effte

It seems this discussion would benefit from all participants being familiar with the concept of manoeuver speed and its implications on stalling and overstressing the airframe.

As that statement is likely to be misread and fuel a common misunderstanding, it might just bear clarifying that it is not to be taken to imply that you should aerobrake for short field landings. The other goal of getting the aircraft stopped before the far end of the runway has higher priority than saving brake wear/temperatures, so for minimum run landings, plonk that nose gear down and stand on the brakes. Speedbrakes help as well, even though they're not explicitly mentioned in the manuals I have at hand. Cheers, /Fred

Most of the difficulty with the F-86 stems from the slow travel of the NWS, combined with the lack of feedback of the actual position of the steering. The devs seem to have good data suggesting a travel time of four seconds end to end for the NWS. It is painfully slow, but until someone can provide better data showing it to be incorrect, that's where it should remain. In the real thing, you would always know where the nose wheel is as that's where you have your pedals, once you have engaged the clutch by lining them up with NWS activated. You couldn't move the pedals faster than the nose wheel turns. In the game, we can move our pedals freely from one end to the other in a fraction of a second, and then we are left guessing at where the nose wheel actually is by observing the environment-relative movement indicator above the glareshield. These two effects lead to controllability issues, most notably the PIO characteristic for slow servos, but I have a hard time seeing how we could get around them given the limitations of our hardware. Force feedback pedals are probably a long way from reaching the consumer market. However, the nose wheel would not, as you say, remain where it was when you disengaged NWS. With NWS disengaged, the NWS system acts as a shimmy damper. In other words, the nose wheel is free to pivot, with damping to restrict the movement. You could still steer by differential braking, as evidenced by the flight manual mentioning the situation where you have to use diff braking to get the nose wheel back into the controllable range in order to reengage the clutch and gain pedal control over the NWS. Then there's the dreaded memory function, where the NWS remembers the last controlled position and actively returns there when you reengage the system. I e, steer right, disengage, straighten the nose wheel through differential braking, steer left, reengage - and it actively steers to the right before coming back left. That is Not Right - there's no memory in the hydraulics. I think we can assume it to be a close but no cigar version of an implementation of the "turn pedals to reengage NWS" feature. It is supposed to be on the bug list already. Cheers, /Fred

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2148953&postcount=5 ?

Tjena Ragnar! Going to be a bit of a PITA with you. ;) While alpha and beta will affect your IAS reading, it is not as simple as taking the trig vectors. It's not the longitudinal component of airspeed, but rather more complex (and less predictable). IAS can, counter intuitively, increase in a slip. It comes down to the individual installation. Generally a lot of care is taken to have a reasonably correct IAS reading throughout the normal alpha/beta range. Perhaps slightly less so during rushed wartime development... but that's speculation on my part. I do think external view is GS though, meaning a steep climb or dive will reduce it to the horizontal component of the actual velocity. The main source of IAS vs TAS (and thus GS) discrepancies would be your density altitude, with each 1000 feet of density altitude adding roughly 2% to your IAS to produce TAS. That rule of thumb holds up surprisingly well. I'd also say that it is ground speed which is affected by wind, while IAS is not, while the pressure setting is only for the altimeter. Other than that, I agree. Sorry for shooting you down, you can have your cat yell at me over TS later to get back. ;) Cheers, /Fred

It has TACAN (which essentially gives you the functionality of VOR/DME, but with slightly better precision for the bearing), DME (which is part of the TACAN system anyway) and ILS. You can do it all, but not using VOR or NDB beacons. In the US, I think it is approved to use GPS in lieu of NDBs. If you want to practise NDB navigation, wait for the Nevada map. You can't do it over Georgia, as you'd never break regulations in the virtual world, right? :)

That'll teach you to follow the flight manual and not use NWS during the landing roll-out. ;)

I had this the other night. Turned out that 'connection interrupted' can also mean 'incorrect password' or 'you daft fool, you have caps lock on'.

You have to add the GPU (Ground Power Unit) manually IIRC. It is called something else though - check in other missions for ground units near the aircraft on the ramp. You don't have to have the canopy open either in the F-86, IIRC? Could be wrong though...

I don't expect 70% is enough to hold her on full RPM prior to take-off though? Me, I'd go the nonlinear route. Cibit, options -> controls -> select brake axis -> axis tune, adjust or somesuch, lower right on the dialog frame.

That came out a bit harsher than I intended, my apologies. I know we are very much on the same team here regarding what we want to achieve with regards to the products. With quite a bit of relevant experience in the field, albeit not for the consumer market, I do find myself puzzled by our apparently very different takes on the best way to get there though. It ended well this time though, so I'll play nice until the next thread pops up, when I expect we'll meet in the ring again. :D Didn't pick their minds on the other NWS issue, while you were at it? Cheers, /Fred

Updated the first post to clarify the real main issue, lest it get lost.

