shagrat

You mean game designer? The difference is, we fly a hardcore simulation that tries very hard to replicate the real world and not a balanced, entertainment experience that you expect from a game. Real conflict is a constant boredom, waiting for the short time of life threatening "entertainment", when someone tries to kill you. Some people play simulations to replicate real life experience, otherwise they would likely play one of the dozens of entertaining aircraft games available to suite the modern action addict with a 30 second attention span. Usually mission designers in DCS already compromise a lot to reduce the boring part, but we need to realize that DCS is in no way a multiplayer online action game. There is a lot of people out there that would find the 20-30 minutes startup, mission preparation and task planning before even take off, boring. I also know people who are happy sitting in a Huey, listening to the comms and watch the team bomb stuff in F2/F7 view, while waiting for an ejection and subsequent CSAR to happen. I personally often hop into a JTAC slot when I got shot down and guide attacks on ground units, lase targets or jump into a IFV, Tank or Humvee taking out ground forces. One really fun scenario is a CAS mission with a village/confined area that has a human ground commander/JTAC and some flights of fast air supporting the ground forces to clear that area. While some aircraft run in on targets, some need to hit a tanker, or rearm, while you want a constant support and a plane with just a GBU-12 left, may not enough to safe the day. Another way to have fun is switching slots, especially when doing the ground commander role... And I have to say, sitting in a Humvee and watching/ hearing bombs drop danger close, jets howling overhead or the A-10C brrrrrt followed by the hailstorm of metal walking over an enemy group closing in on your position is definitely not boring for me.

Another option, if it's only the windows calibration, there was a way to delete the stored calibration for a HID device. If you are lucky windows simply remembers the controller ID and tried to "load" its messed up calibration. Slim chance, as you said you used the TM calibration tool... But at least it won't hurt to reset/delete the windows calibration. Found it: "Find your controller and right-click it. Select “Game Controller Settings” from the drop-down menu. Select “Properties” from the new window. On the “Settings” tab, select “Reset to Default."

First do not(!) calibrate the Thrustmaster stick or throttle, unless asked to, by a technician from Thrustmaster during a support session. There are explicit statements in the manual, that the stick usually does not need any calibration by the end user under normal circumstances and warning not to use the windows calibration utility under any circumstances. Second, where did you get the calibration tool? Did you check and update the firmware, before attempting to mess the factory calibration up? If not you should update the firmware, I had a similar issue once, as the firmware was older than the calibration tool. Take care to unplug any other game controller, rudder etc. and follow the steps in the guide. If you are lucky, you can calibrate the stick after that. If not they may be so kind and replace the stick again. Link to Firmware update manual: https://ts.thrustmaster.com/download/accessories/pc/hotas/manual/HOTAS_Warthog/HWarthog_Firmware_Update.pdf

V-Sync is unnecessary and provides no benefit when G-Sync/FreeSync is active. All these Sync technologies (simplified explanation) synchronize the monitor refresh rate and the video card frame output, so the monitor refresh happens, when a complete rendered frame is ready to be sent to the monitor. V-Sync tries to do this by dividing the monitor refresh rate by 2 (so 60 fps, 30 fps, 15 fps) if the card can't provide the next higher frame rate, so if the card drops to 58 fps it enforces 30 fps. G-Sync and FreeSync etc. can set the Monitor refresh rate to exact fps the video card can manage at the time so you always refresh a complete frame when it's ready. If it drops to 58 fps the monitor will refresh at 58 Hz. The effect is, that no tearing if the screen happens. The subjective "effect" is, that the frame rate "looks" smooth and even fps down to less than 30 fps don't look that stuttering anymore, as there is always the complete frame refreshed. One important thing you can try, is to press ALT+ENTER to force Windows to run DCS with full screen mode. It happens, especially with multi monitor setups. This has nothing to do with Sync modes or DCS.

Ruderpedale sind 1, bzw. 3 (mit Bremspedalen) Achsen. Du gehst in die Controller Einstellungen und stellst sicher, dass du "Achsen" ausgewählt hast und suchst die Spalte mit den Pedalen. Dort wählst du in der Spalte das Feld mit "Ruder"/"Seitenruder" oder so ähnlich aus, doppelklickst und bewegst die Pedal-Achse mehrmals auf Anschlag nach rechts und links, bis die Achse erkannt wird. Meist rZ/rY o.ä. bei den "Radbremsen Rechts" und "Links" verfährst du ähnlich. Es kann sein, dass du die Bremspedal-Achsen invertieren musst. Das siehst du in game, wenn du mit RSTRG+RETURN die Achsen anzeigen lässt und die Bremsen in Ruhestellung voll getreten sind. Im DCS Installationsordner meist c:\Programme\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Docs findest du auch eine Anleitung zum Einrichten der Controller/Joysticks/HOTAS und sonstiger Interface-Geräte. Da ist auch die Anleitung zu DCS versteckt.

