OutOnTheOP

Dammit, website ate my post. Here goes again: Wild Weasel, I wish you would not cherry-pick my quotes so as to put words in my mouth. First, the easy answer: regarding the film "looking CG", what I mean is "visually obvious that this is unrealistic CG animation", as opposed to "CG animation utilized to produce a realistic rendition of a scene which is too expensive, dangerous, or impractical to produce in live action". The problem is that Hollywood has engaged in something of an arms race with CGI, where the goal appears to be to use CGI to produce the most implausible "wow" moment possible. I would rather they viewed CGI as simply another method of filming a scene, instead of a weapon in a constantly escalating eye candy war, which just ends up with "blockbusters" like "Transformers": heavy on the eye candy, very light on plot and depth. But I appreciate your mastery of the blindingly obvious (at least, I assume it was sarcasm). Now, then, on to the heavy stuff: My issue is not that I do not think the Tuskeegee Airmen were capable aviators. My issue is that lately it seems that in the US, recognition and commemoration is contingent upon your inclusion in an ethnic, racial, or religious minority group. I fully acknowledge the Tuskeegee Airmen were very capable aviators. I even acknowledge that they were driven by a very particular motivation that led them to take some extraordinary actions. However, I would contend that it's fallacious (and racist, in a "politically correct" way) to imply they were inherently superior to their fellow white aviators, and that's my issue with the way these films always seem to be posited. I fully acknowledge that there was racism in the US military in the past. I fully acknowledge that this was a bad thing. The issue I have is this: I do not believe the correct route to racial equality is to continue creating films that aggrandize one race or another. I do not seek to deny that the racial discrimination is a true part of history; rather, my issue is with the way it has been, and will doubtlessly again be presented- namely, aggrandizing one race whilst demonizing another (in this case, blacks and whites, respectively). This doesn't help racial matters any, it instead provides a racially-polarizing rallying point to the order of "see, proof we're better than you". That's racist no matter which side is making the claim. So let's play make-believe for a minute. Let's assume that someone decides to make a historical movie about the Black Panthers, or the Moor invasion of Spain, or the Ottoman's enslavement of the Balkan states. They accurately portray historical events, but portray the white peoples as brave saviors fighting for freedom against oppressive black overlords. Would this film generate controversy? Would it be lambasted as racist? Of course it would. Would it BE racist? Of course it would. Even if it was historically accurate. Now, as to "Memphis Belle" and "Battle of Britain"; no, they are not racist for belittling black pilots. They simply have no black pilots. Which is, overall, representative of WW2, good bad or indifferent. It's not that I think the various Tuskegee Airmen films go out of their way to insult the white pilots; the issue is that in the process of aggrandizing the Redtails' combat record to near mythic proportions, they implicitly state the white pilots were incapable of matching their record. I suspect that if one did some research, they could find a white fighter group that also entered late in the war and finished the war with a comparable combat record- but the impression given by these films is that white officers were generally racist pigs, and white pilots apathetic or incompetent in comparison to the Tuskeegee Airmen. The Tuskeegee Airmen films/shows/books make a point of highlighting a racial divide. In fact, it's wholly the premise of this film. Highlighting differences isn't the way to promote racial equality. Emphasizing racial equality is the way to promote racial equality. Which is why I again say that a film about the earliest integrated units, with DISPARATE races fighting side-by-side, all shown to be equal- as they in fact were and are, would be an equally compelling and less divisive film. Instead of giving an opportunity for one race or another to point to some legend and say "see, that proves we're better", it would show that "yes, we ARE stronger together". And there's no reason that can't make equally compelling film. No, I don't see any need to try to "hide from history", as you seem to imply is my motive; on the contrary, I just think the Tuskeegee Airmen have frankly been talked to death. The fact that there are so many prominent works (film, literature, television specials, etc, etc) praising the Tuskegee Airmen, in comparison to the works about any white fighter group, is disproportional: the Tuskeegee airmen account for 450 pilots out of some... what, 40,000 USAAF fighter pilots in WWII? (admitably, a very rough estimate based primarily on US fighter production... but the estimate is likely on the low side, as it does not account for the fact there was almost certainly more pilots in service than aircraft, and doesn't account for bomber crews whatsoever). Almost every American has heard tales of the Redtails' exploits; I don't think it's exactly critical that we "expose the ugly truth of America's past"; we have all already been taught over and over that there were terrible things done in the past. We already well know the Tuskeegee Airmen. but most Americans would be hard pressed to name one white fighter group, squadron, or pilot. If asked, I very much doubt the average American knows of Richard Bong, Bud Anderson, Eddie Rickenbacker (to mix in some WW1), or even Chuck Yeager. They may PERHAPS know "Pappy" Boyington, courtesy the short-lived television production. Speaking of "Pappy" Boyington, that is another good example of the manner of politically correct racism that bothers me so: a couple years back, my alma mater, the University of Washington, decided to spend some funds on a memorial for a famous UW graduate. On of the individuals proposed by a student was "Pappy" Boyington, a 1934 UW graduate. The student senate rejected his nomination on the grounds that they didn't think it was appropriate to honor a "rich white murderer" (by which I think they meant it's not appropriate to honor a Medal of Honor and Navy Cross recipient who languished in a Japanese POW camp for almost two years as a result of defending their freedoms). Instead- as I have heard it; I have not yet seen the new memorial- it was decided to erect a memorial to native American "civil rights activist" Ward Churchill, a man who advocates an aggressive (read: violent) approach to civil rights issues, who claims the US is to blame for 9/11, has publicly equated the financial workers at the World Trade Center to Adolf Eichmann, and who has been investigated for seven (and found guilty of two) counts of "serious, repeated, and deliberate research misconduct". But since it is Politically Correct to celebrate minority civil rights activists, but not not white Soldiers, there is no Pappy Boyington memorial at UW. See http://americanintelligence.us/index.php?/blog/1/entry-17785-patriots-blog/ and http://www.wnd.com/2006/02/34799/ Oh... I should mention, Pappy Boyington was part Sioux, not a "rich white man". So much for political correctness, eh? Wild Weasel: And *I* would rather know the ugly truth, and learn about all the OTHER truths out there, than be forcefed the "ugly truth" fifteen times over. Yes, it's important for people to learn about the Tuskeegee Airmen. It is, I would contend, EQUALLY IMPORTANT to learn about all the other brave aviators, soldiers, sailors, and marines who fought in WW2. But we don't have any recent movies about the 56th fighter group, do we? Or about the bomber crews who incurred such devastating losses. Why should we make ANOTHER movie about the Tuskeegee Airmen, when there are so many other groups that have NEVER had a movie made about them? What about VT-6 and VT-8 and their valiant attack on the Japanese fleet at Midway- an attack they knew would be suicidal? The best they've managed is a bit of a footnote appearance in the film "Midway". To borrow from the site rules, I would like to tell Hollywood "you must spread some rep around before you can rep this squadron again"

