miguelaco

I purchased Blackshark full of doubts (I've never been an helicopter guy) but enjoyed it a lot. I bought the Warthog with great enthusiasm and even the Mustang although only because of curiosity. In all of these products I have had enough disappointments because of the bugs and unfinished or incomplete features. I understand that ED needs to raise cash from time to time to keep funding the projects and until now I have been willing to buy the products regardless of my interest in them, always with the hope that one product that really excites me sees the light in a relatively short period of time. Checking the roadmap that has been presented to us I have to say I am seriously thinking not buying those. There is no sense in contributing to developments that I have confidence that won't meet my expectations. I think there are many interesting things that could be addressed instead of doing a once again improved Su-27 and F-15C. I'd happily purchase those if they were planned as full DCS level simulations, but I'm not going to pay for an improved flight model and some touches here and there. This of course is just a personal view based on my preferences, so I'm not going to criticize ED's policy, which may be perfectly valid from an economic standpoint.

Awesome, thx!

Thx! Just in time!

I envision today a short afternoon once I arrive home :-) Noticed too that all stuff have been upgraded to 1.2.0 version. Any changelist for already existing modules?

Happy birthday and keep up the good work!

+1 Eagerly awaiting the next beta patch...

Thx for your answer. I was not taking into account temperature effect on baro altimeter. I had the opportunity to test the same mission changing temperature setting, and the variation increases with lower temps, which I think is consistent with RL behavior. Also, found the following thread that expands on the subject: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=86133 Thx again!

Sorry but I think it does not explain why I have the same figures at 4500' and not at 500'. Radar altimeter always measures AGL. I'm flying over the sea, so AGL = ASL in this case. If you manage to equate both (adjusting pressure in barometric alt) at 4500', why aren't they providing the same reading at 500' with that same pressure setting?

Found it! See attachment. Test ALT.miz

I'm not in the same position, but both screenshots are taken over the sea in the same mission. Pressure setting in the mission editor by default and standard weather, so I believe pressure is the same at any point of the map (760 mmHg). All settings in the mission were by default, so 20º C and no wind and turbulences. Actually, it's quite simple to reproduce. Just fire up the mission editor, place your A-10C over the sea and you're ready to test it. That's why I had not provided the .miz in the first post.

For some time I tried to understand and consolidate all altitude readings, in cockpit ones with external view and even that reported by Tacview. Looking only at the readings the cockpit provides (barometric & radar altitudes) I cannot understand some variations and lack of consistency. For example, set up a very simple mission over the sea. Establish level flight and set pressure so that both barometric and radar altimeter give the same reading (4570' AGL = ASL in this case): Go down to 500', and look at both altimeters. Barometric reports 70' more than radar altimeter: OK, 70' is not a great amount of error, but keep in mind I simplified things a lot. If you add external view altitude reading to the equation which I believe is measuring ASL, you can extend the altitude range and observe a few hundred feet variation between 500' ASL and 20000' ASL. Why are we seeing these variation? Is there some kind of effect or error modeled in the sim that induces it?

Aerial refueling in MP, for example. Many threads reporting tanker weird behaviour (specially when starting turns) and tanker responding to wrong player. Also, tanker not refueling more than 8000 lbs in some situations. Breakaway message as introduced in latest patches is also not working properly (too sensitive), but this is just my opinion. See these for some more info, but I'm sure you already knew :smilewink: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1264229&postcount=18 http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1256873&postcount=2

IMHO DCS A-10C needs another patch. CTD, multiplayer, and many other things should be addressed. What I'd like to know is whether there will be another patch or not. And by patch I mean some update to the software that actually fix major problems, not some compatibility patch that happens to fix minor things here and there. Why is it so hard to say a simple yes or no?

+1 amen to that. I won't buy any new product until DCS: A-10C is reasonably fixed, specially in MP.

+1 Let me add, if you please: 7) ATC improvement: more messages, METAR reports, better logic for taxi spacing and slot assignment.

+1, volar el P-51D no me entusiasma demasiado y menos en el escenario actual de la serie DCS. De todos modos me alegro que esta gente siga desarrollando nuevos productos y espero que ganen mucho dinero con el Mustang para poder financiar el resto de proyectos que en mi opinión tienen mayor interés que este.

Thx!

Patch working great here. Thx ED for those needed bug fixes! It'd be perfect if refueling was corrected in MP. Still have to abort refuel many times to allow my mates contact the tanker properly.

Not only ATC, all comms in general. Tanker, ATC, AWACS, friendly flights... All need an improvement. And add the MP factor which seems to worsen things even more.

I think it's a known issue with 1.1.1.0, but let's wait for some testers to confirm

+1, it'll make rainy missions more immersive, but focus on bugs and stability issues first, of course.

TACAN/ADI offset has been reported as fixed, so chances are that it will make it into the little patch/hotfix.

Wonderful news!!

Well I guess I'm half with the whiners here. I'm probably not going to buy FC3 and Flying Legends. If FC3 maintain the same simulation level as FC2, I know I'm not going to fly it. It surely could make some interesting missions with A-10C and Ka-50, though. DCS Flying Legends is another story with the same ending. I'm afraid it will not appeal me as I like modern planes more than WW2 or WW1. Also, there are other sims covering these periods in high fidelity. Look at Cliffs of Dover, we all know that sim as today, but what will be its state when DCS Flying Legends come out?. Probably very good and it includes a very interesting theater and more flyables. So to conclude, I'm very interested in everything that expands the current DCS world, maintaining the same simulation level. I know Combined arms, Nevada and the new US jet are my priorities and will be on my hard drive, but meanwhile, we have an A-10C waiting to be finished off.

Thanks Nate, it's ok. Not a critical issue but an issue nonetheless. Regards.