ARM505

This happened to me last night. Didn't think to save the track, assumed I was being a dumbass (because I had been a dumbass about something else shortly before that, so I figured I was on a roll). Had to quit after that. Will try later tonight when I can play again. Anyway, also #2 engine, all boost pumps on. Checked every engine related switch I could think of. As I said, I'll try again soon. Edit to add: Nope, try as I might (even replicating the playing around I was doing before I actually tried to start) I can't get it to happen again.

1 (Rudder): IMHO, one of THE major points of contention that somebody new to the Shark has. Simply, it just yaws the helo, BUT (this is IMHO what people get stuck on) if the yaw channel of the stab/ap is engaged, the autopilot will constantly attempt to yaw the helo to the last 'trimmed' (ie when you released the trim button) heading. Get this clear in your head by turning off the yaw channel and/or using flight director mode and seeing the difference. There have been a lot of discussions about that topic here. 2 (Targeting): Is slow in the Shark. Or I suck. It's just one of those things. It helps to have a good idea of where they are before you start looking. Searching the whole area with the TV system sucks. Getting good with your HOTAS helps a lot in switching between individual targets in a group. 3 Whatever works - But yeah, concentrating on flying properly while targeting is hard. I like to find a solid bit of cover and hide behind it, so that means hovering. Again, I'm not a master at all though. 4 (Skins) Cumbersome IMHO - addon managers will help a lot here, indeed will make it perfectly easy (ie MODMAN, no idea on DCS compatibility though, sorry). But it's not as simple as IL2 (awesomely easy) or ROF (also easy). Skins need to have a custom place made in some or other files, it's not just as simple as adding a texture. Something like that. 5 (Missions) I just make my own in the editor. It's very easy to use and you can focus on just learning one particular thing at a time. 6 (Online) Very limited experience here, so I'll just mention that most people are friendly and willing to help. Teamspeak will help.

Modelling the underwater sound model requires highly specialised knowledge and is another field entirely. Hence Dangerous Waters (the core sound model by Sonalysts) remains unsurpassed in that field, despite it's general clunkiness by modern standards. Good luck getting somebody to invest in that highly niche world for a commercial entertainment (ie non-military) project. IMHO - it won't happen. It's just a totally, totally different world.

Ooof, let's not start that 'what makes a sim a sim' debate again :)

The rungs of the ladder are apparently (just going from the posts here in general): DCS type ARMA type BF3 MW Quake etc The rules are that all players of the upper rungs must look down upon those in the rungs below them, and call them 'games' etc. Whether even one single aspect of those 'games' is actually useful or would be nice to have is irrelevant. :) Seriously though, any 'game' as they stand now will run into engine limitations once they step outside their chosen specialty. ARMA is taking flak here because modders always run into engine limitations, but the fact is that it was always an infantry centric game, and it actually does a decent job of creating a world that a person can walk around in (Day Z uses that world, without actually changing much at all when you think about it). For an infantry world, it's pretty big actually. So they've packed in a lot of vehicles as well - not switch flicking simulations, but ok if you watch them move about. If you want to see massive engine limitations, or just a generally crap world, try walking around in the DCS world as a soldier. Imagine having an infantry battle now - staring at each other across a flat, almost featureless polygon isn't my idea of cool. Tank vs infantry combat in Steel Beasts runs into the same problem - the crunchies get mown down since there is generally zero cover, unlike the real world, where even a 20cm depression can do wonders for a soldier, something that ARMA can do an OK (not always brilliant) job of. When Combined Arms comes out we'll be able to drive tanks - compare that to Steel Beasts and I'm sure you'll find that SB is much a much more realistic tank sim (including the 'switch flicking' part) since that was always it's primary focus, unlike DCS. So it's pointless knocking ARMA - that would be like ARMA players knocking DCS because 'it's terrible once you step out the cockpit and lay in the grass' (and it is - but that's not the point of it!) ARMA gets so many comparisons because that is the game that really opens your eyes to how close we can come to a first person simulator - one where you can move around as a human, not as a 'platform' (aircraft, tank, sub etc). Edit to add: Just to clarify, I was joking when I was describing the 'rungs' above - I play (or at least have tried to play) all of them actually, some more than others (clue - it must be more realistic) - it just seemed like some people get a bit snobbish when describing what they believe are 'lesser' games :)

http://memegenerator.net/instance/21410478?browsingOrder=New&browsingTimeSpan=Today It seemed appropriate.

