ARM505

Spotting in real life (of which I have done a lot) is all about 'relatives', much like in DCS; relative motion, contrast in relation to the background, relative size of the contact, relative light levels (ie looking at the shadow side of an aircraft against the sky means looking for a darker, easier to see dot) etc Somehow, in real life, the 'relatives' tend to stand out a bit more than in DCS. In DCS for example, a contact can easily acquire the almost exact same colour as the background (a camouflaged green aircraft against a forest from above for example) and the pixels of the one will be identical to the other, making the contact essentially invisible. Does anybody remember that 'illegal' IL2 skin that was made from the exact same texture as the default grasslands from most of the map? It basically disappeared if it was below you! In real life, that simply doesn't happen - you can't get an aircraft to be the same precise shade or texture as the forest below it in a way that makes it utterly disappear, AND it's relative motion seems to stand out quite a bit more IMHO (yes, in the civilian world most aircraft are not camouflaged but I watched some that are, and it doesn't really make a difference IMHO, at least to tracking the contact - the best way to disappear is with a light shade of grey when viewed from below or co-alt, and surprise surprise, that's what most modern airforces use!) That being said, exaggerated dots do result in getting a visual at too long ranges - to spot another airliner (generally big and bright, but I am talking 737 size, not A380) for example, I know that conditions must be right to see them beyond ten nautical miles - if the conditions aren't right, it can be really hard, and thats when looking at almost the exact spot, guided onto it by ACAS. Funnily enought, once you do see it, it seems really obvious :) Then comes the laugh a minute action as you try and talk you fellow crew member onto it....'He's just above that sausage shaped cloud....see? About a finger above......come on, he's bright orange!' And finally the guy sees it and then kicks himself because it seems obvious. Things that stand out are often the shadows, for example in the intake of the engine nacelles. Most airliners have white as a base colour, which can blend in quite well actually, it's not always super bright. Tl;dr - spotting, and especially TRACKING another contact in DCS as it stands now is IMHO quite a bit harder than real life, but conditions (bright sun, shadow, early morning and late day light, canopy artifacts etc) don't cause as many problems as they do IRL. The light seems a little artificial in a way, we'll have to see how EDGE manages it. Two sims that stand out for real looking lighting in my book are the current CLOD, and the new IL2:BOS seems good, albeit an eyestrain with the constant white world (much like real snow cover I suppose)

You don't need hydraulics to allow flap type control surfaces to generate enough force to pull high G's - they can be aerodynamically 'boosted' as well. Example: http://www.pilotfriend.com/training/flight_training/fxd_wing/images3/8.jpg The bit that extends in front of the hinge axis (marked 'horn balance' in the pic above) will not only place weight ahead of the aerodynamic center of pressure which helps control things like flutter, but also creates an aerodynamic load that actually assists in control inputs, helping lower the 'stick force per G'. In real aircraft (with direct linkages to the controls at least) you can clearly feel the controls stiffening up as airspeed increases - often it feels like only pressure needs to be exerted on the stick/yoke to make a change, as opposed to real deflection (of course you are deflecting it, just not much at all). Sims struggle in this regard as the feel just isn't there, often resulting in what you feel - it's seemingly ridiculously easy to generate high G forces, as the 'stick force per G' in sims changes dramatically with changing conditions, unlike reality where it stays more constant (not constant of course, just more so) - note I said 'stick force per G', not 'stick deflection' of course. At lower airspeeds, the same force would generate a much higher stick deflection. IMHO.

Again, I can see why developers charge a price that is the equivalent of any other full priced game - I think we consistently underestimate the colossal amount of work that goes into getting a modern aircraft 'out the door', so to speak. Keep tapping away guys.

AFAIK it acts almost as the equivalent of a modern jet's yaw dampener, the theory being that it's actually easier in the real aircraft because you can feel subtle yaw angles in the seat of your pants before you really see them and it's easier to compensate preemptively. The sim is purely visual of course, so some help isn't entirely unrealistic. I think it just adds some rudder input if it detects yaw. That being said, it's in the nature of simmers to view it as some kind of cheat. So to successfully take off without it, just do what it does, and be extremely active in stopping any kind of yaw before it really develops by using the correct amount of rudder input. Don't wait, stop even the slightest twitch of yaw. In real taildraggers you can often use little 'jabs' of rudder to keep it going straight. But the bottom line is just be very active on the pedals.

.....DCS World\Mods\aircrafts\FW-190D9\Sounds\EditorMusic\MainMenuLoop.ogg I know you know, but for those who don't want to rummage around :)

Ok, ha ha....but seriously, during the landing/taxi as the aircraft bounces, and also when the aircraft spawns at mission start, just the impact of the aircraft plonking down as it spawns causes him to give the high G heavy breathing. During the landing roll, I thought I was scraping something, but it's the breathing noise coming on and off it seems?

