Weta43

& I disagree 100% These threads pop up from time to time... It seems to me a few people could try thinking beyond their own personal position, and about the lives other people live. I'm using this quote because it's right here, but the same points have been made many times by many people, so when I say 'You' I mean people holding this position generally, not JumpinK exclusively... How about this: Entertainment & relaxation. Some people don't want to pretend that they're fighter pilots, they just want to experience what it would be like to control an aircraft in flight. Over the years I've read posts from a member on these forums that's been posting for more than a decade, and at least until recently they'd never flown online (& the reality is that as loud as the MP community is, they are a small portion of the actual player-base & are vastly outnumbered by SP players) or used the SIM for combat. they just flew FC3 aircraft in free flight (& I get the impression often air start) - yet they get enough enjoyment from that to stay with DCS for the long haul. Now by your reasoning, they, and those SP players like them should either abandon DCS completely, or stick to the Yak & leave anything with complicated systems (So any jet fighter) to those with the time to learn them. Yes ? PFM + SSM = an insult to 'hard core simmers' ? That's fine if you're single & childless, but if your free time after working 60 hours a week and looking after the kids is snatching an hour a week if you're lucky ? There's no way you're going to have time to master and stay current on the systems & skills needed to 'fly' the hornet module effectively - & you're saying that person isn't showing enough commitment for them to be worthy of flying DCS ? DCS: Working class single parents need not apply :) ? Nor should well coordinated people with dyslexia ? Or people with physical disabilities who despite being quite capable of learning and mastering all the systems & engine management of the P-51 in flight and combat, will never be able to take off and land a tail-dragger without rudder assist on or top up the F/A-18C from a tanker ? & honestly - if there really is no other reason for people using assist beyond just not being motivated enough to spend a couple of days/weeks/months getting proficient with the systems before they blow sh*t up, what I really don't understand is - if they're doing it in single player, or an MP server that you're not invited to, how is it any skin off your nose at all? You have no way of actually knowing it's even happening, it just offends you that it's happening in your imagination. Your argument essentially boils down to "I want to be able to say I'm part of a small group that have been able to devote the time to mastering these systems, and if some people can use the systems in easy mode, people might think I do too & not recognise the effort I've put in. DCS will become a game for the masses !" If it were to become a game of the masses - with scalable difficulty all the way from full simulation to casual gaming, the most probable outcome - which doesn't seem like such a bad thing to me - is that E.D. will stay in business & develop new modules & maps, and attract new developers. & that's a problem because ???

I have them and don't use a curve...

Real World Pilot not too far from your post:

.....and this image showing it in game

I remember I used to have trouble with that, but haven't for a long time... I think there's something happens if you exceed the authority of the AP by too much or for too long... e.g. If you enable auto hover, then fly away having forgotten you did, at some point the AP will disengage and turn off all the AP channels. Are you flying without trimming ? Eventually that might do it too.

I think maybe they should get the integration to work effectively and reasonably realistically, and then think about adding GUI for CA Players. First things first....

North Cape, Tromsø to Murmansk ? (NATO + ) Norway, Sweden, Finland & Russia

No, the aim was never to "replac(e) time consuming and tedious tasks with shortcuts". The aim was simulating the presence of a crewmember who's responsibility it is to know where the aircraft is - a navigator. In the Huey, and in the Mi-8 (the aircraft they were introduced for), the pilot shouldn't be burying their head in a map trying to dead reckon their position, and nor should it be them setting the course and distance into the Mi-8 nav system. If you were flying 2 up in the Mi-8 or Huey and using the kneeboard marker - yes, maybe you'd be using a cheat. If you're flying solo in MP and trying to both navigate and fly - you're placing an unrealistic workload on the pilot of the aircraft, and are further from simulating the actual experience of a multi-crew aircraft than if you just used the kneeboard as a proxy for asking the co-pilot or navigator to tell you where you are, and where you're supposed to be going...

Got some specific examples of incorrect aircraft performance & incorrect gauge readings ? (Excepting the Huey - which has known, discussed issues & is being corrected).

:-) You have a more generous view of corporate morals than I see evidence of them deserving... From their point of view it's not a BS reason if it increases return to shareholder - that's what 'defence' companies exist to do... Supplying equipment with which to defend the country is a means to an end, not the end in itself. Thanks to some Republican lawmaker I can't remember the name of, company directors have for some years had a legal obligation to maximise returns to shareholders. Social goods like better defence for the country or a safer flight for a pilot are not reasonable goals for a company to strive for beyond the point where achieving them generates additional revenue :-) If refusing to acknowledge fault and labelling a software glitch a feature saves some millions in actual remediation costs, and possibly saves some billions in lost future earnings by avoiding reputational damage from publicity, that's the proper course for a board & their managers to take to the very outer limits of what the law will allow - even if it leaves service men and women vulnerable. The bottom line is not BS to a defence contractor.

