Crescendo

:doh: What an incredible thing to say. Thanks for missing the point, for failing to charitably interpret someone else's position, and, worst of all, for making it even less likely that this sort of knowledge will be passed down in the future. --- Thank you to the members of the 476th for sharing this information.

You're not wrong, you will definitely get adverse yaw when rolling the A-10 despite the SAS having a rudder channel. The SAS controls for adverse yaw fairly well when you roll slowly, but it will struggle when you roll quickly (this exceeds the rudder channel's control authority I assume), and it seems worse at lower speeds. I might be wrong, but my feeling is that in earlier betas the SAS rudder channel did a much better job of 'stepping on the ball' automatically. I very rarely noticed adverse yaw in the early betas. I don't recall the exact release number when it changed, but there was a point at which I thought to myself "Wow, I'm really noticing more adverse yaw now" and this was confirmed by noting a greater amount of ball movement. I figured this was a more realistic implementation of the SAS system and forgot about it. There days I mostly just watch my speed and am a little more gentle on the roll rate (if not in combat of course). If I want to roll quickly sometimes I'll also give it some rudder manually to smooth out the ride.

I would highly discourage using auto-pilot when CCRP bombing, or when employing any other weapon in any other mode for that matter. It is careless, potentially dangerous, and is simply not necessary or even desirable for accurate weapons employment. There is no substitude for good airmanship and pilot awareness and any attempt to circumvent these things is hurting you in the long run.

This is by no means scientific, but I've logged on to check the servers 10-15 times over the last three days or so, and every time the A2A server has had 0 players. :( No such problems for the A2G server. I don't mind moving mud, but it is decidedly sterile without the aerial threat of dedicated player-controlled fighters. To each his own I suppose, but I find it surprising that the online community is so slanted towards PvE (player-versus-environment) gameplay. I welcome the experimentation, but if this trend continues I hope to see the return of the combined server. Futhermore, I would personally like to play some combined missions where there is an actual FLOT. I disagree with the prevailing philosophy of the A2G and A2A aircraft having their own segregated 'playgrounds'. It's unrealistic and 'carebear-ish', and is like war with training wheels. Before anyone gets upset, it goes without saying that this isn't my server — I'm just voicing my opinion as one faceless and insignificant online player. Obviously the administrators have found a balance between realism and accessability that they feel best accomodates the community's preferences. It would appear that PvE players make up the bulk of the playerbase, so perhaps this is the way it must be to have a routinely populated server. A realistic FLOT would frustrate these players because they would no longer be able to plink AI targets largely unmolested. I think that's a short-sighted way to look at it, but I can't fault people for what they find fun.

Nice work mate. I use your settings now! :beer:

In what way does using the jammer deny an early shot? In the real world it might if you have good ECM (F-15 etc), but in FC3 the burn-through range for a jamming contact is many miles beyond Rmax for BVR missiles. I'm willing to learn and be told otherwise, but I mainly fly the F-15 and I can't recall a situation where I've thought "This bandit is denying my shot by jamming."" If a contact is jamming it's not close enough to be worth firing a missile at in almost all circumstances (true high-to-high HOJ shots are rare). In my estimation the jammer is only useful in FC3 for disguising an aspect and height change, that's it. And maybe for denying or breaking a lock in rare circumstances as well. I use the jammer all the time, but it's not because I think it's a great and effective tool. For me, the jammer is just an annoying little hurdle to present to the enemy - who knows, maybe it will cause him to make a mistake or 'scare' him. I don't bet on this, however, because it certainly doesn't scare me and I'm not even that experienced.

I didn't know that, I will have to keep this in mind when using the radar in the future.

It's a holdover from the older Lock On and FC series and is more of a 'gamey' feature. I suppose ED wanted to ease people into flying in 3D while looking over your virtual shoulder. You could think of it as helmet mounted, but that's not really true because FC simulates a time before that technology was widespread. Personally I just turn it off. OPTIONS > GAMEPLAY > Uncheck "MINI-HUD" EDIT: Beaten by Rainbowed.

I do have one quibble with the above quote (yes, it's easier to destroy than to create ;)). If by "notching" you mean entering the dopper notch, it can't be done by staying within your radar gimbal limits. Judging by your advice I'm sure you already know this and simply got your jargon mixed-up, but for the benefit of others, an aircraft can only notch a hostile emitter by beaming the emission source in a look-down situation (you beam to enter the notch). In other words, to notch a threat is to fly perpendicular (90deg) to that threat at a lower altitude. The gimbal limit for a fighter radar is 60deg - that's 30deg short of perpendicular.

Open DCS World. It's in the OPTIONS > SYSTEM menu at the bottom-left.

I might be betraying my lack of knowledge about FC radar simulation, but surely if you have a target locked in STT mode setting the PRF will have no effect. How could it? The whole point of STT mode is keep track of one target as best as is possible. When in STT mode the FCR has all the information it needs to maintain the lock autonomously. In other words, the FCR knows exactly when the target's aspect and speed change and can thus make PRF adjustments accordingly (if adjusting the PRF is even needed in STT mode). If this is the way the real STT mode works, I suppose there must be a very good reason for it, because it seems like a horrible idea from a pilot workload standpoint! It makes sense to have the pilot adjust PRF when locating targets, but when STT mode is engaged it should take care of the rest!

Colours aside, setting "High Dynamic Range" (HDR) to off in the settings menu lessens the 'washed out' look of the HUD. However, this is only a marginal improvement. It seems to me that the 6DoF F-15 HUD tries too hard to be 'graphically fancy' at the cost of user-friendliness. I would much prefer a clearer-rendering HUD like the A-10C or the various other FC3 aircraft.

