ARM505

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).

Yes, I started out thinking that 'M' was for 'manual' and 'A' for 'automatic', but quickly learned it's functionally opposite in the jet. So if 'M' is 'marche' (on) then 'A' is 'arrêt' for 'off' I guess? One of the manuals failings, the translation of *everything* including the labels in the actual jet, yes.

I will just mention that real aircraft manuals can often be like this. The Boeing 737 FCOMs (Flight Crew Operating Manual) for example, often just describe things along the lines of 'this is the button, this is what it does, this is the logic that governs it'. Not often 'this is how you use this system, this is the recommended way, this is industry best practice' etc - sometimes yes, sometimes no. For that, you often refer to the FCTM (Flight Crew Training Manual) AND (and this is the important bit) your actual training given by a qualified instructor. Which we lack. The Airbus A340 manual was described to me by a friend who flies them as 'written by an angry French lawyer that they keep locked in a basement and permanently drunk'. So it's a tough ask for the developer, as they have to patch together a technical manual, and throw in some expanded explanations, which can be very challenging. But I agree, gleaning ways to actually use the systems is hard using the manual. Think of it as a challenge!

I had to bind a button, I can't even see this thing! Is it under the seat? The manual makes it seem so... Anyone with a screenshot?

I must say, I was just glad to see the SAAF skin - but I confess, I did miss the bokkie in the national insignia! Glad to see you okes are working on this, great stuff. I might be biased, but the SAAF scheme is just such a great painscheme.

No track (sorry) but same happened to me - in VR and in 2D, the left mirror stopped updating and just held the same image.

What's your pixel density set at schmiefel? I have a Rift S as well, and I feel like mine is slightly more readable than yours, but I might be imagining it - mine is at 1.5

I also wanted to throw in a thank you, this seems like an amazing module, very worthwhile. I haven't had as much fun learning a cockpit and aircraft for quite a while. Brilliant job guys, a VERY worthwhile addition to DCS. The team should be very proud.

I actually hadn't watched that, good source on the 2nd fight.

Randomly off topic, but I've met the shooter (of the two MiG21s - the same guy, albeit in two separate incidents. It's a bit unclear what exactly happened, and he didn't talk about it. The first instance is quite clear, the second has a lot of difficult to piece together info). Wish I could get my hands on the gun camera footage (which is out there, I won't go into that any more!) and put it on yt. No kill like a guns kill. I also met the guy who was paralysed when his F1 went off the runway (he was indeed hit by a missile from a MiG23, a head on shot). The aircraft was salvaged apparently, amazingly enough. Because of my work, I've worked with or met a lot of the guys who flew SAAF F1's. Interesting stories. https://saafmuseum.org.za/arthur-d-piercy-27th-september-1987/

The greater surface area of the -120's would act like slightly bigger winglets (whose purpose is to reduce tip vortice drag), but now we're probably talking %'s on %'s

Carrier ops is a massive thing in and of itself. Since a young age, I've wanted to have a sim that does this in a realistic way, this is the earliest that my expectations have been met. To sit in VR, on that carrier deck, with the canopy open, the wind rushing across the deck, the sun glinting off the sea.......it's incredible what they've done. The Apache is great, it should definitely be on your list, but operating a high performance aircraft off a boat stirs the soul. Side note: I still kind of suck at operating a high performance aircraft off a boat. The challenge is never ending.

I really wanted to do one, collected all the tools, examples, etc.....then discovered I frankly suck at using picture editing software, and wasn't about to learn. So.....er, plus one from my side, I think it would be a cool skin (like the Rooivalk).

The AI Ch47 can tank the entire weapon payload of the Mi24. Sometimes it does go down, but surprisingly often it doesn't. It just ends up flying in a kind of up and down porpise fashion, with smoke and flames trailing off it as it disappears into the sunset.

100% agree on it being a 'special options' menu item, and defaulting it to 'OFF/OPEN' would save many forum posts. I even have a trigger guard on my stick, and still find it a PITA.

The AI CH47 has absorbed my entire weapons load and continued to fly, dipping and climbing back up trailing smoke and fire from two engines, off into the distance. Yeah, the AI DM isn't......the benchmark for simulations.

Mine did that when the joystick connection (that PS2-like plug between the joystick handle and base) got loose. I had a homemade extension, so it happened more than once.

DCS's tire interaction with surfaces is.......a compromise. Hard/soft, tarmac, grass.....it's kind of simplified. Resulting in some weirdness. There have been quite extensive discussions on this, the F16, the warbirds (taildraggers being a challenge) etc. At all times (IMHO), the common theme is oddities with input variables of coefficient of static and dynamic friction, normal force, velocity etc. This isn't a racing sim, but it crops up often enough, across a lot of modules, that tire modelling might merit a global rework. I might have misunderstood the gist of this though.

On the MPD :FLT -> SET -> Turn your radio altimeter on (R4 or 5, at work so I can't remember exactly which)

They actually do almost all the work on the engine 'on the wing' as it were, and a lot of it is 'on condition' as well. It's only really major stuff that necessitates an engine being removed from the wing entirely. I think it's more to be able to plan that, on average, engines will last approximately the same time before servicing if they started off together - but this is absolutely out of my domain as a normal line pilot, you're right The engineering dudes handle that side - we're just taught how to operate them, and do so as per SOP's, which the company decides on, I'm assuming for the reasons I've stated. When the aircraft goes in for a C or D check, it's easier and more cost effective to just do all the work on both engines while you've got them there as opposed to taking the aircraft off the line again.

Yup, the 737 igniters get alternated - we start using the right first (due to the right igniters being connected to the AC standby bus, and it's slightly more critical that they work, thus we run them first), then switch as we go. Sorry, off topic, but thats the reason.