Frostiken

Well not so much 'not available' as simply 'not modeled'. I mean, you could just ask me. I do avionics. I fix them. When they are broke. Blarp.

Actually what concerned me the most is apparently some folks here would have loved it if it were serious. Personally I'd be angry as hell. Blind loyalty to a brand has never helped anything... If a random company that wasn't ED had made this it'd be the laughingstock of the sim world. If you truly cared about ED you'd be just as willing to tell them 'up yours' as not...

My question is how the hell did the OP fit a 1920x1080 monitor beneath a 30" 2560x1600? Is it mounted over your head?!

I figure best-case he either bought a used copy and now can't get in contact with the guy who sold it to him, or almost the same actually bought a pirated copy with a legit 'key'. Either way, no paper trail, no 'credit card issues', absolutely zero idea how to get it, with the interestingly naive move to ask for a key on the forum for the game itself means that this wasn't done 'officially'.

So, best-case, 5 months ago you bought this game and now you have absolutely zero knowledge of where you got it. Since the key you get isn't in a text file included with the game (and would never be for obvious reasons), the only way to actually get one would be on a hard copy of the game or through the digital service you bought it on, so since you allegedly bought it online, why would we know where you got it from when you don't even know? Additionally, let's pretend you did buy it online - you decided to forgo the legit channels for online purchase (Steam? This website? Any other major digital distributor? Amazon?) and yet have no record of it. All this is moot since two weeks ago you didn't even know if your system could run the game, so in less than two weeks you have no idea where this purchase took place. Finally, your computer 'updated' and 'deleted its history', and last I checked Windows is not and has never been in the habit of erasing its own registry. However, what did happen is the 1.1.0.8 patch which required a re-activation. Yeah this seems totally legit.

I don't think 'amazing' would be the word I would use to describe it. The picture of it armed up looks like something out of Mad Max. Really though... you guys are taking this seriously?

Awesome, thanks Slothmug.

On the topic of actually putting the ME distances and altitudes into a standard format for American aircraft, one thing that constantly bugs me is the date format. See, for some reason day '0' is June 1st... if / whenever we change the ME to work in feet and pounds, can we also work the date into a universal format: JULIAN DATE? Whenever I want to set a specific date, it's kind of dumb I have to use a website to calculate how many days 'off' of June 1st my desired day is, rather than using the universal constant of a julian date (ie: the number of the day starting from Jan 1st).

China hat forward long does that.

Actually there's one important situation within which you can run out of runway - if you have a hydro failure and neglected to turn anti-skid off. Anti-skid will suck the system dry and leave you with no braking power at all. My question is does that flaps-up data actually correspond with any actual programming in the sim, or is that just a glitch of other things? I cannot POSSIBLY imagine that the relatively minor lifting ability of flaps is counteracting enough aircraft weight to have that noticeable an impact, especially at low speeds where a flap would act like less of a lifting body and much more like a giant airbrake.

You can slave it to the TPod if you have the TPod up on the left with the Mav on the right.

<Q-code can of worms and arguing here> :D Honestly your best bet is to just leave it at 29.92 so it's standardized with everyone else. The particulars of what Q-code to use vary greatly depending on where you're flying, who you're flying with, and naturally they would all be on the same page. I have oddly noticed that many of our F-15Es have their altimeters set to 2992 more often than not... but there are exceptions found. Just last week I noticed one was at 2880 or thereabouts...

Awesome job. I'd rep you but... I can't... maybe I already did. Anyway, thanks!

While I can't say I pay particular attention to it, I've seen plenty of aircraft land and only put their flaps up on their way back to EOR.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=74249 \o/

Zakatak - all modern fighter aircraft have some degree of fly-by-wire in it. While the F-16 is a 'pure' exception, F-15s CAS and A-10s SAS are both examples of fly-by-wire as they use digital computer signals to calculate movement of flight control surfaces. +1 Cobras and advanced aerobatic maneuvers are cool, but they have pretty much zero use in a combat environment, namely because the aircraft cannot actually do those crazy maneuvers while carrying any sort of serious combat load. While the MATV F-16 has two CATM AIM-9s, I've never seen anything of the likes done like that on any aircraft with underwing hardpoints.

No, because the F/A-18 weighs significantly more. Maybe in terms of total thrust, but a thrust/weight ratio greater than 1 is what's desired, which the F/A-18 cannot do.

At least the F-16 has more power behind it.

Pretty sure those maps are in the public domain, seeing as how they're the same ones the USAF uses. But... really? Dragging, of all things, an EULA out? Copyrights and licensing, once again doing absolutely nothing for the betterment of mankind...

Blimey! How long did this take you? :D

I understand where you're coming from with being more demanding on the player, but that doesn't mean 'better', not in regards to what I want to do (tedious endless air refueling and laughable payloads), and certainly not in 'reality'. Going back as far as ODS, F/A-18s have done little. Of the multirole fighters, the majority of the burden of operations is placed on F-15Es and F-16s, and that has shifted greatly in the last few years to solely on F-15Es.

F-35 would be amazing as there's been no sim for it to my knowledge (and not even those tacky early-90s 'sims'!). And, if the brochure is to be believed, is an immensely capable airframe. Plus, VTOL! Maybe. Thor? Vulture? Oh deary me - any trueborn worthy of their bloodname spits on the freebirth names!

The thing is, ED follows their military contracts as well... and I highly doubt the Navy wants an F/A-18C sim as the thing is completely antiquated and borderline obsolete (F-35). I would imagine they're either doing it: - "For fun". - For a foreign country (ie: Canada?) - The Navy is brilliantly using its resources. I wish they'd just come out and tell us though... how long after KA-50 did we know about DCS: A-10? Seemed pretty quick.

So I've come into a few situations where I try to drop my gear and they won't budge. Naturally you snag that handle and hopefully they'll drop. All is good, right? Well, my question is... how realistic is this? Landing gears are almost completely gravity-driven specifically so they will still drop even in absence of hydro - and with luck, the resistance of the airstream will somewhat lock them in place. Many aircraft don't have the luxury of an emergency 'drop landing gear' handle, so it's common (well, common in the event of a failure) for them to try to 'shake' the gear loose by putting on heavy Gs so that the weight of the assembly will pop it loose. Now I don't know what kind of failures are causing landing gears to get stuck (besides hydro failure), but they're designed mostly to fail in the DOWN position so you can still land. The A-10 is designed to be able to land on its belly with minimal airframe damage, so maybe the gear system is different. Just... not what I expected.

Looking at Vaziani - how the hell do they maneuver aircraft? The taxiways between PASes are barely wide enough for the landing gear!