dillio

Welp, I stand corrected. I sat down and tried a few things and the behavior of the fuel gauges is NOT AT ALL what I said it was. As AlphaOneSix described above, the needles WILL sync with the actual fuel qty when power is applied. I was remembering wrong or maybe thinking back to the older implementation from BS1. Anyway, big thanks to A16 for patient explanation, and a big facepalm for me! :doh: I see your point but I think in the context of fluid moving in a mechanical system, most people would agree that "metering" as a verb refers to the measurement of flow in terms of volume over time. In some applications the term "metering" also means the regulation of flow; for example in some fuel-injection systems the "metering device" is the module that actually delivers the precise amount of fuel for each intake cycle. It may not be linguistically "wrong," but I think in this case I think it's not the best choice of translation. As AlphaOneSix said above, "Fuel Gauges" would be clearer than "Fuel Metering" even if you don't make the association that I did. But I love the Russian aircraft and ambiguous translation is all part of the fun! Sometimes it even kills you, wheeee! :pilotfly:

What you're saying seems to contradict the behavior in the sim, and what was explained earlier in the thread. "Fuel Metering System" is how it's described in the DCS BS2 English manual, see page 6-80 (154 of the PDF) for an example. Thank you for offering your real-world experience to help explain. As I stated before, my understanding based on the sim and the manual is that the gauges are controlled by a flow-sensing system that "meters" the fuel, that is to say counts what goes past the sensor and decrements the fuel gauges accordingly. This matches the behavior in the sim where the gauges only move when the system is on. If you run the engines or add fuel to the tank with the system off, the gauges do not move to report the fuel movement. If you then turn the fuel meter on, the gauge DOES NOT change to report the accurate fuel level. This was mentioned a few times farther up this thread. Again, I appreciate you sharing your RL experience to help me understand! :smartass:

That's fine but my question stands: if the fuel qty is measured by capacitance in the tanks then why don't the gauges read from that measurement? What is the purpose of the fuel level sensor if not for pilot indication? Is it just for the 110 kg warning?

I couldn't find this in the manual, are you sure? If this is so then why can't the fuel qty gauge read independently of the fuel metering system?

Right, good point. I was thinking about how this would work and why the needles would move with fueling. However, I don't know about your car but mine does not meter fuel at the tank, it just has a "sending unit" to measure and report the amount of fuel in the tank. There's different ways to do this but I think mine has a float on top of the gasoline. (I have a pretty old car!) :thumbup: I don't think the Shark has this manner of fuel measurement. Only the fuel meter to keep track of what goes in and out of the tanks. If the meter is turned off while fuel is moving, the indicator will not be accurate. This is just the kind of detail in this simulation that still blows me away after all these years! I've been flying the Shark since about 2010 and I can still learn about something like this. To me the Ka-50 is still the definitive DCS module.

I think this is correct operation. The switch activates the fuel metering device which measures what actually goes to the engines and decreases the indicator accordingly. The fuel gauge does not measure the fuel in the tank like a car does. Instead it is set before flight and "counts down" from input from the fuel metering. I remember older versions of the Shark that behaved like you're describing, but I believe the current behavior is correct. The test if it's working or not is not whether the gauge moves when you turn it off or on, but whether the fuel level decreases as the fuel is used. If the fuel level decreases with the switch to OFF then it is possibly a bug.

That's what I think too. The shorter tab on top of the handle points at the selected pitot.

Thanks for the answer. I see what you're talking about, but the finer print at the bottom sez: "If the product description does not have information about which DCS World version you should install, you only need to have the "Stable" version DCS World 2.5 installed on your PC." I know that 1.x is "unsupported" now, but I'm sure some people are still playing it like me. It makes sense that the modules would still install to 1.5.8 but I don't want to pay now for something I won't enjoy until I pay some more to upgrade my computer. Anyone else with pre-2.5 versions install any new modules lately?

I'm thinking of buying some module(s) during the sale. My old computer doesn't really run 2.5 though, so I'm still mostly playing with 1.5.8. If I buy modules now, will they still be able to install with the 1.5.8 module manager? Thanks in advance for any advice.

