Yskonyn

Mark point do not move. They are a fixed point defined by coordinates. What you can do is create several markpoints or offset points to define a 'killbox' in which you are sure your targets are moving around in. The spotting and tracking still needs to be done manually.

Is it possible somehow to have seperate installs for TARS compatible with 1.1.1.1 and TARS compatible with DCSW? You can install two Teamspeak versions next to eachother, but TARS gives an error when trying to install the newer version. It tells me already a newer version of TARS is present, ironically enough. :)

Thanks Headspace!

Great news HS!

There is a workaround for force it to update and those who have no start menu entry: Make a shortcut of the DCS_Updater.exe file and add 'update' to the end of the line in the shortcut. It looks like this: "D:\Sims\DCS World\bin\DCS Updater.exe" update (With your own path of course) The updater only checks and updates once per 24 hours by default.

Wow that's a nice save actually! It's it very easy to topple over the nose and there is no go-around with a failed magneto! :thumbup:

Because it is a warning tone and warning tones need to catch your attention. :) Better question, is why didn't the engineers make an inhibit logic for gear up and gear down in normal operations. :D

Well said. Exactly my point of view.

Interesting. This, coupled with the updated highly detailed F-18 model... :)

:megalol: Well, we are on par with the US here in the EU, don't worry. It's just sad to see this trend from general prosecutors. They threaten to destroy the exact thing that made aviation so much safer and pro-active over all those years with their mentality of needing to punish professionals because they made an error. The fact remains that where there are people working, errors will be made. It's also a fact that if a pilot makes a serious error there is a lot more at stake than when the baker made a mistake. But criminal charges against either one because of it is not a very good practise, IMO.

It always starts DCSW after updating, AFAIK.

I am very happy with the new build! Performance on my system has been restored. No more stutters, except for explosions. I do have an occasional artifact, though; Building textures flicker from solid black back to their texture when flying low. Not all of them and not all the time, though. Just occasionally. I don't know if I find the new APU sound an improvement, but then again I never heard the real thing. :) And its annoying that you still have to ALT-TAB in and out to restore the clickable cockpit. But, I love the new tweaked flight model of 1.2! Banking hard under G-load now results in possible wingdips. Proper spins can be achieved with agressive rudder input now and when banking while tightening the turn with rudder input now properly results in a slip and 'gravity descent' (for the lack of a better term). Cool stuff and more challenging to fly! Also the drag coefficients seem to have been tweaked, as the loadout now has a much more pronounced effect on the drag of the aircraft. :thumbup:

Thanks Mustang! :thumbup: Updated now!

I suspect the limited availability of those reports might have to do with protection of privacy laws (which certainly are not the same for each country) in combination with possible 'your eyes only information'. Press coverage might also play a role here. Even with the facts it is quite common for the press to churn out sensational articles with few relevance or respect for actual facts. I don't find it odd that these reports are not available to 'the general public'. It sucks for us sim enthousiasts, but there are a lot of other people who would not see such a report in light of 'what we can learn from it' unfortunately. Another aspect might be criminal procedures. There is a trend (at least here in Holland) where the question of who did it and what punishment does he or she suffer is more prevalent than 'what can we learn from it'. That is a threat to the open mindedness and self-regulating and improving mentality the aviation sector is known for.

I have no start menu entry for DCS world. Is there a command line option you need to add to running DCS_Updater.exe to force it to check? Running the file alone just starts DCSW for me.

Can you force the updater to check for a new version? World normally starts, no mention of a new version. Main menu show build 6099

Great news. Keep up the good work, HS

It's wind indeed. The aircraft will fly at a wind angle. I e. G. I it will point it's nose into the wind. I if you touch the rudder you can see the effect on your pitch ladder.

Well.. It's rather permanent if they've been cut off, though.

Me too! With constant early (read: get out of bed in the middle of the night) shifts and a wife who is pregnant and has trouble getting sleep herself due to the bump at the front we are having a hard time getting some decent sleep in too. :D Ah well, the joys of life. ;)

Pyroflash, thanks for the linked article, its interesting and I do agree with it. It's much more nuanced, though than your (with bolded text to amplify what ticked me off): There is no mention of 'bad things' in the article as facts. Only that aerobatically trained pilots performed the recovery procedure with far less altitude loss. That this might cause bad things for those not versed in aerobatics is true, but its not given at all. Only implication is made, while you presented it as fact. The upsets are linked to loss-of-control situations. Those in turn accounted for 25% of all crashes. There is a nuance here. They are not saying lack of knowledge of upset recovery caused 25% of all crashes. There are also other reasons for loss-of-control situations not directly related to upsets. This is beyond the scope of the document however and not further explained. Interesting discussion came out of it anyway. Thanks for that, no less. ;)

I now realise I commented on the comparison between pilots and simmers, cause I felt this was the comparison being made further into the thread. But the OP didn't really specificy. Pilots have a more valid opinion of validity of flight model A vs B in relation to whom? The devs? Other simmers? Aircraft Builders? As for the devs: I assume the software engineers are propely versed in mathematics, physics and aerodynamic concepts. They are often aided by professionals (for example pilots who actually flew the simulated platform). Being a pilot alone (without experience on the platform in question) does not give you any better credentials to question the FM as programmed by the devs, granted the flight model has been developed as a high fidelity model (like we have in DCS A-10C / KA-50) with the maximum effort to produce it as realistically as possible with the given hardware and software limitations. I think no one as better papers than the dev team themselves, to be honest, in this case. :)

