Bimbac

Hi, have you guys ever heard about multi-spectral flares?

Just trying to be helpful :music_whistling: I am just offering my help. How should I know if it's wanted? Anyway, to business: There are no ailerons or flaps on the wings, just inner and outer elevons. They work mostly together, but it heavily depends on the attitude, altitude and airspeed of the aircraft according to signals from FCS. Canards work both as controls and de-stabilizers. They can move both together or differentially. There are also leading edge flaps which can move up or down. I will try to obtain maximum angles on all controls. The APU doors remain open until the APU itself shuts down when the landing gear is up and locked. After landing when the nose wheel is on the ground, the APU starts automatically.

Don't worry. :) If you go to full power, standard parameters are restored on all control surfaces. :thumbup:

If you like, I would try to do some research for you.

Actually, this is not true. The pilot doesn't touch anything. All the canards, the speed brakes and elevons movements are programmed into FCS and apply automatically upon landing. All the pilot HAS TO do is to step on the brakes. You can even do it while still in the air and the aircraft starts braking as soon as the nose wheel touches the ground.

Anytime, mate! :thumbup:

Hello, I think that delta + canard design is something specific to Swedish design features. Besides, one of the basic requirements made by Swedish Air Force was that planes should be STOL capable and the canard design is the best one to achieve this without compromising the aerodynamic smoothness and maneuverability. This design provides more lift, because both canards and wings both produce a positive (upwards) lift. I'd like to correct your opinion about thinking that deltas with canards require some extra attention regarding fly-by-wire system; in fact, for instance on the Gripen, the canards work as a de-stabilizer in order to make the aircraft more maneuverable and responsive. If canards go afloat, the aircraft actually becomes naturally stable.

UPDATE: I have done some measuring and the side panels I was referring to are not aligned precisely the same as the dashboard, but are about 15 degrees inwards the cockpit. Sorry for wrong information. :doh:

It's working! Hello everyone! After some hard investigation (but no system re-install) I was able to figure out what was the cause of the problem. It seems like there was a conflict with DCS: Black Shark and FFDShow libraries, located in ..\Windows\System32 folder. Those system logs can be really helpful, if one can find out how to read them... :mad: Nevertheless, I finally got my simulation working without a necessity to install everything from scratch, so right now I am a very happy man. Big Thanks to everyone here again. Your help has been extremely useful! :thumbup:

I have just received a new serial number! BIG THANKS TO ED!!! :thumbup:

Hello, this is exactly my case as well. I have wasted all activations unintentionally just trying to get the program running. I have already sent an email to appropriate address (or so I hope) and also PM'd to Tez - no response so far. Please, could someone help me?

My thoughts exactly. I've had an idea to use Admiral Kuznetsov as an emergency base in case your FARPs get overrun by enemies. I really hope ED will make this possible in a patch. Regards :thumbup:

I was experimenting so heavily that a complete system re-install is now inevitable. There were two libraries that gave me a hard time, but I was unable to solve the problem. At least I got the Russian language working during installation and activation, but that was all. After a re-install procedure, I will check back to inform if it solved the problem (I really do hope). Thanks to everybody, especially Slayer! :thumbup:

Big thanks to everybody, all of you have been very helpful. I have an update: There seems to be a problem with some DLL libraries, because the system log reports several problems which include "Microsoft.VC90.DebugCRT" and "Incorrect side-by-side configuration caused by missing runtime libraries" Any ideas? (except reinstalling the system)

Same problem...

Thanks for a quick answer. The program asks for the serial number all right, or so I believe, because of the bug I mentioned above. After that, it just hangs up. As I said, I have the same problem with Flaming Cliffs, but it's definitely not Star-Force related, since I have an English CD version and the CD check passes OK. I'd also like to mention that I have no problem with any other application or game on my system. I have checked everything from drivers to registers.