Yeah. I know. That's what I was talking about when I said:

:thumbup: Wow looks very professional! Send to Wags for implementation right away! Okay, this is not a personal attack, but I'm going to be as blunt as I know how: your suggestion is laughably, almost childishly simplistic. You keep insisting how easy, really trivially easy your idea would be to implement but you simply don't know the first thing of what's involved. From the beginning you've said you wanted an "FC3" version of the full modules. This is probably attainable, but nowhere near as simple, easy, fast or cheap as you are imagining. Simple systems, simple radar, simple propulsion model. Basically you were suggesting merging the art assets and FM of the full module with an FC3 style SSM. It just isn't that simple but it doesn't matter BECAUSE: As I guessed before, FC3 is not what you want at all. What you are actually suggesting is the full module with some kind of simple, optional control scheme that would allow you to use the full capabilities of the module, but with easier controls. And then... sell that as a separate module? This makes no sense for ED to produce or try to sell, and makes your "implementation" even more far-fetched. You've written hundreds of words of vague descriptions of how you think this might work, that somehow address none of the actual problems with your idea. Others in this thread have spelled out more clearly than me why your idea is a non-starter, but I can see you're listening very selectively. Really though, if you would have spent this time in the sim and the manual on your tablet, you could have learned a new module by now. Honestly I'm baffled as to why you don't just go play a different game. Thanks Katmandu for starting an interesting discussion.:thumbup:

Your friends are dummies! Believe me I share your pain, but don't try to make it ED's problem. No, by all means hang out here and plead with ED to change the game to suit you.

What you're suggesting here is that at least some people will pay $80 to play an FC3 module? Surely that's preposterous. As far as buying a SSM version and then later upgrading, this idea was tried by DCSW 3rd parties and at this point it can be safely said that it was a total failure. I'm sure we won't be seeing that again. Scaling a blurry image to a hi res one will not get you a nice picture and that's a fact! With respect sir, you've made it abundantly clear that you have no idea how this would work, or have even really thought through what you're asking for. The FC3 legacy planes are vastly simpler simulations than the full DCSW modules. To put it another way, the full modules are NOT just FC3's with ASM features added in. You won't just go back through the code and comment out the section "ASM STUFF TOO HARD FOR NOOBS." and be left with a FC3 module. You are talking about building a different module, a different branch of code to maintain, etc. Could you re-use some code from the full module? Probably but certainly not in the cut-and-paste way you're imagining. BUT I've come to think that "FC3" is actually not what you're after at all. By all means correct me if I'm wrong but I think what you actually want is a full PFM/ASM DCSW module just without having to click everything to make it work. In order to get your FC3 simplicity of interface, would you give up the advanced simulations of powerplant, radar, FCS, hydro systems etc etc? Or do you want all the functionality without the 500 keyboard shortcuts? Earlier there was a link to Cobra's post where he explained some of the problems with this approach, and he didn't even scratch the surface. Trying to strip out the hard stuff and leave a FC3 level sim will just result in a dog's breakfast that satisfies no one. DCSW is certainly not for everyone and that's okay. Yes there's a steep learning curve and to me and many others that is exactly the appeal. But it's still just a damn video game, man. Kids learn this game all the time. Manuals, tutorials, cheat codes, and supportive community make it attainable for anyone with some patience, and if that's not you, there are plenty of games to serve your needs.

This is a very popular fallacy that has sunk countless businesses: the assumption that if there's a market for A, and a market for B, that the total market is A+B. In reality, and especially for such a niche product as DCS, the overlap between the two groups is very large and almost everyone will buy only one of the two. Offering a cheap or "lite" version devalues the main product and means that at least some customers who would have bought the expensive version if it was the only thing available, will buy the cheap version instead. The OP is suggesting that there is a large demand for a FC3 style Hornet, for example, and he may well be correct, but many of those sales will come at the expense of the full module, so not a good outcome from a revenue perspective. As for "attracting more people," another common way for a business to fail is to compromise their model in order to chase broader appeal. DCS is a niche product and does indeed serve a comparatively small market segment. The LAST thing they should do is dilute their offering with "lite" versions of the modules. Rather they should be, as they are, focusing on increasing complexity and making the hardcore even harder. Trying hard to attract customers who want something different than what you're actually selling is a Very. Bad. Idea. I have no idea if ED will release the Hornet with a "Game Mode" or whatever, but I honestly can't see why they would. At this point, nearly 10 years in and with all these modules released and in development, I think it's proven that there is ample demand to support the product without such crutches. From a "gameplay" view, I always thought that Ka-50 "Game Mode" was actually intended to be kind of lame, to incent the player to learn and get better so he didn't have to play in "sucky mode" (my term) anymore. If the proposed "FC3 Game Mode" can do anything the full module can do, just with fewer keystrokes, then there's no reason to put in the effort. I have the FC3 module and I like it for what it is: an updated legacy product. It was explicitly intended as a stop-gap until DCS fast jets became available. Now that's finally happening, so there's no need for the limitations that come with the FC3 types.

