Ala13_ManOWar

Pero comenta por aquí cual es la modificación que estás buscando, quizá haya algo.

Entiendo que juegas offline, no? Eso es incompatible con nada online, los servidores suelen hacer integrity check. Dicho esto, ¿se puede hacer? Bueno, lo que quieres es un mod y si no existe ya hecho por la razón que sea, pues habría que hacerlo. No me he metido con esa clase de modificación nunca, pero por algunas cosas que he leído no estoy seguro de que cualquier cosa sea compatible con cualquier avión de entrada, aunque también he visto los Phoenix colocados en el I-16 en vez de los cohetes, así que imagino que por ahí van los tiros. De cualquier manera, habría que reescribir en LUA para hacer esa modificación, a veces eso es tan fácil como hacer un copy paste de lo que quieres a otro LUA, y otras… pues no, tendrías que escribirlo tú, programando en LUA. A parte de estas condideraciones, no sé exactamente qué quieres poner en qué otro avión, más allá del realismo o no, pero tiene su curro. Comenta cual es el caso a ver si hubiese ya algo hecho que no es imposible si fuese algo que la gente "quiere" o suele pedir y algún modder ya se lo haya currado, y si no pues tendrías que hacerlo tú, ya te digo que para uso personal offline, esas cosas no son nunca compatibles online.

Of course, but then again, WHY the constant try from a few to tell every other person what they should like or not and how they should enjoy, or not? Specially the "no, simming is this because I say so" , like anything else could possibly exist or be enjoyed or wanted by others. Come on, cut the s@%$ out, enjoy whatever you enjoy but let others like and enjoy whatever they do for f&%$ sake. By the way, don't get me wrong, I like systems and all, it's a part of my placebo as I already told, but slight differences in military classified aeroplanes won't stop me enjoying the experience, as I say constantly it's all about the previously unheard experience one can have here and funnily enough those tiny details don't prevent that experience from being enjoyed.

As I said, probably wiring for the thingamajig. I read somewhere around here it was first introduced by Czech, Polish, Croatian, can't remember now which one, air force and then adopted by others, not the other way around. But who knows. Anyhow not a good addition to the plane, apparently, and those problems seem to show up in the sim implementation.

The thing is the plane isn't "really" capable of that, double racks are a kind of hack invented later on, and not by the builder but third countries. It does the job, but has some nasty consequences like introducing a hell of a ton of drag, to say it in short it doesn't come for free. Plus, if you look at armament selector I believe to recall there's wiring problems for the purpose since there's no real option in there for the double rack to be selected, original aircraft isn't fitted as is to use those double racks, it isn't wired for that so the wiring isn't perfect nor it comes from factory, hence limitations happens and probably that one you're trying isn't allowed because of the wiring. In fact we have more than it should be, original factory 21Bis could only carry 4 missiles in 4 pylons and that's it, so be grateful M3 decided to include a relative rare option as double racks are for the model, but it doesn't come without some problems. To ask for the 4 double racks to be included would be not only inaccurate and unrealistic, unusable because it lacks wiring for it, but think the drag you'll get from that… So yes, pretty normal you aren't allowed to do so.

No, he doesn't, a flight simulator is supposed to be used for flying, and it's great you enjoy reading manuals and just clicking buttons if you mistakenly think that's what it takes to fly an aeroplane. But, if it's like that, then FS98 could be fine and good enough for those people, which is fine with me if you like that, but then again… Why on Earth would those complain about "realism" in a Flight Simulator where you're supposed to actually fly the thing?? For me that realism is, not only of course, but more with the flying since I've known no other sim out there with the quality and features with regards to flight like DCS is. It does also recreate systems and they should and must be there, of course, but flying and realism in flight is the main and distinctive feature in DCS, let alone warbirds for instance, we haven't ever seen anything like the ones we have here, not even close. Realism is stepping out of a humble C172RG and jumping on a P-51 cockpit while seeing behaviours exactly the same, inertias, ground control and behaviour which is actually really mistreated anywhere else in the simming World, engine management down to a point where governor shows the exact same quirks and glitches as I was seeing some hours before in a real aeroplane, and don't get me started with torque… I wouldn't possibly know what a real MiG-21 is like aside from stories and books, but bearing in mind military aircraft also face the problem with classified things and all (which MiG-21 also faced with Croatian Air Force where the data for this module came from initially) I cannot complain at all about ASP behaving slightly or a lot different than the real one, but I can tell behaviour in the air and flight is just superb even as it is with it's alleged problems, thus enjoying the flight sim is quite easy for me without focussing in tiny details I don't need to focus on even though I'm perfectly aware they're there. About your statement I marked above, so do I, it's really nice taking a real manual from a real aircraft and using it in everything while most things work as stated there. But since I cannot tell, and I believe very few can, what the real aircraft is regarding military jets from various and diverse eras, countries, designers, whatever, it is so unimportant if tiny details aren't exactly and perfectly modelled to an insane level. I'll tell you a secret, even an even humbler C152 has a 4 pages checklist just to start up the aircraft and take off, then again in a sim no matter how realistic it would be made you would use a few lines from that checklist, it makes no sense in a PC simulator unless training for the real thing to follow every step (check windows closed and locked? check all passengers buckled and seat adjusted? C'mon…) hence what is "a realistic simulation" if I have to drop 3/4 of the checklists due to being useless in front of my PC?? And that's a C152, and I would have to drop from a real MiG-21?? And above all, why would I complain about an alleged realism I know would be useless in a PC? Is it just a pose perhaps to show everyone I'm nerdier than the others? It's a nonsensical attitude mate, hence I just enjoy what I can enjoy and that's all, because what we have is really enjoyable no matter what some people might say, complain, cry, b/%ch about.

I don't think the reason to expand this map to London and Paris is Batte of Britain, still Normandy 44 map, remember? Anyhow, yes, early Spits, 109E and Hurricane aren't if, but when, as Nick Grey in person said time ago. I don't know when we'll get them but sure they'll come to DCS in due time.

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.