King_Hrothgar

Agreed. The newsletter is nice, don't get me wrong. But I really do think they need to focus their efforts a bit more and actually release some of it. I'd much rather a series of smaller updates focusing on individual elements than wait indefinitely for a single big update that covers everything. That said, the videos are a nice touch. The sense of speed down low is very good. Can't wait to fly down the strip in a Ka-50. :P

March update: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=141046 It's a 19 page threadnaught.

We had the March newsletter. The only one we are missing is the April one and April isn't over yet.

I assumed the system was mostly mechanical thus not requiring anything but battery power. The test itself isn't actually relevant, the OP and I are only trying to find out if the synchronizer's effect on weapon rate of fire is modeled or not. The lua code suggests it is but doesn't confirm.

It doesn't necessarily fire at every propeller opening. That would depend on how the gear is setup. Even if it were, that still doesn't mean the weapon fires at max RoF. If the weapon misses the firing chance on a blade pass by even a tiny fraction of a second, it must wait for the next one. In any case, this couldn't be simpler to test in game for anyone who has the module. Simply switch the engine off after running it and as the prop winds down, fire the synchronized guns. It will either fire at the full rate of fire, or it will be visibly synchronized with the propeller.

You have to turn on ground power first. The battery is insufficient to run the starter.

I think the question was is this modeled in DCS or not. At full RPM, it shouldn't be an issue as you said. But with the engine idling or running at reduced RPM, it should be fairly noticeable. I don't have either the Fw-190 or Bf-109 modules here, so I'm also curious as to if the changes in RoF are modeled or not.

Press numpad 5 to center view in DCS. Use the center key in TIR software to center the TIR as well. If those two don't do it, center the view manually and then press right alt + numpad 0 to save the location as default view.

The MiG-21 has A-G capability as does the Su-27, MiG-29, F-86, MiG-15, upcoming F-14's and Mirage 2000C. If by A-G capability you mean laser guided weapons specifically, then that may have to wait for the F-18C.

Given that mirrors currently cut FPS nearly in half for most systems, it should have a toggle key regardless of how it works in real life.

1) I'm sure there are profiles floating around the input/output and hardware sections. That said, I recommend making your own. Doing so allows you to create commonality among plane controls where as using others profiles, you're at the mercy of whatever they happen to have. 2) Entirely dependent on your budget and how patient you are. ED just had its spring sale, it will likely be 2-3 months before the next one. If you do decide to pick one up at full price, the A-10C, Ka-50 and FC3 can keep you busy for a while. The A-10C and Ka-50 are sufficiently complex to require many hours to master. FC3 planes are all pretty basic like the SU-25T, but there are a lot of them and they all take a little time to figure out. Each has its own campaign too.

Depends on the plane but generally yes, rudder steers the nose wheel.

I agree with the review. It has a wonderful FM, is pretty and overall well made. But the lack of content does detract greatly from it. And no, expecting training missions and a campaign is not unreasonable. $50 for a single plane, not an entire game, does demand a bit more than just a plane and nothing else. This is especially true for simple planes like the MiG-15. Everyone except BST seems to get this. Don't get me wrong, I still like the MiG-15. But they either need to up their content or drop their prices (full price, not sale price) to reflect the lack of content.

That shouldn't be an issue tbh, DX11 has been standard for both Nvidia and ATI for 6 years. I don't think there are any DX9 cards that meet the current vram requirements.

It's not an A-6 Intruder's landing gear. It looks absolutely nothing like that. But yeah, an A-6 would be a nice addition.

I didn't mean MSCFS, I simply meant another CFS since mentioning any other game by name tends to draw the ire of the various moderators. The CFS's I was referring to are Rise of Flight and IL2: Battle of Stalingrad. Both feature prop wash. Not sure about additional turbulence caused by the plane, but prop wash has been a feature there since the beginning or close to it. I don't know how detailed they model it either, but it's very obvious when trying to follow another plane closely directly behind their engine/propeller. BTW, it isn't that shaking nonsense you speak of. WT does that and I can't say I'm a fan of it either. RoF and BoS do something, it's convincing but as said, I don't know the details of how. The end effect is it tends to make staying right behind them difficult, but it isn't because of shaking. It's more of a pushing thing, if that makes sense. It's hard to describe.

They thought it would be released last December as of last December (no, that is not a typo). In the February newsletter it was pushed to June or July I think. We haven't heard anything since.

Not everything is screenshot material. At some point they have to build a proper FM for it. They could post a screenshot of notepad filled with C++ code, but that wouldn't be terribly exciting.

Another CFS and its offshoot has modeled it for 5+ years now, why can't DCS do it to? That said, I'd prefer ED simply get the new graphics engine out and shelve everything else till afterwards. Feature creep is a great way to kill all sorts of projects, especially software related ones.

Given how dodgy ground handling is in DCS, I suspect water handling would be disappointing at best without some major code revisions on ED's part. It is certainly possible to do though. RoF added seaplanes a couple years ago and really nailed it, I'm sure ED could do the same if they put the effort in to make it happen. I think a more realistic request would be to have a line of zeroes. The A6M2, A6M3, A6M3 clipped wing and A6M5 are all very similar with only modest changes between them. That said, I'm not convinced we are getting a zero yet. It appears to be one of several possibilities.

It's not an AT-802U, if anyone was wondering. :P

Proving once and for all that Russian pilots do have jet packs... for emergency use only. :P

Using the same stick here, I am also going with a linear approach with the P-51D and everything else. Think I have maybe 10% curve on it too but might be completely flat. I'd have to look. Saturation for all controls is at the default 100%.

The only thing that really sticks out in Rudel's pic is that the lower bar perpendicular to the main strut is a little over half the length of the mostly parallel upper bar. The N1K2 pictured above doesn't match that pattern, the two bars are about the same length on it. The J2M looks like a closer match, but even that doesn't seem to line up right. Edit: I have to agree with Hummingbird, the dimensions don't look workable for a physical object. That strut couldn't compress much before the two bars bind on the strut itself and the bend for the wheel.

It's a landing gear of standard configuration from the 1930's to present day. Should be able to eliminate some of the speculated options though. Edit: Definitely not an F4U, F4F, F6F, F-4 Phantom, MiG-23, MiG-25, Su-17, Su-24 or F-111.