Smokin Hole

I have asked the question in two other threads with no reply. Best guess answer: No. (I agree that it is very unhelpful)

Is the autopilot mandatory for AAR? I works ok but I don't believe it makes refueling easier, especially when the tanker enters/exits a turn. I'd rather use the Force :D However, none of the autopilot keys seem to disable it. The reason I know that it is much easier without the autopilot is that control-r provides about to minutes of autopilot-free flying while the lines pressurize. It is pretty easy to catch and stay in the basket until the probe retracts.

Sorry if this has been answered elsewhere but I couldn't find the right keywords in search: Is the autoflight assist for air refueling mandatory with the upcoming improved Su33?

Thanks. I was attempting with the manual updater without success. I then closed the Oculus app and it finally worked. Like most things PC, I have no idea why.

I haven't had an update in quite some time. 1.5.7. I ran the updater and it just launched the game. Maybe ED is spreading the update over users over time.

I can see players on the gadget. I can also see quite a few clients on SRS. But I don't see anything on the server browser. typing IP 92.205.184.66:10308 (from the bottom of the gadget) returns, "server offline".

Glad to hear. I have the old download version (both Russian and International) so no such luck.

Similar problem here. My profile no longer shows a serial number for Black Shark 1 and therefore I cannot install my BS2 upgrade in order to get the BS module for DCS. Phew... Send a support ticket under your Profile and hopefully you will get a response.

Curious if they were able to resolve this for you. I am having the same problem.

Sorry for the awful quality. This is heavily cropped from an iPhone photo taken today from about 70 NM away. This is the NOTAM issued last year as a result from pilot concerns... FDC 4/2243 - CA..AIRSPACE IVANPAH DRY LAKE, CA. SOLAR POWERPLANT GLARE THE LAS VEGAS / LAS / VORTAC 193 RADIAL RADIAL 36 NAUTICAL MILES TO THE LAS VEGAS / LAS / VORTAC 189 RADIAL RADIAL 34 NAUTICAL MILES. THIS PLANT COVERS APPROXIMATELY 3,500 ACRES WEST OF INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 15 NEAR THE CALIFORNIA-NEVADA STATE LINE WITH ROUGHLY 175,000 MIRRORS SURROUNDING EACH OF THREE COLLECTION TOWERS. THESE TOWERS EMPLOY A NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT HAS NOT BEEN UTILIZED AT THIS LEVEL BEFORE, CREATING A SOLAR GLARE EFFECT IN THE AIRCRAFT. LOS ANGELES AIR ROUTE TRAFFIC CONTROL CENTER (ARTCC) AND LAS VEGAS TERMINAL RADAR APPROACH CONTROL (TRACON) BEGAN RECEIVING NUMEROUS PILOT REPORTS OF GLARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE POWERPLANT SINCE THE FACILITY BEGAN PRODUCTION. TO APPROPRIATELY DOCUMENT THESE CONDITIONS, PILOTS AND OTHER AIR CREW MEMBERS ARE URGED TO UTILIZE NASA'S AVIATION SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM (ASRS) AND PROVIDE AN ELECTRONIC REPORT SUBMISSION (ERS) VIA THE WEB AT http://HTTP://ASRS.ARC.NASA.GOV/REPORT/ELECTRONIC/HTML SOLAR POWERPLANT GLARE MAY BE INJURIOUS TO PILOTS'/PASSENGERS' EYES FROM SURFACE TO UNLIMITED ALITITUDE FROM GLARE SOURCE. FLASH BLINDNESS OR COCKPIT END PART 1 OF 2. 24 DEC 21:30 2014 UNTIL 31 DEC 15:59 2016 ESTIMATED. CREATED: 24 DEC 21:31 2014

Sorry if this has been asked. A search of "Ivanpah" yields nothing. As any pilot flying during daylight within 200 NM of LAS knows, the 3 solar generators 40 NM southwest of the city are now a more prominent feature than Vegas itself. It is by far the brightest earthly thing I have ever seen from the cockpit. Even when not reflecting sunlight, the huge circular mirror arrays can be seen from a large distance. I honestly don't know if the NTTR even covers Nipton, CA but if it does, lacking Ivanpah dates the scenery somewhat. [Mods: This might better qualify as a wish rather than "research". Please move the thread if you think that's best. Thank you. ]

When I review my tracks (or TacView) I don't see any increase in g due to sudden slat deployment. I see just a 6.5g, 6.6g, 6.7g then SNAP! And in one case the slat was already deployed as I watched the wing go.