+1

First impressions of the A2A (very quickly typed, pardon errors please :) ): Cockpit is very 'alive', ie moving anything makes a realistic sound (even throttle, prop, mixture levers), fuel/mag selectors etc etc etc Throttle lever has breakable 'gate' wire (something like that). Moving joystick also makes control noises. Excellent sounds in general. Needles have some weight to them, bouncing a little as you switch the battery master on, plus with airframe bounces (all typical A2A stuff I suppose) Mixture lever has a little metal gate control - in fact, it's a lot easier to see how the controls actually work in the real cockpit - for example, the radio channel dimmer is in fact just a little plastic sliding thing that slides over the lights at night, you can see the little lever arm for the fuel cut off valve move etc. Very polished and neat functionality, even down to the arm rest that folds down on the throttle arm side. Start was normal (except....did the DCS model get the fuel cutoff valve a different way around? Going from memory, so it seemed odd, will check), counting 6 blades, mags on, once she caught (very nice sounds again, no instant change from cranking to running, a very realistic starting sound, and yes, I've seen a Mustang start!) the mixture went from cutoff to run and she spluttered to life. Did I mention the sounds? Both internal and external are excellent IMHO. The taxi was exactly as I expected, and frankly I found it a lot easier than the DCS P51. Nice cockpit vibrations, including some low RPM shakes from the engine (it was still quite cold, at idle it was still a little rough) Absolutely nothing feels canned or scripted, it really feels like a very dynamic interaction. The take off (and indeed all the flying I did, baring one particular thing I tested) feel very similar to the DCS variant. The take off is also a little on the 'exciting' side, with a lot of pedal needed to counter the yawing, and you need to be one step ahead of the plane, trying to anticipate pedal requirement before things get out of hand. Once airbourne, the I cleaned it up and flew a basic circuit, with some reckless flying on the downwind though! Control effectiveness and 'input per rate' seemed similar at first 'feel' to the DCS model, I can only guess that these two separate companies, both with access to the real thing, have come to the same model via different paths, a testament perhaps to their respective accuracy? My one gripe with the DCS model is the amount of drag created when sideslipping. The A2A model seems more plausible in this respect to me - in the DCS model, sideslipping creates massive amounts of drag, far more than I would expect. Of course, I haven't flown the real thing, so you can ignore that opinion if you will. Again, the A2A sounds are absolutely fantastic. Setting up for landing was along the usual lines, and the touchdown (my fault) was pretty terrible - trying to hustle it into a shortish and narrow strip. One bounce and a few wobbles later (definitely didn't get 'stuck' down, as some complain about FSX!), I got it settled nicely enough, and could start to apply brakes. Nice progressive feel from the differential braking, a good thing too since I was almost off the one edge of the runway. At the lowest idle, we get the little puffs of smoke and a little shaking from the motor. Once I stopped, I shut it down where it was, after applying the brakes. Again, very nice slow down of the motor with excellent sounds, also some cool down 'pinging' sounds from the motor. That was a very quick first impression. All in all, its an excellent simulation of a P51 IMHO - it's a very worthwhile addition to ones sim hangar, and easily justifiable even if you already own the DCS model. It somehow seems to have more of the nitty gritty details that a real aircraft has, compared to the slightly 'soulless' feel of the shiny new DCS aircraft that you are given every flight. Of course it has all the usual A2A features of persistent servicing etc, plus instantly adjustable weights etc. DCS's focus will always remain combat (albeit not a very populated world for the P51 at this time), and in this respect it cannot even be compared to FSX of course. Nonetheless, the A2A model simply cannot be written off because 'it's made for FSX', or 'it doesn't have guns' IMHO. The flight and systems modelling is top notch. I never felt a moment where I was thinking 'oh there's a typical FSX horrible moment with the flight model/name your FSX bane'. In fact, the two products have a very similar feel when it comes to flying (a good thing!) It is an excellent simulation of a Mustang. When it comes to just flying around enjoying the aircraft, I prefer the A2A model. That could change of course as the DCS model progresses towards it's final release form. FM's - I prefer the drag modelling of the A2A model at high yaw angles, otherwise I cannot comment further other than that they feel quite similar with my system and control setup (TM Cougar, floor mount, extended, Saitek pedals) Sounds - I must give A2A the prize for this, they are excellent. As Wags has said however, the DCS model's sounds are not all final/used, so we will have to see Visuals - Externally, both are excellent. Internally, I find the A2A model details more clear, and it has more of a 'working cockpit' feel to it. Again, we're dealing with two excellent products, so it's not like one is 'bad' at all. Systems: A2A is of course a finished product, and DCS is not. Suffice to say, the A2A bird is very complete - my first flight didn't find anything that didn't work as expected. This is really A2A's forte, and they do an excellent job. This is of course only a comparison of the actual aircraft. The worlds around them (FSX vs DCS) are a story all on their own of course.