Someone or other on the DCS forums has asked this EXACT question about once a week or so since 2011. Certainly no one doubts the demand for a DCS: F-16 module. If Lockheed or another license-holder was able to block a DCS project, they would surely not elaborate on it here. If ED were to contract for a military F-16 simulation, they might develop it to a DCS module as they did with A-10C, F/A-18C, etc. Until then, we keep dreaming!

Black Cat is not working on a MOD. This is the term for simple or complex MODifications to the game. A MODULE in DCS is a paid, full-featured flyable aircraft. Brian Cooper has stated that they intend to seek a license from ED to develop the Tu-22 as a paid module. As I understand it they are currently working up a technology demonstration to present to ED. They have made it abundantly clear that they expect the development process to take years to complete, as DCS modules usually do. Sirius, I kind of thought you would understand this by now...? For those who follow these forums, there are plenty of examples of this kind of thinking, but I hope Brian and his team will learn this lesson now: Something as trivial as a missed deadline for an informal status report, for some people constitutes a "broken promise." I think the vast majority of DCS customers are more mature than this but there's no need to subject yourself to the opinions of the vocal minority. Never even guess a date for anything, make every update a surprise! Good luck, Briana et al! :thumbup:

I think the Black Cat team is busy working on an actual module, instead of say, making loading screens. I would much rather see 2-3 updates a year than daily updates with trivial progress.

I'm gonna wade in here: The plane weathervanes into the wind. Always, at all times, during flight. THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THE VERTICAL STAB IS THERE FOR. Why else did you think your course was different from your heading?

Of all the amazing things planned for DCS, this project is one I hope for the most. It's very exciting to see an independent team pushing the envelope of what can be done with SSM & SFM. I fell in love with the Skyhawk when I saw one at the USS Intrepid. I can't wait to fly your plane!

Showing up here just to say "meh" has to invite at least a little bit of scorn.

It's beautiful! I love the lighting effects in this cockpit, and for some reason I never tried out the torch before. So cool! Thanks again, Leatherneckers!

Thanks, RaXha! I didn't know how much I wanted this module until right now!

Thanks for your reply, BIGNEWY. I understand that it is up to Leatherneck to decide how to post their updates. I hope they will hear my humble suggestion. I understand also that moderators rely on the community to report inappropriate posts. I want to help! I honestly think that the ED forums at this point consist of about 5% abuse and about 85% well-meaning and civil, but totally off-topic posting. I just don't know how much it would help you for me to flag every off-topic post in this thread that consists entirely of off-topic posts, this one included! The forums are quite unsearchable because every other OP turns into a 120-page omnibus military aviation thread. I really don't know what to suggest. These forums could sure use a "tagging" system to sort posts, but if every post gets every tag... you see the problem. Mostly I don't care about the discussion, so if the official updates are posted in a locked thread then for me at least that solves the problem neatly and completely. Well that's enough outta me.

Hi Cobra! Once again we have a 19-page thread of bitching and crying appended to the changelog for the recent patch. This is unnecessary and totally inappropriate. The changelog is an important document, and may be updated by the official source (you in this case) in the days and weeks after the initial patch. The editorialization by children and fools SHOULD NOT be included in this thread. I just wanna know if the cockpit lights are ready yet, so I must sift through pages of babies crying that you didn't make their videogame right! WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS?! I BEG YOU LNS to make your updates and changelogs as locked threads. Once again I'll say: The majority of comments are civil and interesting, but again do not belong in the changelog. Nothing but the changelog should be in the changelog! Thanks for reading.

Ambitious just about covers it! You guys have the talent and the access to make this happen. I WILL BUY. All the best to you, Brian and Oleg!