Looks like a very pretty movie, but frankly the flight sequences just LOOKED CG to me. Aircraft rolled/turned/moved too fast (which looks more exciting, but is still wrong on a physics level), too much flashy camera work, and too much Hollywood explosion That aside, I rather dislike the idea on a base level. Without getting too political, I hate the idea of another Tuskeegee airmen movie for several reasons: 1) it kind of belittles the efforts of all the other air groups, army and marine divisions, and warship crews that fought WW2. How many decent WW2 aviation films have we had in recent years? How many of those were about the Tuskeegee airmen? 2) it's historically inaccurate. It will continue to perpetuate the myth that the Tuskeegee airmen never lost a bomber under their charge, which simply... well, isn't true. They lost bombers. They were good pilots, but they weren't supermen. Which leads to my main complaint, 3) making a racially charged movie of this type is just plain stupid. It opens old wounds. Here in America we seem, as a society, to think the way to end racism is to keep pointing out all the great things minority races have done. It's the wrong approach: it just furthers the divide by providing ammunition to people that want to make it an "us versus them" world. Heck, even from the tailer, it's obvious that's the spin the movie is putting out: evil old racist white generals trying to repress the black aviators. Good intentions of the film makers aside, you end up with a portion (I would wager a small portion, but still) of the black population claiming precedents such as this as justification for why their race is superior. I don't care if it's white claiming to be superior to blacks or blacks claiming to be superior to whites, it's all racist. It would be much better to stop spending so much effort on saying "blacks are great" or "latinos are great", or "whatever race is great", and instead just focus on "all people are created equal". Gee... where have I heard that before? If someone really felt the need to make a movie about the end of racism in the US military, and highlight the fact that Soldiers are patriots regardless of race, why not make a movie about the first mixed combat units in the Korean conflict instead? Instead of telling the story of black aviators overcoming their evil racist overlords (IE, white folk), why not tell the story of white and black soldiers fighting side by side against a COMMON ENEMY, against overwhelming odds, in unforgiving terrain and lethal winters? Besides, Korea is an underreported war.

