effte

I take it that for installation paths different than the default, this is a no-go at the moment? The installer doesn't work but exits with an error message about not being able to detect the DCS World installation. The manual installation process obviously does not work any more, as it is now an MSI. We tried lifting the files manually from a friends install. It works, but the configuration tool won't start as it can't find the location of DCS World. Editing the Export.lua and starting DCS World led to Aries being active in DCS World, the background helper app opening and the frequencies registering. Others could see my set frequencies in TS and when I was transmitting, but I couldn't hear anything or be heard until eavesdropping was activated. Any plans on fixing the installer and configuration tool to accept non-default install paths anytime soon? Cheers, /Fred

Updating the radio menu wasn't the issue for me. No amount of opening or closing radio menus made any difference. From what I'm reading here, the route to go is to keep respawning at the FARP until you have the F10 menu?

Affirm on the Huey spawning prior to the crash - that'd have been me. I was just getting light on the skids at the FARP pad when people dropped offline. Cheers, /Fred

In the air within 1.5 km of downed pilot, on the ground within 5 m of downed pilot, on the ground within 5 m of MANPAD-carrying infantryman. No go on F10. Cheers, Fred

Hey, had a blast flying the Huey around in this, along with Rivvern and eight other people from Master Arms. Thanks a lot for a good job! Unfortunately, the F10 menu doesn't seem to be working. No F10 option in the radio menu.

I've had the vanishing engine sound while cranking the canopy consistently. Last night though, without having changed anything, the canopy cranking sound was back to normal sound level and playing in parallell with the engine sound. I cannot thing of anything I've done which could cause this. I hadn't been playing with system configuration or software configuration at all. Just different consecutive sessions in the simulator. Exactly the kind of thing you don't want to hear when trying to track down a bug, I know... Cheers, Fred

If you have Saitek pedals and the brakes stay on, check the A-10 FAQ.

It will return when the WW2 channel map expansion, covering Normandy and Bordeaux, is released... :music_whistling:

Glad that it worked out in the end, fbass!

(Edit:The accident list...) Seems fairly typical to me, with the unsurprising exception of a large number of engine failures, aerobatics/show related accidents and collisions on the ground. If you read through the list and check the detailed reports, you'll have a hard time finding events related to the subject of discussion here. All aircraft can be lethal to a new pilot. They are all even more lethal to the not-so-new-but-not-yet-very-experienced-pilot. Most accidents caused by pilots happen when they have accumulated a few hundred hours. Complacency sets in, but is not yet countered by a wealth of experience.

2. This is as it should. With the engine stopped, manifold pressure will equalise to ambient atmospheric pressure. Once the engine starts sucking air past the restriction of the carb, throttle valve and the rest of the induction piping, the pressure drops below ambient. At low RPMs, there's not enough oooomph in the supercharger to change that... luckily, as we'd get interesting idling otherwise. :) 3. This was discussed at length in this thread. In short, it should run as the booster coil activated by the starter switch provides a continuous spark while the starter is engaged. However, it probably shouldn't run well as this spark is significantly delayed vs the normal spark. This was acknowledged, but I haven't tested it in the most recent open beta. Cheers, Fred

@Executioner: :harhar: Just kidding, mate. :beer:

The process is somewhat confuscated now. Bear in mind that it is a beta though. I'm sure it will be more streamlined once the product is live. Otherwise, I wouldn't like to work on the support hotline by then. :) I didn't have to uninstall anything. I just made a clean install, starting with DCS:World and then adding the modules I own and DCS:CA on top of that. No issues at all, apart from it nagging me about a key for CA. (Probably shouldn't have installed that one prior to buying it... which I find it hard to seriously object to.) I'm starting through the desktop shortcut to the latest version of DCS:World, as created by the installer, or the start menu DCS:World for MP. Did you reinstall the DCS: P-51 module after making a full fresh install of the new version of DCS:World?

Now, how to put it? People who can put substance behind the opinions they express gain my respect. That goes both ways, though.

Kuky, in an SR-71, yes. In an A-10 - nope. :) You have a heater element and the ability to send hot air to the canopy/windshield in order to defog/deice/remove rain from the windshield/canopy. If these systems are left on too long, under the wrong conditions or malfunction the windshield can overheat, in which case you get the warning light. I know of a case where a shipset of windshields were destroyed by a test pilot leaving the windshield heating on on the ground. An expensive day at work... Cheers, /Fred

It's intended. Been mentioned several times as appearing with this update. Isn't it mentioned in the change log? Definitely an improvement. I just wish it was more audible.

