effte

What have you tried in the way of alternative physical devices? Gamepads have come a long way, and there are bound to be all kinds of options with much lower requirements for hand strength and dexterity than a joystick? That's just a thought and not to be taken as a negative view of alternate mouse control in any way, obviously. The best method of mouse control should be implemented in my opinion. It will always be worse than a dedicated device anyway, so there's no 'fairness' issue or reason not to - I simply do not have the slightest as to what constitutes 'good' mouse control. Motorcycles by any chance, if you don't mind me asking? I've been saved by carbon reinforced knuckles both times when I've crashed on road-bikes... one reason I gravitate towards off road riding these days. I hope you get it sorted! Cheers, /Fred

Two, in the field. One of whom should have read the new posts in the thread prior to posting... ah well! Let's call it emphasis! :pilotfly: Thanks, PhoenixBvo.

While the flight testing I have been involved in has not included the title of 'calculator' in their organisations, I think I can figure out what you're attempting to say. Rest assured you are not correct from the point of view of either position - who, coincidentally, tend to be very much in agreement on exactly how to go about their mutual task. You're approaching this from the point of view of someone who does not appear to be able to understand the meaning of the word 'fixed' in general, and in relation to flight controls and control surfaces in particular. Your example is rather illuminating. Just how do you suppose they'd get meaningful data on dynamic stability if the controls are being moved throughout the test? I suspect this lack of understanding is intentional, to avoid having to go back on previously expressed views or to make performance figures match your perceived take on reality. It is rather annoying, as it decreases the signal to noise ratio of this forum, wastes ED bandwidth and wastes the time of myself and everyone else trying to discuss the matters at hand. Please stop. Regards, /Fred

Genius. I'll try that when I'm about to bust a deadline at work. "I'll have it done on time - US West Coast time!" ;)

Ah, it's confirmed: It's a stealth aircraft! :smilewink:

No. Just no. Google stick fixed. Fixed is constant deflection.

DRF, no. The speed of sound reduces with the reducing temp as you climb, increasing the Mach number for a constant TAS. Also, see my earlier post re climb schedules.

A force cut off with direct position relations below the threshold would indeed be the worst of both worlds. I hope that's not the case.

Good riddance, if so. Canopies are maintained with excruciating care. You do not want to loose an airframe and a pilot as they couldn't see the other aircraft due to a scratch in the canopy. With the level of scratching we've seen, the wind shield would have been deemed unserviceable on flying club aircraft...

Absolutely correct! Glad to hear it is in there! Is it on all axes now? To expand on why it really is the only route to go: If you run the math you will find that the G force per Newton of stick force tends to remain fairly constant for reversible control systems*. This means that for a constant force used, the deflection will decrease with increasing airspeed. We fly aircraft based on control forces, as we as human beings are notoriously bad at sensing the positions of our limbs. The latter tends to surprise people, but we feel the forces used to counteract gravity and reverse calculate the positions. In a zero G environment, you typically won't know where your hands are unless you can see them. The only way to implement this realistically in a simulator is to translate the constant joystick force used for a given joystick deflection into a constant virtual stick force, and deflect the virtual stick correspondingly - which seems to be what Yo-Yo has implemented. Now, I don't see a problem with adding an option to simply cap the virtual stick deflection and maintaing a 1:1 joystick deflection/stick deflection relationship for those who prefer to go that route, but they are likely to be completely outclassed by those who adjust to realistic force flying. I suspect it would be one of those options only used for a short while for those having a hard time making the transition, and then only adding confusion. My advice would be to stick with it (:D). There's good evidence that a force based system is an excellent option. Cheers, /Fred *) The MiG-15 being a notable exception, with severely undesirable handling traits! If those are modelled accurately, we'll never see the end of that thread!

I can't seem to find a version number in the manual, but the one I was looking in has 183 pages, file size 24093 kB and file date 2014-10-13. I don't think I've been messing with it manually, so it should be the one put there by the installer/updater. Cheers, /Fred

You're welcome for the first answer you got which didn't provide straight out incorrect information, but gave you the exact information you requested. For laughs, I tried something: Scroll to the page depicting the lever concerned, giving the designation. Then find the other places where it is mentioned. Using this method, it takes all of 20 seconds to find the following: The RTFM comment was mainly directed at the poster claiming the lever locks the wheel straight, but your preferences in replies are duly noted and I will not bother you by providing the true facts again.

It's the nose gear brake allright... off (vertical) for taxi, for obvious reasons. It's in the manual.

Don't allow the speed to drop when MAP can't be maintained. Lower the nose instead and let the aircraft keep flying as it's designed to do.

I know. I was hoping for a server where the TS server policy is to run Aries. No such luck?

Well, that's one thing then - don't. That generates more heat in the engine than necessary. Go by the book. You previously stated you used 2700/46". It is hard to offer advice if you are covertly changing your procedures. There's a big yellow light on the dash telling you if the supercharger 2nd stage has kicked in. Not that you're likely to miss it regardless... as it does make a lot of difference.

An additional point: As fully open throttle can no longer maintain climb manifold pressure, increase RPM to keep MAP up. It's a supercharger, running off the crank, so the maximum pressure ratio it can provide is linked to engine RPM.

No, the friction is not greater on dry grass than on pavement. The rolling resistance is. The term "rolling friction" does not refer to friction at all and those using it should be dipped in broccoli and fed to the hamsters. Rolling resistance is the opposing force when a tyre rolls over the surface. Friction is the mechanism at work when you try to brake or push the tyre sideways. Know what? I like your contributions in this forum, so rather than continue to argue the point, I'll humbly suggest you have look at the above, consider the wording, have a cup of coffee and, if it still isn't clear, ask someone around you whom's judgement and knowledge you trust. It will be less painful that way. Deal? Summary: Rolling resistance increases - Takeoff distance goes up, no effect on taildragger handling. Friction decreases - Landing distance goes up, more forgiving taildragger handling.

Are there any open servers running Aries at the moment?

And just to be explicit about it, the 7 min figure is without reheat. Reheat adds about 75% thrust according to Wikipedia, of which everything goes into vertical speed...

And that's not playing it safe either, IMO - you're not getting much braking on wet grass before you're sliding.

The climb is at constant TAS up to 10,000 as that is the way the MiG is supposed to be climbed, as per the flight operating instructions. Should be read before offering advice, I think. Works great, by the way. Most other aircraft (without a TAS clock) have an optimum climb schedule with decreasing IAS with increasing altitude. There's probably a connection there... Edit: Well, third man in... :) For an intercept profile with full reheat, the manual specifies 950 km/h TAS. You'll be nibbling on the transonic region by the time you reach the acceleration altitude.

Prop pitch in auto?

I'd suggest to leave the oil dilution well alone on startup. It's something you use before shutdown if it's cold. The fuel is supposed to be long gone by the time you apply any kind of power. Taking off with diluted oil should spell disaster - and I guess it does. I'd also try to avoid spending to much time on the ground with the oil system in its current state. Startup, taxi, runup - go. No five minutes needed .

Sounds like you're doing it right. You know what the next step is, I think? Track? :)