Stretch

How come the Brits and the Americans can never agree on anything?!

Yeah, definitely keep the IR pointer off if you're playing multiplayer and you don't want to light up your position like a Christmas tree.

My guess: A windmilling propeller drives the pistons which can create spark plug fouling.

American pilots are cool.

Aspect Lingo HOT - Headed towards you (160 to 180 aspect) FLANK [left/RIGHT] - Headed towards you and to the left or right (120 to 150 aspect) BEAM [left/RIGHT] - Headed away from you and to the left or right (70 to 110 aspect) COLD/DRAG - Headed away from you (0 to 70 aspect)

Magic - Callsign of AWACS BRA - Indicates that the location of the enemy will be given in BRA (bearing-range-altitude) format 062 - Bearing 062 from you for 40 - 40 miles from you 10000 - 10,000 ft altitude cold - They are pointing away from you magic - Callsign of AWACS pop-up group - New group just appeared on my radar 031 - Bearing 031 degrees from you for 20 - 20 miles from you 30000 - 30,000 feet altitude flanking - They are heading generally towards you and to the left or the right of you

How about playing beta 4 instead of waiting? Honestly when 6 comes out y'all will just start waiting for 7. :)

Don't forget to check six regularly!

And if, in your squadron, you should desire to instruct your wingmen to set up their lights, be sure to use proper brevity! LIGHTS - Position lights SMASH - Anti-collision lights. "Enfield 1, smash off." "2!" "3! "4!"

Track?

The big thing for me is traffic. If my traffic sliders are down at 20% or below I get usable FPS. If I start to move those traffic sliders up, it gets really slow really quickly. That's all CPU too, FSX may be able to use DX9 and stuff but has balls for CPU optimization. EDIT: i7 930 @ 3.5, Radeon HD 5870, 6 GB @ 2000 MHz, VelociRaptor 10K + SSD

And so should you be with FSX. I said before, FSX is about mastery of your bird, in all conditions and all situations. EDIT: And Mower, I'm sorry you get such poor FPS. I'm not deluding myself because I get 20-30 typically. I can share my specs and configuration if you wish.

So all those ATPs who do recurring training in the sim where the computer flames out two engines are doing it wrong?

Seriously, so much of sorties is routine... Near rocks, far rocks, check six. Near rocks, far rocks, check six. Near rocks, far rocks, check six. Near rocks, far rocks, check six. ... Need I say more? :)

aaron886: F4:AF and FSX are VERY different in terms of the non-combat procedures and navigation systems used. F4:AF has huge gaps when it comes to radionavigation in particular. Examples: An FSX pilot flying, say, PMDG 747, for a typical mission, will receive an IFR clearance, taxi to the runway, takeoff, fly a DP, then a transition to an airway where he will be handed over to center. He'll fly along the airways until he reaches his destination, where he will transition to a STAR which takes him to his approach. For a typical mission, an F4:AF pilot will receive a runway to taxi to, then takeoff in any old direction and proceed direct to his next steerpoint. He'll fly the mission, blow some stuff up, then come home by pointing his nose at home plate, descending, and calling tower 20 miles out for some vectoring to base and then final. Compare this to real military flying, with its intensive use of TACAN and ILS and let-down plates and DPs/STARs. Look at the missions in available in FSX, vs. the missions in, say, DCS: Warthog. In FSX you will be landing a Cessna in a 500-foot-long mountain strip, landing a Maule above its service ceiling, wrestling with a King Air with a vacuum and engine failure while on short final in LIFR conditions, and landing a stunt Cub on a moving bus. (These are all missions included with stock FSX.) In F4:AF and DCS: Warthog, for example, people will only ever take off from and land on runways of ample size, and will not feel the need to adhere to airspace or routing procedures, at least not nearly as much as they do in the real military. The capability is obviously in the game engine but the combat simmers don't feel the need to push their jet in that way. Now obviously, you say, "Yeah but in DCS: Warthog you will play hide-and-seek with an SA-5." And I get that that also tests you as a pilot; I'm not trying to say it doesn't. I'm just trying to say that the set of skills you hone as a combat sim pilot is not a total superset of those you gain as a civvie sim pilot. In other words, an experienced FSX pilot could probably still teach an experienced DCS: Warthog pilot plenty of things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Resource_Management -- the article claims both definitions of CRM are correct and never once implies that CRM is entirely working as a team with your flight crew. The main point, I think, is that most of the people who say "meh" to civilian flight simulators are not fully capable combat sim pilots either. If you truly wanted to be master of your bird, you would study and practice its envelope in both combat and non-combat situations. And if that appealed to you, then you would have fun with the challenges FSX provides. If you think those non-combat challenges are boring, then chances are you're not becoming very proficient in airmanship things like, say, short-field landings in DCS: Warthog, rather spending all your time becoming proficient in putting depleted uranium into tanks. Of course, being a skilled aerial gunner isn't a bad thing, but good airmanship is about the whole package, skill in every situation fate can throw at you. (Lord knows I don't have it yet.) And FSX provides you with a diverse portfolio of challenges fate can throw at you. Just because you never press a trigger doesn't mean they are any less important to a combat pilot.

