Smokin Hole

Wow! I haven't used Google Translate in awhile and, Man!, the quality has really improved. Sorry, that was a bit OT. Keep drumming up interest Wags.

I didn't think it would get any views here. Before I wrote it I discussed doing so with EinsteinEP, SimHQ's editor, for use as a feature article. In the end it was just too long for them. But after all that effort I at least wanted to "get it out there". Thanks for taking the time to read it.

Some pointless self-promotion here. I wrote an article for SimHQ about finally flying a Pitts. DCS gets a bit of a mention as I draw parallels between the real experience and that of other tailwheel sims like Rise of Flight and DCS: Mustang. The article was too long for SimHQ and I couldn't manage to shorten it so instead I posted it on their forum: http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3612821/A_Real_Pilot_Again_Almost.html#Post3612821 Posted the aritcle here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1516745&posted=1#post1516745

Hey! Look! It's my squadmate and quite possibly the best Rise of Flight player every to play the game. And, might I mention, a former Navy contractor who flew the F/A-18C sim as a paid ACM adversary (or something like that--I am bad with details). But, whatever, its great to see that DayZ hasn't completely monopolized your chill-time. No question that FFB has made the P-51 much more pleasant to fly. The problem for me is that my throttle has begun to spike dramatically and I think I may need to dump the G940 for a WH. Anyway, glad to see you here Req! Hope we can fly together soon.

Does anyone have a current server.lua script that enables 6 dof? There is one on this forum that forces the plane 200' AGL. (Cockpit in the air but F2 plane is on the ground). BTW, this problem is post v1.2. Before it worked ok.

Note--the following was the original post: When I try to fly from a stopped position with Ricardo's Su25 pit, the plane starts in a fixed position about 200 feet AGL. The plane will not move from this position. But, if you raise the gear the plane will react just as if you had raised the gear on the ground but the "ground" is invisible and elevated. I did not have this problem prior to 1.2. It turns out that this wasn't an issue with Ricardo's excellent pit. It was the server.lua file I was using for 6 DOF in the Su25. Sorry.

In my real flying this is a hung start and is caused by no ignition. The reason for that is usually lack of electrical power to the igniters. The ignition system for each engine could be sourced to separate buses which could also be why the left starts fine. If this isn't a World bug the first thing I would check is that the inverter is on (igniters are AC powered).

Unbinding old account worked for me. I didn't even realize I had anything on it.

Yes I know it does. And my post was in support for your position, not against it. But having taught thousands of stalls and spins in a dozen of different types I feel comfortable in saying that generally you will feel much more airframe buffeting than stick shaking during a stall. On most planes you will be hard pressed to feel anything in the stick since the disturbed flow off the stab to the elevator is weaker than the force holding the elevator (ie, you). However, since most of us dont own a buttkicker, sending these cues to the stick is a good alternative.

The F-104 also had very good flying qualities and some amazing engineering. The boundary layer control gave it approach speeds approaching those of jets with, errrr, wings. :-) I don't believe many idiots flew it but I do know that it wasn't designed for Bob Hoover. It was designed for the middling guy in class who lucked into selection into fighters.

Look up C-152 and you'll find similar stats. Believe me, I'm not trying to be contrary. But I've talked to many pilots who have flown mustangs and other fighters. Most recently the instructor who checked me out in a Pitts S2C described flying a Mustang and found it to be honest and unsurprising with flying qualities very similar to an AT-6.

I don't think effte's comments are ridiculous. Scouts and fighters certainly were not intended to be flown by morons. But they were designed to be flown with relative ease by the lowest common denominator. The planes were mostly forgiving and stable. The P-51 is no different.

Hmmm. Thanks. What's odd is that I don't see this anywhere else with the throttle. In every sim and in the Logtech profiler, even in the DCS axis settings, the throttle is smooth. In game, not.

This is a problem I have brought up before but not many seemed to share it. I am bringing it up again because v1.2 fixed half the issue which implies that it is fixable. The problem for me is that the throttle behaves much like the K-14 range selector behaved prior to the update. Small throttle movements result in wild, jerky, inputs in both the animated model and manifold pressure. I had the same issue with the range selector. I'm guessing others did too because it now works perfectly. Could I get some confirmation that this issue exists for others with the throttle? BTW, the throttle works fine in other DCS titles and all other sims. Logitech G940. Yes, I am aware of the Logitech "reversal bug" and have learned to live with it. This is similar but far more extreme.

