bogusheadbox

The SST programming software has no problem with the configuration. So the problem is, you have something else programmed to the same key or you have not programmed it correctly or have not held the button on the stick long enough. You have two ways of mapping the desired commands. You can map using SST software or you can map directly to a button using the DCS menu. If you are having trouble using SST software to bind this command, just simply bind the button directly to the command using DCS. Just remember you don't need to map everything using SST, sometimes it quicker just to map directly and my profile has a combination of direct and SST mappings.

You need to keep a good forward speed up (even during the climb) as air flow over the rotor disc creates lift. If you find that you are not going to make it over in the first attempt, circle round (keeping your airspeed) until you gain enough alititude. Hovering requires a lot from the engines so trying to hover over the mountain in high altitude conditions will not do it. There are lots of discussions on this, try searching for it and you will find recommended speeds that will assist you. Also, some people like to re-arm before take off with as much as they can carry. Unfortunately you can't as the air is thin you will need to be pretty light.

Swept wing are usually inherent for a deep stall this can be compounded by high tail or T tail. None of which the hog has. A normal wing will produce a nose down moment at the stall. A swept wing will do the opposite and produce a nose up moment (tip stall). Transport aircraft are required to have a nose down pitching moment at the stall so the swept wing has to undergo design fixes to provide this downward pitching moment. However at very high alpha (angle of attack) a completely stalled swept wing will provide a nose up pitching moment again. A deep stall may have a normal attitude of the aircraft however the aircraft is moving in a downward motion creating a angle of attack of about 25-35 degrees. As the aircraft (swept wing) has lost its natural tendancy for nose down moment a much greater force will be required by the tail to counter for this. This is the deep stall This brings me back to the tail and the problems of the T tail. (a picture is helpfule here) so draw a plane with a high tail and swept wing at about 35 degrees nose up, then draw horizontal wind vector lines across the plane. Depending on the position of the wing and the angle of attack you will find that with a T tail the disturbed flow from the stalled wing will flow directly over the tail. This will therefore reduce greatly the effectiveness of the tail and consequently the tails ability to provide enough elevator forces to counter the nose up pitch. T-tails usually incorporate a stick pusher. A stick pusher is not a warning device of the stall like a stick shaker but positively corrects for an impending stall. It does what it says on the tin and swiftly pushes the control colums forward preventing the stall. This prevention will keep you away from deep stall. There are pros and cons to high tails over conventional tails. but that is another umpteen pages of typing.

Just wondering if there is any proposed updates to Black shark other than (possibly) bringing it inline with DCS A-10 E.g. For one i would like to see the temperature guage working so we can anticipate icing conditions before ekran throws a fit.

Used and abused and ridden harder than a rabid bull, then kicked out to pasture shortly afterwards,:smilewink: Very much like the black shark !!! (actually the shark kept me far more interested) However, i can't see how i can do the rodeo challenge with the black shark though.

Tcas and Tcas 2 is TRAFFIC collision avoidance system and only advises you of flying threats due to transponder interrogation However you are correct that TAWS and EGPWS can advise in advance of possible terrain risks. The only problem with TAWS is that it uses a known database of ground elevation. It has a more detailed terrain database within a certain area of larger airports and less "resolutoin" in other areas. I am not sure if they have 2, but that would make sense. Even the australian old F111 uses a system to judge terrain elevation for high speed low level flight. IIRC it can autopilot you at low level avoiding terrain. Magic plane BTW ;-) The magic of computers. So your A/c can calculate an ALTITUDE for the RADAR HEIGHT Limited height use i am sure

