Weta43

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...

Not that I know of. to work out the origin for the coordinates I just put 3 units on the map - 1 as a reference point, one south of that, one east, then looked in the .miz file to work out where the coordinate origin is, the units & which direction is positive. put a flight (and/or anything else you want) in a mission, edit the coordinates to have them appear somewhere else relative to the coordinate origin

As pointed out above, your thread title & OP come across to native English speakers as negative and provocative, and your idea that because some very niche areas are missing (though a couple of the things you've said are missing are not) the sim should be abandoned is neither constructive nor realistic. You have a right to express your wishes (though why you would wish to deny everyone else the ability to fly DCS & call on E.D. to terminate their business because you personally have niggles about their product is beyond me). If you express them carelessly, people have a right to be offended. You did, they are. Edit: True there is no world map, but it's not a Far Cry map - there's no destruct mechanism if you leave the map's populated area. If you're prepared to air start, you can start any distance from the target & refuel on the way in as many times as you want. I have entered the coordinates on the F-18, taken off from Iran & landed in Kabul... WMD already exist (in a variety of forms), and can be further simulated with triggers. All other weapon types except chemical and biological are already able to be added, and those two could again be affected using triggers or scripts. There's noting in the simulation of the atmosphere, flight models or propulsion in DCS that stops this. You could have a U-2 in DCS if someone made a module, there's just no use for it. There's also nothing to stop you modelling an X-15 & getting your astronaut badge if you want to, just no one with the skills thinks it's a good idea.

or, turn your desk so the window is in front of you, and make sure you don't have anything shiny (glass picture frames) behind you. As Los said - bring up the camera, see what's causing the problem & either remove that or adjust the camera settings till you don't pick up the reflections by accident.

They have, & home is home. That said, I'm surprised no one* has signed a contract to take the existing Su-27 or MiG-29 & produce an official mod (like the J-11), but mod in the full PSM and new DCS radar modelling using APIs that will presumably exist between the work E.D. & third parties have done on other aircraft, Developer avoids the risks of developing / maintaining the FM / ground handling / artwork, sells it as a full price module & pay E.D a royalty for each unit sold... *no one - like a wholly owned subsidiary in the us or uk "MattWag" developers :)