effte

I do not think that is correct, for two reasons: 1) There is no way for the systems to know where true north is at. For that, you either have to have an INS which can detect true north from the rotation of the earth during initial alignment on the ground. That, the -21 doesn't have. Failing that, you can derive true north from magnetic north through knowing the local magnetic declination. This can either be done through a navigation system with a computer and a database (which we don't have) or through manually inputting the declination. The latter method seems to have been employed in some incarnations of the -21, where there was a 'magnetic declination setter' in the lower center panel. The documentation I can understand (i e the English manual) is somewhat sparse as to what the various systems do. The procedures suggest that it is used only for the landing system, but either way, we don't have it. 2) The game (module) manual mentions several times that what we are getting is magnetic heading. :)

An hour late. :)

Vortex lift -> A delta wing will fly at high angles of attack and slow speeds, where a normal wing will stall. The practical use is limited though, as it comes at a steep drag penalty. Use it for instantaneous turn rate, but know that it will cost you your precious energy.

"Descend and maintain 3000 ft, altimeter 29.98" "Uuuuh... could you give me that in millimetres?" "Sure thing! Descend and maintain 914,000 millimeters, altimeter 29.98"

If you use 'western' broadly to mean 'non-russian'... ;)

In aviation, from is very much the norm. This is not due to anyone being lazy but due to it being significantly better suited for use in the cockpit. It'd surprise me if to is used even in Russia, RoW definitely from.

Per definition it shows the indicated air speed (IAS). Your actual speed through the air, true air speed (TAS) will be higher than your IAS though, anytime you are above sea level. This affects things like Mach effects and flutter, which means you get lower IAS speed limitations at higher altitudes.

And therein lies the crux of the matter - that is not a given. It is, in fact, not so. Refer to the thread linked earlier regarding projection and distortion. Take two pilots, one in FSX and one in DCS. Link them both to the same VATSIM world through separate clients and have them take off from the same airbase. If ATC give them both the same real-world heading for another airbase, the FSX pilot will head towards said base. The DCS pilot - flying the same heading in his or her simulator - will fly another track on the screen of the controller. The relationship between coordinates and headings is skewed by the projection. I have a hard time seeing VATSIM integration happening before there is a proper curved earth surface in DCS. Cheers, /Fred

I think the limitations section of the flight manual would provide an enlightening read. ;) Edit: You do not want to miss this post.

Part of it is. The other part is magnetic. ;)

towsim, that is a nice writeup. I think I'll save myself the hassle of retyping and send people that link in the future. I'd rep, but apparently I can't so you get the appreciation here instead! I have adapted a navlog spreadsheet of mine for DCS use with the grid correction added, but with a known projection and a couple days off with autumn weather it could be possible to automate that and save the hassle of checking the alignment in the editor... anything to stop me from just going out anyway and becoming cold and miserable. :D Cheers, /Fred

Yeah, well worth the negrep from Blooze* to set that straight. :thumbup: *) Depending on source, it can be quite reassuring to have ones intellect questioned. :D

Thank you for the confirmation. That is somewhat cumbersome to get around, at least without introducing issues in other areas. Do you know, or can you ask the devs, which projection has been chosen, standard parallells etc? It would be somewhat useful.

