Bucic

Is there a dedicated thread for that?

I hope with the serious modernisation separation of some of the settings comes between the cockpit and outside. Especially for shadows!

@Hempsted Hi! Nice to have you here, I followed your Hempstick project! Just when I started college our faculty were clearing the last bits of drafting stations from the last drafting class. The faculty was in the process of transferring technical drawings of the in-house (designed and made) PW-5 glider to UGS NX 3D models.

@BitMaster That's some good info but it's hard to beat the convenience of such glues. To put things into perspective, a set of Distal and Poxipol usually last for at least 6 months for me, if I'm not doing simpit stuff. And I'm saying that having some experience in composites.

Looked into web description and a tutorial and I must admit I still don't get that part

How do you get Voicemeeter to... what's its hardware interface setup?

This has been bugging me for many years now. With many improvements done in the field of soundscape in DCS this sticks like a sore thumb. Basically, when using e.g. the F3 view the sound frequency sharply increases close to the camera which isn't backed by any phenomenon I'm aware of. The more simplistic the sound set, the more pronounced the issue. IIRC it can even be hear with vehicles passing by the camera. A placeholder example https://youtu.be/BcbXvAzie5I?t=195 References: https://phys.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/University_Physics/University_Physics_(OpenStax)/Book%3A_University_Physics_I_-_Mechanics_Sound_Oscillations_and_Waves_(OpenStax)/17%3A_Sound/17.08%3A_The_Doppler_Effect There's another issue where the pitching up of external sounds goes completely crazy in some F5 view + lock combinations but let's leave it to a separate entry.

Yeah, Fusion 360 is free until it gets "it used to be", like Evernote I'm swamped right now. With the little simpit time I have I bogged myself down with improving the drill press. Which just so happens to be THE most used tool in my workshop. On the bright side I secured a pretty hefty portion of my in-flat workshop needs: - a proper solid bench! - complete quiet drilling workflow with ultra quiet bench grinder for drill sharpening - which I'm good at - quiet sheet metal cutting (razor sharp sheers!) and bending ; spot welder missing (blind rivet gun for now) - surface plate and basic dial indicators ; height gauge to be 3D printed ; prisms, 1-2-3 blocks on immediate shopping list With that drill press mod I'm getting some NASA shop concentricity and tightness. One last mod is a base plate JOE (?). Unlike many hopeless souls on the internet I bothered to verify what's the source of the plate giving away while drilling. Internet's tell you to stiffen the column while the source of reflection is at the base of the plate itself. I already solved the reflection to a large degree, but the Joe (?) is going to eliminate 100% of the deflection. It's... just a vertical column running from the end (front) edge of the drill press base plate to... whatever surface is below the plate. Or do you call it (the base plate) a table? Motor replacement is on hold as it's extremely difficult to find an affordable 0,75 kW 220V motor, contrary to 380V 3-phase ones, which are cheap, in good condition, available in droves.

Looks interesting and practical. Ping me please when you decide to start a dedicated topic.

I don't know man. No idea!

For a quick afternoon experiment with an old bass speaker and an amplifier how would I "split" audio to feed it from the usual audio setup I use which is a USB soundcard?

What inspired this topic was a sad workshop market event of my all-time favorite 2-part epoxy glue being discontinued. This glue has been a part of my tinkering since before I became a tinkerer myself as my father used that glue to fix Atari 2600 console joysticks. Mind that Atari 2600 times in Poland are 1990's not 1970's The mere light yellow creme color after mixing has always been giving me a rush. DISTAL Libella - A Polish chemical company Availability: 1980's - early 2020's The only disadvantages: - a bit thin, only thin coating allowed, not suitable for vertical or upside-down applications (could be taken advantage of - gravity filling of bigger cavities and hard to reach places!) - long curing time: at least 12 hours for safe-to-handle, 24 hours for 90% strength, some 36 hours for 100% strength (Poxipol is 15 minutes safe to handle in comparison) Advantages: - perfect hardness/elasticity ratio! Imagine a glue elastic enough to resist cracking to a stellar degree while juuust be threadable/drillable, and easily at that! Grey Poxipol in comparison is far more gummy, while Clear Poxipol is far more brittle (too brittle) - strenght and adhesiveness, even with not prepared surfaces, probably includes "difficult to glue" plastics - low-cost! - resistance to outdoor elements - nice glassy ceramic yellow finish - slow curing, now heat produced Still haven't found a replacement. Maybe an "epoxy putty" be of some use in some of my applications. Contenstant #2: Dykem BLUE metalworking marking and layout fluid I don't know what's happening but it seems the BLUE one is harder and harder to get. In Poland I can only get the RED one. Scratchpad: Awnings - technology connections

Actual question on Black Shark forums some years ago: Does it get bird strikes? Actual answer in response: Only from behind.

That doesn't mean the physics aren't getting an update. As far as I remember "the new struts and donuts" are not exclusive to WW2 warbirds. It's just the warbirds are first in queue, starting with Mosquito, Mustang and the Thunderbolt. EDIT: Source https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/512d7ea932c687ba6c3ff72e39cd16fb/

YoYo's new landing gear physics: Here's a wild speculation! YoYo has mentioned that: a) virtually all DCS A/C are to receive revised landing gear physics b) once an implementation for a certain aircraft is ready 3D modelers manhours are required to complete the implementation Could it... could it be? Surely that would be a huge one. I feel like ever since the release of Su-25 some 10 years ago all the other DCS aircraft kept getting LockOn-ish landing gear physics. Just look at roll kicks of most of the jets in DCS.

What's the difference? Any shots for comparison?

Could we please have a confirmation of the current status of the issue?

I stand corrected, AN/ALR-87 is indeed the unit we have in DCS for the F-5E. The real flight manuals for the F-5 usually only mention ALR-46(V), even on the E-series upgrade matrix. I've got the US Patent No 4,176,468 downloaded but I haven't found anything sensational for DCS-heads in it. The RL flight manuals for the F-5 point for the ALR-46 series RWR to T.O. 1F-5E-34-1-1-4 section of the Weapons Delivery Manual. The following article sets things straight https://www.militaryperiscope.com/weapons/sensorselectronics/electronic-support-measureselectronic-warfare/analr-87/overview/ The ALR-87 was designed specifically for the Swiss air force. Based on the ALR-46 (at one time it was called the ALR-46I and is a form/fit replacement for the ALR-46), the system employs a unique pre-processing technique in order to maximize throughput with frequency being measured pulse-to-pulse b y an IFM receiver. The equipment operates without saturating in signal densities of several million pulses per second. The ALR-87 can incorporate a superheterodyne receiver to... So the systems should be equivalent operation-logic-wise. Unfortunately I think no-one cared to update that 1-1-4 supplement status to non-confidential and it still isn't available publicly. Thought the following site begs to differ: http://www.newportaero.com/home/manuals/technical_orders/browse/___88574/air_force_technical_order_search.php?q=1F-5E-34-1-1-4&stype=TO+number What ED team could do is at least ask for a quote. I'm not joking.

Something doesn't add up. F-5E RWR clearly has airborne radar warning capabilities. EDIT: To me it's so unbelievable in case if F-5E I am no inclined to accept a reference to F-4x realities. Is it even the same system in F-4? AN/ALR-56M 87 (based on 46) /EDIT/ that is.

Anyone care to explain in more detail then, why it's the case?

Source?

As far as user testimonies are concerned, Stating torque without the arm length they use (from mechanical axis to the centre of the palm on the grip) doesn't give a clear indication.

Trust me, we'd notice if any changes like that were mentioned in the changelogs...

Just when I thought a lathe is the only item on my list that can afford me a divorce