Read the forum "cover to cover" and am glad to see I am in good company, including yourself :)

Please delete. Pointless post in light of other discussion. Thanks.

Well here's a theory. And if it proves true then it would really speak to the details considered in the FM. Planes without trim often have a bendable or adjustable tab that is set on the ground to suit the tastes of the pilot. If adjusted to a setting other than neutral then the associated surface will deflect a bit under an airload, which is the point of course. It could be that in the config file of the K-4, there is an adjustment for the aileron tab that has been pre-selected for us by DCS. And if that was the case you would notice a deflection of the stick which would vary a small amount with speed.

So far every Tacview replay shows structural failure at 6.7 - 6.9g. Those wings were probably stress tested to at least twice that.

Same.

Perfect cobra? Nothing's perfect but mine look close to what I've in Su27/35 porn on the interwebs.

Who cannot do his first passable Cobra and not say YES! It is PFM. (No not that "PFM". "Pure Freakin' Magic".)

Thanks Blaze. I'm avoiding over the counter mods and HDR. It's OK. I'll continue to use the AMD properties saturation setting on my monitor.

First let me join the Party and say hello and thanks to Ironhand for serving the Flanker community so well years ago. And Second, Wow! is right. The Su27 now flys like it looks. And the cobra is such a joy to do when I pull it off "correctly" (and such a horror when I screw it up). Landings are fun to but if I use the HUD speeds the dutch rolls get dangerous. I find that whatever speed yields 11 AOA works well.

I prefer HDR off. But the colors are a bit outlandish. A nice workaround is to reduce my monitors saturation to 60% for DCS only. It looks great that way but I have to change the monitor settings each time. Is there a config file within DCS to accomplish the same thing? Thanks!

You know YoYo, I came back here to delete my post hoping that it was unread. Because you and I had exactly this same forum conversation about the P-51. I even wrote an article mentioning our discussion over at SimHQ. Eventually I began to agree with you then and I think I might agree with you now. Funny how I had forgotten all that. It really might be a seat-of-the-pants thing that just can't be simulated. Fortunately, with time, that virtual pilot sixth sense kicks in and the whole thing becomes manageable. I also agree that for whatever reason, it is much easier set power with the brakes applied and just let her rip. Doing so seems to prevent that sudden (pilot induced) lurch to the right at about 100 KPH.

My issue with the Dora and to a lesser extent, the P-51, is that they seem too unstable in yaw at low speeds. It is as if the FM is ignoring or downplaying airflow past the vertical stabilizer in the 100-200 KMH range. I have flown both enough to manage well enough, but it is still work. I wish I had that actual experience to back up my intuition but I don't. I do have a bunch of tailwheel experience including a fair amount in light aerobatic types like my Pitts pictured in the avatar. My friends who have flown the P-51 tell me it's very docile. "Like a Citabria" is what I have heard more than once. The Citabria is famously easy to fly. So based on that limited background my poorly equipped intuition informs me that something is a little off. Another way to look at it is to consider how simple the cockpit is in the Dora. A great deal of time and expense was spent to make it so. Does anyone think that an airplane built for such brilliant simplicity for the hands young and inexperienced pilots, would then be such a challenge just to stay on the centerline? BTW for what it's worth. I find it much easier to just hold the brakes, set power and release.

OK. That I get and agree that it doesn't sound correct with a right turning engine.