kablamoman

I recommend checking out the manual (it's fantastically done) located in your "DCSWorld/Mods/aircraft/M-2000C/Doc/" folder. What you're seeing is basically a radar target that has been lost -- the VTB screen will continue to display a target based on the lock's last know position, trajectory and speed. It denotes this by displaying it in yellow. You can erase the target by pressing the switch next to the "RAZ" indication at the lower left of the screen. Check out page 350 in the manual for a more detailed description. There are other things that can be displayed in yellow, including manually designated targets based on a reference from a waypoint and distance/bearing (eg. a target from a bullseye), and TAF GCI targets.

I think they're aware of this -- there's been talk about it on the Razbam discord -- but good to have a formal report on the bug forums. Good stuff.

Yeah you’re right @grafspee — could be a bug with the animations on the model, maybe?

Just a guess, but I'm pretty sure there are ground adjustable trim tabs on the elevator as well, despite these not being exposed for adjustment in the special options. I suspect ED has hard-coded them to provide a certain behavior (for instance, could be for relieving stick force required to deflect the elevators) at a certain stab trim and power setting/speed to align with the historical data from their research. If you happen to set the plane up at a power or stab trim setting that diverges from that it would end up deflecting the elevator as you've shown. Really hard to know what's going on without knowing how and even if that trim tab has been coded/set.

@Ala13_ManOWar I re-engaged against my own advice.

You were the one splitting hairs about the attitude of the plane in the game and making claims that fast, slow, or even entirely different models of aircraft shouldn't make a difference in an attempt to push whatever weird agenda you've got. You made ridiculous comments about how all GA aircraft have the same attitudes when even things as simple as your seat/eye height, or cowling shape can make drastic differences. I have hundreds of hours of instruction on lots of those GA aircraft and can tell you personally they do not look or feel exactly the same in terms of handling and their attitudes. Yes they are all fixed-wing aircraft and so many of the basic principles apply to all of them and there are many similarities, but in no way do those similarities lend weight to your arguments here.

You claimed the two handled the same. They don’t. They are different aircraft. Both are certified under the Utility category for intentional spins for the purposes of training. Both models are routinely put into spins as part of the regular training curriculum for both Private and Commercial students in my country, and their behavior in this regard are drastically different. Just as other aspects of their handling are different: Such as their attitudes for level flight. Other GA aircraft are even more drastically different in their handling and attitudes in all regimes. All of them share certain commonalities, though, such as the requirement for pitch attitudes for level flight (each of which is unique to specific aircraft models) to change with speed. It’s one of the most basic concepts a student has to grasp when learning how to fly — that every change in speed, whether 5 knots or 50 knots, requires a pitch attitude adjustment to maintain level flight. The slower you go, the more nose-high it ends up being; the faster, the more nose-low. You seem to be struggling with the concept and should maybe review the following basic lessons: In my country they are called “Attitudes and Movements” and “Straight-and-Level Flight”. They are preceded only by your fam flight, lessons about the pre-flight, ancillary controls of the aircraft, and taxiing. Sounds like you have some remedial training to do.

@DD_Fenrir I vaguely recall this guy saying he thought 1998's "Jane's Combat Simulations: WWII Fighters", had a better 109 in terms of flight modeling. He seems to me a bit of a troll. Probably best to ignore.

I don't know what to say. Granted, it's been many moons since I've flown a light piston single, but as someone who used to instruct on some of these... Go home, you're drunk. There were differences in handling characteristics between individual models of 172s let alone differences between them and a 152 or a piper. Try spinning a 172 vs. a 152, for instance. You're on crack, mate. I've tried reasoning with you in the past in attempts to clear up misconceptions and misunderstandings but I've come to the conclusion too much if what you contribute is in bad faith and not worth the time. Good luck.

Full Throttle with MW-50 at 30,000 and you'll find the attitude for level flight is decidedly nose-high. Absolutely untrue. The attitude for level flight at 500 kph close to the ground is pretty close to bang-on the horizon. 300 kph is really nose high. You can't simply say you have an inaccurate representation of the aircraft's center of gravity because you think the attitude is too nose-low in certain conditions. The reality is that there are many factors that interplay to give you attitudes for level flight, and you are absolutely not going to get the same results between two separate aircraft designs -- making your comparison and assertion a bad one. The fact is that you don't know what typical attitudes looked like in a 109 because you have never flown them in real life. Even if someone had flown a G6, is it going to behave the same as a K4 in terms of this kind of thing? We don't know. The devs have at least looked at hard data and have come to certain conclusions. Not to say they can't be mistaken sometimes, but I tend to give that more credence than people randomly pulling stuff out of their ass online.

Maybe try it at a lower speed? Or maybe up at 30,000 feet? Anything that has an affect on lift including air pressure, velocity or even things like like wing design and angle of incidence and tail moments will interplay with center of gravity to affect the resultant attitude you end up with for level flight.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm just a caveman. I fell in some ice, and later got thawed out by some of your scientists. Your world frightens and confuses me. Sometimes the honking horns of your traffic make me want to get out of my BMW, and run off into the hills... or whatever. Sometimes when I get a message on my fax machine, I wonder: Did little demons get inside and type it? I don't know! My primitive mind can't grasp these concepts... But there is one thing I do know: An aircraft's attitude in level flight is determined by more than just center of gravity.

