Yskonyn

Without trying to de-rail this thread and take it to the personal level; you clearly missed my irony here. :music_whistling: Touchy Touchy... :joystick: But on topic; the physics modelling of FC is nowhere near advanced enough to compare X vs Y. And like other have pointed out; the info found on wikipedia is often incomplete or out of context, if not plain wrong at other times. It's not a very good case to take this data and then start shouting ED doesn't know what they have been doing with A-10C as it's clearly off in your view. Even take the FC flightmodel to make your point. They are apples and pears AND the case in point is based on incomplete information. This, coupled with the perceived 'tone' of your message (mainly by claiming something is clearly off) resulted in my reply P.S> You should see my mouth; that would definately prevent you from posting it being little! :D But I digress. :pilotfly:

Just because something doesn't fit into the realm of Wikipedia, it means it is nerfed? You might want to word your post a bit differently. People might get pissed off and consider this bait when you come in with a streched leg like this. Be careful, young padawan! Do not meddle in things you have no proper knowledge of! ;) (Or some other Jedi-ish action line)

Curious to try out your settings, D3vastator. Thanks for sharing! One question though; why don't you use Tripple Buffering when using VSync? Also, I feel tree shadows have a severe impact on performance so I leave them off. I can set the tree slider to 10km. It's a good balance between visibility/pop-ins and performance.

I am not sure wether you even can have other flights attack your SPI, not being A-10C's...

I would even dare say the Speedbrakes have limited effect on braking distance at all. They are called speedbrakes for their aerodynamic function in flight. But, as pointed out above, they do nothing much with only a small airflow. They function more as lift-dumpers, to safeguard weight on wheels to aid proper braking. Regarding braking technique, there is nothing prescribed in the -1. Funny detail, however, is that contrary to belief in the thread above, aerodynamic braking is mentioned as a viable means of braking when runway length isn't a factor. (2-21, AFTER LANDING). There is also a paragraph dedicated to minimum run landings.

+1 If you are used to prop sims, then it might be a tip to point out that you should not close the throttle before the flare. You should also be gentle with throttle movement and not slam it shut. When flaring, close the throttle gently and pull op the nose gently to decrease the vertical speed. Jets are 'flown' to the deck more than props. :joystick: But gentle touchdowns are more than possible while even getting it to stop in time in-sim. ;) :pilotfly:

It seems to be in-sim, yes. Which is weird. Although I suspect it has got more to do with the anti-skid / braking logic than the actual surface being slippery. ;) But yes, with anti-skid on, it does give you the impression you are landing on something which is kind of 'slippery'.

Threshold braking, is that proper english for finding the sweet spot of highest friction without going into a skid by locking the wheels? I am not a native english speaker, so found it hard to explain it. Learned something new here, thanks! :thumbup:

I stand (partially) corrected; ;) I looked it up in our manuals (B737) Anti-skid is mainly a measure to keep controllability of the aircraft. Using anti-skid on snow/ice covered runways actually increases landing distance compared to skidding, but controllability is much better with anti-skid. The reason I thought having it disabled increased landing distance initially was the non-normal landing distance table with anti-skid inoperative showing far higher numbers. But checking the checklist revealed the probable cause; 'Do not arm the speedbrakes for landing. Manually deploy the speedbrakes immediately upon landing'. Combined with the unavailability of the autobrake system (and hence requiring input from the pilot with the well known 'second needed to react' we humans have) might explain the higher values. Now the A-10C does not have an autobrake, nor automatic speedbrake deployment. So we are back at square one. :D Still, the remark from GGTharos must be taken into account as well. Secondly; it depends on the surface you are braking on. High grip surfaces (like most runways are) have shown favorable effect on stopping distance with an anti-skid system vs no anti-skid. The reason why is complicated and lies in the realm GGTharos touched. Regarding the friction; I meant to say grip. Once your tires start to skid they loose grip. It seemed only logical to me to conclude distance must increase, but further looking up revealed that (on a car) ABS has negligible impact on brake distance on a dry surface. So anti-skid is a controllability safety feature in aircraft as well as cars, more than anything. Why there is such a big difference in landing distance in the sim then, I don't know. It seems rather off. The tire model is probably off (heck, even racing sims have difficulty modelling good tyre physics).