Cold start (only had to find the key to move the throttle to idle!), taxi out, take off, two touch and go's, armed weapons, strafed some huts and an airport fire vehicle, climbed to about 4000m, dived to off the clock on the ASI, climbed back up playing with cowl flaps and coolant temps, dived back down, landed and taxied to original parking, shutdown. No aircraft breakages! And I only skimmed the manual.... Only watched Wags' videos, but having played the IL2:BOS 190 did help with the taxi and takeoff/landing I reckon, because this one is easier to taxi, and it got me used to the tailwheel locking mechanism. Very nicely done, it definitely feels nice to operate, very different from the P51. I really need to read up on the engine limitations, I took it to maximum power and played with the MW50, but I was very gentle with the engine in general though. Good fun, and very nicely done to ED. Edit to add: The track is 8MB - seems pretty big! I did fly around for quite a while, but still...

Thanks, nice links and info in general.

Without debating what the exact speeds were, I'm curious as to what gap was sealed. I'm aware of performance packages for modern aircraft (for example flap gap seals, sealing door lines etc in 172's etc) but I don't know what or where the 'engine gap' in a 190D would be?

Not that great a shot, but I did!

Can you elaborate? I know what they are and do, just can't really figure out where they would put one in a 190D? And why the gains would be so big?

Ok, I'm boasting again, but here's my rather grubby legs in the SA FW190, you can see the instruments more clearly, some replacements from the original I suspect:

I still have fond memories of tearing through a herd of Mustangs on the old South African SGS IL2 servers, cries of 'Who's that!' over comms following on as Ponies fell from the sky.....(hey, it happened, even if only once!) Looking forward to this one, the 190 remains my favourite.

Hey, that's my brother - he's got the good eyes in the family! :D

Oh, don't ask why Oh, don't ask why :D Ah, good to see the traditional FW190 cockpit bar discussion progressing here too (was just at the IL2:BOS forums :) ) It's not just the bar, it's the perceived depth of the side bars surrounding the thick front windscreen. Just so we're all clear on what's been happening there. The first thing I saw when I stepped into the BOS 190 was 'Gosh, look at those massive bars obscuring my view to the sides of the windscreen!' Thick glass makes those (as well as the lower bar) look thinner when looking through the windscreen, so it doesn't seem like you're staring out through a metal valley :D :D

Just as a trial run, I set a 4 Ship Mig 15 AI flight against a 4 ship Sabre flight, then a 4 ship F15C flight, then a 4 ship F16D flight (all gun only of course). The Mig 15's won each fight 4 -0. Yay, beta! And AI being odd of course :D

Ok, fine, fine, I'll buy it dammit! :D

Funnily enough, Steel Beasts was made to work in combination with VBS, the professional version of ARMA. The infantry dudes saw VBS, the tank guys saw Steel Beasts. So it is possible. But yes, we can only dream. I'm glad somebody mentioned Spintires, that has epic mobility challenges - really makes just driving around a challenge, and is surprisingly good! Wish we could match that one up with SB or ARMA.

I actually the whole situation rather frustrating - here we have sims like ARMA, Steel Beasts, DCS, Combat Mission, IL2 CLOD, BOS etc etc etc all trying to duplicate a lot of effort in so many common areas, and one of the biggest is plausible, intelligent infantry behaviour. With so many fails along the way. I've just been scratching my head while playing the ARMA 3 campaign at some of the occasional AI oddities, although for sandbox infantry it's still the leader, as it should be given it's focus, with the individual soldier as it's core unit. It's funny really - each sim treats the AI mechanics along the lines of it's original 'theme': In DCS, AI unit pathing and behavior was built around aircraft (an aircraft could never stop and engage), in Steel Beasts, the logic is built around armoured vehicles (infantry are retarded but can function), and in ARMA it's built around individual people (witness the truly abysmal attempts when vehicles were trying to follow roads in the beginning, thankfully a lot better now!) It's almost like we need some kind of common AI OS or plugin, something like PhysX for AI. But right now, ARMA infantry in DCS would be EPIC - and impossible really, given how long BIS has been working on them I doubt DCS infantry would ever be comparable. And it's a pity really, because CAS units really need plausible infantry.

*sigh* *Fires up latest version of IL2 1946 again* So many aircraft in one package. Maybe in another 50 years time....

Detonation.

It must be a Russian thing :D Play World of Tanks enough and you get to experience the magical power of the KV series of tanks, with special AP ammo-eating Stalinium armoured tracks which chomp your rounds so they do no damage ;) Maybe it's the same for some heli's?

It's definitely not out yet, don't even bother checking.....maybe check in, say, an hour or so? *evil laugh, continues to enjoy high download speeds!*

Wow, but I want a cloth to wipe that thing down before I get in! Can I have a factory new one please? Those shots are sort of like the ones I've seen rotting quietly away in corners of Angola. Give me a can of virtual paint!

I still think this is a failure of the core DCS world blast model (mentioned before many times). It's like the engine just considers the shotgun type fragmentation effect and ignores the giant explosion that just occured right next to the helo. Watching the replays in slow motion, sometimes it seems odd to have the helicopter disappear in a giant fireball, then come out the other side with some holes in it, trailing a bit of smoke or something (admittedly this is one the rare-ish side, but weird things do happen with the current model) Especially if it's hit tail-on or something where the warhead's effect seems to get 'eaten' by non-critical structures.