Just to expand on what GGtharos has said. Firstly some corrections and definitions. Correction. The number your radar displays is NOT an altitude its a HEIGHT Height is defined as the vertical distance of a level, a point or an object considered as a point displayed from a given datum Altitude is defined by the vertical distance of a level, a point or an object considered as a point measured from mean sea level." From that we can move on. Barometric altitude is most useful as in real life it will perform the following tasks. 1. Provide terrain seperation - Self explanatory 2. have everyone flying on the same datum. I will expand on both points below. As in real life, your flight brief should include heights along the route for safety reasons e.g. terrain avoidance. Your map provides heights of terrain and/or obstacle elevation against sea level. Setting your altimiter to the correct pressure will correspond your altimiter to sea level allowing you to accurately judge your clearance from terrain. Q. Why would you need that when you have a ground radar? A. Ground radar looks below your aircraft. Ground radar cannot see the rising terrain in front of you that you will fly in to. Ground radar may not give you enough warning in the event of steeply sloped terrain (cliff) to outclimb the terrain. The only way (especially in poor vis) that you can guarantee that you will not hit anything is to fly the appropriate altitude. Now to the other point. Everyone flying on the same datum. E.g. Your flight is due to rendezvous with another flight at 6000ft Altitude. But if you are reading radar HEIGHT and they are reading radar height? How do you meet up? Flying from a common datum MEAN SEA LEVEL will ensure that you can make quick decisions regarding terrain seperation from your map and allow you to fly accordingly as tasked with respect to other aircraft. If you are flying purely on radar alt (and that is fine when you can see terrain and need to get down and dirty) you really don't know your altitude as you are passing over terrain that is constantly changing in HEIGHT. I hope that makes a little sense.

Nice pic !!

Y'all are crazy. THe schkval wins hands down...... And i can prove it !!! Just let me figure out a way to fit the mercury pod to the KA - 50 First:thumbup: :crazy: (can anyone photoshop that for me, i would love to see what it looks like!)

I totally understand what you are saying. But in all honesty, you could have quite a lot of achievements for all the aspects of the A-10 in systems alone. Do you think its fair for people who can do it, but have not done the achievement rating be denied access? A single server may have requirements for lots of achievements and i can't help think that its wrong to make people drudge through all of the achievement getting (especially if they don't want to, but they know how to ) just to give them access to a certain server. If you want people to abide by your certain SOP's, then you should start an online squad for like minded people who wish to have such SOP's Now don't get me wrong. It does grind me when flying online (and i like to take it seriously) when other don't take it seriously. Especially in LOMAC where your Quake fighter jocks, take off from taxiways, lase or lock friendlies, drop flares over your head, attempt (quite often very poorly) acrobatics too close to your aircraft. We can't really do much to stop them (and i am talking about the guys who get pleasure out of knowing they have ruined the experience for other people) and that is the unfortunate side to online gaming. Achievements won't stop them either. Guaranteed they will have the achievement but what is to guarantee they will employ the method or tactics you want. They are individuals and will do what they like when they like regardless of their expertise, knowledge or achievements. This is where online squads are a boon. If you want achievements, join an online squad who will check you out if you have the ability required, or train you to the ability required. An online squad unlike an achievement system has the ability to control those in the game, by monitoring and punishing those that don't play with others nicely.

If ED do care about such statistics, they can run a poll on the official websites to find out the necessary info. Achievements are what they are by definition. Something you receive as a reward for completion of a certain task. Therefore if you have a host of achievements, people will tend to move away from their way of play to earn this achievement. Therefore the only purpose these serve is to give people a "look at what i can do" patch on their virtual log books which have no real value. You could argue that virtual squads could use achievements for training purposes, however all squads i know have trainers in them that will manually sign you off when you have reached a level of competency anyway, so i don't see achievement being helpful to them as well. As an example. If buddy lasing works out to be very advantageous on the battlefield between 2 a-10's then people will work this out and start doing it. If its risky and time consuming then people may try it and then realise this and give it a miss. Basically, its a sim. Therefore people will use whatever tactic and or teamplay they deem best for the situation weather it is or not. It is this factor of open play that will define the sim, not a list of "look at me sleeve patches" What i am trying to say is,....... People may try buddylasing, people may try to lone wolf it. Some people may wish to take out a Sam site with harsh words and hand gestures. In the end people will do WHAT THEY WANT, and achievements have nothing to do with this game play.

If DCS brings in acheivements, it better for for GAME settings only. No need for that crap in a simulation.

