ARM505

No, but that's the point - this 'baked in' technology (fixed textures applied as 'reflections' on reflective materials like the canopy) doesn't work very well at all in night lighting conditions when illuminated with the flashlight, and other cockpit lights. Other modules (like the F16 and F18 for example) have the option under 'Special' to simply turn those reflections off, other modules use newer tech to not do that (Hind for example). The Yak, L39 etc would greatly benefit with options to turn them off.

I'm sure somebody will correct me, but I seem to remember reading that they'd pretty much wrung all the power they were going to get out of that powerplant, so it was taking quite a bit of strain at max power output, and engine reliability wasn't wonderful.

I actually dug up a post of mine on this very forum from 2009: I'm both pleased at the progress that has been made, but still fundamentally concerned that the detailed interaction between troops and attack helicopters like the Apache is still a very long distance off. Was quite a trip down memory lane reading all the old stuff. But I'm still worried about the interaction with an AI copilot, and ground troops complete lack of ability to act like actual troops.

Not using the yaw channel still results in off centre rudder pedal input over time. I'm not sure what contributes to it (yaw channel on makes it happen for sure, faster too), but even with it off it still happens.

I remember that thread (and the original problem), it was an excellent example of finding and researching a problem in the sim, and coming up with a solution/theory about why it works the way it does in the sim. This sentence of yours - "Obviously as the sim uses a static number it means that as the aircraft slows the tyres are probably gripping less than they should, but this is less detrimental to the handling than being far too sticky on initial touchdown, IMHO anyway. I'll happily take the Viper sliding a bit more then it should at 50 knots instead of firing itself at the scenery at 140 knots." - might be a good summary of the compromise that seems to have been made. Perhaps we can't expect a racing sim tyre model, but ultimately a slightly better tyre model, with more data points (coefficient of static and dynamic friction for a couple of tyre speeds, interpolated, combined with normal force for example - I'm not sure what's currently considered). Put it on the million item 'to do' list

Seconded - (14K flying hours IRL, currently on B738's) - it feels like the tyres are too prone to sliding laterally, or something like that (ie. they don't keep rolling straight, and don't provide enough grip to stop a sideways slide developing). Or something. Hard to pin down, but results in a lot of wiggling and sliding. I also think it's a global issue. The F16's narrow track and tiny tyres, plus FLCS weirdness on touchdown (control law changes) proabably don't help too much in pinning it down to one factor.

I've isolated the problem (for me at least) - long story, but I'm using a mish-mash setup: A Virpil base, TM Cougar Grip, and the old TM Cougar throttle. The throttle won't work without being connected to the old TM Cougar base. So it is still connected, albeit minus it's grip (which is of course sitting on the Virpil base, and being used successfully). What happened however, is that in DCS, all the devices of course show - so I have the VPC base (with the Cougar grip, whose buttons I must rebind to exactly what they were before on the Cougar), but the Cougar still shows - I'm still using the throttle, so buttons are mapped to it. BUT, I did not delete the OLD Cougar Stick bindings - so for some reason, even though it is sitting at the back of my desk, headless, some or all of its buttons initially register as pressed. Boom, fail. Deleting the *Stick* mappings on the *Cougar* device solved it. tl/dr - don't leave buttons mapped to sticks which aren't really physically connected properly anymore.

Virpil base with a TM Cougar grip. And yes, that's the exact software I used to test it. No inputs detected. I can't rule out that it's something on my end, but a) it's happening to more than one person, and b) it's reproducible. Running the VPC Joystick Tester alongside shows no inputs when it happens. The 'sync HOTAS' checkbox in DCS is unchecked - I'm not sure if there's some other weirdness happening though. No big deal. If I make sure to pull all the triggers etc. before they're 'live', it doesn't happen.

As a slight update to this, there are certain other oddities happening - for example, in the F16, if I switch to guns after using the laser (having held the trigger down), the gun will just fire, and keep firing until I press and release the trigger. If I enter a cold start mission (again, in the F16) and switch to rockets, the entire pod will fire as soon as I turn the master arm on. In the Hind however, no 'fire' command is seen in the upper right corner of the screen (as if I'd pressed the fire weapon button), but Petro still fires. I'm thinking there's some kind of DCS weirdness with controls going on, and it's only started happening after the last patch. Obviously, checking controls in Windows shows that no buttons are being pressed.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16G84xAPdvqfYn_E8-LhL6L-8dF4Ynvqr/view?usp=sharing Track is 7mb. Pardon the stupid VRS crash at the end, my wife started quizzing me on the dogs suppers, and woe betide I don't answer instantly. The first set of missiles fired was done in the Petro Hold Fire (tan) mode, and he just fired as soon as he got the tone (no command from me - this is the part of relevance). Then I chased after the indestructable CH47 from hell for quite a while (I suck at gunnery) and then returned to fire some more missiles at the trucks - this time, Petro didn't fire at will. I then set him to fire at will, which worked normally. Then the dogs supper became a priority, derp.... Edit to add: The CH47 absorbed 2 missiles, and countless 23mm rounds. Somebody might want to have a look at that.