Hello, first of all I'd like to apologize for starting a new thread about same topic, but my problem is somewhat different than what has been already discussed. I have downloaded a Russian version Ka-50 and installed it without any problem. When I launch it, it goes to the main menu - so far so good. But when I launch any mission (I guess this is the moment when the program switches to simulation), the DCS application shows logo and then hangs up. When I open the Task Manager, it reports that DCS is not responding. I have exactly the same problem with Lock-On: Flaming Cliffs, though the program hangs up immediately after launch. My system specs: Intel P4 @ 2.4 GHz Northwood M/B Gigabyte GA-8INXP 1.5 GB RAM Graphic card: ATi Radeon 9700 Pro Sound Card: Creative SB Audigy 2 Windows XP Pro Czech version SP3 One more issue, but not so important. During installation, the dialogs in Russian seem to be broken. Instead of letters all I get is "?" mark. Any idea how to fix this? Thanks and best regards.

You are right, but Gripens are indeed in NATO already: Czech Republic, Hungary. :thumbup: Unfortunately, these countries are not in Lock-On or DCS, neither the Gripen :cry:

Hello, thank you for your effort. You are doing one helluva job. :thumbup: I don't want to rain on your parade, but the cockpit panels, especially the side ones right below the displays are pointed at wrong angles. They should be at the same angle as the dashboard. If interested, I could help you a bit. Regards!

None of the above, except S-24, but it's not used anymore, replaced by S-25 family. Sorry to disappoint you, but that's the way it is.

I am sorry but I don't think I understand. Could you explain a little more, please? :huh:

It is, but with much more advanced capabilities, including range and weapons inventory, which means more mission types, like long-range SEAD.

My thoughts exactly, sir! It's not like I love Russians, not at all. I merely respect them, the same way as anybody else in the world.

Thank you very much. Just trying to be precise and meaningful. If I did so, it did the purpose. :thumbup: Hi, you are comparing wrong planes. Su-35 is a 4++ generation aircraft, meant to fill the gap between current Russian Air Force workhorses like Su-27/30 and the PAK-FA (true 5th generation), which unfortunately didn't even make it into prototype stage yet. You are right about Russian technology in F-35B, like the new lift-fan intake and the swiveling nozzle. I believe the pilot escape system including automatic ejection was developed with Russian know-how. There could be more, but I have no info about it. Best regards! :thumbup:

Hello, thanks for the reply. First of all, let me apologize for my fuse going off a bit. :doh: Since we are doing the same business, I assume you are a professional, so let's get the obvious stuff out of the way. Concerning the age of the ammunition, I can tell you that some AIM-9M-9 Sidewinder missiles (refurbished from older versions) we are using are almost 20 (twenty!) years old, and they still perform perfectly (live fires - not one gone a dud). Alamo missiles are indeed old by technology and standards, but definitely not by capabilities. That exactly was my point. When I was mentioning numbers of F-22s and Typhoons against Flankers, I had in mind the actual COMBAT READINESS :), meaning how many of them are currently capable of performing missions (including trained pilots, of course). Absolute numbers don't matter at all. About TVC, I seriously doubt that any aircraft manufacturer would do his business with the TVC capable aircraft, if the TVC would significantly decay the airframe. There are indeed some limitations, but the FBW system could easily handle them and take over the controls if the aircraft was put to dangerous situation. I guess you will agree with me on this. Since your brother is a fighter pilot, please ask him if he ever performed some dissimilar air combat against a fighter like Gripen or MiG. My point is that having superior airplane capabilities doesn't actually mean winning every fight you get yourself into. In WVR fight, for example, there is a rule of thumb: Lose sight, lost the fight. And Gripen, in particular, is very hard to spot by Mark I Eyeball, trust me. And your radar doesn't lock it instantly, so you have to rely on your senses. Ask Hungarians about their experience. We could spend an entire week arguing about our opinions, but please, believe me when I say that having a cutting edge aircraft and weapons makes no difference at all if you don't have pilots that can really use them to their advantage. And for that matter, Russians know their own capabilities and are proficient at using them. That's what makes them dangerous adversaries.