PFunk1606688187

Yes, or you change the keyboard keys in the profile to match whats bound in your version of DCS.

I think interactive tutorials condition individuals to expect magic when they refuse to RTFM. :wassat:

Take advantage of every single control on your X52. They are all useful, every single one of them. The little mouse nub is useless as a mouse but excellent as a speed brake switch if you set it to bands on the forward and backward axis. The slider works well for FOV. I use the scroll wheel for flaps, the scroll wheel click to reset FOV, and do not neglect those chiclet keys below the display on the throttle. Those can be bound as well. I would avoid the Saitek software shift states because by using the shift mode available via DCS itself you can gain a few extra controls. You can turn the clutch button into a regular joy button in the config menu and by deleting all but one shift state in the programming software you can then use the 3 way mode swtich on the stick instead as a 3 way joy button. I use it for A/P mode and with a DCS modifier also as the throttle pinkie switch for lighting. Love my X52.

In order to see more without getting that FOV distortion you'd need an eye position thats quite a bit higher. The problem with the zoom in DCS isn't that its depicting things incorrectly with respect to FOV, just that what is depicted is of a significantly lower resolution to what your eye would see at an identical FOV and eye position. There are issues with peripheral vision as well but so much happens in our brains to make those messed up images our eyes see turn into what our minds see that what we get in computer games is pretty good if limited. In order to get human level acuity of the interior of the cockpit without altering FOV you'd need a screen resolution well above what we have in game. When you narrow FOV to get a clear view of things in your cockpit you're seeing a narrower space than a human eye would but at a closer approximation to visual resolution. The same goes with using a TrackIR head motion to put your face near say an MFCD. If you could see a real pilot make the same movement you'd see some crazy idiot putting his nose right up against the MFCD and you'd wonder whats wrong with his eyes. The answer would be "I have the eyes of a DCS pilot". This is all my uneducated assumptions of how things work. People who actually understand this might rightly contradict me.

Looks like an FPS level from the late 90s.

A rather pedantic and unnecessary one. So I've read about this limitation on the X55 a few times. Can anyone explain exactly what it is to me?

TMS Left Short will also clear it.

Its noting that you have no SPI anymore isn't it? I think this has to do with how the CDU purges its navigational data on touchdown. If you notice after the CDU resets to its Warm Start state you are no longer in Flight Plan mode but instead are now in Mission mode. If your SPI was slaved to your Steer Point then that would be why there is no more SPI, or something like that. No doubt Noodle knows why and probably has an explanation thats actually true and not just conjecture like mine.

I'm under the impression that hydraulic failures and the need to use MRFCS is basically borked. Its an unrefined part of the simulation that doesn't behave likes its supposed to and likely never will.

Mine have broken too. Its minor though, luckily. Mostly its them being driven off the track for the pedals by too much force. The centre spring is broken though for good. Lucky again that its at the tension I preferred.

Law of averages.

Then in this situation pushing is a natural thing to do. Outlining the scenario at the onset would have saved people a lot of wasted typing. I don't know why anyone would roll and pull during basic departure procedures. You should be monitoring speed and possibly following the max performance climb speed schedule to ensure your pitch attitude remains manageable and recoverable with a push, though I don't think the A-10 has enough thrust to give us a climb angle anywhere near high enough to be in the realm of when you consider a roll and pull. If you're managing a steady climb at 20 degrees nose high I think you might be having speed issues in short order however, particularly with a combat load. :P Part of piloting is keeping the aircraft in manageable parameters and commercial pilots do this by default. A 737 doesn't have the luxury of rolling and pulling if it finds itself pitched too high and running out of speed. Anticipating the imminent changes will allow you to shallow the ascent ahead of leveling off so its not about making radical changes in an otherwise banal flight regime.

I keep trying to write an answer and it keeps getting long winded and full of qualifications. I ultimately come back to the first sentence I typed. This is all about experience. The negative G limits of 2Gs and 10 seconds tell you how far you can push it and experience tells you how to make that choice. The only other point I can make is that the more realistically you fly the less things like this enter the equation. If you know how the SEMs work then you realize that if you're doing everything right there should be almost no times in combat you find yourself having to push from more than 5 degrees of climb without being in a turn where the gravity brings you back down.