I do not know where you got this widom from, but I disagree and I find it rather insulting to the many proficient pilots out there and feel I have to point something out before returning back on topic; Of course there are pilots out there who lack proper skills. Just like the are bad apples in every other profession. But what is a LOT? And where do you get this impression from? Granted, I have no idea how airline companies (are required to) train ther crews in the US, but here in (Western) Europe unusual attitude and upset training is a very big issue and commonly trained. Also in the whole discussion I feel the focus is being put on the amount of hours needed to get type-rated and gauge this as some sort of quality measure. if you want to put it that strongly, then yes, getting type-rated is like getting your driver's license after a lesson or 20 (20 hours!) and you are legally allowed to take a car and drive amongst others on the open roads. You are a low-timer, haven't seen many abnormal situations yet in your 20 hours of experience, but yet you can do whatever you want on the road. Purely based on 'stick time'. A type-rating consists of a week or two of ground school, getting through the flight manuals and company manuals, close with an exam and then get in the sim. Do 10 sessions of 4 hours, close with an exam and finally jump in the aircraft to finish off the type-rating with hands-on circuit training. You are now type-rated for the aircraft, but the training still continues for about a month where you start line-training; flying pax (or cargo) as an F/O with a specially trained line-training captain. I agree this is a fairly short course (approx. 3 months), but we seem to easily step over the fact that before you can even think about getting type-rated you first need to get your commercial license. The theory this entails alone is massive! An overkill almost where aerodynamics, navigation, instrumentation (with technical bits and parts included) and all other aspects are being taught. 15 subjects which need to be finished in a mere 8 months and you have to score at least 70% on each test to pass. High pressure, with a LOT of things to get in your mind in a small amount of time. This is usually a part where those who cannot cope will exit first, because it takes determination, insight and discipline to get through this phase at all. Does the aspiring-airline pilot know everything after this? Not not at all and many subjects will start to float into the back reaches of his mind rather quickly. BUT the 'blue-prints' have been stored; he has been introduced to most subjects in such a sufficient manner that he understands the subject eventhough he might not readily be able to make a presentation of it in front of a group of people if asked. Yet, he does have enough knowledge to know where to look and find if he needs to get into the details again. This should not be underestimated. Also, the point Chaos made is very valid. Boeing writes their documentation on a need-to-know basis. The maintenance manuals are where all the nuts and bolt of the aircraft are explained, not the flight manual. While there are indeed situations where you could benefit from knowing the intricate details about a system when you are trying to troubleshoot, these are usually the situations where you have a non-normal for which no clear checklist exists. A thing that is getting more and more uncommon with strides made in procedures upgrades and technology advances. On the other side, knowing too much might also hamper your decision making in that you start to over evaluate the situation. (Picture a situation where you are in rough weather, in busy airspace with a given non-normal situation and perhaps low on fuel. You are not on the ground able to think about it with a cup of coffee in a nice chair next to your parked aircraft. There is no flight-freeze button.) There is no clear-cut answer. Back to gauging a flight model in a sim; The fact that real pilots are proficient in pitch/power principles, flying airspeeds in relation to weight, etc. Makes them having an easier time gauging whether a flight model is realistic or not. But that's a more 'hands-on' skill than it is a scientific one and it only applies in a general sense (it being realistic or arcade). Being able to say anything about the flight model in question is only valid with actual time in the real aircraft. No other knowledge will do. You do not learn to fly out of a sheet of paper with data, you do it hands-on. Tactile input has been brought up, but that's something that can only be felt in the real aircraft. Even Level-D full flight sims are not 100% accurate regarding this (though they do get close enough). I, myself, even found I find sims harder to fly because I am so used to relying on those tactile inputs from the aircraft. In the sim you need to rely on visual cues for everything. A thing that becomes more and more unnatural as your real life flying experience builds. I'd even argue that this might even throw real pilots a bit off, while gauging a desktop sim's flight model. It feels a little 'dry' to line up the numbers at times. It remains a computer program, so if the numbers align it will stay there and do what it's programmed to do. A trick you can use in any simulator (even Level-D's) to fly a super steady ILS approach if you know your pitch and power settings. :D Furthermore, I believe many pilots will quickly digress once the discussion starts about intricate aerodynamics and physics calculations. But this is more the world of aircraft builders than pilots anyway. ;) So my point is, they are not all-knowing by any stretch. They do however have better 'qualificatons' to make educated guesses, so to speak. But this only applies in the general sense as I pointed out above (gauging whether a flight model is arcade-ish or more realistic). For specic situations (like a given airframe flight model or intricacies and differences between flightmodel A and B of the same aircraft) experience (on the actual platform) is the big factor. And then; an ab-initio pilot is less knowledgeable than Sully Sullenberger. :D Experience enforces your gut feeling, eventhough you might not be able to fully reason the cause and effects yet. Considering 'flight model feel' and seeing what it does from a pilot's perspective (pitch, power, speeds, etc) I think a pilot has better credentials than a simmer alone. But talking about the why's and the how's of the same flight model and threading into the world of calculations and number crunching (and the limits of computer hardware), then being a pilot alone does not neccessarily give you better credentials. Still, for a specific flight model the only proper qualification is actual real life stick-time.

Well, I we do not know yet do we? Doesn't the demo only feature arcade mode? But we can assume it will be very good cause GTR 3 has been announced as the proper new GTR sim in their product line.

LOL! I That just made my day. I :-)