ARM505

Could the manual be ring bound, in order to insert updates from .pdf's or something? My biggest gripe with fancy printed manuals is that many parts tend to become obsolete when it comes to something that evolves, like software (Falcon 4's ring bound manual was quite handy when it came to adding the multitude of extra manuals/updates now required)

Excellent work cypher. My fps seems pegged at 30 fps. I run quite low settings, and can sometimes get into the low 100's without multimonitor, but now it stays smoothly at 30 exactly - could this be as a result of windowed mode, or some kind of vsync issue? Vista 32, left monitor 1680X1050, right 1280X1024, ABRIS + TV on right monitor. GF8800GTS.

Going from maximum texture resolution to medium solved it in my case, using an 8800 GT 320 MB.

You may have noticed the other 1000 threads on this topic prior to your post.

We need this kind of detail! (When the octuple cores come out I suppose...) From the Steel Beasts armour model (mm RHA vs KE penetrator for T72, if memory serves me correctly) Of course, there is modelling for systems damage once the weapon actually makes it through the armour as well...

An age old problem, anyone remember the go-the-wrong-way-around-the-track dedication of some guys back in the GPL days? I mean, this guy (I'm thinking of one in particular) went to all the trouble of getting a decent PC (with 3DFX card in those days), a wheel, the sim, the internet connection, and all this just to crash into everyone on purpose during races? Huh? It might be baffling, but that's the reality of human nature - there's always at least one complete moron. And yes, BS's multiplayer interface is not going to help things.

Ground = best, but the view of the ground from the Ka50's cockpit is, by helo standards, pretty dismal, and hovering at altitude (if you needed to do it for some strange reason) also means you need to be at least familiar with the position needles when the HUD indication isn't available.

Pity, because workable 'depth of field' effects are currently used in stuff like ARMA, COD5 etc. But I suppose we could only call that a low priority, and it's still the best implementation of NVG's as has been said.

A previous thread discussed the AP stabilisation attempting to 'fight' the pilot - see this: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=38013 Again, according to some comments in the beginning of that thread from 'those in the know', the AP stab is supposed to avoid pushing against cyclic inputs. Is this maybe relevant?

They need to make it similar to the Cougar, in that the joystick handle itself should be easy to detach, and they should produce multiple quick change handles. The owner can then go for something more along the lines of what they want to use it for.

Badly. Just trust me. My second attempt, a nice, solid roll up blind, was a better idea.

Tanks are highly specialised weapons, extremely potent when properly applied. Of course, let's not forget that a combat engineer with a shovel, a pool of muddy water, or even a steep hill can also have their way with them at times!

Here's another sim that used 'pull for power' :D I award you ten internets if you guessed right!

Is there going to be any other way of getting these other than via the printed manual? Not to sound like a cheapskate or anything, and I suppose it's worthwhile to have a degree of exclusivity for those ordering the manuals (another path to earn some cash for ED, a good thing).

Just look at the green 'Start' or 'Valve' light (can't remember, something like that) just below the selector switch - once that's out, you can switch over. Sorry, not reading enough: like Vikbell said. Funny sig there Vikbell, so true! Or in our case, defensive break turns towards a spot on the monitor.

If you manage to break your chopper in half, you'll see the APU sitting there. Seriously!

Don't worry - I still get what you're saying, and still believe nobody has actually 100% caught the point. I was hoping for some 'official' input though. We'll see. I did some testing regarding this yesterday, and when pitching the nose down (for example) with the pitch AP engaged, definite pressure is required to hold the aircraft in a new pitch attitude. When the pitch AP is disengaged, this doesn't happen. Ergo, the pitch stabilisation is 'fighting' my input when I moved the nose from the 'trimmed' attitude. I use inverted comma's around trimmed because I know that the attitude isn't trimmed, merely the stick input. This seems to conflict with the quotes from EB etc when they state that moving the controls stops the AP pitch stabilisation from making corrective inputs AGAINST cyclic input. So, EiE, I do think I see your point.

Neither pulling nor pushing a fixed wing style of throttle is realistic, so do what you want - the argument that 'pulling' is more 'authentic' is ridiculous when you're moving your hand fore and aft, as opposed to the correct upwards and downwards (and therefore intuitive) motion.

I can't see anyone as having grasped the point of the OP - he's stating that in the REAL Ka50, the AP does not fight the pilot because it senses cyclic input (even without trimmer button depressed), and doesn't attempt to correct bank/pitch during input, whereas the simulated Ka50 appears to fight back against cyclic inputs - he's not asking how everybody is using the trimmer. Maybe I've read this too fast?

I can't really agree that what the dev's did was nice - IRL, ID'ing a dead target can be quite an issue, as well as the fact that the Schvvvakval (spelling!) is supposed to track by image contrast, which would mean that it should track a wreck.

Which brings me to a question - in the sim, since your physical joystick can always be moved (thus simulating Superman being on the controls in the virtual world), I'm correct in saying that you can still actually fly with hydraulics gone? I ask, because I seem to remember doing just that.

It's unlikely for somebody on these forums to want to get rid of a TiR 4, since thats the latest version - maybe you could convince somebody to part with their older TiR3+Vector setup in order to upgrade.

Hmmm....You're complaining that you paid too much, despite it being 'so close' (your words) to what can only be considered an enormously complex simulation? Don't get me wrong, I understand what it's like to have something so close, yet with small imperfections that irritate one -it shows you care. Do what a previous poster did, and edit the mission. I believe it should be understood by everyone that it's impossible for ED to create super-perfect missions in a single V1.0 attempt, OR to make allowances for the perceived imperfections in the simulated vehicle (No RWR in a large scale conflict, like the current production Ka-50). Don't play GOW if you feel it's not correct. I don't. :) Don't misunderstand me, I'm not making excuses for them, nor am I attacking you - but for 50 USD, this is an excellent product, despite any limitations and flaws it may have.

Ha ha, 'Bolted' to the HUD, at least you (EB1) also saw the blatant use of what looks like duct tape as a bit of a quick solution to stick that thing to the HUD! :D