636_Castle

Hellooo gents. Hoping someone can answer a question for me regarding RW medical certification processing. In August of '11 I had to go in to see my AME. Thinking I'd leave with a current medical certificate, I was surprised to find out that my medical certification was being deferred to the FAA's Medical Certification Division in Oklahoma City, OK due to an amphetamine medication I was put on, but had since come off of. The FAA suspected I had been put on this medication because of a disqualifying condition, and requested write-ups, chart notes, summaries, and prognoses of 4 different doctors, as well as $1,800 in neurological testing. I was given 30 days to provide this information to the government. I contacted 16 neuropsychologists in my region, and only one was actually capable of administering the eight tests the FAA asked me to undergo. Unfortunately, he was booked until mid December...quite a ways away from the letter I received from the FAA in what was then only September. I needed more time. I wrote to the FAA explaining the circumstances...and explaining the amount of time I would need. They granted me 30 more days...clearly they weren't understanding. After several discouraging phone calls, I discovered the FAA only grants extensions 30 days at a time. If I failed to provide the information they requested, my certification would be closed. After several more extensions, and exhausting tests, I finally had everything required of me by mid January of 2012, and I sent my paperwork off a few weeks ago, with an estimated delivery date to Oklahoma on January 31st. I now await a decision from the FAA on whether or not I'm airworthy. I've heard horror stories of people waiting horrendous amounts of time to hear back during this deferral review process. The most recent information I can find on the internet is from 1998, which says the process can take several months at most. However, during this time, the FAA was working over-time and was working hard on shortening this waiting period. The thing about it though, is I've read your application is actually taken out of line every time you call to ask for a status update, and then replaced at the end of the line. Apparently calling to ask on your status actually prolongs your waiting time. What do experienced, or qualified people on these forums have to say about the deferral waiting period from the FAA? Does anyone know roughly how many more weeks I'll be waiting to get a letter from the government to determine my fate? :noexpression:

I think that's just part of mission design. There is no option. If the mission was designed with the helicopter ready to takeoff, then there's no way around that. I don't believe it's every mission though. Just the quickstarts, and maybe a few pre-made missions. Try the campaign. :)

Ah..well gents it appears I have been schooled. :) Nothing to see here.

Frostiken I would cancel out Peter's negative rep with some positive from me, but I have to spread it around before giving it to you again. :D I wouldn't worry too much about being charged an arm and a leg for too many things though. ED is only offering the opportunity, they aren't setting prices, or welcoming/encouraging people to stamp price tags on their stuff, right? If something isn't worth paying for, like a campaign for example, simply do not buy it. :) I agree, the community is small, and we all benefit from people helping out. If you think about it though, people could have been charging for their content all along. This is only a change to the DCS website AFAIK.

Looks nothing like Seattle, with the exception of Elliot Bay, and the highways are relatively in the same areas. Don't get me wrong, X-Plane is great, and I'm not knocking it. But I won't be picking it up unless they commit to scenery. A problem that plagued X-Plane 9. Not a single one of those builds are authentic to Seattle, nor are there any representative landmarks. The day I'm able to fly high quality aircraft with intuitive views, popup panels, and accurate avionics, in a world that has been recreated to the LOD of MS Flight Simulator, landing at airports that have accurate lighting, building placement, runway markings, and taxiways, surrounded by intelligent AI, running Active Sky to get me my weather, and a large community out there supporting the sim, like PMDG, Aerosoft, AVSIM, Quality Wings, and Level-D, that will be the day I'll invest real money and time into X-Plane.

Whatever it is...I just hope it's something still relevant today. I pray we don't get stuck with some F-104 or A-7. :(

UFC is in A-10C-hud.dds. Don't have a DDS explorer right now to look for the countermeasures panel is, but maybe check there.

Indeed, they hadn't, considering that game was released years before ArmA II.

:)

For what it's worth, I've experienced control issues in mid-flight too. Took off, flew the mission, then the stick would have a mind of it's own. Full forward deflection, pushing forward would pull the stick back to center. Completely corrupt controls, while the Saitek control panel showed completely normal readings.

You'll probably get kicked in the teeth by somebody for posting this in the Lock On forum section, but since it's your first post it's quite alright in my opinion. Just don't be surprised if your thread gets moved to the DCS: A-10C /Bugs and problems subforum. Did you buy the retail disk version, download version, or Steam version?