What a few rather vocal people seem to fail to grasp is that the eye point in a modern cockpit is not really more arbitrary than, say, the position of the canopy railings. The eye box, in which you are to have your eyes when using the HUD, is in the drawings. It is typically not an overly large box. Considering the primary customer for the DCS product, I think it is safe to assume that ED had access to those drawings for making the 3D model and for placing the virtual eye point in the cockpit. Hence, it is not exactly a point open for debate. It is what it is. You may want to modify it to suit your taste, but you should do so well aware that you are moving away from reality and will have to suffer the consequences. The eye box in the A-10C is where your eyes end up when you are leaning into the sight for taking a shot. The HUD is not your primary reference for flying around, but more akin to a gun sight. If you lean your head back, which you may do for cruise or for scanning for targets off the nose, you are moving out of the eye box and will probably not see all of the symbology. Yes, the cockpit will feel cramped with your virtual head properly positioned for HUD use. In part due to the above, but probably more due to the narrov field of view offered by our hardware. Increasing the FOV helps (but, unfortunately, comes with a stiff visibility penalty at distance in DCS), as does a widescreen monitor. Personally, I have the longitudinal head position on the slider of the Warthog while using TrackIR Z for zoom, with a slightly wider than default FOV. Works quite well, even though it doesn't help the poor visibility of other aircrafts (which is another debate going on at lenght in these fora). Finally: If you want people to spend their time helping you, it is generally good style to spend the time outlining what you have done and what you have looked at in your initial request for help. That way, people do not have to waste their time walking you through what you have already tried. If you come across as slightly less knowledgeable in your initial post, it should come as no surprise if you get very basic answers pointing you to the first files you should look at. If you then choose to chew the head off those giving you those pointers, I think you should not be surprised to find the community rather less helpful in the future.

Now, I hadn't heard that before in the gazillion of pages of discussion on the subject. It could do with a bit of an explanation as to 'why'. If there is indeed a reason, it would save both user and devs some aggravation to just spill the beans. My guess: We are flying over a flat earth model, utilizing a slightly unfortunate projection? It would be interesting to know the details for the purpose of nav exercises as well, something we have been having a lot of fun with with the introduction of the F-86. Up to now, the ded reckoning legs haven't been long enough for it to matter much, but as patience levels increase with old age in the participants that might change...

Which still gives TAS, which is on an exclusive list of values not actually asked for?

Let us turn this into a religious debate. I see your E6B and raise with a CR-3! :D http://www.jeppesen.com/download/misc/crinstructions.pdf Superior for Mach calculations, and easier to use on the fly in the cockpit. Less intuitive than the E6B, admittedly, but practise solves that!

Not to put too fine a point on it, the guesswork is rather obvious. Wing fences. You may want to Google that.

farmerjoe, you gave up on the F-86 as the radio is correctly simulated and can be used to contact ATC at the airfields? I have a feeling that there is a bit of a communication issue here... care to clarify?

Amazing that they can't throw a few hours at getting that fixed, over the course of however many years it's been. IFR is heaps of fun. :)

Runway headings and final approach courses are always given as magnetic. The real FAC for Batumi is 126°M, as per the official plates (UGSB-IAC-13-ILS 2011-07-28 ). 5°E variation, so 131°T. If the magnetic heading was indeed 119°, it'd be runway 12 rather than 13. (BTW, runway headings are rounded to the nearest ten degrees, not up, to create runway numbers.) IIRC, it was rwy 12/30 in DCS initially, so that may be what's lingering behind in your kneeboard information? Not sure if the variations are still screwed up in-game, perhaps making 119°M match what is in the simulation.

No, an ILS does not require you to enter the final approach course. If you, as in the A-10, have a HSI rather than a pure CDI, setting the course roughly right will make your life easier, but it doesn't change the CDI indication or affect the ILS receiver. The command steering does require a more or less correct course though.

So there's a loss of control authority in the transonic region, preventing the pilot from increasing AoA to the stall? Or are you talking about the normal supersonic stability increase reducing control authority to that point? Which leads to the interesting question of what control authority remains. A reference or two would be of interest.

Still in the dark as to why it couldn't be done. Above Va, you're going to overstress the airframe before the stall. Enough above Va, and things are going to break, preventing you from reaching the stall. That's universal for all aircraft though. Elevator deflection is pretty much an AoA selector, so what limits elevator deflection at speed in the F-15? Why isn't the limiter active at lower airspeeds? Why will it let you bend the airframe, but prevent a stall? Or do you, by "can't", refer to excessive control forces alone? What constitutes 'high speed'? >M.3? >Va? >M1.0?

And then there's all the griping about various aspects of the flight dynamics, while they are absolutely horrible in Truck Simulator 2. Seriously...