Very good and in depth explanation. Thanks for taking the time to post this.

Yeah, just read the section... so Lockout gives you manual control over the engine in case the ECU/DEC has problems, but overspeed protection will then kill the engine for you, if you exceed max Np, right? So, in Lockout you need to carefully monitor the TGT and Np while in normal ops the ECU/DEC adapt the engine performance to give you everything you need, based on collective settings, as long as you're not getting close to tripping the overspeed protection?

Well, I can just point out what an Apache Pilot wrote and my knowledge how a transmission works. Torque is the limiting factor. The limit for the torque usually has a safety margin, to prevent the transmission to break immediately, if bad things happen, but once you exceed the safety margin you will damage the transmission or other part in the chain. To put more power/force (from the engine) it is not the engine limitation or worrying about damaging the engine, but the force working against the rotor (drag) creating tremendous torque on the whole transmission/driveshaft/rotorhead. And I may be no helicopter pilot, but it seems damaging/breaking that is way worse than a damaged engine. In lockout you will have the same engine power available that the ECU usually manages for you to keep the optimum RPM to transfer the right amount of power to the rotor. The difference is you now need to manage collective and throttle, watch engine RPM, torque and rotor RPM. I can't see any advantage in the engine putting out more power, than the transmission can handle... but it is a simulation, so no one dies. You can use lockout as much as you want.

You missed the point. More power from the engine means more force on the drive/rotorshaft, as in the rotor separates from the aircraft... Too much engine power at a certain rotor RPM does not speed up the rotor, but breaks it, that's what the torque gauge is showing. If at any phase in flight or even when starting the engine you exceed the torque limits beyond the safety margins the shaft/transmission will break, instead of speeding up the rotor.

The thing is, it doesn't matter, because the engine "limit" or engine RPM is not related to lift or speed in a helicopter. The only thing relevant, is torque vs rotor RPM and more power doesn't necessarily mean more rotor RPM. It can easily get to more power = exceed torque limit and destroy the rotor transmission, which would be bad... As in worse than a drooping rotor. Lockout would simply have you manage engine RPM including, torque and rotor RPM, so now you need to do the job of the ECU in addition to managing just torque limits.

The point is not to debate, that this conditions are "possible" or even likely. The question was if mission designers could get an option to manually adjust the wind speed if they want to represent "rare/terrain" conditions. An easy way would be to only adjust the 1600ft value automatically, if the 33ft value is changed and if the mission designer willingly chooses to edit the 1600ft value it does not automatically adjust the 33ft value. Add an info box telling you that this "can cause issues" and everybody can cater their preferences. Flexibility to test and train extremes as well as standard situation without harm to pilot or aircraft is a key point in having a simulator.

He does switch zoom levels. But I agree it would be nice to have him zoom in on a designation to give the pilot a close look to PID the target and BDA. If this would be emphasized in the logic, without fiddling with settings that would be even better. I find myself struggling most of the time to identify if the "SAM" currently designated is a real SAM, a MANPAD or AAA.

Unfortunately we can't jump into the backseat in Multiplayer... So either Jester gets the job done, or we need a proficient human RIO on standby that has no family, job or life? Honestly the option to bind the throttle ministick axis' or keys to the "head control" sounds like a pretty precise alternative, for those who struggle with "head control". I am not sure it's possible,but the option to switch seats in multiplayer by setting "solo flight" in the Mission Editor, is a pretty intriguing option.

Yep, and the rate is perfect as it is. Ahh, wait a minute. You mean a zone on the edge, were you could keep full slew rate, so you don't need to be perfectly aligned with the circle! Sorry, yes, that's a good idea.

Not sure speeding up the rate towards the edges is a good idea, as glancing at instruments would always cross the "full-rate" zone on the edge. That may slew the cross a bit too far away. The current rate combined with quick head movement should leave the cross pretty close to the intended ground track. The idea is to quickly check something or flip a switch in the cockpit and when you look back inside the circle it picks up close from where you left the cross. So the workflow would be slew the cross over a compound, move head up and fly the aircraft to a position to peek into the walls/entrance, head down into the circle again and slew onto the target. Glance at speed, course and altitude for roll in parameters, if it's ok head down and designate - if not go around and reposition, then fine tune the cross and designate... All without the need to call the menu more than once, when selecting head control.

May be this question was missed, so I'll ask again. When using the direct head movement, currently once you have looked inside the red circle (the dot poined inside the circle) it stays in control mode (slewing the pod), even when looking outside the circle again. This makes it impossible to quickly look up, check instruments or whatever, unless you designate the point currently looking at. It would far more flexible to only move the pod while the dot is inside the circle. You could quickly look up or to a console and then back into the circle to resume slewing the pod.