First of all and i have to get my old memory right here. Commander mode is not required if you are not transmitting saved datalink targets to other craft. Datalink ID can be anything from 1-4, has no bearing on storing data. It will only show who is sending data. ("received datalink target info from datalink helo number 4" for example) You can designate any object as any type. So you can datalink a person as armour and so on. So provided you have your datalink powered, here is all that you have to do in order to save (your own) target information. 1. Lock target with schval (with a lased range) 2. select the type of target you wish to identify as (armour, ingress point etc) 3. Press Send/mem Now, if this is the first target you have designated, it will be given target #1 by default, the next one you designate will be target #2 and so on by default and shown on your abris. From there you can transmit that info to others, or automatically slew your schval onto a target stored into your datalink. To save datalinked info from others, 1. You will receive ekran message of datalnk received. 2. Your datalink panel will be lit up showing the following (a) Type of target being sent to you (E.g. Armour) (b) What the datalink ID is of the craft sending you the information (E.g. The guy with datalink ID #3) © Abris will show target information as flashing on screen 3. If you like what you see and wish to store data, press "Send/mem" 4. If you do not wish to save, press clear.

Thank you, i shall try to use smaller font in future. ;) BTW, i love the product. I would dearly like to see the new AI routines in A-10 but alas, that will mean a new computer for me. :cry:

Agreed, However, if the builder builds a sam site with its supporting units correctly, then it becomes much much more difficult. Anyway, i agree with a lot of people here that after the hog, they need to work on the new engine. AI under attack just sitting there getting pounded is ludicrous. They need a new AI routine for ground units under fire and most of all .............. THEY NEED COLLIDABLE TREES THAT MISSILES CAN'T FLY THROUGH

First of all, 10 m/s wind is very high. That is 36 klm/hr ! or 19.5 knots !! Now if that is pure crosswind, it would be out of limits for a lot of aircraft, not to mention a helicopter In such wind, taxiing along the ground is not recommended as that big disc on top of you is a nice sail. If you wish to have such high winds i would recommend pointing your nose into wind on the ground and hover taxiing to the hold. No wonder you find the aircraft squirrelly on the ground. As for normal taxiing, you should need no collective at all, not even to get you going. Just push the cyclic forward and off you go (brakes off of course)

I was also referring to stock installs of IL2 IL2 Does require correct handling of aircraft to get it to take off. Mosquito with non cotra rotating propellers and the tempest with its horsepower were very nasty aircraft to take off from in crosswinds. As for DCS, well this is a brand new product. Back in the day, it was systems modelling (Falcon) vs flight modelling (IL2) as that was the limits of computing power. Il2 unfortunately has simple engine management, but as i mentioned has one of the best online experiences and flight models i have used. I am glad you like DCS, and i love it too. But at least IL2 had collidable trees ;-) From what i have read, i think the preferences for you lie with the intricacies of modern aircraft.