...also, 'center trim' does not work in the Su25 (or T). Additional info: To understand this, you need to know how trim worked in the original Lockon - all aircraft used what came to be known as the 'SFM' (simpler flight model) and trim could be reset. In Flaming Cliffs, the Su25 and the T model were upgraded to the 'AFM' (advanced flight model), where trim functioned more like the real aircraft, and could not be reset to center (like the RL machine). All other aircraft kept the older way of centering trim. Hence the legacy command 'center trim'. End of useless additional info :) Slightly more useful info: In the Su25's, there are green 'trim centered' lights for all three axes, if I remember correctly. Just run the trim until those lights illuminate to center the trim. Welcome to Russian ergonomics. In Soviet Russia, aircraft trims you!

IRL, you can sort of look 'through' the reflections at the outside world, so they don't seem as noticeable. Except of course, at night, when turning a light that is too bright on in the cockpit shrinks your entire world to the inside of the cockpit, since you won't see anything at all outside.

Wow. IL2, the single greatest WW2 air combat series in the history of simming, is remembered like this? Come on guys, it deserves better. Of course it had tons of quirks, and of course it's now showing it's age - but good luck to anybody getting even vaguely close to that number of simulated, playable aircraft in the air, and good luck keeping everybody happy (here's a clue - you won't) and good luck making something that lives as long as it has. Frankly, it's still perfectly playable, and that says a lot. I sincerely wish that the DCS series lives as long. I expect it will, albeit with far fewer platforms, which is fine too. Nonetheless, I think IL2 deserves a lot of credit. I still remember epic battles/moments on dedicated servers with a bunch of friends, something the DCS series has yet to give me personally, despite it's technical excellence. IMHO.

Ah, the joys of helkom - get the P51, it's nicely done! Which chirp? He had an engine rollback in ZS-OAP, it was quite a crappy one actually. Was it to do with that?

There's a 'Guild' tab in the control room on the lower left of that screenshot posted above. Instant, immediate, go-straight-to-fail-do-not-collect-$200 epic fail.

Sounds like you have it right to me at least. That's the problem I guess - the AI doesn't actually show human intelligence (thinking strategy, different BFM), it is so obviously a machine (able to pull to inhumanly close to the limit at ALL times, machine like pursuit of single parameter, always able to see you etc) It's just a pity it's so bloody effective! In all the dogfights I've had with the AI, I end up getting hits only during the head on passes. Getting them into a typical 'human' losing situation (ie low, slow, out of everthing, or 'just didn't see you') seems incredibly hard/impossible, or at least I haven't succeeded to my satisfaction. Bottom line is, it's VERY clear you're fighting an AI. Still a bloody difficult fight of course, just not so satisfying, to me at least. I guess that's what online is for.

Welcome to one of my little pet hates about the Su25 (and T) a la Eagle Dynamics: complete lack of fire extinguishers, unlike the actual aircraft. When an engine catches fire, your only action available is to shut that engine down, and in most cases that simply does not work, or alternatively, you cannot afford to wait for it to work since you will explode at some random time in the very near future. IMHO, a pretty major oversight since it happens so often, and the RL aircraft most definitely had them (not that they would work for every engine fire, but at least we would be able to feel something other than a helpless feeling of impending doom/eject now!) I still love the Froggy though!

Done overnight (or less, I was sleeping :) ), and that's in South Africa (aka arse end of the world), been seeding at unlimited ever since...

Well, it's clear there are a lot of non 'Rise of Flight' players here :)

This engine model (I mean the simulated mathematical model, not the model of engine) is particularly finicky about starting from idle cut off (ie you MUST, whereas IRL I think if certain conditions were ok it would actually start fine). It remains to be seen what the A2A P51D model will do, but the current A2A P51 can be run on the primer alone for quite a while, as long as you keep priming it (which ties in with what I know from RL smaller aero engines, so it seems plausible to me). Also, the mixture axis there can be mapped to a slider, which makes pressing a button (the starter) while moving the mixture to 'run' a little easier. Nonetheless, if you do it by the book it works easily. It just defeated me a little the first time :) Without knowing what the DCS Mustang simulates (no doubt a lot anyway), and also just from gut feel, the A2A engine model feels more 'dynamic', ie firing one one for a bit, erratic idle, oil smoke from wear etc. It really feels like you can 'play' with it and intentionally do things marginally to see what happens. The DCS engine either runs or it doesn't. Also, the DCS model is factory fresh, or at least well serviced and snag-free every single time. I'm only mildly qualified to comment, having only watched videos of large aero engine startups (watched and done plenty of real light aircraft startups, also large radials (Wasp and Cyclone, never done the start myself though), not quite the same though) so please don't flame too vigorously :)

I don't think it's meant to be 'overspray' (ie painted without masking) on the outside, so much as dirt and dust on the inside that doesn't get wiped due to the canopy frame preventing an easy job with just a normal rag. I've seen this on aircraft before, so it's not unrealistic. For what it's worth, it bothers me too. I need a little stick and a rag, then you can poke the stick into the corner with the rag on it and clean properly. I like clean canopies/windscreens.