X52 is great for its price, as long as you realize its not built like a $600 stick. I wouldn't expect the X55 to be phenomenally better since its made by the same company with almost certainly many of the same parts on the inside. Frankly, without having used it, I think there are some aspects of the X52 that are still superior. Main advantage of the X55 is its split throttle, but I don't consider that terribly useful 95% of the time. I actually think the control layout on the X55 throttle looks inferior personally. Biased X52 owner's opinion though.

Are you talking about the dashed circle with a pipper at the centre thats at the very top of your HUD? That would be the Depressible Pipper, usually its aligned to the Zero Sight Line by default. It shouldn't move, but the TVV will. In level flight I don't think it should appear particularly different in terms of space between the TVV and the Pipper in most weights or speeds, but if you do something radical like say drop full flaps and gear you should see the TVV sink to the bottom of the HUD as your flight path changes before you make any attitude or power changes. I think it must be in your head, if I'm guessing what you mean anyway. That or I'm overlooking some aspect of aerodynamics I'm just not familiar with.

There is a minimum trim input achievable based on keystroke duration and its rather course. No matter how soft you tap the trim it will never go any finer than its minimum input which is, again, somewhat course compared to what you'd expect trim in a real aircraft to be. You can test it by assigning trim to keystrokes and tapping them as quickly and softly as you can, you'll notice that its not altogether different than what is achieved with a casual press or even a careful bump of the trim hat. The trim hat doesn't appear to demonstrate any different behavior than the keystroke.

Nope, learn to live with it. In fact many people like having nose heavy trim for AAR, but thats down to preference I guess.

I think you should check to see if those bindings work properly, I had to custom write some bindings because the freq knobs would leave me with an incorrect freq, ie. one different from whats displayed by the ingame panel. If it works without problem though good, you've got it better than me. :P

I don't really see the point in waiting. Whenever I build a computer its about getting maximum value for a given budget with the final budget being decided based on how high the performance to price curve goes with the current market and hardware iteration cycle. In the end what will make DCS run best is probably going to be no different than making anything else run, with EDGE more so than before. Current DCS doesn't take full advantage of modern hardware, whereas with an engine that supports DX11 even older machines could see some boost if previously there was a bottleneck. The only time I would consider holding off is when there's a major change upcoming in the market such as a new socket with a new gen of chips or a new cycle of video cards within a few weeks which could alter the price balance and so offer better value. I will be getting a new PC for EDGE if only because I'm almost certain my current one will simply not be able to make the game playable in its upgraded form. I seem to be in the very very slim minority of people with a card that doesn't support DX11.

I can only report on changing frequencies with keyboard keys. The last time I checked the default bindings were broken and you had to write your own and put them in the default.lua in order for the frequency knobs or the preset knobs to work properly. As far as I recall the UHF ones should work fine but the VHF ones are borked. I don't know how this relates to Helios though, so I'm not going to go through the whole spiel of what I did until someone can confirm it works. Even with my fixed bindings the preset roller on the VHF radios is bugged, as are the individual frequency knobs. If you rotate them too many times in a given direction it puts the actual frequency out of sync with what is represented or meant to be in the preset.

This should be a no brainer.

So can someone tell me what confirmed news there actually is here other than 1.3.0 is just going to be rebranded 2.0.0 for reasons that were already readily apparently (EDGE, changes, big, much, etc)? I see people trying to read into the tea leaves and wonder if I'm missing something here.

I love this guy. And as for that item in the manual's checklist, well I have no idea. Maybe its some item from some very old early list from very early development that included totally superfluous inclusions based on the existence of things you could pull and should reset to normal, and Brake means normal brake operation ie. push the EMER BRAKE handle in. Or its just silly. :clown:

Are you talking about a parking brake? The A-10 has none.

Perhaps. I'm having a hard time figuring out if its possible to just see the general air traffic in a region at a given time in the past. I think as the poster before you pointed out its not actually unusual and really when you look at it there are many more warzones around the world at any given time than most people realize. Perhaps its an institutional complacency, but this is mostly a rare occurrence when you consider how many wars happen at once and how many aircraft must overfly them. FAA was concerned but the European equivalents weren't. Its hard to know what their thinking was, but there most certainly would have been some. Its common also I think for us to react strongly to things we don't understand. I think its pretty clear almost all of us have no meaningful understanding of what happens with decision making amongst aviation institutions with respect to this kind of all too common situation, made uncommon by the outcome.