Yeah, I know... it's a good thing I don't feel inclined to record tracks very often (this being the first), because there's NO WAY I can part with my Helios setup

I suppose you could argue it either way. I look at it this way: Helios was designed to run with DCS, while DCS was NOT designed explicitly to run with Helios... DCS is doing what it's supposed to (that is, record tracks with an uncorrupted install), and doesn't do what it's not intended to do (record tracks with a modified install). But either way you look at it, the DCS+Helios combination doesn't record tracks correctly.

Yeah, I tried again with Helios and TrackIR off, and it recorded fine (see below). Boy does it feel awkward to not use the Helios setup now that I'm used to it. BTW, the crazy view shifts in the first recording were from a combination of (1) me getting out of my chair to fix the USB connection to one of my touchscreens, which wasn't recording input, and (2) looking down at the "console" touchscreens on the armrests next to my seat. TrackIR doesn't track right when I turn my head that far. This second attempt wasn't QUITE as good as the previous tanking (so frustrating losing connection with only a few hundred pounds to go!), but at least it recorded properly... and actually probably does a better job of illustrating the throttle issues I'm having, as I had to put in some pretty extreme input changes (well, extreme for while connected to a tanker, anyhow) But it does confirm that Helios appears to be the root of the problem. I guess it's a good thing I've never much felt the need to record tracks? Not quite as good.trk

Well, I'm getting more consistent... or at least, seem to expend less effort in refueling now. Attached is one of my better attempts. I think the first half went better than the second... and the idiot BO keeps giving random disconnect instructions, but... Speaking of which, he didn't give a "transfer complete", he gave a "disconnect" when it was done. At least, I think it was done; I was still displaying latched, but didn't seem to be accepting any more fuel. I'm still having a little trouble, and I think it's mostly engine management. I have my TMWH throttle friction lock all the way off, but the throttle still feels too stiff for tiny slow adjustments. I've taken to the "bump it up, then pull back" methodology... which seems to work most of the time, but occasionally it puts in too much throttle movement. I've also tried walking one throttle at a time *very* slowly, but I've found that generally doesn't provide a response fast enough to arrest drift; if the drift is enough that I can perceive it, it's already enough that walking the throttle doesn't make the desired correction until I'm way out at one end of the boom or the other. Suggestions? *edit* Hmmm... after reviewing my .trk, apparently the best advice would be "don't crash into ocean*. Interesting... anyone else having trouble with .trk files? I should note I'm using Helios... does that prevent .trks from recording properly? I noticed none of my switch flips showed up in the replay; in the first few seconds, it should have switched to TACAN 10X airborne receive, but... didn't. Nor did the lights come on when they were supposed to... nor did master arm go off. Only the HOTAS inputs seem to have been recorded. (I suspect the "nosing over into the ocean" bit was caused from when I re-trimmed down and slight left after turning master arm off/ EAC turned off. Since the .trk never recorded the MA switch flip, it just put the trim in as "a lot of down trim", and into the drink I go!) *edit 2* ok... I thought my replay error might have been caused by having Helios running while RE-playing the .trk, somehow causing some kind of .lua input wierdness. Not the case; ran the replay again WITHOUT Helios on, and it did the same thing; straight into the sea. Anyone else having this problem? *edit 3* wait... it would make sense if it was recording all the inputs put in from the HOTAS, but not Helios.... except that it DOES appear to have recorded that I turned the CMSP to standby... or at least, it displays standby on the CMSC in the replay.... and that switch is on my Helios profile *completely confused now* *edit 4* for anyone else having .trk-related issues, the thread at http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=75288&highlight=helios+track&page=3 seems to indicate Helios DOES bork recording. ....well, I guess no recordings for me, then. I don't know if I COULD fly without Helios anymore >.< Moderately smooth.trk