I know it's carrying on the OT theme, but while on books, I can recommend 'Low Level Hell', about a Loach pilot in Vietnam. They complimented the 'Snakes' (Cobras) by flying around at low level (reeeeally low level, ie at infantry height) and getting shot at. A lot. It also shows again just how demanding simulating helo CAS on a PC can be, given that it's so fundamentally integrated into infantry operations.

I always use ground speed X 5, but of course I always have GS in knots, so you'd have to switch to that from mph (damn imperial units!)

You're seeing the sim equivalent of the old first person shooter model 'ragdoll' flopping around - remember the first shooters that used 'ragdoll' physics? Sometimes the corpses would jerk around after they've been 'killed' and were just laying there. The physics model keeps bouncing a part from one side to the other. Same here.

Wow. Lots of blatant fanboi-ism in this thread. Time will tell, and anyway, if you're even remotely interested in the Mustang, you'll own both A2A's product, as well as DCS's version of it. It's not like you're buying actual Mustangs each time you buy the software, I'm sure we can all afford both. Based on A2A's past products, the Mustang will be excellent. As their video's clearly show, they have plenty of access to the real thing. All sounds are recorded from the real thing, down to the sounds of the switches clicking (for example, I could go on and on - just watch the clips on their site). The Spitfire and P40 are the only addon aircraft I have for FSX (aside from the PMDG NGX, since that's what I fly IRL and was curious how well they did it - very well, it turns out) The feeling of flight is excellent. Their numbers match the manual very closely. The aircraft feel 'alive' and you have a sense of attachment, and a reason to treat them well. I see a lot of 'It's in FSX, so it's useless' kind of comments here. I wouldn't trust any comment where it's obvious the person has zero experience of the product being mentioned. Why would somebody make the primary point of their argument pure ignorance? Weird....As for 'FSX has no guns' - would you like to have a flight in a P51? Yes? Ok, and if I told you it had no guns? Suddenly you wouldn't be interested at all? Duh. Simply flying a P51 is fun. Bottom line, I'll own both. It's a no brainer. Duh!

The closest thing I have to describe turbulence IRL is to imagine driving too fast on a bumpy road. Light turbulence means you bounce around a little, but the aircraft is still perfectly controllable. Severe is when it is no longer possible to control the aircraft, anyone not strapped down will go flying around, passengers will consider themselves about to die, etc. IRL, even medium will make most passengers (even seasoned flying pax) very nervous. Severe will make the pilots nervous too :) The most I've ever experienced IRL is medium, with possibly a few seconds of severe. It's pretty violent, and makes you appreciate the strength of the wing box. In the sim, you should see airspeed, attittude, and altitude fluctuations, increasing in severity with the level of turbulence. I've never really experimented that much with it much in DSCA10, only BS (to watch the rotors flap around on the ground, lol at flingwings :) )

I actually get the OP's point. I fly a 737 for a living (get the PMDG NGX for FSX if you want that, it's good). Flying the A10, and getting it started, is easy, and along the same lines. But, I'm finding I couldn't be arsed to read the manual on that shockingly painful nav system (what where they thinking?!), nor learning how to program the DSMS to be be able to control my CBU's RPM or HOF (etc etc etc X 10000). So, the OP asks a valid question, then gets a whole bunch of answers telling him he's 'playing it wrong' and to sit down and study? Lol. OP, you can get a 'limited' A10 license, like me. :) I can use a Mav, the TGP (mostly) drop a dumb, unguided bomb, use rockets and the cannon. That's easy enough. One day I'll study some more :) Maybe I could get a laser guided bomb off the rails if I had enough time to hang around and fiddle with some buttons. I actually did at some stage know a lot more than this, and did read the manual cover to cover. But I find this sim is so detailed, you actually lose 'currency' if you don't play it all the time (which I don't - too many other good things to play). I have to check myself out in each system every time I get back into it (except the basics), plus each time it gets patched a few subtle details often change, and sometimes it all seems like work frankly :) That said, I will always keep it in 'sim' mode all round - if I want to blow stuff up, I always want to do it as per the real deal. Like I said, I have a 'limited' A10 license :)