I agree with Yo-Yo. I've been an FFB user for a few years. I was sold on it from a description of how the stick responds to bouncing over tufts of grass in Rise of Flight. That's neat. But the rest is not. The stick is not the place to turn to for non-visual cues. I like the stall warning but that, and other vibrating events, would be much better implemented through the seat rather than the stick. Having said that, version 1.2 handles FFB very nicely, IMO.

Have you watched the AI land? They stop in about 150 feet. It (appears) completely scripted.

Regarding landings: Landing 3 points is pretty easy IMO. What is difficult are wheel landings. I excuse my inability to do them consistently with grace by telling myself that the tendency for the CG to pull the tail down slightly at touchdown is exaggerated. You may disagree with that theory but it preserves my ego and I am therefore sticking with it.

The lack of decent stall warning in a sim is fairly common. It doesn't mean that the aerodynamics are wrong, just that the PC environment sucks. FFB helps. But honestly the best work-around I have ever seen is the aural warning in Warbirds. It was totally unrealistic but perhaps in the way it simulated the natural awareness of an oncoming stall, it was the most realistic of all. (No, I would never want that feature in DCS).

We've heard these hopes for multiplayer before. It just never happens. Sure, the first week after a product is released there is some MP participation but it never sticks. I mean I hope I am wrong but I've got many years of thinking "x" will light a fire and we will finally have a significant turnout. So far it's been mostly crickets. But if someone could come up with a persistent server that worked, I'd definately pay for it.

It's there. Only available in lieu of vikhrs on the inboard hardpoints.

Apparently it's really good too.

We are all fans but we are not monolithic. I go back to BMS because of the Dynamic Campaign. It's a big deal to me. Playing in a homemade sandbox is OK but what I really want is a game. I want a world full of stuff. I want to lock the sniper pod on all the dozens of planes flying around my little bit of airspace. I don't really want to be married to the dozens of triggers and scripts required to make a DCS mission feel alive. As a pure sim, BMS is very dated. But as a game, it is ahead of its time. If I had to choose one sim for the rest of my life (and fortunately I don't), it would be A-10. But it would be a choice made with plenty of regret. I would forever miss that active world that only falcon has ever managed to covincingly bring. Oh and don't overlook that Falcan fans can enjoy the game on a budget. It doesn't require constant upgrades and tweaking. It's a relative poor-man's game carefully developed and improved by hundreds of dedicated VOLUNTEERS around the world. That alone means it has earned its continued existence even if it is a little ugly and clunky.

Back to the OP's original concerns: You at least have to consider that ED themselves have an "evolving" concept of what DCS is supposed to mean. Ever since it was decided to create a new title for what was originally a proposed helicopter add-on for Flamming Cliffs or Lockon (I don't recall which), the target has moved. I don't completely fault ED for that as the market has moved too. When FC2 "merged" with Black Shark I thought things had finally returned to a happy equilibrium. But again the target is moving. Personally, although this once drove me nuts, I no longer care. As long as the goal is to bring the multiplayer community together as opposed to dividing us among a host of incompatible or barely compatible products, I'll be happy. And if we can bring the desktop icon count down to say, two, I will be downright ecstatic.

The OP is still making a valid point. Two identical views with two dramatically frame-rates. The draw distances and other user demanded processes that are happening in the background are valid explanations. But those things aren't apparent to the end-user. Also, let's say he spends a thousand bucks on hardware and then Nevada comes out and brings the frames back to 20 all over again. It's a vicious cycle that makes the middle class fan almost dread each update.

I think the OP is taking a little heat for inarticulately posing a valid question. Why does the same game engine struggle as CPU power increases season after season? I ponder it too. And because I have no understanding of software developement I make the mistake of always assuming the bottleneck to be sourced to "something in the code". There are a lot of head scratching moments for me in this game. I've learned that I can do nothing about it. Among many other limitations, I've learned to avoid servers that place static objects at airfields. So long as I play within the capabilities of my PC, I'm happy.