You’re taking it too seriously and fooling yourself into thinking you’re doing something more serious than you’re really doing, when you tell yourself that an aid to assist single players fly an aircraft designed to be flown by a crew of 2 or 3 is a ‘cheat’.

You’re taking it too seriously and fooling yourself into thinking you’re doing something more serious than you’re really doing, when you tell yourself that an aid to assist single players fly an aircraft designed to be flown by a crew of 2 or 3 is a ‘cheat’. Edit: I do agree though, that if some folk want to disable this option in MP for single seat aircraft, or go hardcore “ ‘leet “ and ban it for choppers and multi-seat aircraft too, that should be an option...

They were introduced with the Huey, which has someone acting as 'Navigator' to assist the pilot. Same for Mi-8. The feeling was that it's less realistic for the pilot to be trying to both fly and navigate in those aircraft than it is to have the markers for a single player. I think this still stands for MP servers now. It would make sense to have the ability to limit its use for single seat aircraft....

Same issue in this thread. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3878271#post3878271 Seems didn't quite work out. Regardless of the version that the updater tries to update to, the updater freezes at : Try re-naming the .Mods/aircraft/FA-18C/Missions folders to .Mods/aircraft/FA-18C/Missions_old That got the updater to stop freezing

Same issue, same message... Seems didn't quite work out.

Pretty sure someone posted some V/T graphs in this forum section showing that when lofted, the missile does arrive at a distant target (in SIM) with a greater velocity (having dived from altitude), and so greater manoeuvrability, & in principal greater effectiveness.

Seems so - different translation with the comment it responded to:

It’ True, the versions of the R-27 modelled will stay at the 80’s - 90’s version they are and will not receive any features, performance improvements or capabilities tha those versions did not have, because:

So you know the answer to the question you asked, and you're just demonstrating your superior knowledge of terminology ? Or trolling ?

Isn't that what you'd expect with mechanical linkages ? If there's a mechanical linkage, then if the cyclic is off to one side, the blade angles are uneven and if it's in the middle, the blade angles are (as) symmetrical (as they're designed to be for normal flight). So, if in flight you deflect the cyclic off to the side (ignoring the AP for a minute), it generates a torque that tips the aircraft over to that side until the torque in the opposite direction caused by the body of the aircraft being displaced out from under its suspension point counters the torque caused by the asymmetrical blade angles. & There you stay until you centre the cyclic... If while banked you were to then put the stick back to centre, blade angles become symmetrical(ish), the torque that caused the roll would disappear and then the weight of the body of the aircraft displaced from its natural position hanging under the rotor, would provide a torque that rolled the aircraft back to level with the COG under the point of suspension. The only exception I could see to that would be if you were turning coordinated at high speed, and the centrifugal force on the body might be enough to hold the COG off at an angle to its point of suspension....

I had a little rant here about the dangers of taking the word of apparent authority figures, but I've removed it.

I have no idea what expertise you have to say that. Are you an F-18 pilot in real life ? My guess is that probably depends very much on the weight of the aircraft and the surface you're braking on. The maximum torque the brakes can exert on the wheel to stop it is fixed, but the amount of friction the tyres create - & so the torque exerted to keep the wheel spinning - is proportional to the weight of the aircraft, so more weight, harder to stop but less likelihood of a skid. Wet runways drastically reduce the coefficient of friction... Either way, in game anti-skid does stop skids from happening in the wet. Edit - I only tried in the wet. Someone had already made a video of the F-18 skidding in DCS in the dry with the anti-skid off. jw1Da0LKN9s

It makes very little difference in the dry because the brakes don't cause skids on a surfaces with good traction. If they don't skid anyway, anti-skid makes no difference. Try landing heavy in the wet and sitting on full brakes all the way down the runway. Without antiskid the aircraft will start to skid as it slows and spin out, with antiskid it will maintain directional control. Antiskid.trk No_Antiskid.trk No_Antiskid_2.trk

Missile contrails (as opposed to smoke trails)

My understanding is (& I posted some photos I'd made to demonstrate it is so in an earlier thread) that the refraction should shift the image down to the bottom of what is currently the bar, but that (because there's no magic involved) you don't somehow get to magically see over the nose for the shot you're after. If the sight is leading correctly, and it's below the bar as currently modelled, well even if the refraction were modelled, the sight would now be out the bottom of your view. Like so: where the left view is the real world, the middle view is where the refraction displaces the image, and the right is how ED have treated it (with the green being the 'bar'). In all cases, your field of view, and the point at which the sight passes out the image are the same...