LOL. Says the guy who was convinced all 109s after E model had aileron droop with flap deployment because he read it in a fine scale modeling book despite all evidence to the contrary and then complained to mods to close his own thread when he was shown to be thoroughly mistaken. You seem to really enjoy posting disparaging remarks about the hard-researched flight modeling in the game -- maybe it's time to find a new hobby and design a flight simulator of your own? Real Pilot with ATPL here.

If you use the AP disconnect/override elastic stop bind while in Charges mode, it'll up your pull limit to 9g, and you'll probably tear off any ordnance and/or tanks you have attached if you do so. Has the same effect as flipping the mode switch to A/A. If you use it in A/A mode the pull limit goes all the way up to 11: However, the proper way to operate would be to keep it in Charges mode until your ordnance and/or wing tanks have been released and/or your belly tank is dry. Then flip the mode switch to A/A. Ignore the FBW gain switch, it shouldn't be used unless your air data computer gets damaged and is not sending proper information to the FBW system (the switch's intended purpose is to serve as a way to select a failure mode where the FBW system doesn't use ADC data).

Double check you're getting the full travel in your pitch axis, if you don't pull it to 100% while holding the button, it doesn't actually activate the override.

You could map the encoders to a virtual axis. This would be done in the VKB software or conceivably with some third party tool like joystick gremlin. The encoders would then work as a relative axis. Even then, unfortunately they would be a bit finicky (speaking from experience). The result is somewhat functional, but usually more hassle than it's worth. The real trick to using them well is to bind the in-game functions to an absolute axis (at least for the range axis) to replicate how they were used in real life (by twisting the throttle grip) to quickly and accurately adjust the reticle to match the bandit's wingspan.

AFAIK carb icing isn't modeled. Pitot icing is, but it is extremely gimmicky and random. Every once in a while in the warbirds you will experience it in clear air, even with the pitot heat on. At least that was my experience flying online. Definitely needs a revamp.

It's not really explained well anywhere for VR users, but for every module, including the Spitfire you should have the following two control binds mapped and ready to go to manage your view: UI Layer -> "recenter VR headset" <Module Name>->View Cockpit->"Save Cockpit Angles" I suspect most already have #1 bound. It's a universal bind that works across all modules, so you only have to bind this once. The second has to be bound for each aircraft and is a bit more tricky -- because in VR it's not entirely obvious it's doing anything -- but trust me and bind it. Once you've got both binds, start up the module of your choice, then physically move your head until you are in the spot that you want to be the new default. Then press the "Save Cockpit Angles" bind. You'll notice nothing will happen: This is because the changes only take effect the next time you load a mission. So quit the flight and restart. The default view that you wanted should be saved and you should load up sitting in your chosen virtual spot. From then on you use the "recenter VR headset" bind if you find yourself out of place. This bind snaps your current physical position in real life to the saved default -- so your gunsight and view over the nose will look proper again even if you're sitting slouched or in a slightly different position than you were last time you loaded up VR. Once again, you only need the "Save Cockpit Angles" bind once for each module to set a new default, and from then on you use the "recenter VR headset" bind to adjust and account for different seating positions IRL.

Small little thing I just noticed... After my INS was damaged, the HORIZON SECOURS message was displayed and HUD was blank (save for speed and altitude) -- so I'm assuming there was a loss of all attitude and heading references -- but the VTB was still showing accurate waypoint (BUT) markers and I was able to navigate back to base pretty easily using them. I am not sure, but I'm guessing it's not intended behavior, so I figured I'd post. Thanks for the wonderful module!

My man! Seriously guys, stellar team you've got here, and they provide stellar support!

It comes down to the fact that the sim was really not primarily designed in the first place with WVR combat in mind. A robust, realistic, and scalable method for rendering airborne contacts visually was simply not a requirement. Widespread VR adoption for sims, including this one, has only served to exacerbate the problem. I have my doubts that this will change any time soon.

Compensateur roulis ce n’est pas une chose dans le spit ou le bf109. vous besoin utiliser le compensateur palonnier dans le spit et suellement palonnier dans le 109 (pas de compensateur) pour vol coordonné Desolé pour mon français terrible

Despite what some are saying with regards to the engine I have not had much luck getting it to work for me when fighting with it online. Granted, I haven’t even attempted it since SoW closed, but I’d find the engine would tend to die on me after a long successful sortie — half an hour to an hour — with a reduction in power, often when coming in to land. Temps and operating limits respected: No boost above the first red line without water, intercooler and oil shutters modulated to keep temps in green. And yet, all too often when turning base to final oil temps would spike uncontrollably high coupled with a loss of power at low speed at the worst possible time. I do not trust the engine at all in this thing, and I have zero issues flying the rest of the warbirds. I still suspect something is very wrong with it.

At 120 start pulling back on the stick and keep pulling until the inverted T-bar on the bottom of the HUD is aligned with the horizon and hold it there. You’ll probably unstick around 160 knots give or take 10 or so depending on conditions.

The action is a pretty close analog to how it works IRL: You lift it out of a detent (left click), and twist counter-clockwise (mouse wheel down) to move it out of the cage position and release. From then on you can also adjust the pitch reference by twisting in either direction (mouse wheel up or down). It's the small attention to detail like this that I love about the module. They've really done a fantastic job.