ARM505

The wobbles are gone, it seems to fly like it should now. I'm nowhere near smart enough to test for book speeds etc, but it's also slower at sea level, back to a more plausible level. No more speed records.... Also, BOKKE! (SAAF paintscheme now has correct Sprinbok emblem, colours, insignia placement etc - good job!)

Much better. It's always going to be dark, being black of course, but everything stands out as much as one would expect. Good job.

This isn't a TGP issue of course, no need to mention that really, but the issue is the 'granularity' of the trim. Sometimes, even with the shortest blip of the trim hat, you'll end up rolling either one way or the other. Sims have always suffered from this compared to real aircraft, which are almost always easier to trim in reality. It's the mathematical quandary of never being able to zero out 0.0002 roll input which still has results in a sim, unlike reality where things seek equilibrium more readily it seems. Plus the instant trim rate compared to real aircraft (electrically controlled trim being 'on' or 'off', which in the sim means 'instantly at full rate', unlike reality). What ED should probably have, in all electrically actuated trim, is a slight 'ramp up' time at the beginning, where the trim system gets up to speed (slow as the full speed might be). This would allow for very fine electrical trim inputs by short blips (like reality).

Well, the sentence is unclear in that case - why mention the pitch damper switch position, which would logically not do yaw damping in that case? Hence me highlighting that part of the sentence.

That's literally exactly what he's saying. "....that prevents yaw dampening to activate regardless of the yaw/anti-slip or pitch dampers switches position." The systems are off regardless of switch position.

I'm not sure if it's related, but the aircraft is now mildly unstable when flying with the autopilot engaged - there are mild roll, pitch, and yaw oscillations with heading and ALT hold mode on. I don't remember it doing that before the patch?

The first time I tried, it didn't update. I then went into the special menu, checked that the option was checked, unchecked and rechecked it, then tried again, this time turning the battery on first (cold and dark start both times) - then it did. No idea what changed, but the battery was on the second time around, I didn't test further.

Just for info, from the manual: "The starter pushbutton shouldn't be pressed for more than 2 seconds to avoid damaging the electric starter and should never be pushed when the engine is turning, at the risk of destroying the starter system."

I had the same attitude (will not install mods, other than SRS), but all it took was unzipping the mod to the mods folder. I was just wondering if simply creating the 'aircraft' folder in the mods folder solved the problem, or something similar. I could of course experiment, but I'm being lazy Especially as it should be fixed soon.

I also installed the A4 mod, which corrects the F1 sound - I wonder how little actually has to be done to correct the issue, until the OB patch at least, which is probably going to be released soon? I literally just unzipped the A4 to the /saved games/DCS/mods folder, and checked to see that it showed up as an icon when DCS started, that's it. I never used the A4 at all. The Atar is then restored to all it's glory. I wonder if you just need to make an 'aircraft' folder under the mods folder?

I'm not commenting on the realism, or what it's supposed to be, only that when this happens you must shut it down completely and follow the relight procedure. This is the only way I've got it to behave properly again. My 2c, my opinion, never flown a Mirage IRL - if this were to happen to engines I know, reducing thrust until the abnormal behaviour stops would be sufficient. Once normal airflow through the engine has been restored, it should behave normally again, assuming there was no previous damage. I'm not sure what is supposed to be happening here. I'd assumed a compressor stall as well, but it should be correctable by reducing thrust IMHO (again, I'm not an expert with the Atar)

Well, thanks for the feedback, good luck!

Is there any quick fix for this? Some .cfg file or something to edit? I'd love to have my F1 sounds back... I did the sound.log check, yes, also filled with Su27 and Su25 engine sounds. Such an odd bug.

I always thought it was odd to have to push the stick button when engaging the A/P - that's not like any autopilot I've ever heard of or used.....we'd need the original French manual to see if it's a 'lost in translation' thing. Pilots would definitely remember whether they had to push the stick button in, it's odd. I'd remember that.