If anything the anti-skid system is a measure to aid in safeguarding shorter landing distances, not increase them. It's like an ABS system on a car. Preventing the wheels to lock up keeps tabs on friction and prevents sliding the wheels over the runway which would increase distance due to reduced friction. Like Eddie said; if the pilot would apply max manual brake and lock the wheels. The distance would increase. If applying proper braking conditions (wheels have good friction and no skidding is present), the anti-skid system does not affect landing distance one way or the other. Many people think its solely a wet or contaminated runway conditions measure, but its not. For example, on some aircraft the wheels are also monitored in relation to eachother. Preventing any wheel from skidding. Dry or wet. The low speeds of the Hog make trying to 'aerobrake' rather useless. Besides, it's not a delta wing aircraft.

Good news!

No I don't think so, but there used to be officially endorsed Piper models downloadable for X-plane. I am not sure if they still hold up for the current version of X-plane though.

:thumbup: Me too, but you DO know what you're asking, right? I think this here is the exact thing almost ALL combatsim devs would like to create, ED included. :book: :joystick: :D Phantom; Thanks, yes I understand. But you are mostly on-top of all things X-Plane, so I thought you would be the one to ask. Others have helped very well, though, with the pointer to OSM2xp. Very cool tool. I really don't see the benefit of the flashlight option, though, aside from a nice little fun feature. Even less so in DCS. :P

Well the regular manual does not help with the avionics anymore I am afraid. It's a nice reference for air combat and tactics as well as broad pointers on how to use the mission editor, but that's about it.

Darn! That lighting engine of X-Plane blows everything else out there right out of the water! Phantom, you seem to be on-top-of all things X-Plane; what do you mean with 'what's possible with openstreet maps'? Doesn't X-Plane support this already out of the box? What would one need to do to get those city-scapes according to OSM data? I thought all this was automatic?

That is some blatant marketing, right there. It was a matter of time, though, before someone tried subscription based flightsimming. I won't bite, though.

This looks like a really nice piece of work. They claim avionics are all modelled, as are all systems. Realistic AP/FD system and a fully featured FMS. If this is all true, then it will mark a new era for X-plane. The first hi fidelity commercial airliner for X-plane. The guys over at VATSIM will rejoice! :thumbup: With PMDG working on a project too, the future looks very interesting for X-plane. And my Goodness; I keep being impressed by the night lighting of the sim! :thumbup:

Still, even if the trees are old news, for CA they pose a problem. I sure hope there are plans to get solid trees in for the future. Buildings should already block LOS, AFAIK.

fastfed, welcome to the community. Might I propose our wing, the 476th? We are a great bunch of people flying DCS A-10C and DCS KA-50 with realism in mind. Check out http://www.476vfightergroup.com

I still get the whine in 1.2.

People need to be acting less entitled and more respectful. Get your facts straight first before shouting murder. I agree with Nate.

Congrats, leehowling! It's a fine stick. Served me well for many years.

Thanks, Nate. So what is the purpose then? Helios people need it enabled and disabling doesn't help anyone. :S There must be some theory behind presenting the option.

Canopy defog control is by regulating precooled engine bleed air through defog tubes along the base of the canopy. Windshield defog/de-ice is controlled by heat from a heater element embedded near the outer surface of the windshield center panel. Windshield HOT caution light is actuated by a temperature sensor on the windshield center panel. The light will come on when the windshield temperature is in excess of 150 degrees F, wether caused internally by system failure or externally by leaving the rain removal system on for an extended period of time. The light will also come on to indicate a malfunction in the windshield deicing circuit, a system power failure or if the battery is the sole source of electrical power (deicing circuit runs on AC power). If the cause is due to an overtemperature, continued use can result in a cracked windshield. Windshield Rain Removal System For ground operation and to aid inflight rain removal when flying at low speeds, an air jet blast, utilizing pre-cooled bleed air, provides rain removal over the windshield center panel. (Page 1-66 TO 1A-10A-1)

Does disabling it give any benefits for single-screen (fullscreen mode) users?