GG, I meant, if one flies reference off the tanker without the lights, it's easy to get into bad habits: you might be flying in rock solid formation, but consistently doing so at the edge of the boom envelope. It'd just be a nice training aid if you could practice on the tanker with lights on and the boom out of the way. Neccesary? No, but it'd be nice. Not that I'd want dev work prioritized on something so small...

Well... no, I guess I don't "need" the lights, but they'd be nice for getting a good "feel" for what the right "sight picture" (for lack of a better phrase) should look like when in the right position with the tanker. Without the lights, it's hard to vizualize where I am in the boom's elevation limits. I'm sure with experience, it's easier to tell, but it's hard to get that experience when there's no reference on what right "should" look like. Because I couldn't see the reference lights, I spent a fair bit of time conducting my tanking on the high edge of the boom elevation limit before I got a better feel for where the center of it's limits was; in the simulator, it's hard to tell the difference between getting too high and getting too close- the primary visual cue of closure (at least for me) is the boom color markings, and the boom might telescope in either because I'm drifting up, or drifting forward (worst is drifting up AND forward; then the tanker doesn't seem to change position, just the boom color)... It'd be nice if there was a way to get the tanker to turn on the reference lights and NOT lower the boom, so players could see the reference lights and practice getting into the correct position

Yeah... it's just hard not to when you're on your fifth try at the mission and frustrated and thinking "I'm not gonna give up until I get this right!" ...which is, of course, about the right time to give up and take a break :doh: *edit* by the way, the Blue Angels AAR vid in that link is simultaneously very demoralizing (since he makes it look so easy) and encouraging (because he bounces around the end of the boom quite a bit, and if the Blue Angles can't hold a rock solid welded-to-the-tanker formation, I certainly feel better that I can't). Although, he was also in cloud, and no doubt significant turbulence.

Ok, so, still working on getting aerial refueling down pat; it seems like one mission I can take a full tank smooth as butter, and the next I flail all over the boom. (*edit* I think I might be practicing too much? After a few goes at it, I find myself getting impatient and chasing the boom...) One of the things I was curious about: in DCS, does the boom impart force onto the receiving aircraft? I seem to recall AAR being MUCH easier in Falcon 4, as once the boom latched in, it tended to stabilize your aircraft (though I imagine it was more than in reality; in F4, I could almost go hands-off once I made connection; the tanker would just drag me around the sky by the fuel leash :D ) I get the impression the boom does impart some force, but not very much... I generally seem to get a very slight pitch down when I make contact. Not sure if this is just me subconciously flinching away from the boom. On a total aside, I wonder why they put the receptacle on the A-10 where they did? The boom always obscures my vision of the position reference lights on the tanker, and since the boom (in real life) imparts force into the receiving aircraft, you would think they'd want it somewhere near the center of gravity of the aircraft, so the boom doesn't cause pitch or roll issues when it makes contact. The F-16 receptacle location makes so much more sense to me. .... *edit* *editted the spelling of "edit" :D* Hmm.... only reason I can think they put the receptacle way up in the nose like that is due to the A-10 intake locations? I guess throwing a steel pipe into a rapidly spinning metal spindle leads to Bad Things . Just ask Nazi motorcylist! *edit* Hmm... I guess that was really just one question... unless you count rhetoricals?