If the controls were designed to be immediately accessible, and fall readily to hand (like the examples quoted above), and didn't require multiple movements to actuate, then there is absolutely no reason not to bind them to your HOTAS from a realism point of view, as the same speed of response and functionality is then reached. Having a real cockpit around you is a MASSIVE advantage, even with non-HOTAS cockpits. People forget how small fighter cockpits are, almost every single control is nearly immediately reachable, often only by feel, or at worst with the briefest glance. I've sat in a Mirage F1, it's a small space. Every button is almost immediately to hand. Sure, you may have to glance down, but it's a millisecond. And the controls around the throttle are basically a few cm from your fingers. Compare that to glancing down (with no peripheral vision, unlike reality), waggling your mouse around to find the cursor, getting onto the hotspot while holding your TrackIR still.....there is IMHO zero realism lost when binding controls to your HOTAS that weren't there in reality (even things like gear or flaps). This is a similar conversation to the Mosquito gear lever retraction (applies to the MiG21 as well for example) - in reality, moving the safety gate out the way is very easy with one hand, and one action, in the sim it's much more difficult. You could argue that some controls wouldn't be reachable under high G load, etc etc, but in the vast majority of situations the real cockpit, even in non-HOTAS setups are still easier to use. IMHO. Having sat in quite a few cockpits, wishing I was flying them! FW190, Spitfire, Mustang, Yak 3, Me262, Mirage F1, MB339, Me109 (tiny!) AT6 (Harvard to us) and countless civilian aircraft.....the same with airliners in sims (which I've spent thousands of hours in in reality). I know it's totally unrealistic to have MCP controls on your HOTAS in MSFS, but in reality reaching up and twiddling the heading bug is incredibly easy compared to mousing over it in a sim. There are known combat situations where pilots end up heads down when they shouldn't have to be - for example, quoting from the interview with the wingman of the South African Mirage F1 pilot, on the merge with MiG21s, they were so close that they could see the opposing pilots had their heads down for some reason, quite odd given that they were at the merge - apparently, the MiG pilots were finding their external tank release control to drop their tanks. All the Mirage pilots saw were objects separating from the MiGs, and that their heads were down. After the war, it became apparent exactly what they were doing (they conversed via intermediaries), and why their heads were down (they had to hunt for the jettison controls in the MiG). So, perhaps leave out more complicated controls like emergency jettison, sure, absolutely. It would be realistic to have to hunt for *those* type of multi-function, rarely used controls. tl;dr - IMHO, you are hampering yourself unrealistically by not binding almost anything you need to your HOTAS.

I'm not sure how we can fault the game in general, and certainly the F1 specifically, for problems with VR resolution (a known shortcoming of current VR). Asking for small details in the kneeboard would be a hole with no bottom in that case. The Tomcat ASI, the Apache TSD, a lot of stuff in the Hind, or any number of small, harder to read displays for anything in VR really. I can only suggest binding the two VR zoom functions to your stick (they are different to the normal zoom keys), and zoom in to see the details.

I was actually surprised how well this radar works. OP, are you trying to detect targets with a near zero relative velocity? Because its (obviously) bad at that...

Er.....why is everybody calling the spoilers slats? Or am I misunderstanding something? Sure, it has slats - but since they're not aerodynamically deployed (like, say, an Me109), they deploy symmetrically, so this isn't a 'roll' issue - you're surely talking about the spoilers, and their assymetric deployment for roll control (a la Tomcat)? Slats - leading edge devices designed to practically increase the camber of the wing, increase lift, increases drag associated with production of lift. Spoliers - on the upper surface of the wing, deployed to 'spoil' the airflow, reducing produced lift, as well as increasing drag. Unless I'm confused...

...and the leading edge devices will in all cases deploy automatically. Combat flaps armed (with the button) just allows automatic extension and retraction of the trailing edge flaps. Exceeding the speed for automatic use has no penalties that I'm aware of, they will retract automatically, but the upper left warning light begin to blink, and the HYPER caution will illuminate.

I had the same thing (engine audio much quieter than before, still the same noises, but quieter) after the last update. No mods, absolutley vanilla install. I assumed it was intentional. No mentions in the patch notes, but something definitely changed.

In 2D, with Track IR, the sun cover is a pain. In 3D, in VR, you can see the RWR below easily, and see how it actually worked IRL (you can even lean in close, and put your face onto it, exactly as one might have done in reality) - theres a slot for your fingers to go through I think? When you lean in, the buttons are clearly visible and clickable. Either way, I turn it off, just because I find the thing janky looking in reality, but I can completely see the need, as well as that it's not nearly as obtrusive as one thinks when you see it in 2D - in VR you can see how it made sense.

I'm amazed the SAAF version isn't in Afrikaans.....we could have thrown yet another language into the mix! For some historical perspective, the old SADF (South African Defence Force, now called the SANDF or 'South African *National* Defence Force because reasons) looooooooved to translate literally everything into Afrikaans. I know, I was in it. I wish I could find the translation list we had for every technical aviation related term into Afrikaans. Same in the Navy. And of course the army, which normally didn't need anything translated into Afrikaans because in the army everything was already in Afrikaans.

Again, grain of salt here, because I've got very limited exposure to actually dealing with test numbers, and my experience is more along the lines of 'push thrust levers, engines go whooooosh', but everything gets worse, practically speaking, with the engine actually mounted (not necessarily by much, but it gets worse; so, economy will get worse). The only real data that would be useful is the actual performance charts from an F1. (Thrust/speed/mach/temp etc)

Are those figures from an engine on a test bench, or in the actual jet? There's no way I have the knowledge or sources to debate this, but just from practical experience, engines 'on the wing' (or in this case, 'in the fuselage') almost never achieve the ideal results of engines on the test bench (ducting losses etc).