He didn't set up the auto lase correctly, or didn't employ the weapon right. It can happen if the auto lase time wasn't set up in the profile settings for the weapon.

A stunning clip that just adds to the reason why I pray for a Hornet module for DCS every day. I haven't embeded this clip because I insist it should be watched in expanded 720p on YouTube. This is what I live for. :)

Here's a question regarding thrust indication. The A-10's flight manual states that since bypass air produces 85% of the engine thrust, engine fan speed should be the pilot's primary indication of thrust from the engines. Obviously, bypass air completely bypasses the engine core, since it's so great in volume, and doesn't need to be ignited or funneled through the compressors. In the normal procedures for the A-10, it says to look at the core RPM gauges, when making power settings with the throttle. Why is core RPM looked at to determine power, if 85% of the engine thrust bypasses the engine core? Why isn't fan speed looked at, when making power adjustments?

Been researching, and looking up videos to make my own little cockpit sound mod for DCS: A-10C. Hadn't seen this one posted before so I thought I'd share it.

Brain...no longer functioning... :noexpression: I'll take your word for it. :D Thanks.

Honestly guys just nevermind... We're gonna start using dictionaries and stuff to keep ourselves safe? I don't need to explain how DCS simulates 21st century scenarios. Read the campaign description. In which scenario would I be using an A-10C other than a modern scenario? Seriously? We're so far away from logic, that logic is a dot off in the distance now. Don't incorporate Lock On: Modern Air Combat into DCS multiplayer if we're not going to be simulating modern combat across all platforms. Just give me my A model Hornet back, and F-111 back as AI aircraft in DCS, and I'll be happy.

This discussion is FUBR lol. How can anybody else not realize the massive contradictions that are going back and forth here? I guess I'll go back to flying around in Lock On: *Modern* Air Combat: Flaming Cliffs 2, watch ED update airport construction continuously to be on-par with a modern map, fly through campaigns that take place in the 21st century, fly around over civilian AI vehicles manufactured in a modern era, with modern territory separation according to the official DCS map, and then await the release of DCS: P-51D, where we will then begin pretending we've been in a simulation that was never a modern environment. We're just gonna start acting as if we're in a sandbox. I wonder why the older models of AI aircraft were removed from DCS, like the F/A-18A. I mean..it's not like we're striving for a time period. Right?

That'd be in the description of DCS: A-10C's campaign itself. "For the second time in the beginning of the 21st century, Georgia has been invaded and occupied by hostile forces." That'd lead me to believe we're fighting in the 21st century. I don't know how much time really needs to be spent on debating whether or not the DCS world is modern or not. Last time I checked, the new Batumi airport terminal in the DCS world was opened in 2006. Last time I checked, Crimea wasn't part of Ukraine in the 1940s. I think we can put a pin in pretending the DCS world looks like it did in the 1940s, with the construction, renovation, and territorial changes that have been made in the last 5 decades. I never referred to the DCS series. I said people were attracted to Eagle Dynamics because of their original products...which were jets, unless I missed something.

So, the P-51D is actually a product that is in more than one series. And, does not indicate the P-51D simulation is merely a demonstration of the ability to introduce new eras into DCS. Am I understanding now? Also, my guess for you wondering why most people consider DCS to be a modern simulator, would be the fact that the campaign, the 'story' if you will, of DCS, is officially dated as being in the 21st century. Also, I don't believe I'm wrong in mentioning most people flocked here because of jets. These forums, and Eagle products have been around long before the DCS series came about, right?

Thanks for the informative reply sobek. I guess the main thing I'm asking for, is for each ramp start and takeoff experience to be different, regardless of whether or not you've only just spawned and aircraft. I like your point regarding turbine engines being resilient towards wear. I didn't mean to wish for obvious signs of wear on the aircraft, I only meant I'd like to see some variety or randomness in performance and behavior, since each aircraft is different in it's own way. When I mentioned A2A, I was referring to the technological capabilities. :)

