Yskonyn

Well the same can be said for the CH's. :) The toe-brake does not have any resistance so they feel a bit 'fiddly'. But for the rest, the pedals do what they need to, without issues. And they are sturdy as well.

With all the people advertising a TrackIR it's hard not to get excited! ;) But before you invest in that one, get your main controls sorted out first. There's no fun in trying to fly a helicopter sim with a crappy joystick, no rudder, but you can look around with your TrackIR so you at least can look at where you're going to crash without hassle! IMHO If you want to seriously get involved with DCS there's no other option than to invest in some hardware in the end, BUT if you rather want to spend 50 bucks on the game first and get to know it before deciding wether you want to stay, instead of shelling out 100s of bucks on hardware and the game, then that only sounds logical to me. :) So the bare minimum is a joystick and some form of rudder. I'd advise you to stay away from ruddertwist-sticks. They are far too sensitive. Other hardware is adding to the experience, but not strictly neccessary. Another good thing is that sim hardware is easily sellable on forums like these. So if you want to get rid of your rudder pedals, for example, if you decide not to go through then drop in here and you're bound to find someone who's willing to buy them off you. But to be the devil's advocate: BS is a sim which has such a high fidelity that there's really no excuse for not flying it without a HOTAS and rudder pedals ... yes.. and the TrackIR! *grin*

As always I trust this will be another work of quality. Keep it up, mate.

Actually it was a KLM 777. :smilewink: But nonetheless a nice view!:thumbup:

Cool. Did you get your hands on FC2 already? If so, are you going to make a similar document for it? And what are your plans for A-10?

Hey SDeath! Great to see you're back to it again. Too bad the study didn't work out, though.

Nice one. I joined!

In our operation (I fly 737s for a charter company) we switch on the landings lights when we get takeoff clearance from the tower (and you're actually on or entering the rwy to avoid blinding taxiing traffic). They stay on until passing FL100 (europe). Additionally we switch off the taxilight when entering the rwy. In the descent they are switched on again when passing FL100 again and stay on until vacating the runway. My previous company had a slightly different procedure (Fokker 50): We switched the landing light on when we get takeoff clearance (and you're actually on or entering the rwy), but we also kept our taxi light on. Their philosophy was to always takeoff with all lights you have. Both of these situation are regardless of time of day or weather conditions.

That made my day! :thumbup::joystick::helpsmilie::doh: :D

- NO -NO - YES - NO So there you have it. Abbreviated by request. :thumbup: Although most of these WERE actually answered if you would read a little in between the lines.

Well with the SDK devs SHOULD be able to add support for them to their games, or maybe clever 3rd parties could make mods. No joy for DCS so far, though.

Yes I do, as it bumps my framerate considerably. I read somewhere that the FS devteam has been disbanded? Does this mean this DX10 Preview remains a beta-grade feature?

Still this does not have to be? That depends on if they are both supplying the same systems. That's what I meant with seperate electrical circuits for each generator which, in empergency, can be joined by tie-busses. Granted, I dunno how this works in the KA-50, you seem to know much more about it. It's not a statement of mine, more a question. Thanks for clarifying. I will look that up. :thumbup:

The title of this thread is quite big in scope, you know! ;)

Isn't that a moot point, with all respect? There's only one type of generator in the sim and that's the one provided for the KA-50. There's no issue about inefficiency because Gen 1 and 2 are modelled the same and are coded into the sim. Wear, maintenance and model differences are irrelevant because they're not in-game. :D

Batteries not providing AC power is not a matter op quantity, it's the current-type. Batteries provide direct current (one way) and AC systems need alternating current (back and forth). I am sure you meant it that way, Frederf, but just to be clear enough. :)

Thanks for the input, appreciated. Though I do question your theory about only one generator online needs to put out twice the power. Its only logical to assume that the system has a split generator/electrical philosophy in normal operation, but in terms of redundancy I would expect one generator to be sufficient for all electric needs in case one generator fails. The power is just transferred by a tie-bus. (note that I did not yet look at your diagram) That's how most aircraft work. Besides if the remaining generator would put out twice the power, all systems would melt down because of the amps increase. And how would it provide twice as much power? The gearbox is driven by the engine and normally the gearbox runs at a constant speed. If the remaining generator would have to double its poweroutput the gearbox would have to double its paces as well.

Same here, but a little voice in the back of my head tells me that honest durability reports of TMs offering might very well come far later than the release of Saitek's new offering... :joystick: Choices... and patience... :helpsmilie:

Just out of curiosity; Why are they then referred to as tied to the engines? If the generators are driven by the rotor gearbox what relation do they have to any engine?

I bought Traffic X as well and I like it so far. I didn't have to add any flightplans at all yet. The program comes with loads of ready traffic and the only thing you have to do it set your General Aviation and Airline Traffic sliders in FSX to a reasonable setting and voila; there come the aircraft! Smaller fields, in general, do not generate any traffic, because I think all traffic is bound to a schedule or flightplan within Traffic X. So, for example, if you're always flying out of Tinyville you might have to create flightplans for aircraft over there to actually see some action going on. If, however, you're always starting at New York's JFK, you only have to tweak a bit here and there, but the bulk of traffic is already active. You can always add new schedules or delete others by means of the Traffic Control Center application (see it as the settings window of Traffic). Another thing I have noticed is that it seems to come with realistic time tables as well. I was flying at Amsterdam Aiport, for instance, at 02:00 and there was hardly any traffic at all. At first I thought Traffic X did not function, but setting the time to daytime presented a completely different picture! (That teaches me for installing an addon in the middle of the night!)

I don't agree. In a real aircraft, of course; but in front of your PC flying a simulator it doesn't really matter whether you move your joystick in order to steer the airplane on screen or you have a rigid stick with force sensing to steer the airplane on screen. That's just a matter of getting used to. You're always missing actual sensory feedback from the airplane itself like you would get when you were flying the real aircraft anyway. Immersion, however, it totally different. I can see how it would not be realistic to use a force sensing stick if you're into realism and immersion, but thats a different story. I fly a 737NG for a living and while it is a modern plane it still has rods and wires from the control wheel to the flight controls. Feedback from the aircraft is a big factor to the pilot in controlling the aircraft, however in MSFS I can control the 737 with any controller just fine, wether it be a gamepad, joystick or yoke. It just takes practise to learn the inputs from the controller and get used to the picture you get with those on your monitor when you control the virtual airplane. In the actual aircraft, however, it would be very awkward to go to a stick instead of a control wheel (yoke) without changing the aircraft to fly-by-wire. You see what I mean?

How is that? The force sensing will be mainly a human -> stick interface, not a stick -> game interface, won't it?

Interesting concepts. Please note that the following comments are just my opinion and might very well be incorrect: -I think shutting down electrical systems do lower the load on the generators, however I do not think you will notice any difference in engine power because of this. Usually bleed-air load or pneumatic taps are a big hit on engine performance, but I don't think electrics will impact too much. -I have no idea how much Flares weigh, but I think their weight is insignificant as to whether you could create more performance by launching all flares. -Cannon rounds might be different though. They are heavier without a doubt (at least as seen as the total amount you carry). -The Shark has counter rotating blades which should nullify the tendency to torque to one side or the other, so no I don't think you need extra power for either turn.

No its not Bloom. Bloom makes a nice glow effect around bright objects. The halo of my lights become all squares with the FSX logo in them, but only when on the ground. . .

I have this weird problem that once my aircraft is on the ground the lights get squares around them with an 'X' in them from the 'Flight Simulator X' logo. It dissapears again when I start flying again and the game comes into 'air mode' and the lighting is all good again.... Does anyone know how to get rid of this anomaly?