Dimebag

I have noticed the rudder is overly sensitive as well, though I am yet to adjust my curves.

I have to agree, I was surprised how enjoyable the mustang is to fly and I look forward to seeing what the finished product brings. In saying that, I don't believe the focus should be on ww2 aircraft for future DCS products until we get atleast 2 competing fast movers of atleast a similar era to make multiplayer interesting. I think being smart and choosy with the aircraft Ed brings to the DCS series will make the difference between either somewhat of a very well modelled novelty, or a true digital combat simulator. That being said, I think the mustang has its niche and will likely form somewhat of a cult following.

No ffb effects for my g940, though I do have basic centre stick, trimming doesn't effect it.

Amazing how in depth DCS mustang will be.

Yes, unfortunately my team flies in fc2 so we get shafted.

Ok guys, thanks for the info.

Thanks Ellis, I'd appreciate that just to make sure I'm not missing something.

Nice work crash!

I tried setting it to 266, however had no luck. It is mentioned for the Russian birds in the Ed arguments file as you said, but I am using the a-10 as a template. Just out of interest I tried it with arg 266 as a su-27 but the pedals gave no response. Svksniper, I used arg 31 For the pedals, and this does provide some movement, however the argument is actually for the sliding ball in the turn and bank indicator, which means when you roll it also results in pedal movement. This is not ideal so I think unless we can magically discover the argument which results in the pedals moving I might just have to leave them. Thanks to you both for the suggestions.

Guys,thanks heaps. I will try these and get back to you.

I will have to have a look but i think it is different luckybob9. Svksniper, do you have any idea about that? Has it been mentioned before?

Thanks PeterP, however I am actually working with FC2. As far as I am aware there are no rudder pedal animations in cockpit for any fc2 aircraft.

I was wondering if anyone has ever had any success in finding an argument to animate the rudder pedals? I know of none and am curious if anyone has ever found a way to do this? It's just a shame to have static rudder pedals.

AFAIK no the reversal bug has not been fixed, and Logitech have pretty much left the building in that one. I don't think it would be much of a problem for combat personally, although the rudder does suffer quite a bit. But keep in mind the are other sticks out there which don't suffer from this affliction, snort snort. ;)

Hi edge, From memory I solved this problem by cloning the disappearing part in question, and deleting the old one. No idea why this happens.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=74660 I did a thread on this same feature, and have seen several others, but I will reiterate, this would be nice to have.

Just amazing. Why don't our games look like this?

Occams razor?:P

When it comes down to it, I am not going to buy FC3 if it's another rehash of FC 1. However, I will buy FC3 if it adds new content, such as new 3d cockpits, updating graphics to atleast a-10c quality, improved mission editor capabilities, use with a-10c and blackshark in multiplayer. IMO, if ED really do make FC3 worth it, there is no need for them to intentionally screw with fc2, as the switch will happen naturally, as happened with fc1-2. People abandoned the original over a series of months, upgraded their hardware in order to play it, and the switch went fairly smoothly. if fc3 can't draw us to it on its own, there is no need for ED to make it. Idle speculation aside, I personally don't think ED would ever do such a thing.

I gotta tell ya, I'm so hanging out for any scrap of info about the next DCS fighter jet. Anything!

I don't understand what is stopping ED from creatingx a central program which houses all of the user interface for all ED products, and then when you select a specific game, have it call the particular exe. Is it because so much is tied up in the UI, such as mission editor etc? Cause it would help make the sim hella user friendly and more accessible. Just a thought.

I think we are forgetting the amount of work that true DCS polish requires. No doubt the demo started with a cockpit and external model, maybe even an advanced flight model. But there must be loads of work behind the scenes to make something prettying into a true DCS product. Hopefully given that ED and TFC saw the potential to turn a tech demo into a fully fleshed out expansion, they also invested in the product by hiring new staff to carry the extra demands of a new product line running parallel to its several other projects. If they didn't, it can't be accurate to state that DCS mustang will have not impact on the release of other products, unless many of their employees spend their time standing around not working, looking for something to do (which would be wasteful), or they are working their employees doubly hard and paying them the same salary.

My only concern is if it will be a match made in heaven. Let's hope so. And if it's not then any serious online servers will just not include it, and have a separate mustang only server.

Can I hold you to that? :renske:

Not to sound rude, but this "mistake" has probably been made by the majority of the community due to the original predecessor to the DCS series, Lockon: Modern Air Combat. I do understand that DCS is a different series to LOMAC, however it was born from the same world as LOMAC, contains the same aircraft and ground units (mostly) and borrows much from the original game. This is probably what lead us to believe that DCS had the same priority of delivering a modern combat experience (modern meaning not vintage).