Military aircraft are designed to be flown by the worst pilot to pass through training, under the worst conditions, on the pilot's worst day, without an excessively large risk of things going wrong. They are designed to be flown for hundreds of sorties by the same barely competent pilot without an excessively large risk of something going wrong. It shouldn't be all that difficult. If you divide the community members into two groups, those who go "yeeee-haw!" and those who go "hmmm....?", where do you find most of the real life pilots? Just a thought.

GGTharos, yeah, seen that one. Looks like it at a glance, but considering perspective, coning etc it doesn't really add anything conclusive. Besides, the airspeed in that shot isn't high. You really need a good, steady front or rear aspect shot of a helo in flight at a reasonably good clip, with the camera in the rotor plane. Kamov don't seem to publish their chase plane footage online, unfortunately. I've been considering whether this is something you could compensate for, at least partially, in a coax rotor system so it'd be interesting to see such footage. Second clip is a bad one. Pilot didn't make it, I assume? :(

Interesting. Do you have a link to a video where this can be seen?

I have only done very limited testing, but it seems somewhat more believable. Had a peculiarly wild ride in a crosswind though, but as I said - very limited testing as to date. Give it a shot! Well worth the money.

Really? Let's see, lower rotor rotating CCW viewed from above, right (advancing) side should tilt down. Upper rotor the opposite, of course. Is this not the case?

The limitation you would be up against without the trim would be that you are simply not strong enough to provide the pedal force needed to counteract the yaw without the trim. It still seems we are able to deflect the rudder to the stop throughout the take-off roll, even though the change list said rudder hinge moments in yaw and roll are now implemented. This means the need for trimming as in real life is effectively eliminated. However, I think you will see this being corrected shortly. Now, a bit of a rant on the subject. Bear with me. For trimming to work as in real life, a force-based control implementation is required. This means that for a given deflection of the joystick/pedals, your virtual self applies a given force to the virtual controls, affecting them accordingly. Full joystick deflection to the side would mean e g 30 lbf applied to the stick of your virtual Mustang. At low speed, this means full deflection of the ailerons. At high speed, the ailerons will barely move. This is true to life – at high speeds, the controls pretty much feel like they are set in concrete. This does not, however, mean that the aircraft cannot be manoeuvred. The deflections required for a certain roll rate or G loading decrease with increasing airspeeds, so things even out more than a bit. The same force tends to give more or less the same reaction from the aircraft over the speed range. To have a model not based on control forces, on the other hand, means it will be very hard not to overcontrol the aircraft at high speeds. This was a problem when powered controls arrived in real aircraft. Suddenly, the hydraulic actuators could deflect the control surfaces fully at all speeds, which meant aircraft which were dangerously difficult to fly. One moment of hamfistedness, and you’d break the aircraft apart in the air. To remedy this situation, q-feel systems were introduced. These systems artificially increase the control forces as airspeed increases. Without them, aircraft will not be certified for flight. These days, fly-by-wire is all the rage, with computers interpreting the pilots control inputs and deflecting the control surfaces accordingly. Again, it is all based on force. x lbf of force gives y Gs. Never “x degrees of stick deflection”. Finally, a bit of physiology: We are not able to sense the position of our limbs with any precision at all. We may think we can, but what we really feel is the force we are using to hold our limbs up against gravity. We have learned to interpret these forces as positions. In zero-gravity, we typically do not know the position of our limbs if we can't see them. We are, however, very good at sensing forces. Hence, control feedback is based upon forces applied rather than control deflections. Check the certification requirements for aircraft. It is all about forces. Also check the P-51D manuals, where they talk about the effect of flying with a full fuselage tank. It's all about control forces, nothing about "stick forward" or "stick aft". Conclusion Knowing this, it can be concluded that the only viable method of modelling the controls of an aircraft with conventional controls is a force-based model*. Most here are probably familiar with the Il-2 series, which has this. It is simply the simulator equivalent of providing us with the q-feel systems, which are mandatory in aircraft which, like our simulation, lack direct feedback through the control linkages. As the devs talk about rudder hinge moments, I think force-based is the way we are headed. We may even be there already for all the limited testing I have done of the latest version, just that the parameters aren’t tuned. When we do get there, you will find trimming for takeoff working the way it should. Cheers, Fred *) One notable exception to this would be Rise of Flight, which does not have a force based control model (last I checked). They get away with this due to the very limited speed range and the very light control forces in most of the aircraft modelled. Control forces simply aren’t the limitation it is in a 500+ mph Mustang when you are plodding along in a Sopwith Camel.

I'll venture a guess: They're designed to operate off short runways, with rough surfacing in the summer and snow and ice in the winter.

Happening on my system as well. Canopy winding noise is loud, and while playing it the engine sound cuts out only to return again after a brief delay once you stop winding. See additional references in this thread. Cheers, /Fred

Yurgon, that article unfortunately very pedagogically presents the incorrect explanation, so I'd hesitate to call it good.