Seeing the same here. Maybe it's possible to put in a "chance" to right away spot a target(s) 100% under the crosshair and reduces when Jester needs to "search", so when he directly looks at a target(s) on the initial LANTIRN screen zoomed in, he has a higher chance to "see" targets without searching. This would reflect human, also. You point the LANTIRN, look at the screen, zoom in if there's a "blob" and then, if it isn't a target you start searching.

Nope, was a clear statement in the release notes. No map objects, as off now. What you can do, is "eyeball" the rough location, then slew it with "head control" over the Tower and designate.

First, thanks for this functionality. Such a great addition. I found two issues. I can't get the Map Marker to work, it seems. Are there any requirements, like being in range? Still didn't have much time, just tried in two different sessions. When using the direct head movement, currently once you looked inside the red circle it stays in control mode, even when looking outside the circle again. This makes it impossible to quickly look up, check instruments or whatever, unless you designate the point currently looking at. It would far more flexible to only move the pod while the dot is inside the circle. You could quickly look up or to a console and then back into the circle to resume slewing the pod. Ah, and I support the request to tell Jester to zoom in/out with the pod in an attempt to identify stuff on the screen or get a better view of the area around the designation.

Only on the ground. If you fly formation in multiple Huey's it's glorious! And for ground units/zones it would be fantastic to add audio into the environment. Crew chief shouting, PA announcement, air raid alarm, etc.

Better solution would be a "sound from unit/zone" so we could place sounds in the environment or on a specific unit... am I the only one thinking of some "Ride of the Valkyrie" droning from a Huey at low level?

Ich bezog mich jetzt auf das von dir verlinkte Dokument: (...)"EDIT: hier schnell der Link, falls sich jemand dafür interessiert: https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN14459_TC 3-04x11 C1 INCL FINAL WEB.pdf "(...)

In dem Training Program (das btw. alle Luftfahrzeuge der Army inkl. Drohnen abdeckt und nicht spezifisch für den AH-64) werden Pilot in Command, Instructor Pilot, Maintenance Officer, Safety Officer, Master Gunner usw. als "status" (im Sinne einer Qualifizierung) bezeichnet. Ich bin auch etwas irritiert, weil mein Verständnis von PC/AC war, dass er das Luftfahrzeug führt, allerdings scheint das nicht der Fall zu sein, sondern PC/IP etc. beschreibt die Qualifikation als z.B. PC (Ausgebildet sein Luftfahrzeug zu führen) und nicht zwingend die Rolle in der Maschine. Es können wohl durchaus beide Crewmitglieder PC und parallelauch IP sein, einer könnte in der Einheit sogar zusätzlich SO sein, aber die Befehlsgewalt in der Maschine wird vor dem Einsatz festgelegt (kann dynamisch delegiert werden, was eigentlich immer geht) und i.d.R. führt der Frontseater die Kiste, weil es "Sinn macht". Letztlich wollte ich eigentlich nur den Gedanken anstoßen, ob es eigentlich so sinnig ist die George AI vom Backseat zu befehlen, oder es nicht schlauer (realistischer) vom Frontseat dem Piloten zu sagen wo er hinfliegen, hovern, aufpeppen soll? Letztlich lernen wir mit "George vorne" gleich eine unrealistische und nachteilige Art das Luftfahrzeug zu führen.

Denk dran, das meint zum Release, nicht im Early Access. Die Übersetzung benötigt ja ein englisches Handbuch, welches im Early Access eigentlich immer noch geändert, ergänzt und komplettiert wird. So wie auch bei den anderen Modulen.

Es ist auch unerheblich, ob der Frontseater nur Aircraft Commander ist oder Flight Lead. Es ging um die Tatsache, dass es nicht sinnvoll und daher unüblich ist, einen AH-64 von Rearseat zu kommandieren. Zusätzliche Workload für den Piloten, kein direkter Zugriff auf Sensoren/Zielerfassung und die Notwendigkeit so wenig wie möglich Heads down auf die MFDs zu starren. Der Backseater verteidigt im Gefecht das Luftfahrzeug, dazu muss er das Umfeld beobachten und z.B. angefeuerte MANPADs erkennen. Klar, schadet es nicht, wenn der Frontseater sowas sieht, und meldet, aber der hat halt eher seinen Kopf über dem TEDAC. Es gab dazu meine ich schon ein Statement, dass das (in VR) wählbar sein wird, so wie bei den anderen Flugzeugen. Also Links/Rechts/Beide. Ist ja letztlich auch dieselbe Implementierung wie beim JHMCS oder Scorpion.