No worries... we all have days where it seems folks are out to get us. Yesterday seems to have been my day ^_^

Yeah, I dunno about that; it's been a few years since I did any of that stuff, and honestly, I don't know that I'd be able to find enough free time to do the task justice

Looking at the temperature chart posted earlier, the question comes to mind: has anyone been able to determine if the system automatically extrapolates temperature at other altitudes if you enter only one temperature (IE, sea level)? I'm not sure how one would test this, though... I suspect the induced error from the air temperature is small enough to be difficult to distinguish from other sources of random error.

Y'know I always thought the NATO naming scheme was a bit... random. I mean, what the *$%# is a "Hokum"? Apparently, it's 1. out-and-out nonsense; bunkum. 2. elements of low comedy introduced into a play, novel, etc., for the laughs they may bring. 3. sentimental matter of an elementary or stereotyped kind introduced into a play or the like. 4. false or irrelevant material introduced into a speech, essay, etc., in order to arouse interest, excitement, or amusement. Which is a bit.... well, random. .... But I have to say, the Mi-28 "Havoc" sound pretty badass. I guess if you give enough typewriters to enough monkeys....

Oh, I didn't even think of that; I was just thinking externals. As it happens, I flew the mission the first couple times *almost* clean *edit* (I mean stores wise... though I suppose flaps and gear too, with the exception of the VERY first go)*end edit* ; just ECM, TGP, and AIM-9s. I threw on a couple 4-packs of Mavericks to try to make things a bit more challenging as I got more proficient, but in retrospect, I think the additional drag actually made things easier; it makes the throttle seem a bit more responsive when you have to drop power. Or it could just be me, dunno?

Sweet; wind corrections demystified! I used to have to set the wind values in the Mission Editor lower if I wanted to hit anything with irons, now it's warheads on foreheads from 12,000 AGL! ....well, ok, maybe I just singe their eyebrows a little, but it's a good sight better than it was! keep the learnin' coming and I might just feel able to hazard playing online without looking like a total noob :D

Ah, ok... I just figured there'd be a different one for the -C, with all the avionics changes. I guess aerodynamically it's machs nichts (yeah, I probably butchered the spelling, oh well)

Yeah... it's fun how hectic it can get for the FSOs when things get hairy; the FSV mounts four seperate radio nets plus a FBCB2 or BFT, plus the internal intercom- it'd be fun just to work on the art of listening to so many nets simultaneously. I know, it sounds impossible, but somehow it can actually be done. I used to put different nets output through different sides of my headset; that helped IMMENSELY. I wonder if I can figure out how to do that on my computer? For that matter, I wonder if I can remember how to do it on a vehicle comms J-box? Much less remember how to hook an iPod up to play through the intercom... ....y'know.... not that I actually ever DID that :music_whistling: Also, I must be getting rusty; I had to check wikipedia to verify that M1131 was the correct designation- I used to have two MCVs and my own FSV in my ad hoc platoon. One was the M1129, the other was the M1131... but I couldn't remember which was which! Heck, I still might not know, the wikipedia article might have been mislabeled; the article on the FSV was wrong in a LOT of details (claims the FSV is based on the ICV, it's actually based on the RV, the photo is of FSV increment A with the old G/VLLD designator instead of the proper increment B FS3 sensor...) *edit* oh, and the top speed of the Stryker is WAY above 62 mph, even with slat on. Though it gets a bit breezy up top ^_^

Nah, not suspicious, just... perceptible; you can visibly see the AOA rise as you decelerate that 20 knots from closure speed to contact speed, and it's a bit disconcerting. The aircraft seems to handle fairly solid at that speed, and I can understand why you wouldn't want to go TOO fast (angular velocity increasing as airspeed increases, causing the same divergence angle to result in increased lateral velocity), so I'm more than happy with 220 indicated. Wait... I think I've seen the post, but the only USAF flight manuals I recall seeing were for the A-10A. Are those the correct ones, or should there be a different one?