Still a bit confused regarding Flying Legends and DCS. I thought Flying Legends would be it's own series. But it'll be integrated and stamped with the DCS title just like A-10C and Black Shark and be flyable in multiplayer servers alongside our Warthogs and Black Sharks. Like other gents here, I'm not sure how it will play a role in our modernized DCS world. Certainly DCS strives for realism, and it's not realistic to fly combat scenarios in the DCS world, which is set in the modern day. I guess it's something that can be considered "fun" to toy around with, but I don't think that's why the majority of us flocked here in the first place. :) To say "DCS is heading in the right direction, because there is a large WW2 era community out there" doesn't really make sense to me. That's like saying "From now on, Bentley will stamp their cars with a Rolls Royce badge, because there's a large Rolls Royce community out there." Let that community stay where it is. I'm all for diversity, but developing something that appeals to an entirely different fan base, just because you know it's out there, seems odd. And while "the P-51D and other Flying Legends series aircraft definitely does not preclude the continued development of modern aircraft", I can't help but wonder where priorities are currently. The next DCS aircraft after the A-10C was set to be announced after A-10C was available world-wide in retail stores. Since the only public timeline for the future projects road map is set for the P-51D, and nobody knows when we'll hear of a more anticipated project, I think I speak for more than just myself when I say it's a little concerning that work is now divided to be a parallel development process between Combined Arms, FC3, Nevada, the next jet aircraft that remains unknown, and now, a P-51D that has been announced "for demonstration purposes." How about announcing an aircraft that will have functionality that extends beyond demonstration, and appeals to enthusiasts who came here for what was here first, jets? :) Still, I'm sure DCS: P-51D will be an extraordinary addition for those that will find use for it. I still have the upmost respect for Eagle Dynamics, and their ability to listen to customers and really deliver when it comes down to the bottom line.

[Edit - Added more below.] Dynamic Aircraft Mechanics - This is probably too much detail to ask out of DCS, but getting rid of the pre-planned aircraft and avionic behavior would be huge for the series. At this point - every engine start, and takeoff, is exactly the same. It removes the purpose of needing to watch the engine instruments. The engines will take the same exact amount of time to spool up, give the same exact readings, and perform exactly the same, every time they're used, unless there is a triggered failure - in which case there is no indication that the aircraft is struggling or showing signs of poor behavior. You do not need to listen to your aircraft, or take care of it, in DCS...which if changed...would separate DCS from the rest of the pack of simulators, and it is technically possible thanks to groundbreaking developers like A2A Simulations. Hide Flight Controls - The ability to hide the flight controls, like the throttle and stick. There's several hidden controls in the A-10 cockpit for example, that are hidden beneath the flight controls. It's not always easy to lean in a funky way in a chair using TrackIR to be able to see these switches. It's not natural, and not the easiest thing to do, since TrackIR doesn't always behave realistically. In the real world, you simple need to cock your head to the side, or lean in your seat. With TrackIR, you sometimes need to slouch down in your seat, and behave a little more dramatically. It'd help streamline the simulator in my opinion, and keep people without TrackIR from having to memorize key commands. Reverse Thrust - Please add reverse thrust animations to AI turbojet aircraft.

I like to keep a list of smaller things I would like to see changed in DCS, so that I don't make an entire new thread for 1 minor thing, but instead, 3+ minor things. :) Here's a recent compiled list I've produced. Independent Lights - Currently, flashing lights in DCS flash at the same time. If you've ever seen strobe lights on in a formation of aircraft, or at night with traffic around you, all flashing aircraft lights blink at the exact same time, which isn't all that impressive. Improved Aircraft/Airfield Lighting - To go one step further, on lighting - it's currently pretty ugly and artificial/X-Plane looking. Compare: http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/1299/screen110623192555.jpg to http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-dTJbujoY8GM/TsJQeGITQAI/AAAAAAAAAPw/3Ms5_NXB6Zo/s1600/mooney.jpg Meaner Cockpit Sounds - I know it's a weird thing to ask, but often times simulator cockpits sound a little too pure, and pretty for my taste. Cockpits are loud, and violent sounding. Not these quiet, soothing environments where the only sound is a nice little whine of the engines. It's a combination of roaring, and wind. Comparison videos: 8:02 of video. And video. Dynamic Ground Vehicle Damage - Just like aircraft have the ability to be dynamically damaged, I'd like to see ground vehicles have this ability too. Currently, ground target "kills" are based on triggers. You fire off a short burst of 30mm, and the vehicle is triggered to catch on fire, blow up, and turn black. I'd like to see vehicles be demolished, blown apart, and less scripted. I want to actually have to do a BDA, and see if the vehicle is truly destroyed or not, by looking at how incapacitated it is. That's it for now. :)