Ala13_ManOWar

With that attitude it doesn't matter what you do, DCS, Tetris, be a normal person in your day to day, whatever… If you are so unable to enjoy anything just quit everything mate but yours is not "average" players' experience in DCS at all and you're giving a wrong, wildly wrong, and negative impression to the OP writer who never said to be a hardcore impossible to please armchairpilot nerd. You realize that, right? I also own the module since 2014, sadly I only used it on and off from time to time until relatively recent years when I could deepen the learning how it deserves it, and I really regret not having had the time for it earlier because it's a really enjoyable module, fun to master, nice to fly, everything already said by firsts posters, until you… yours is not the general position, not in this module, not in DCS in general, only a small bunch of guys like you shout a lot around these forums, but still people seem to enjoy this module and DCS, which make me wonder why that bunch of impossible to please people are here in the first place?? Go get your Air Force pilot's license, maybe you also find bugs and problems with RL not working as expected like some others do around here either… I just tell you, I'm a grounded due to medical reasons PPL pilot and the DCS experience is just amazing, for me in particular a placebo maybe since there's no other way for me to fly any more, but no matter how unpleasable you bunch are, it just is a great experience, and this module with its problems and all is quite enjoyable and as a matter of fact unique since we don't have any other relatively modern redfor full fidelity jet fighter (JF17 fidelity remains to be seen). If you can't find a reason to enjoy it maybe you can't find either a reason to enjoy anything in life, but that's on you, not on every forum member no matter how many times you bunch of grumpy people come to these forums shouting your grumpiness about everything.

Nope, but there are a bunch of IA models including the twin seater.

No, you wouldn't, you wouldn't even have money enough for a single new module. A cheap campaign in sales period perhaps? Not sure it would be enough at all with a few pennies .

If you're into coldwar era aircraft of course you should. Despite some critiques FM is quite nice, challenging but manageable after a little training which is a big part of the appeal. Systems wise apparently it isn't perfect, it's still a 2014 module birth from a mod and that's there, but if you aren't that nitpicky it doesn't really matter, it's nice to fly, systems do their job and are nice to manage, it's nice to study manuals/videos, which you're plenty of, telling you how to master the beast. In short, IMO it's really fun to fly and master to the day, plus everything told upwards.

Anyhow, it's useless unless you use the manual prop pitch, and unlike Bf109 where it can be useful at certain times (not many though), it's not recommended in any Fw190 to use manual prop pitch control.

Yeah, very mannered and mature for sure. Sad it takes so short before this kind of things start. Goodbye.

And I go exactly like that. But that of yours is a blatant lie since you started this very topic with nothing good to say instead of searching around what's already written or sources about it anywhere, which is by the way also how I do, I look for myself before accusing anyone, third party module maker or not, of "it's all wrong" . Well done mates, well done. Over and out.

And this is why some ex-F1 pilots were around here and ran away quick, armchair pilots always know better no matter how you explain things .

Because slats, adverse yaw in F1 is a well known feature of the model, same as it is in F-4 because… the same.

1998 firsts IIRC, and 2003 last overhauled ones. Not pretty much cold war by that time, no.

Yeah, maybe that either. But whenever anything happens the first thing to rule out is own hardware and settings .

I happen to have an 25cm (~10 inch) extension in my Warthog, I still have to use curves in every module to mimic a comfortable response in pitch and roll, not too sensitive and all despite the extension which already gives you way more control and precision than short vanilla stick. By the way, I haven't used any curve in F1 so far, point being, it's not so sensitive at all compared to 99% of the other modules. Try using curves, they are there to be used, and your aircraft won't become any Jumbo, you'll just be able to control it as it's meant to be since we usually don't have real controls (long sticks to start with) available at home to fully represent a real aircraft's controls behaviour, but curves do just fine to match that having a short stick.

I've been there, don't worry. The fact that some VORs actually work reversed, and they also revert every time you change from To to From isn't helping either.

Have you tried calibrating the throttle again? But don't use windows calibration, there is a Thrustmaster tool for the purpose working quite well, https://deltasimelectronics.com/pages/install-instructions There it is the calibration tool DL, it's a public tool though not publicly available by TM, they only send you the tool once you have contacted support for any reason, spare part replacement and the like. Try it, your detent place will "move" again, but the throttle axis will have a tighter response. P.S.: as said, if they modelled just the actual throttle/engine response how it is in the real thing it's not any "problem", it is just like that. You don't liking how the aircraft throttle response is is a problem, imagine not liking it when you fly the real thing and telling Dassault they have a bug

1) In my plane the master caution horn is piercing your ear as soon as switched on, have you set some of the general volumes in the game too low by any chance? 2) I believe radio and everything volumes aren't working right now (didn't try latest patch, but). 3) You need to let the thing stabilize and set before taxiing, apparently nothing is happening and the usual is it's already fine by the time you have to taxi, but it you taxi too soon it might not align correctly, not said in any start-up tutorial I've watched but I happen to have a friend who was F1 ground crew and told us so for starting up.

Solved because a solution is already coming, and that isn't changing no matter how many times people bump the same thread .

That appears to be the glide path, not the azimuth. Or not even that, you're too damn low in your approach, I don't think that glide path is too bad at all .

As per your words, do you understand it's a hardware problem (Warthog here either), not a module problem if they just modelled whatever the response it is in the real thing, right? On top of that, how could they possibly held in account every single hardware behaviour in the World? Second thing, I keep listening people saying that there's a "dead zone", I believe (Warthog either, remember) I don't recall any dead zone but a low response area which is useless even for taxiing, yes, and that area is widened due to detent tweaking, yes, but to my recall even being so low responding the engine rpm are moving in that area of the throttle, so it's not "nothing is happening" as a real dead zone should be. Anyhow and whatever it is, if you don't like that just cut that part of the curve and you'll be fine as you did, personally I wouldn't cur that since those low response areas on the ground might be not so numb at higher altitudes or just some different scenario, but that's only everyone's choice. Third, no, the curve cut doesn't amputate your "precision". On the contrary, you're more precise if you have more room to choose from, not the other way around. If you had less room to choose from it would be more sensitive and more difficult to choose an exact throttle input, but the way it is you have less sensitiveness, so it's easier to choose an exact input more precisely, not the opposite. Four. Apparently when you made your correction curve you didn't even consider in trying to make the "curve" as straight as possible. Try to use a peak for AB detent place, and the rest of the curve, before and after the peak, the straightest you can to see how that kind of response works for you.

Well, I remember if you pass your mouse cursor over the place the buttons are there and could be operated. You have to already know the location of each one though.

EE for INS, if I recall correctly.

Basic heading is just pointed by the white filled big triangle on top, (don't pay attention to the names written there, the red ones are wrongly marked BTW) What has changed, indeed, if you haven't used it in a long time, is how RSBN/ARK needles work and their logic which was reversed during module's first time (reversed as those red labels there). When I came back to the module myself a couple years ago I also spent a hard time trying to understand what was going on until I figured out they had reverted it all to match real behaviour which was wrongly understood by devs at first.

That manual can be found online downloadable for free either.

Combat flaps button is on the throttle and can be used for combat as the name says, I believe it's not exactly flaps but mostly leading edge slats and so, but it's there for you to use it. The lever on the other hand I think it's just the flaps control next to throttle but in horizontal left panel and it controls the three position flaps for take off/landing, I believe but perhaps I'm mixing up now those pesky names . Bit confusing names mixed from those French fellas, yeah.

No worries, that's well known to me.

Oh, yes, I always update and cleanup in CMD, sorry.