SgtPappy

Today I actually got a bluescreen after fighting a MiG in the F-86 after a long fight. I think it might be a RAM problem because it never happened again, provided that I closed everything before playing. Now, however, I'm still dealing with a crash after almost each mission when I hit quit. I have to let my computer whine down until I hear its cooling fans at a lower RPM before I can even think of quitting. Specs are as follows: AMD A8-3870 APU w/ Radeon HD graphics (2 CPUs), 3.0 GHz processor, 8.192 GB of RAM, Windows 7 64-bit. Is there anything I can do before I go out and buy more RAM? If this is unusual for those who have 8GB of RAM, I'd like to find a solution. Thanks!

I can't wait to download these Canuck skins, Jocko!

Keep 'em coming gents. Great work

Sorry, false alarm. There's now a new folder to which all my missions were relocated. The exception is the one mission we played last night, for some reason.

I don't know what happened but I went into DCS today and all my missions are gone except the one I played last night with a friend. The thing is, we played together yesterday after the update. When I started DCS today, all the missions but that one are completely gone. All the FC3, UH-1H and F-86 missions are totally non-existent. Has anyone come across anything like this? Hours of work completely wasted.

That's Hawk One! :)

And I patiently await the re-uploaded skins :)

Thank you for your time and dedication to this community, BST. Great work on literally everything you've added. The sounds are astonishing and the ground handling is great too. And I noticed you added the correct pitot tube that I requested in addition to the intake pitot! You've made many a nerd happy today. Great job!:thumbup:

Always on top of things. Thanks for your dedication, SkateZilla!

Yes please!

Thanks DrPhibes for the amazing links to those manuals. After reading them I had a couple questions but I suppose I posted them in the wrong thread which was more about the in-game F-86 and my question is about the actual F-86 below: I've never heard of an F-86E or F being limited to only +5G clean, yet the 1F-86E-1 and 1F-86F-1 manuals entail that there was no +7G capability until after the Korean War. :huh:

So I tried 6, and nothing happened. Ian, I also tested all of these in SP and still nothing happens. My plane is fine as I pass the entire G range.

The F-86 so far has no penalties for pulling more than 7 G at this point in the beta, but I want to make an MP mission for a few friends such that if any Sabre pulls over 7 G, it explodes. I'm trying to use the "Cockpit argument in range" condition as follows: TYPE: 1 Once NAME: G TEST EVENT: On take control CONDITION: X: COCKPIT ARGUMENT IN RANGE argument: 1002 min: 0.7 max: 0.72 ACTIONS: EXPLODE UNIT unit: Pilot #001 That being said, the game does not recognize the argument ID '1002' as valid. According to my mainpanel_init.lua, the Sabre's accelerometer script is: Accelerometer = CreateGauge() Accelerometer.arg_number = 6 Accelerometer.input = {-5 ,0,10} Accelerometer.output = {-0.5,0,1.0} Accelerometer.controller = controllers.Accelerometer AccelerometerMin = CreateGauge() AccelerometerMin.arg_number = 1003 AccelerometerMin.input = {-5.0, 0.0} AccelerometerMin.output = {-0.5, 0.0} AccelerometerMin.controller = controllers.AccelerometerMin AccelerometerMax = CreateGauge() AccelerometerMax.arg_number = 1002 AccelerometerMax.input = {0.0, 10} AccelerometerMax.output = {0.0, 1.0} AccelerometerMax.controller = controllers.AccelerometerMax Any ideas?

Yes,it is a bug and I think it's been fixed internally. I have a question about G limits. In the manual, it is stated that "F-86F-1 through F-86F-35 airplanes changed by T.O. 1F-86F-511, and F-86F-40 airplanes" have 7 G max positive symmetric load. On a couple pages after detailing the G loads for the plane in different configurations, it is then stated that "Positive G limits for airplanes not changed by T.O. 1F-86F-544 are 5.0 G for straight pull-outs and 3.3 G for rolling pullouts". Does anyone know what these technical orders are and if they applied to Korean-War F-86F's or our F-86? EDIT: It turns out T.O. 1F-86F-511 is a change of accelerometer design. The planes before this T.O. had a different, slightly simpler accelerometer indicator. The diagram and caption were just misleading because the diagram had a 7 G limit on it. As for T.O. 1F-86F-544, I have no idea what that is.

I've been unable to find it in this thread, but I've never got an answer for this. When refueling the F-15 in flight, the fuel tanks never fill up completely. I've managed to fly in formation for up to 10 minutes and the fuel gauge is stuck. If I start the mission with 20% fuel, the plane will only refuel up to 9200 lbs. If I start with 50%, it will fill to about 11600 lbs and then it gets stuck. proper refueling 2.trk

Has anyone figured out yet why some of us can only refuel up to about 11,600 lbs? I've finally managed to fly in formation well past 5 minutes and when I look at my fuel quantity gauge, it just does not surpass around 80%. The needle gets stuck. And as for the actual flying, fighter1976, remember to adjust the curvature of your Y-Axis using axis tune to something like 30 while in the controls menu. This will make the stick easier to handle at low deflections where tiny adjustments are needed.

Awesome, thanks!

Ohhhhh man oh man. Fantastic work. I can't wait!

The reversal of control is indicative of many swept wing planes. It was even moreso pronounced on the later F-4 Phantom. The span wise flow becomes more and more marked along the span as AoA increases, thereby detaching the flow at the outer portion of the wings. This leads to the downward aileron producing lots of drag; enough to yaw the plane in the other direction. The adverse yaw motion then increases lift on the other wing and the plane rolls and yaws in the direction opposite of the input as a result.

Ah don't worry about the wording. I had to be in school for 5 years to get it correct! :) If you need to understand something, like the logic, well that's where the theory comes in. No need for the math, but your statements just sorta made no sense :P But that's ok, we all learn everyday. That being said, where do you think simulator modeling comes from? The theory we learn.

I don't think there is a difference between these. A shock is a shock. They may differ in strength and location/angle but there is no "transonic shock" that differs in properties from a supersonic shock. By this, I mean formulas to calculate properties of shocks remain the same for shocks in general. There are, however, expansion waves which are not shocks but are Mach waves that increase the speed which is what happens when supersonic air moves around something that is expanding. Also, vortex generators are completely unrelated, as are the wing fences. The fences on the Sabre simply "reset" the span wise flow which gets worse at high AoA and worse as you move outboard from the fuselage.

Interesting diagrams, Buz. Although I'm not too certain about how the shocks might affect aileron control, I also know that it isn't as simple as drawing lines from nose at an arbitrary angle. The angle of the shock front relative to a location is based on the Mach number of the aircraft. A plane just barely reaching Mach 1 is unlikely to have a shock front angle so acute. Additionally, the shape of the sabre's nose is likelier to produce a parabolic bow shock rather than an oblique one (which is shown in your diagram), which is a different mess entirely. This is a T-38 model creating oblique shocks. This one is an XB-70. I can't say the Mach numbers exactly, but thre are charts in some of my textbooks which detail how to calculate the exact angle, Mach numbers, stagnation pressures and other properties before and after the shock based on Mach number and the angle of the object relative to freestream airflow.

I'm not sure if anyone's posted this, but this footage is just as old as some of the pictures already posted. There's tonnes of smoke. Watch from 24 minutes about 25:30.

Another reason why the MiG-21's release could really change things. It's easy enough to dodge AIM-9P's and AIM-7M's and good MiG pilots are certainly going to be a handful.

How is it a disaster? The Sabre was the first US fighter jet to be able to dive past Mach 1, and there are multiple accounts of it happening uneventfully. It's also fine in the game, although it takes more attention to keep it straight and true.