Azrayen

Method 1: delete your \Saved Games\DCS\Config\options.lua, redo your options (= the cleanest) Method 2: in DCS go to options, check/uncheck VR relative settings, save; go back, undo what you just did, save again. You should be good to go. Let us know.

There should be a circle (Magic seeker) going after the square (radar target). When both locks (radar+magic) are obtained on the same target, then circle and square are replaced by a triangle. Dunno if implemented though, going through a PC overhaul for now.

?? Magic = 550 ;)

^ this. Not all types obviously. As for RWR, depends on the library.

1/ attendre que ED révise les procédures ATC pour l'IA ; WIP ; pas de date connue. 2/ pas mieux que NeF

It does.

I strongly doubt you, then. :D

We'll know when Razbam implements it ;)

^ this. Different radar. We have RDI. It doesn't have air to sea mode. Greek 2000EGs have RDM+. More such info here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147288

My pleasure; it's from the old RDM manual. Yeah, we already discussed that somewhere on the forum. I don't remember the exact value, but it was relatively low (15-20% RPM), significantely lower than the alternators going offline value (45%). We know the nominal quantity provided by normal pumps operating normally (110 liters/minute each), but IIRC we didn't have the value for "consumption" i.e. how much each movement of flight control surfaces, or other devices "eats" (drinks). Will try to search for the post later, no promesses. About the 30 minutes: sure, but if no alternators comes from no engine, then flight will cease sooner than that :pilotfly:

It does, though. With main CC bus so battery is enough (for a short time, it needs lots of amps). It's presurizing the #2 hyd circuit up to 190 bars (normal pumps = up to 280 bars), and it's automatically started when #2 pressure drops below 160 bars. NB this #2 circuit powers FBW, NWS, emergency L/G down and emergency/parking brakes. It does not power (normal) landing gear nor airbrakes, shockcones, scoops and slats. Also another factor to take into account: unless it's brutaly seized, a powered-down/failed engine will still windmill in flight most of the time (depending on airspeed and AoA). It should be enough to drive the hyd pumps, even if more slowly (= pressure drops not so quickly compensated for) than usual. Finally, there exists an isolation valve for misc hyd devices on the #1 circuit. Its goal is to save hyd pressure for most important things such as flight controls. It isolates airbrakes, slats, gear... etc. and closes automatically when accumulator (pressurized hyd tank) #1 level drops below 3.5 liters (normal 8l, full 9l).

No pedal, it's if engine N > 80%. Specific mode for run-up (point fixe).

A cold and dark aircraft should NOT have its parking brake set.

Hi hi, Didi elle va te poursuivre celle là :D

Bonjour Neon67, OK je t'envoie un MP. :thumbup: @ caramel : oui, Groove a utilisé sa baguette magique :) ++ Az'

:thumbup: Réponse itou :)

Yes. Probably because the version modelized by Razbam also uses the Eclair control box (on the left of the cockpit) so it's WIP. Yes. It's "Arrêt" but otherwise OK. BR electrically powers the jammer system, but do not activate jamming itself. That's the "3 point turn switch" job. BR = M + switch = "VEI" >> normal way of flying. BR = M + switch = "[]" (or "PCM") >> when you need jamming; return to previous state when you don't need jamming anymore. BR = A >> when on the ground, or when you're sure you won't need jamming soon (e.g. simple navigation flight, no combat use of the aircraft). "D2M". Otherwise OK. No difference at the moment (it's in the manual, by the way...) and no difference planned in the future AFAIK: EW phenomena making this mode useful are not modeled in DCS. ++ Az'

Oh, of course. I was looking up front, don't know why. The FBW test is OK (actually, it's a bit too nice at the moment) The AP test never ends (no green or red light => bug) but it doesn't let you stuck with red AP alarm anymore either, so it's better.

What is the test panel?

Well, given that Zeus is working on the radar now, there was no point in publishing numbers for the M-2000 yet. Anyway, the test is simple, you can make you own if you wanna. My method: flying the fighter myselft, having the target as AI with options set in mission editor so that it flies straight ahead and does not react to my radar + using DCS pause as soon as I get something (radar contact / STT capability) and LotAtc 4 DCS to get range measures accurate and replicable.

Probably the Oxygen Flow Indicator. Yep. It's white, it's not a light. ;)

Yes. But if I understood correctly what Zeus said about it, Razbam doesn't intend to develop their own air-to-ground radar, they are waiting for ED to make such a feature available; as ED is doing it for the F/A-18C, it will probably take some time (monthes). As far as I'm concerned, the RDI being mostly an air-to-air radar, I feel I can wait. Nope. No such thing. Yep. I don't think so. Last version of the FM matches a lot of available sources and got praised. There is still a bit of work regarding ground handling (even if it's already much better than before) and auto-pilot, but overall it's on the good path. This FM is probably more difficult than other because it needs a supplementary "layer" of complexity: the aircraft is unstable, and needs FBW to be flown. The CoG was adjusted several weeks ago, but then other linked features needed to be re-done. It would indeed. Probably some did it already, but not on public forums (or not in English) ;) Well, I hope it's not a matter of national pride, because that wouldn't be the way to go. Setting this aside, let me write just a few remarks: 1/ Perhaps the most important thing: as of today, the MiG-29 in DCS has a SFM. And the M-2000's EFM is still being tuned (AFAIK not on performances but we never know). So it's not "fair" to try to compare those planes at the moment in DCS. The real comparizon would be much better once the MiG-29 gets its PFM, and once the M-2000's FM is out of beta. 2/ MiG-29 vs F-16 was documented (post Germany reunification); bottom line is MiG can be dangerous in CAC. 3/ M-2000 vs F-16: in CAC, the M-2000 can take quickly advantage due to its better ITR and win. But if the fight continues "too long", the STR and lower thrust of the M-2000 makes the F-16 regain and probably wins. 4/ MiG-29 vs M-2000 is not documented AFAIK; but we can assume that those 3 fighters are in the same league, and that there is no one crushing the other ones. This could be a topic on its own (and I'm sure it was already done on fan-websites around the world, but then again, was national pride set aside? Really not sure ;)). ++ Az'