The graphics are good even now. They were ground breaking back then. Oleg implemented the ability to increase the graphical ability as computers and technology improved. Water = 4 anyone ? Did you use open GL option and up the anti using notepad? The interface i found was intuitive and simple. worked well Obviously i cannot comment regarding the real ww2 items, however the flight modelling responded very very well to pitch and power changes like real aircraft do. It was one of the first combat sims that made you trim. As for being difficult for you, i must say its unfortunately at your end. Trimming with HOTAS or keyboard worked well. The online community (even now) is testimony to that, i don't think there has ever been another combat sim that has kept such a loyal and very frequent/abundant user base. If you can bomb in Lock on or DCS, then you should have been able to bomb in IL2. WIth the ability to skip bomb off water and Roads, it had a brilliant physics model. Skip bombing down a row of planes, i was amazed to see on replay the bombs ripping off wings of some craft then plowing into the next before detonating. Very good. Dive bombing is as it was in real life, practice makes perfect and you could acurately dive bomb with accuracy Level bombing was even simpler, people (including myself made comprehensive tables of airsped and alts) or you could use the auto bomb site (which replicated the fact you would have had a human bomber on board) Here i have trouble understanding your perception. IL2 and DCS/lockon are different eras of aircraft. IL2 are WW2 aircraft short of complex avionics and systems - basically simple aircraft. And DCS Lockon are system riddled aircraft. THe fighting and gameplay is different. IL2 is skill with the flight model and energy management and DCS/lockon is mostly proceedural and technical employment with a very rare dogfight thrown in. The flight and ground handling models of all aicraft in lockon bar SU 25t are extremely poor IMO. However IL2, the aircraft have very beleivable handling characterisitcs considering the age of the engine. DCS airframes are great but they are very very new. So to compare the two is like comparing apples and oranges. IL2 does extermely well for what it was intended for. To simulate the energy management and raw flying that was the WW2 era. The damage model in IL2 was unprecedented in its time as even today is very very good. Good pilots new where the fuel tanks were on aircraft and targeted them to great effect. You could get a pilot kill (happened to me from a very skilled or lucky pilot) where the pilot dies and the plane continues to fly in trim. You could loose a tip of a wing, a full wing, damage to various parts of the wing all with the environmental consequences. you could shoot off gear, damage gear, damage cabling, dissable engines, damage engines, even shoot the engine off (which again happened to me and made flying a challenge). Proppeler damage model for those that like to touch the tips on the ground. Control surface damage, the list goes on and on and really quite simply is a fantastic damage model even by todays standards. I can't help but think you have forgotten or tarnished your views of IL2 because of the new shiny. Either that or you have not spent enough time in IL2 to discover all that it can do (it took me years) To be honest it really did feel like flying real aircraft and i am a real life pilot. IL2 is not without its faults. Simplistic engine management, unrealistic altitude effects on engines and various other issues. However, to call it NOt a sim i think is wrong. The plane models are a sim in their own right with detail they have inside and out, and IL2 has a very good flight model which i can relate to a sim in the way you fly. IL2 is a hands on game with flying and that coupled with its intricate flight model, damage model and gun physics to me makes it a sim. Like i said, the two products are apples and oranges, but IL2 is not a game. Games take days or a week at most to master. IL2 will take years to master.

Correct me if i am mistaken but the SU25t in Flaming cliffs one suffered from "mach tuck"

Unfortunately headwinds have nothing to do with IAS/EAS/TAS A good way to see if your engine is developing power at full throttle is to check the engine n1 fan speed. If you are developing full N1 thrust then any poor performance in air speed is purely down to drag and thrust vector

One way to improve the airquake slammer fest is to put a resource limit / constraint on airbases/farps. Parameters would include, (1) how much of each weapon are stored, (2) how much time or supply drops before replenish (3) at what rate are the weapons replenished. That way, all the quakers that take off full of only slammers (or mavericks for a-10 users) would quickly deplete the stockpiles limiting their ability and forcing them to use other ordinance. Also it would enforce players to protect supply lines for resupply if supply drops were selected as an option. Also it would promote team play to carefully select ordinance between players before taking off Also it would encourage people to care about surviving more as losing a fully laden aircraft will reduce the available resources quickly

@ Hassata - I have tried linking the path to the sektop shortcut, but that does not work. @ Topdog - Good idea, i will try Thanks.

It still won't recognise the .exe path with the ammendments you have listed above. Not to bother though, i have found a workaround by luanching black shark normally via desktop icon and then quickly launching FSautostart (which is now set to my trackIR .exe). In the end i get the same result - even though a little fiddly. Just would be good to use it the way it is intended where FSautostart does it in one hit.

Thank you, i will try that one and let you know how i get on. :smilewink:

Hi there, I have no problems running Black shark and have been for a while. But my system is far from modern and I am trying to get it to work with FSautostart FS autostart is a programme that shuts down unnecessary processes then launches Black shark and upon closing black shark restarts all the processes that were previously stopped. My problem is, FSautostart launches the .exe file but black shark does not launch. If i double click on the icon without FSautostart the programme launches no problem. But if i copy the path to the .exe from the icon into FSautostart to lauch the programme, nothing happens. (this is the only programme that i can't use FSautostart with). I hope i make sense and any help is appreciated. Kind regards.