Smokin Hole

Land 3 points and you will never have a problem. Wheel land and you almost always will. This is where the sim version differs from the real thing (I THINK). Too much oleo reaction and too little yaw stability at low speed.

Campaign. Cockpit lighting. A little more rotor inertia--and I am dangerously assuming that it is currently too low.

Hi Gav! It's not the "professional" part of me that likes this but the "recrational" part. My professional head is incurring no noticable forces while inside a 180k pound bus with wings. The recreational head is bobing like mad in a little red biplane where coordination is rarely a goal. But even coordinated turns place assymetrical forces on the head and torso because both are several feet from the center of rotation (CG). Anyway Gav, if this DCS WW2 stuff every bears fruit I look forward to seeing you there. I am sure the meeting will involve you from from the dark blue heights and me in a firey end just like in that "other" sim. S!

For the last few years I have bitched and moaned over various issues I have had with DCS. This time I have nothing but praise. At various points over the last year ED has gradually improved the effect of lateral accelerations acting on the pilot's head. It is now just about perfect. In every other sim I have played I have brought this up as a glaring oversight. Players complain about FMs and clickable cockpits yet gladly accept that their heads are locked in front of the gunsight or HUD. When I brought up this inconsistancy with reality, the "other" sim countered that players hated involuntary head movement because of the adverse effects it has on their gunnery. Well...yeah?! Of course it impacts gunnery! Just as it does and did in real life. My real head has bounced off my real canopy a number of times. Now it does in the P-51 as well. It is a superbly done bit of immersion and you guys should be congratulated. Thank You! (I realize that "Natural Head Movement" is a term from Flanker that was called with Shift-F1. My praise is obviously for a different thing but I didn't know what else to call it. I am sure you all got the point anyway.)

Temp/dew point spread has a big influence on how much temperature difference is needed to create visible water vapor. That's all a vortice is. At altitude, there are some days where the vortices lasts as long as the contrails. If you are close enough you can watch them spin and twist like a wounded snake. It's quite cool.

Sorry for the loss of your long time friend Wags. Condolences to his family, coworkers and friends. RIP JimMack.

I was completely against the P-51. I thought it a terrible move and perhaps the last desperate struggle in ED's decline. Well I was wrong and the Mustang has proven to be quite fun. I am still not sure what to do with it but I continue to build little sandboxes in the editor and find myself puttering around in the P-51 more than I do any other sim, atm. The P-51 and FW locking horns over Nevada is going to be fun as hell and I hope that this scenario, rediculous as it is, won't deter the history buffs out there from enjoying so online prop mayhem.

Well now I just feel like I was being pushy. Let's just say I love them both and both philosophies work for me. Sorry for coping such a sanctimonious attitude over something so meaningless. Salute!

This is sort of a dead thread. But I just read the whole thing and I must say that if you are a budding real tailwheel pilot, and you read everything TX-Ecodragon has written here, you will be a damn sight smarter than you were before reading. We should all send him $20 for the ground school.

Ok here is why. For this to work realistically in Rise of Flight (we want real, right?) a mechanic would need to come over, help you into the pit, tell you that the engine is warm and all is in working order. He would then run the prop through after you have ensured that the mags are off. You would then call switch on and he would prop you and quickly get out of the way. At your call the guys holding the tips would let go and you would be off. This would require an ARMA level of personnel modeling and animation. In other words, starting a WWI airplane is something someone ELSE does for you. You just manage mags and mixture. The whole thing is as easy as starting your granddad's old International Harvester truck. But to model it would be a b**ch. I don't need a developer to go through all that to prove his love of flying.

If you are in combat, chances are all doors will be open. So what sort of damage could possibly close the doors? I've heard of plenty of cases where the P-51 suffered coolant system damage. The radiator was, after all, the Achilles heal of that airplane. But the door thing seems suspect to me. To the designers as well apparently, which is why they spring-loaded the switches.