I had the same problem - despite the Petro HUD being in the (yellow/tan?) colour, and with him being in the default state, unchanged since mission start, he still 'free fired'. To double check it, I then switched him over to Free Fire, and the menu, and text box in the top right showed correctly, and he continued to Free Fire. I didn't change back then (ran out of missiles), but yes, I saw the same thing. The command is the Petro menu up - long press (key W by default I think, don't use keys myself)

Just to be 100% sure - under the last option of the aircraft in the ME (Additional Properties), have you checked the box 'Track Air Targets'? If that is unchecked, he won't do it. It's a bit of an odd approach they've gone for, because you'd want it available to change on the fly if needed, but there we are...

They probably will eventually. This is just a guess, but the Hind's probe vanes didn't move at release, but now do (including the very funky dance they do when you fire the cannon, the muzzle blast being pretty close to the vanes)

I must have flown upwards of 50 individual twin engined aircraft IRL, and the chances of the levers being in the exact same place to get things synced is very close to zero. This idea that levers being the same means the exact same power is a complete 'sim-ism', where engines, control linkages, fuel systems etc are *precisely* the same. This is not reflected in reality at all. Every aircraft will be different, and it's one of the hallmarks of multi engine aircraft that each engine will be slightly different as well (to the point of possibly having different rates of throttle response as well, ie. one engine may spool up faster from idle than the other, something that is part and parcel of multi engine handling). This chance increases with the aircrafts age - brand new, and things are very well set up normally, the older they get and the more 'drift' there might be. In a piston engined light twin, you have six levers to play with, and some can be a real pain to set up so things are purring along smoothly (Piper Seneca II, I'm looking at you)

He probably means IRL, it would be one action - in game it must be mapped to two actions for cockpit builders of course, but there could be a keybind that allows both actions to be completed to be more in line with practical use. There is precedent for this - I believe the MiG21 and maybe the Hind (going from memory) need a safety lever to be moved to allow gear lever movement, but the normal keybind does this as 'one' action (although all controls are mapped individually as well). And yes, IRL it would be a one hand, one movement action, easily accomplished - in the sim as it is now, I can completely understand flipping the safety lever before takeoff (something I wouldn't dream of doing in an actual aircraft). It grinds my 'reality' gears, but let's face it - IRL it's easy.

British cockpits. I've sat in a couple, and 'ergonomics' was a purely fantastical term yet to be invented. And when it was, it was for sissy boys who couldn't fly planes properly (pffft! If you didn't have to do a somersault in your seat to read a gauge, was it even worth reading?!) I remember sitting in a Lightnings cockpit. Apparently, somebody thought it would be cool to put a gauge of some sort under my left armpit. And the artificial horizon of this Mach 2+ interceptor was straight out of the Cherokee 140 I learned to fly on (white line on black - no differentiation between ground and sky). When men were men, and farmers fields were scared...

Well.....s***

They're constant speed propellers, so RPM and boost won't really be linked at normal power settings (ie, once stabilised after a power change, RPM should go back to where it was set). And, a comment based on real world experience. Based on flying many, many twins, theres normally always a slight throttle stagger, even if it's just a few millimeters, to get the same indicated power setting. The same for the propeller levers. What we get in sims, where the engines are at precisely the same power setting with the same throttle lever position is actually not very realistic feeling to me. Because of this, I noticed quickly with the Mozzie, the RPM levers need to be 'tweaked' indivdually to match the RPM's - which is realistic. Now, for bonus points, we should have to tweak it on the sound! Trying to tune out the 'WaWaWaWaWaaaaWaaaaaaaaWaaaaaWaWaWa' from the props is integral to propeller powered twin flying!

Yes, I should have been more clear - when closed, they seem normal, but when opened, the right side (aircraft right) one 'warps' - the polygon seems to only move to the open position on the inboard edge.

That's all he says. They do the actions and you can start though.

I have searched but cannot see if this is already reported, but it is not in the FAQ: The radiator exhaust flaps are not symmetrical - the aircraft right side one is 'warped' and doesn't seem to open fully, compared to the aircraft left side (the right side one in the picture) which opens as expected (not that easy to see, but visible under each wing in this screenshot).

This has been a topic that pops up repeatedly - and if I can summarise my understanding of the situation, it's that as sim pilots, we are given a brand new aircraft every time - this would mean that (as you say) rough handling, or prolonged abuse over the published limits would probably not (in reality) kill the engine. BUT, this (in the simulator) would result in everybody thrashing their engines ALL the time, to extract maximum advantage (this is a *combat* simulator after all), resulting in unrealistic performance and fights in general. Since aircraft histories are also not tracked, this is yet more incentive (or disincentive) to not treat the engines carefully in the sim, along with the fact that we don't have any 'skin in the game' as it were, and death (or at least a cold dunking in the English Channel) has no real meaning. Thus, engine limitations are intepreted more strictly than the more generous tolerances real life would probably (probably!) allow. It's a debatable point, and has been many times already.

The ammunition feed drum is on the centerline anyway in the F16 (off the top of my head).

Your crew were probably killed. Unlike other modules, pilot kills in the Hind currently don't blank the screen. They just die (quite easily I might add) and you find out by not being able to do anything.

You must think in Russian