chaos

You're missing the point... or I suck at making it... you choose :) Sidescrollers are a dime-a-dozen. Heck you could build a sidescroller with Adobe Flash. Flightsims are niche and we all know that. So, why not support it in every way possible? This is not a cut on sidescroller games. If anything, it's a cut on us because a lot of us are just whining babies...

I've supported both DCS:WWII and BoS simply because I want to keep playing these types of games. If there's no interest from the likes of us, these games will end up being extinct. As simple as that... Just head over to kicktraq.com and look at the top 10 for today. Some idiot Japanese sidescroller game, going by the name of 'Number 9', collected almost $1.000.000 in the first day alone! Is that enough 'reality' for 'you'? For those who fault Ilya's marketing prowess and use that as an argument to not support DCS:WWII... just look at the 'Number 9' kickstarter video... all they're showing is a _drawing_ of the game's character? Quite frankly I find that depressing... So... support DCS:WWII in whatever way you can. If you're so poor that you can't even part with $1, mention this project on Facebook, twitter and other forums. Anything to let people know about this project. Thank you for your support :)

Illya mentioned the different requirements for a commercial simulator v. an entertainment product. To give you an idea... Our commercial -airline- simulator uses the latest and greatest Thales has to offer. However, you won't find fire-extinguishers, tractors, houses (except for the odd high-rise here and there) or even trees in their scenery. Things that make scenery 'alive' and are vital(?) for an entertainment product. Even the mesh of the terrain is roughly on par with ED's _current_ terrain (non-EDGE). Commercial simulators have the advantage as far as visual -cues- are concerned. "Things that pilots look for-" I believe someone said in the kickstarter video which is spot on. I have never, ever, experienced a stutter or a tear in a 'real sim'. It is completely fluid and it never misses a beat... because the rest of the scenery is sparse, almost non-existent. Fog really does look like fog and blowing snow is mesmerizing to look at. That's just the image side of things. Flight modeling is obviously more sophisticated in commercial products as well although I'm amazed at what Yo-Yo and Friends are capable of considering what they have to work with. More than adequate for an entertainment product such as DCS. Simulator developers such as Thales and Lockheed Martin get their data directly from the aircraft manufacturer. This data is vast and extremely expensive to purchase. They're not trying to fit curves found in an aircraft performance manual. Anyway, off on a tangent. Very impressed with the images of EDGE so far. If framerate can keep up I'll be one happy camper for sure!

No it won't. However, if there's nothing to announce other than 'we're making progress on DCS:Fighter', why would they? They might as well write a script and have it posted automatically on the forum every Monday. Is that what you want? Be patient. I'm sure they'll let us know as soon as there's anything worthwhile to share. They've always done it in the past...

Chuck! My hero... I swear, I was born 40 years too late! "See that... to me that's a stupid instrument. It tells you what your angle of attack is... If you don't know, you shouldn't be flying" EPIC! :-)

That's interesting... I'm a regular at AMS but wasn't aware of this. :-) What's the difference and does it even matter?

Yep, they do allow visuals to some extent. Usually arrival on a STAR whereby, at some point, you're taken off it with vectors for an OM lineup and proceed visually once the rwy is in sight. It's often commuter/shorthaul traffic that does this sort of thing but 'heavies' are doing it as well.

Gents, Can we stop referring the FW-190 D9 as "Dora". Call it D9 or whatever... but not Dora. Thank you :-)

Roughly translated... Happened in 2010 when the Germans started deploying UAVs in Afghanistan. Supposedly the operator was rather nervous and accidentally pushed the take-off button. 1 Person with minor injuries.

Correct

I've seen this autothrottle feature mentioned on various forums but it is little understood. To answer your question... (from Boeing 777 FCOM); "When the pitch mode is FLCH or TOGA, or the airplane is below 400 feet above the airport on takeoff, or below 100 feet radio altitude on approach, the autothrottle will not automatically activate. Also, during a descent in VNAV SPD, the autothrottle may activate in HOLD mode and will not support stall protection." To intercept the glideslope from above, 99 out of 100 times, you're going to use FLCH or VNAV SPD mode. I'm sure they (Boeing engineers) have thought long and hard about this... and I'm sure they can defend their reasoning behind it. However, to me (B777 pilot), it doesn't make any sense.

Uhm... yes, you've just crash landed a B777. Are you surprised that the guy didn't sound all coolio on the radio? I'm surprised they were able to get a word in amongst all the idiots behind him calling "go-around"...

It's not as simple as that. There are many cases when automation is a hindrance. They started off high on final. It takes precious time to tell the autopilot/autothrottle what to do in order to fix the situation. The guy might have concluded that using automatics would not give them enough time to be stabilized at the required altitude. A sound decision if you ask me! There's an excellent video on YouTube on how to use autopilot/autothrottle/fms. Do a search for "Children of the magenta" (approx. 25 mins) and get some insight into how one should use (-and refrain from-) automatics in an airliner. That's not what caused the crash... Stall is the result of many things going wrong well before the actual crash. These guys are not idiots you make them out to be...

In VMC it might be acceptable to have idle power from FL380 all the way down to as low as 500'. As long as you're stabilized by 500, you're good to go. That's what most pilots strive for as this is the optimum path. Obviously 999/1000 this doesn't happen as ATC tends to screw up your descent planning... It also increases the risk of ending up hot and high on final...for reasons other than ATC...

He had 43hrs. on-type and was flying under supervision. Both guys had thousands of hours in their logbook. The 'student' had been flying long haul for many years. This is how rumours spread...

Why?

Guys... I've read a lot of poo in the 'media' so please stop making accusations based on 'media-facts'. Only official info we have is that they were low on speed and below a normal g/s. It's anyone's guess, at this point, as to why this accident happened. To accuse the pilots of 'being drunk' is not helpful. I can assure you that they themselves had other plans while on a layover in SFO.

It's an amazing a/c. I get to fly one every once in a while and this thing is huge! It defies belief what engineers have done with the engines. It's ridiculously easy to fly manually (autotrim). I don't like the Fisher Price-style buttons and switches but oh well... This is my review of the 773. If you can fly a 738, you'll have no problems with this one. It's just a bigger version... a lot bigger! ;-)

Now that, gentlemen, is REAL skill! Amazing. I thought I was a sh*t-hot pilot but I'm going to crawl into a deep dark hole now...

I donn't think that is the issue here... Most(?) of us realize that we're not obligated to purchase an F-35 sim. On the one hand I applaud new 3rd party devs... By allowing said devs. to create new content for the game it will ensure that DCS will stay in the market for a long time to come (think FSX-long). It's just that, personally, I would've preferred something that could be simulated with a lot less guess- work. There is a huge range of aircraft to choose from and it is simply beyond my understanding that someone would choose an F-35 over say a Jaguar... or an F-4... Heck, even an F-5 is waaaay cool(er) than an ugly 5th gen fighter. But hey, that's just me... One thing is sure though... the Pokémon generation will snap this one up by the boatload...

Huh? "Anyway, moving right along.." Take-off weight = Ramp weight - Taxi fuel (incl. APU burn). 500lbs. Seems like a reasonable estimate in most cases. Landing weight = Take-off weight - Fuel used - Stores expended It's not rocket science...

It's unlikely that you're running out of act and de-activations. IIRC you have 5 of them/month. Even if you do run out, a polite email to ED would get you back gaming ASAP...

I don't think you can. Just de-activate and install win8. It's really simple...

I see what you did there... edge, seat.. ejection seat! :-)