I think it's unfair to single ED out as the true appreciators of flight. The original developers of Rise of Flight obviously love flying and demonstrated that love in every detail of that sim. I fly complex planes daily. Flying to me is not the hundreds of switch and dial actions I do each flight. Flying is...well...flying. Having said that, I appreciate ED's attention to detail and the intricate systems modeling that comes with the DCS standard. I've come to expect that from them. But I don't need that systems detailing in other simulations in order to personally qualify them as "simulations". In the end, for me, switches matter far less than aerodynamics and environment.

I had given up on DCS World, mainly do to performance issues. They are still there but are no longer deal killers. I'll admit that this might be more placebo than a real performance improvement. But what I really is the more realistic tracer in the P-51. The old photon torpedoes drove me nuts. The return of the old explosions is great too. I've been sandboxing a whole lot more with the Mustang since the update and enjoying it more than ever. Salute!

Why would this not happen on a real Mustang? The controls are not hydraulic. Maybe your point is that the surfaces are too heavy to be moved by the tabs in any wind short of a gail. In that case you may be right. Anyway, that's a good observation.

Thanks!

Sorry for the cryptic thread title. Here's what I want to do: I now seem to be able to run ok with Scenes set to Medium. Doing that however means getting trees only around villages with dark tinting over the rest of the landscape where trees would be if the Scene setting was high. I want to keep my graphics detail dialed back exactly where Medium places it except for trees. But I only plan on having them visible from a lower distance to reduce to load on my system. Anyone know how to do that? Thanks.

Didn't mean to snipe Ghost's good work above. IF... I ever changed my tune about FFB, I'd send my CH to him for certain. :thumbup:

I have been an owner, cheerleader and promoter of the G940 since its release. Last year the rotaries on my 3rd throttle began to spike. I took it apart and lengthened all twelve wires by soldering on 3 inches of Ethernet wire. This worked for 6 months until the rotary spiking began again. I then decided to try force sensing with the X-65f. Initially I liked it. But after a month I realized that my flying was more accurate but my FIGHTING was awful (talking prop sims here). So back to the G940 for a few more months. I just bought a CH setup because it is cheaper (currently on Amazon) than any other HOTAS setup exept the X-52. If CH offers a split throttle I will buy it for sure UNLESS the stick that comes with it is FFB. FFB was cool, especially in Rise of Flight where I could feel the plane bounce over tufts of grass through the stick. Of course that doesn't happen in reality. Nor does a real stick vibrate during stall. (ok well sometimes they do but far more cues come form overall airframe vibration) Really, the only thing FFB does accurately is mimic the control slop as airflow decreases--which I must admit is quite cool and will be missed. It also readjusts the stick center during helicopter cyclic force trim. But for these gains there is a huge price to be paid in constantly setting up and tweaking values for each plane in each sim. Some people enjoy that sort of thing but I never did. Most sims incorperated FFB in ways that are nifty to the player but quite unrealistic to the pilot. I basically hated FFB in everything but Rise of Flight (where I once did 95% of my flying) and Black Shark. My dream setup would be a normal, accurate stick and a buttkicker that is fully supported by every sim I play. I will not buy FFB again.

Don't over-rate this. I fly expensive full motion sims annually and, even at $15 million a pop, they do a poor job of reacting to lateral forces in a convincing manner. A convincing and far more violent natural head movement would be far better (not to mention more practical) in my opinion.

See Xerxes' post on previous page.

Graphics.cfg has been replaced by graphics.lua. Some options that were previously changed via the old config file are now made through /Config/autoexec.cfg.

If you wanna do it nice and gentle (granny style), hit downwind separated from the rwy by 1/4 to half a mile doing 250 kts (500 kph) at 800ft. Abeam the end of the runway, power to idle, drop the gear and 1 notch of flaps and begin a decent rate of 800-1000 fpm. Make your turn to final keeping 180 - 200 kts by adding some power. Don't square the turn unless you need to. Before rolling out on final add the last notch of flaps as well as speedbrake if SOP for the aircraft type. On final keep whatever speed that roughly equates to 10 AOA. Power back to idle over the numbers. Flare only slightly. Done. Viper's technique is much more fun.

Sounds like they need more beta testers.

How are you disabling FFB to achieve this, through DCS or through your stick's software?

FFB Off or On makes no difference for me (G940). It's bad regardless of what I do.