On a dumbphone now so can't dig out a link, but search for my username and sticky brakes or some such, and you are likely to find my thread with a registry fix which solves the issue rather than works around it. Haven't seen it in years after applying that fix, without touching the in-game settings. If you try it and it doesn't work, you should add a note there.

We seem to have different views on the purpose of a beta process? To me, the intention is to find potential issues and make sure that they are, in fact, correct. That can be through verifying that they are as they should be, or by finding that they are in fact an error and correcting them. In this case, the devs have double-checked, have data at hand and can verify that the behaviour is correct, even though it is rather peculiar. Thus, we have a system verified to be modelled on the best available data which is what we all want - a happy ending. It could have been a mistake, but it wasn't. So why bother at all? Well, if knowledgeable users/beta testers/domain experts find n peculiarities in the model, one of them will prove to, in fact, be an error. The second to last bug will then in short order be fixed**. The aim is quality assurance, to produce verified accuracy and not necessarily to cause the devs to change anything*. Although a change can be required, a "no action" resolution is just as good. I still find it peculiar, but until better sources come along contradicting the four seconds end to end, I do not want it changed to anything less than four seconds. To me, it most definitely was not effort wasted. To have spent time producing YouTube videos for the same net result - that would have been a wasted effort. Cheers, /Fred *) A couple of P-51 and D-9 players would be the exception here. **) The fact that it is an old joke doesn't make it less spot on!

Good to hear, then we can stop nagging. :) I'd suggest "Altimeter setting", as that is what you are adjusting. A user who can't tell that the knob is a knob without a tooltip is a bit of a knob. :) You are not adjusting the scale, so it should not say you do. The scale shows what you set the altimeter to. If it absolutely has to be long as a novel, "Altimeter reference pressure adjusting knob" would do nicely. :)

As of the latest patch, the oxygen supply lever defaults to OFF, while the manual (-1) states that it should be safetied to ON at all times. The pilot does not seem to wear his oxygen mask below 10.000. This means the flow indication blinkers do not operate even when setting 100% O2 and the oxygen pre-flight checks cannot be completed. There is no emergency lever. Should there be, in the version modelled?

According to the -1, the limit airspeed for opening the canopy without structural damage is 215 KIAS. In the sim it blows off clean at around 170-180 KIAS. Cheers, /Fred

Bear in mind that we cannot see the tickets, so we cannot tell what is already reported. A couple of items which should be there: The altimeter setting scale stops (i e the animation) at approximately 29.85 inHg. It is not possible to set e g 29.80. The functionality seems to be there, as it still affects the altimeter - you just cannot see what you are setting. The tooltip says "QFE". Altimeter setting should be a better option, as it is not limited to QFE. If you scroll the altimeter setting around, the animation can at times lock up. Not sure if this was through going outside of the animated range through click-dragging. The altimeter setting does seem to work below 29.92, but if you are at sea level and have 29.92 (or higher) as the meteorological QNH, setting it lower won't affect the altimeter as it won't indicate lower than zero altitude.

From the attached picture from the -1 and the above picture, it seems that the circle with a sector cut out is integrated with the 10.000 foot dial. The angles can be seen, and the altitude at which the striped area becomes visible is noted as 16.000 feet. Should go a long way? Cheers, /Fred

That is very far from being an absolute truth. I mainly fly aircraft with only pitch trim, and it's really not something I think about. The design stability takes care of short term disturbances and the long term divergence on the axes concerned is so slow (low rate of divergence) that it really gets lost in the noise - there's always a wind gust to correct before the roll divergence becomes something you have to actively counter. In an aerobatics aircraft, or for that matter a fighter with endurance of an hour or two, a greater rate of divergence can be tolerated. By design, the aircraft is intended to be flown more actively. In the aircraft I fly which do have rudder and aileron trim, I have yet to use them, apart from checking them before flight. The heavier the rudder forces, the more tiring it will become, obviously, and heavy high-powered aircraft tend to come with larger rudder forces - but you'll have to evaluate it on a case-by-case basis rather than through blanket statements. Cheers, /Fred

It is air speed dependant, as the ram effect will make the system see a higher pressure at a higher air speed and shift at a higher altitude. As to the difference at similar air speeds, no idea...

In the simulator, your view is by necessity monocular. In the real aircraft, the gunsight is monocular. Hence, for the sight to work as intended, your monocular simulator view has to be that of the right eye.

In 1.2.10: The oxygen supply lever doesn't move by mouse wheel, only by click and drag. The mouse-over icon indicates it should be mouse wheel operated. The click-and-drag functionality should, as stated previously, be inverted. In addition, the flight manual states that it should be safetied in the ON position, so that should be the default at the very least. The gun selector dial on the left sidewall should be inverted.

I do hope it is not hardcoded to always be at exactly 70% though? Cheers, /Fred

And on the fourth page of the thread, the crucial question was finally asked... If you post results of practical tests, be sure to include the altitude used as it is (should be, at least) of huge importance.