Bonjour à tous, Il y a deux ans, ED lançait un appel aux volontaires pour la traduction FR de DCS ; une équipe a été mise en place à la suite, et depuis deux ans, un gros boulot a été abattu avec : :thumbup: - le manuel de DCS World en lui-même (éditeur), sur la base du travail de l'équipe précédente (qui n'avait malheureusement pas été publié à l'époque) - le simu en lui-même (interface, éditeur, options, commandes, écrans, messages, encyclopédie...) quasi intégralement refondu ; il reste quelques trous dans la raquette et ça évolue régulièrement, mais le gros est fait. - le manuel et les missions & campagne du Su-25T - le manuel du Su-27 ; les missions et campagne sont en cours de relecture - le manuel du P-51D/TF-51D et les quelques missions du TF-51D Bien sûr, vous bénéficiez aussi des missions & campagne du A-10C traduites précédemment par l'équipe C6. :thumbup: D'autres travaux sont en cours, comme le manuel du FW-190D9 ou le site web DCS par exemple. :detective: Mais il reste du boulot ! Si la Gazelle est d'origine en FR+EN (bravo à l'équipe Polychop !), de nombreux autres modules sont publiés par des équipes qui ne disposent pas de francophones en leur sein. Chez ED ou BST, le L-39, le tout récent F-5E, le futur F/A-18C sont de gros morceaux. Et je n'évoque pas les autres tierces parties (indépendantes)... Pour en venir à bout, l'équipe de traduction souhaite recruter deux ou trois personnes supplémentaires, et je lance donc aujourd'hui un nouvel appel à candidatures. Les qualités requises : lire et comprendre l'anglais "technique" des manuels et du simu ; un petit bagage aéronautique vous facilitera la vie, sinon c'est l'occasion de découvrir et comprendre plein de trucs ! savoir déjouer les pièges de la traduction (contresens...) et écrire correctement en français (orthographe, grammaire ; "sa marche" = Nooooonnnn). pouvoir assurer un minimum de dispos parce qu'à un rythme trop lent, on perd le fil ; concrètement il faut pouvoir consacrer 2-3 heures par semaine à la trad (en moyenne) et s'engager dans la durée pour être efficace. avoir envie de filer un coup de main bénévole à la communauté, et obtenir en retour amour, gloire et beauté (offre non remboursable). :wub: Si vous avez envie de filer un coup de main pour le développement de notre simu, et d'aider la communauté francophone (pas toujours au top en anglais) à faire vivre notre loisir, il vous suffit de faire acte de candidature en envoyant un MP, soit à moi directement, soit auprès de Groove (en anglais SVP). Les volontaires se verront ensuite proposer un petit "test" à l'entrée (2-3 pages à traduire), et si ça colle vous serez amenés à signer un NDA avec ED (ça ne fait pas mal : je suis toujours vivant ;)), car si les traducteurs sont bénévoles, ils disposent d'accès à des outils spécifiques et informations en avant-première, dont nous n'avons pas le droit de parler en public (mais c'est sympa, on voit les bugs avant les autres :D). Tenté ? A vous de jouer !! :thumbsup: Questions ? N'hésitez pas à les poser, ici-même ou par MP. :) Vous pouvez aussi discuter avec l'un des membres de l'équipe en place, Cameleon33, Bad CRC, FireHuey, Quent et Luzi, ou des anciens comme Cedaway, Maraudeur ou Psycho, pour ne pas avoir que mon son de cloche. ++ Az'

Well, this is consistent with test we made on FC aircraft and comparisons with the M-2000C. As Zeus said, the distances are function of fighter(radar) and target(RCS). For example, from above-mentionned tests: Situation = both aircraft @ 8000m (above sea to avoid ground clutter/mountains), head on aspect (+radar in HPRF for the fighter), non-maneuvering, no ECM. Distances in km. 1/ different fighters, same target: [TABLE]Fighter | Target | Detection_distance | STT_distance F-15C | Tu-22 | 219 | 185 MiG-29S | Tu-22 | 138 | 116[/TABLE] => The F-15C radar is more powerful than the MiG-29's one. 2/ same fighter, different targets: [TABLE]Fighter | Target | Detection_distance | STT_distance F-15C | Tu-22 | 219 | 185 F-15C | MiG-29S | 117 | 99[/TABLE] => The RCS of the Tu-22 is larger than the MiG-29's one. => indeed, RCS of targets in DCS: Tu-22: 60m² MiG-29S: 5m² QED ;)

No no that's not what I'm saying. Of course ground masks are implemented. I was only talking about determining if the target is in look-up or in look-down (= is my radar using doppler filter i.e. is it prone to be blinded by a notch/beam?). For this (and this only) I think ED uses a "radar horizon" and I don't think (I can be mistaken) that this radar horizon takes relief into account. This is old memory from FC or FC2. ++ Az'