I'm glad someone bought this up because unless you realise that you can change the filters, it looks as if threads simply 'disappear' after a time. Furthermore, the Lock On forum seems to be the only forum where it defaults to this very strict time filter instead of the mode where it shows all threads no matter what ("Beginning"). I changed the filter on my own a while ago, so for me it is not an issue. However, I think the forum administrator should force the setting to "Beginning" as a default for everyone, otherwise people might get the false impression that this forum is dead or that threads disappear. In any case, this current setting is simply an inconsistency that should be addressed for a more logical and user-friendly experience.

Thanks. Bahger missions are pretty much an insta-download.

If you want to regularly watch your tacview replays on a tacview-disabled server, I find it best to quit the server as soon as you die or land after a sortie. This will generate one track per sortie, and will in turn prevent the tracks from getting too large in playback length. This is very important because if the tracks get too large they start to 'break down'. In short: split your tracks into chunks. This will make the tracks and in turn tacview perform much better. --- As an aside, I completely understand why some servers choose to disable tacview, but I just want to vent about how tedious it is to have to watch a replay just to get a tacview recording, even if you accelerate time. Tacview is such an invaluable tool for learing and debriefing, so it's very frustrating to have it hamstrung as a result of some unscrupulous types. Again, just venting.

If you don't want to use TARGET you can try setting your in-game throttle curves to the values I provided in post #12. However, it sounds like you don't want to use curves (I don't blame you - using curves is a painful workaround). As to your question, no, as far as I can tell there is no option to set the exact amount of axis travel where AB will kick in. That is precisely the kind of function I was originally hoping to find. Falcon 4.0 is a perfect example of this functionality. I suppose it could be a setting in a LUA file somewhere, but I haven't found one. Hopefully someone more knowledgeable regarding LUA has an idea.

To be clear, I have been checking both "All Controls" and "Axis Commands" as I mentioned in an earlier post. There is no "trim pitch" and "trim roll" for me anywhere. There is a single axis slider on the HOTAS Warthog called "JOY_SLIDER1". I presently have it assigned to "Zoom View" as there isn't much else it's useful for.

OK, I definitely don't have the "trim pitch" and "trim roll" axes in my F-15 controls. It seems that this is due to you using the Saitek X52 Pro and myself using the HOTAS Warthog. I suppose that the X52 Pro has extra axes which prompts FC3 to enable trim axes in the control menu.

I read that page. I do understand what curves are and how to use them, but I still don't see how this relates to trim. There is no ability to apply a curve to the trim controls because trim is not an axis in FC3. Either I'm missing something very obvious, or we're talking about very different things.

I must be missing something because there is no setting for trim controls in the "Axis Commands" menu for the F-15. As I understand it, all trim commands for the F-15 are just a one button press (or POV hat press) to one 'click' of trim. I use the HOTAS Warthog. I'll definitely check out your link.

The F-15 does have an autotrim function, so yes, I don't trim as often as in a Russian aircraft or a propellor-driven aircraft etc. However, there have been situations where manually trimming the F-15 would be useful, but I haven't really been able to do it my satisfaction for the above reasons.

OK, I'll accept that I am wrong about the specifics, but my point still stands that there is work being done on Russian planes, not just American. I have no idea what you're talking about. I am perfectly aware of what Lock On, FC, FC2, and FC3 are, and what DCS is. You're misinterpreting what I said. I said: "There will be a 6DOF Su-27 included in 1.2.3. It remains an FC3 aircraft, so no clickable pit (like the F-15)." This above quote means that a Su-27 6DoF cockpit is being developed. However, despite this new 6DOF cockpit being developed, the Su-27 is and remains an FC3 aircraft, so it will not have a clickable cockpit, just as the 6DoF FC3 F-15 does not have a clickable cockpit. Nowhere did I say that the Su-27 or 6DoF Su-27 was a DCS aircraft, and nowhere did I say that the FC3 F-15 had a clickable cockpit! Further, I specifically said that the 6DoF Su-27 "remains" an FC3 aircraft because some people on the forum are confused and think that '6DoF cockpit' means a 'clickable cockpit'. I can't be much clearer than that. In any case, this is silly. If you want to talk further about what I said we can PM each other.

That's what I said. :huh:

There will be a 6DOF Su-27 included in 1.2.3. It remains an FC3 aircraft, so no clickable pit (like the F-15).

I have noticed that when flying the F-15 it is difficult to trim for level flight for more than a few seconds at a time. Whenever I trim the aircraft left or right with one 'click' of input it begins to roll noticably in that direction almost immediately, to the point where it is difficult, if not impossible, to find a 'sweet spot' where some semblance of level flight can be achieved for more than 10s. I don't trim an aircraft for level flight and then expect it maintain that attitude indefinitely, but there should be some ability to fly 'hands off' for a minute or so without significant flight path deviations. Otherwise, what's the point of having trim at all? To me, the current trim is too coarse, or to put it another way, the resolution is too low. I think one 'click' of trim input should result in less control surface movement, which would make it easier to find that sweet spot. As it stands now, it bears no relation to my real life experience with trimming an aircraft. I'm not saying that this makes me an expert or that my limited civil experience bears any relation to a modern fighter — it doesn't — but it does make me pity F-15 pilots if they have to struggle as much as I do. (And yes smart alecs, I could use autopilot, but that is beside the point.)