When I was a student pilot, my flight instructor told me that CRM can stand for "cockpit resource management" and refers to basically "juggling all the balls." It means proficiency at managing multiple tasks simultaneously, and using the tools you need (maps, checklists, gauges, eyeballs) efficiently. Anyway, now I've got my license so I'm out of the armchair. Also: Rote memorization of the manual does not give you good technique. You could memorize the POH, if for example you wanted to know off the top of your head whether you are landing within max demonstrated crosswind limits, but that does not teach you how to make a safe crosswind landing. Any challenge I make will require no rote memorization, only practiced skill.

Alright, Succellus, WynnTTr, it's clear you guys think that because you fly combat sims you're sierra hotel when it comes to FSX. I'm willing to extend a challenge that will test your airmanship, your precision, your CRM, your ability to read and understand POHs and charts, and your knowledge of airspace and procedures. Just give me a chance to purchase the AccuSim Spit first and come up with something sufficiently devious.

For shutdown, how do you actually turn your engines off? Move the throttles back past the idle detent. Also why not replace the coolie that is used for trim with the 3 sliders (rotating) on the throttle instead? Most people have Track IR and therefore no need for a view hat, which means they can use the hat for trim, as in the real jet. if I play a campaign, and bomb a non vehicle target (a building) and fly over it the next mission will it be rebuilt or will it be destroyed still? Possibly still even on fire? Nope.

Well, that's an interesting challenge. Do I have to tell you beforehand what I think up, or can it be a surprise? >:D

Yes, but that was during the Blitzkrieg. Times were a little different then. Just because you can take a 9-hour greenhorn and stick him in front of an Me-109 does not mean that nine hours is all it takes to learn the secrets of the Spitfire. Like I said previously, FSX isn't about competition, it's about mastery. And pride thereof.

Good news! You can bind failures to keys in FSX. There is nothing in the FARs against flying a vintage Spitfire IFR on an approach at night assuming it's got its TOMATO FLAMES, FLAPS, and GRAB CARD. Personally, I do get some adrenaline from FSX missions. Especially the Expert level ones. But FSX isn't about adrenaline; it's about skill mastery. Different thing, I know.

It takes about 40-70 flight hours to get your private pilot's license, another 50 or so for your instrument, and tack on 2,500 more for your ATP. What do you think pilots are learning during all those hours? Flying is more than just taking off, going somewhere, and landing. If that's all you're doing with your Spitfire in FSX, then that's the equivalent of flying DCS: Warthog against static targets with no threats and only the gun. You're missing out on 90% of the challenge. So once you've done a few cuban-eights and you feel like you've mastered it, go ahead and try an IFR approach at night in bad weather with a gyro failure, when suddenly your governor fails and your oil pressure starts plummeting. Have you mastered the plane enough to manage this situation (without pausing)? Do you understand the mechanics of your engine, the Federal Aviation Regulations, and the dynamics of your airplane well enough to fly safely and legally under these conditions? Sounds like you're also not putting FSX through its paces. There is more to FSX than just daytime flights in clear weather with no failures. Just like there is more to DCS: Warthog than firing the gun against static targets.

This is where you put the radar when your nose is occupied: