ARM505

The Spitfire cockpit got a re-bake.....I've also been hoping the Huey can get a spring clean, it's a great machine. I also don't mind paying for a V2, I understand that these things take resources. And ED has to forge a long term maintenance plan for these things, we have iconic aircraft that are going to need to evolve with the product, so....pretty much along the lines of the KA50 and A10, yeah.

Just out of interest, if you have a specific term in the 'search' bar at the top (for example, 'gear') then the command will not be highlighted if you press it, EVEN IF that command does appear in the searched for items below. e.g. 'gear' is searched for, all commands with 'gear' appear below, but if you press (for example) your command for 'landing gear down', that command will not highlight. You need to delete the search term above, then it all operates as normal. I'm not sure if this changed recently, but for some reason it stood out to me when changing commands very recently.

Is there any specific aircraft/manual you're referring to? But it's actually a very good question. My (probably wrong) answer is that in (for example) a 737, antiskid uses IRU data, compares it to wheelspeed sensor values, and maintain/releases brake pressure to maintain wheel speed at a certain reference speed in relation to ground speed (best guess, as the 737 FCOM isn't wonderfully explanatory in this regard if I remember correctly). The 777 manual is even less illustrative, saying only "When a wheel speed sensor detects a skid, the associated antiskid valve reduces brake pressure until skidding stops.", and that "Locked wheel protection is provided using a comparison with other wheel speeds". Apparently, pilots are on a 'need to know' basis in this regard, and they just don't need to know *shrugs* So: locked wheel protection on the other hand, compares one individual wheel speed to another specific wheel - then releasing brake pressure when the reference wheel is (for example) 50% slower than the other (basically three inputs: reference wheel speed, threshold, like the 50% in my example, and 'low' value, ie speed below which the protection will be inhibited)

This will certainly open a whole can of worms in the 'rivet counter' mentality people (which isn't a bad thing) - I for one will not want to look too much 'behind the scenes' (as a pilot, you trust that when you signed it out, the guy who signed it over to you did all the right stuff), but I will appreciate little things like that lack of perfectly symmetric engine parameters, gear deployment etc. and at least the 'feel' of a persistent, non factory fresh aircraft.

Agree on the DCS pet peeves - literally the only control bindings DCS ever gets right, are the pitch and roll axes of my joystick. Every single other assignment, be it buttons, axes, whatever, has been wrong, with one notable exception - the TM MFD controls, which admittedly are a lot of buttons. But the losses far outweigh the gains. NOTE TO DEVS: DO NOT AUTO ASSIGN BUTTONS OR AXES. Drop that 'feature' entirely.

Legend says that his mustache was responsible for one of the MiG kills all by itself...

I turned it off as it felt far too extreme to me (having hit many wakes in real life, light, medium, heavy etc, including my own after precise level turns). It's a tough one to call: *my* take on it (and like....well, you know what, everybody has an opinion) is that the actual modelling of a wake encounter *is* accurate-ish, BUT in real life, wakes are 'broken up' more quickly by the more chaotic, natural motion of air which is ALL moving, even slightly, compared to DCS's rendition of the atmosphere, which, apart from wind, is atom-perfect (ie. there is no natural churning of the atmosphere, it's all perfectly smooth, and turbulence in the sim is just a mathematical, zero sum simulation, unlike real air masses - DCS cannot, after all, model every cubic centimeter of the atmosphere, it has to abstract some things). The modelling they've done on the air mass after an aircraft passes through it was indeed VERY impressive though. So in DCS, you get a more 'concentrated' and intense burst of wake vortex IMHO?.....hard to describe. Some background: I fly heavy jets out of one of the busiest airports in the world (watch me start swearing when somebody mentions 'enhanced wake turbulence separation' - the only 'enhanced' part about it is that the chance of hitting somebodies wake is 'enhanced') - sure, hitting a heavies' wake in another heavy isn't the same is being in a light aircraft (and a fighter, pulling G's is probably chewing the air up a LOT), but you still get a sense of the strength of the air movement after a 300 ton airliner ploughs through it a couple of miles ahead of you. And to me, because of what I've felt, DCS feels to 'sharp' and the result of wake is too much..... My 2c.....and I absolutely do not consider my opinion more important or anything - ED have far more time invested in the maths behind this by people much brighter than me, that's for sure....so who knows. But I do turn it off

I've been playing this since it's spiritual predecessor was called 'Flanker', and to me, it's never been better. As it's scope continually expands, the issues do too, I get what you're saying - it's like a permanent work in progress, BUT: when you look at the breadth of it all, and what it can do now, it is an INCREDIBLE piece of software. It helps to focus on the bits that work, and are fully fleshed out of course, it can feel like a permanent construction zone otherwise, true, but still........I stick with 'never been better' (helps that I have just bought a new PC)

The Huey is the simplest (mechanically, systems) and the most 'pure, unfiltered' chopper-ery chopper. all the others have some form of SAS/AP to greater or lesser degrees. I have all of them, and when I want a blast of raw helicopter, that's what I'll go to. The Hip leads nicely into the Hind (similar systems/methodology, rotor spins the same direction etc) though.....frankly, they're all worth it in some way or another (I did only pick up the Gazelle after the FM update, and it was my last pick anyway - not much into it) So....UH1. Also, 'Fortunate son: ON/ON' (there is no OFF)

....especially when compared to how good (for example) the AH64 and KA50 look (was just admiring it in multiplayer now, really very good animation)

Taxied around KUT a bit online, did a circuit with a touch and go, landed and taxied back in without spontaneously exploding - always a win in my book.

And to see the system under stress:

It's very well done, exceptional job, and makes me feel bad that I turn the pilot body off for 99.99% of all flying I do, in all modules. I need to see those switches....and the ones I need to see are normally the ones that are along the side cockpit, the exact ones that are lower priority, thus not mapped to any of my HOTAS/button boxes, and are completely obscured by the pilot model. Even in VR, I find the pilot body the most pointless aspect of a module. I don't get the insistance on it - if I made a module, I would prioritise other aspects. It sucks up work time (modelling, animation etc), for no real simulation gain, and no functional difference. It's already more of a hassle to flick switches compared to reality, I don't need another barrier. Before the pilot body lovers complain, that is of course JUST MY OPINION, and one which module makes clearly disagree with.

I was just in Lisbon for work - the airport was busy, that's for sure! I didn't know a thing about it until we landed, then somebody mentioned it was some kind of 'youth festival' (?) and the Pope was there. Lot's of people. My first time there, so I don't know what it would normally be like. Nice place!

Thanks, and that article made me search to see if those Tac Attack publications are available online; lo and behold, the USAF has graced us with a repository! https://www.acc.af.mil/Units/ACC-Safety/Magazine-Archive/ Goldmines of hilarious stories and cool reads. I once again appreciate the openness the Pax Americana has graced us with.

I need an 'idiots guide to wtf a JFS is'. I know APU's (use those every day at work), electric start, cartridge start etc, but have never taken the time to get JFS units. So.....what are they? What principle do they work on? Do they really start as fast as depicted in this module? Do they need warmup time? I assume they run on jet fuel? Are they just small APU's (ie. small gas turbines?) Anyway, it looks relatively small at least (I assume it's the thing in the middle of the other two things on the left in the photo - my guess is CGB (central gear box?) then JFS, between two gennies, then the hyd. pumps, and the AMADS on the outside?) For my next lesson, I'll learn what priniciple of magic an F16 uses to start....or wtf an EPU is....

....and on the graphics front, not that we'd want a direct comparison (entirely different genres) but the success of Battlebit shows you don't need absolute graphical fidelity to have a fun game. But that's not the purpose of what we're aiming for of course. A first person view is the just the building block of a LOT of other things. And it doesn't need to be a game mode by itself. It should just be to support what DCS is. That 'granularity' or 'small blade of grass' view is needed for the detail of helicopter/AFV operations. It wouldn't take much to provide basic 'human' movement to what is already in the game. Having your pilot walk is already there. He just needs to run/crouch/go prone, and move in a less ridiculous manner in general for Step 1.

It's actually an interesting question, as a pilot IRL, my knowledge of the history of instrument approaches is a little sketchy at best; from basic beacons (the ADF), to 'radio ranges' (the predecessor to the VOR I think) and 'talk-down' type of approaches is where my knowledge goes to.....I'm pretty sure they diverted, as even with the experimental radio navigation they had at the time, nothing was either a) suitable for the final approach segment of the approach down to whatever they would use as minimums (more on that later), and b) fitted as standard equipment to fighters, given the bulk and weight of electronic equipment of the day (something like the Mozzie was needed before the aircraft was big enough). As for minimums (ie. the minimum defined weather, be it cloud base, visibility, runway visual range, precipitation/contamination etc), I'm not sure what they did - was it 'force' wise (ie. the USAAF), squadron standards, base standards.....I'm not sure what their 'collective' approach was to what defined conditions they needed to commence an approach, or whether they just winged it when desperate (been there, done that, it's high risk). tl;dr - DIVERT to a place with better weather would have been the absolute best option IMHO, given the primitive/non-existant approach aids of the time.

Switching from GMT to RBM caused an instant crash for me just now - repair was done. There is still a problem there. Crash logs sent.

I had two crashes, both on Caucasus, immediately on taking command of the A2G radar (first sweep - PC stutters, then locks up, DCS crash log dialogue box then comes up, crash report sent). I did a repair (edit to add: short repair), but only had time for one more attempt - on taking command of the A2G radar, the first sweep caused a couple of stutters with sound pops, but didn't lock up the sim. Will see how it goes....but somethings definitely not happy.

Checklists IRL for normal items are normally only used *after* the actions have been completed by the responsible crewmember (in a 'scan' or 'flow' style of moving through the cockpit), and only cover the absolute minimum safety critical items. This is airliner ops though, it may be totally different in different organisations (although given that there's a certain commonality in operating aircraft, especially when they come from the same company, it's getting pretty standardised) For NNC's (Non-normal Checklists), they are done as a 'read and do' style. And, personal opinion having seen the 'debates' (read: heated arguments) about what should and should not be in checklists, in what order items shoud appear, their 'certified document' type status and all that implies, and how they should be used, I think ED should stay pretty far away from them - it's MUCH more work than you think.

Man, some people are really not suited to early access products....

I've spent more than twenty years operating aircraft, and my experience in jets (airliners, specifically Boeing 737 and 777's) is that the ECS is the overriding noise in cockpit. It'll be even worse in a fighter. In airliners you can barely hear the engines, and of course I can't comment on engine and especially afterburner noise in fighters, but the aircon noise is very realistic (it would be from the packs in an airliner, when they're on, as well as the recirculation fans, if all the cockpit vents are open it sounds like a hairdryer - and we don't wear helmets or ear pro). It actually stood out to me in the F15E module when I started it up for the first time, 'ah, somebody has made it sound like reality!' We have variable vents, and you can close them to reduce the noise a bit. I can only imagine that the ECS in the F15 needs to very potent in a glass bubble canopy aircraft that regularly operate in extremely hot environments. It's not like this hasn't been discussed before either! The PMDG B737NG for MSFS's 'old style standby altimeter vibrator noise' stands out to me, with people firstly driving themselves mad trying to find what was making the noise (it's a 'company option' to select between the old style physical altimeter and the new style ISFD), then wanting an option to turn it off or down. In reality, the thing is just as irritating, and crews will simply pull the circuit breaker for the vibrator *cough* not me of course *cough*. tl;dr They might make it optional, but it's not like there aren't enough options to change it now already.

His is different because he's searched for the word 'castle' - but you can see which groups it appears in to the right, under the 'category' tab: in this case, the castle switch would be shown in both the Control Stick submenu, as well as the HOTAS submenu. So you should have been able to find it under either submenu, UNLESS there's some kind of issue with your installation, or some other issue/setting? For reference, mine also shows under both Control Stick, and HOTAS (the same as many other modules).

In the mission editor you can select whether you'll have access to the rear seat (the '2' key, as with all other modules) using the '...' menu option (on the right side of the menu options where you choose waypoints, loadout, radio frequencies, failures etc. I believe the relevant box is 'solo flight' but I could be wrong, that could be to lock other people out in multiplayer - in any case, there's an option there somewhere) VR or not, that isn't the issue - it's how the aircraft has been set up. When you put an F15E into a mission you generate, it defaults to allowing rear seat access. Obviously in the training missions, the rear seat has been locked out.