawk SAM radar once in range of it. Thus once an aircraft is detected by the Hawk SAM radar it then flies level at about 2,000 feet AGL! The completely wrong tactical response! But the aircraft that are disordered and have fallen behind due to the open formation keep on yo-yo-ing until they also are individually detected, then they too fly level at about 2000 feet AGL in view of the SAM system. Now common sense would tell a pilot this is a particularly dumb thing to be doing right in front of a Hawk battery, especially when there's a deep valley right below you. But the DCS AI is indeed depressed, at it's general inability to fly low-level, so is ready to end it all. Thus the remaining aircraft fly toward the SAM in lower mid-level flight, totally ignoring their 65m AGL mission planning waypoint alt level, plus they're now strung-out over a 6 to 7 km distance, due to the yo-yo nonsense. So they independently trundle towards their dooms, with the airbase's SAM defences whereupon they are one after the other blown out of the sky without further ado. Good riddance. But if there were AEW and fighters around, they would not have made it even that far anyway. Turkey shoot = SYSTEMATIC Ai FAILURE TRACK 4 http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?82y8dw9uy29rl8j Exactly the same as Track 3, except I replaced the Su25s with Su34 in EXCELLENT RUNWAY ATTACK role, with iron bombs to see if they could fly any more sanely, but they were even worse than the others, with three of them crashing into terrain, and the fourth did so many afterburning yo-yo's that it simply ran out of fuel, aborted to the nearest runway. This is an aircraft with a loaded combat range of several thousand kilometres!!! But it could not make a 200km low-level attack because of the staggering inefficiency of the way the aircraft attempt to fly at low-levels. Another sad and pathetic EPIC FAIL of low-level attack flight tactics. I considered making another track with the A-10C, but what's the point, the whole thing is the mother of all cluster effs. -- What I'm most appalled by is to see a supposedly dedicated low-level flight attack combat sim, in this ludicrous state of terrain following and target addressing dysfunction. This is actually supposed to be a Hi-Fi simuilation of low-level ground-attack! -- See also ED thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1316213&postcount=21 And recent discussion of these issues at SimHQ http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3468087/Re_FC3_Confirmed.html#Post3468087

Сглаживание в кабине приведёт к доп.тормозам,надо говорить Всё хорошо-Всё отлично.:) Приборы изучены,главное чтоб обзор не тормозил.(дёрганье только сразу после загрузки?)

а ещё чтобы на лугах паслись пони и единороги.

.

Just to note though Fox, we (the 104th) are sorry that you had a bad experience during OPFOR mate... your right 100% the pause was bad news however it was a genuine accident... I hope we see you and your team again and this has not put you off! Until next time my friend S!

You did get a warning, thats why it shows you going defensive to try and defeat the missiles on the track of the event when RIPTIDE's 120s go active on you. - No I didnt, I did that because rocketdog warned me that there is enemy who shoted him down, and he is somewhere real close to me so my plan was to turn back to WP3. Reason why I didnt noticed warning was maybe because that A120 was in position where my plane isnt able to capture missile "signal" or maybe I was in rush, who knows, I will analyze it with my doctor :D You are right- the exact same time so no one had an advantage due to it so you cant really use that as an excuse for being killed - pause occured for everybody, but sorry it isnt normal behaviour on the events like this could be, especially when you are under stress when your teamate was under fire and he is screaming that there is enemy somewhere close to you. Sorry but it is like when you are driving car, making hazardous moves on the road, because you would like to overrun somebody and in one second STOP.... :D :D and than again START :D :D Grab your steering wheel check your gear and try to recover to normal and so and so... you are in fact out of concentration. You are right that I cant survive that for 99 percent, nobody is going to negate it, but for me this was unprofessional to pause server during event like this. As you all know maybe :D I fly lockon many years and I love events like GI and OPFOR and also everytime Im enjoying it and everytime I taking it really seriously and I was really surprised last time :lol:

New article with long excerpts from the cockpit voice recorder: What Really Happened Aboard Air France 447.

Thank you very much. Well- Now I parked some F-18 Hornets on the flight deck. The problem ist that one Hornet have arround 37k triangles. And now the number of trianglecount increases up to 250k. Think thats much enough- Otherwise I have to clear the deck:smilewink: One shot FC2 engine... ...and DCS-engine BS2. Greetings, TOM

most of the rail structure is 0.5" x 1.0" x .125" architectural type, in stock now here http://www.metalsdepot.com/products/alum2.phtml?page=aangle&LimAcc=%20&aident=. There are also a couple pieces of 1x1 and some .5" strips to finish the job. Here is a sketchup file of the rails, with some wireframe of the panel dimensions over it. This is the easiest way to explain it. The channels created on the outer edge of the rails slips over the rib that runs length-wise. I didn't see that piece in your cutouts yet, I'm guessing that's another piece you still have to cut? rails.7z