Well.... here's hoping. I used to be a FSO, and I'd love nothing more than to get to ride an M1131 Stryker FSV (my old ride) out to the OP (yes, the origin of my handle) and get knee deep in calling (through TARS to a human FDC commander) in a coordinated illum DPICM SEAD mission in conjunction with terminal laser guidance for LGBs. Badass wouldn't begin to describe how I would feel about that! Makes me long for the old days :D

Thanks. Where can I find the -1? I mean... I know it's a manual, but I come from the Army side of the house, and an artillery background, so... I don't know the rest of the manual nomenclature (and I suspect I won't find much if I google "A-10 -1".... or maybe I will?) *edit* ah, that sounds good; my swag ended up putting the tanker at 231 KIAS... a little faster than it should be, though it still feels a bit nose-high to me. Still, better than the 180 KIAS the mission started at

Effte and all: For whatever hurt feeling there may be, I apologize. I'm sorry that you feel I was trying to character snipe, but from where I sat, the comments were infuriatingly patronizing, and I honestly believed they were being made with the specific purpose of redirecting blame onto my alleged incompetence for failing to do something I had already said I had already done. I very much did not get the impression that they were said in an attempt to be helpful. I seem to have been incorrect in that impression, and apologize for losing my cool. To clarify why this aggravated me so, my original post had stated that the flaps caused an issue and had to be set into up manually, which may not have been TERRIBLY explicit about my having already resolved that issue ( I said "so you have to manually set flaps up", rather than an explicit "I manually set the flaps to up")... so the first person to mention flaps didn't really get my goat. A bit of "geez, guys, I already covered that" type of annoying, but not infuriating. After I get four nearly identical comments about flaps in a row, and no answers about the questions that were specifically asked in bulletized format, even after I clarified that I have already determined the flaps need to be up, I thought people were just patronizing me. When Andy made a statement that the problems I was having were "caused by me" improperly failing to set flaps to up- after I had already stated I had set the flaps to up, well... then yeah, it looked to me like he was either trying to be deliberately insulting, or didn't actually read the post. Anyhow... 1) Stall clean, perhaps. I was not flying a clean aircraft. In fact, I never mentioned the configuration I was flying. Configuration was not germane to the issue at hand. 2) Yes, quite aware of the difference between KIAS and KTAS. No, I didn't care enough to pull out a whiz wheel or do the math to give the PRECISE KTAS. Hence "approximately" 220. The precise numbers weren't important to me, the fact that the tanker was flying slower than it should have was. 3) The wind comment was in regards to Jona's mention that the ME uses ground speed; I hadn't set wind values very high, so I was telling him that as far as mattered for my purpose, ground speed= KTAS 4) yes, I found sources for tanker speeds (to include minimum effective speeds for aileron and pitch control)... but I generally take internet sources with a grain of salt. I was hoping someone might chime in who had firsthand experience. 5) If the flaps are never intended to be left in maneuver, then why is it called "maneuver", and why have other aircraft in the past (P-38F springs to mind) used combat flaps to improve turning performance? For that matter, why does the flap switch default to Manuever when you start a mission airborne? The only reason I noticed the ballooning problem was the very first time I tried refueling at that low speed, when I was surprised by the flaps deploying.

Pretty sweet (full size) piccy... but yeah, the small avatar one is a bit... small. Or I'm just a little slow. ^_^

No, you were right, it's the start point... but for some reason the ME wouldn't recognize there was a second waypoint until I added a third (yeah... no clue) Jona, tango mike, problem resolved. Tanker now flying at a solid 270 KTAS; as expected, refueling was a breeze compared to at near-stall-speed. I'd rep you twice if I could.

Rog, just figured it out... there were two waypoints, but for some reason it only allowed "circle" on the first; I guess "racetrack" orbit is on the FAR end of the orbit, and consists of that waypoint and the one previous? Yeah, I assumed it was measured in Ground Speed... I just didn't check what that was (KTAS was about 220; KIAS was 180-ish at 20,000 ASL, and 196-ish at 15,000 ASL). All the references I could find for "normal" refuel speeds were in KTAS, though; and indicated 280 KTAS... which is probably close enough, because I don't have very high wind values set.