PFunk1606688187

I always, always, always (always)* ease my nose down after touchdown to avoid this. If you just let it drop on its own it can pop. I don't know if its because of a bug in the ground handling in DCS (which is screwy) or if it varies by touchdown weight or rollout speed, but I never let it fall on its own. I ease it down. If you flared correctly the nose will always be high and need to come down. I don't think its remotely possible to touch down in a 3 point position without being at an excessively high (see suicidal) sink rate or a ridiculous approach speed. If I ever neglect to ease it down I always wince in anticipation. *always

Both the Saitek modifier (called Shiftstate, bound to Pinkie on my X52 by default) and the DCS modifier work with either keycommands and joybtns. I'm pretty sure you could use both modifiers simultaneously and they'd work fine, though that would mean pressing two modifiers and a third joybtn. There's no reason you can't blend key commands and joycommads seamlessly. Saitek software assumes that given how unbound joy buttons respond as joy buttons in the same profile you have key commands bound. DCS software is the same as all modifiers are usable across the keyboard and controller input columns. You can set modifiers as keyboard commands or joy buttons. The in DCS modifier system functions with multiple modifiers as well. The Shift, Ctrl, and Alt keys as well as the windows buttons are all set by default as modifiers. Adding another is no trouble. When binding a new key or joy command you just press the correct modifier and button. A joy button modifier can work with keyboard commands and vice versa (this last one is untested by me but seems logical). I also just thought of something else. DCS modifiers have two types. Standard shift modifier, and a Switch modifier. The first functions identically to pressing your Shiftstate button in the Saitek Software: It only works as long as the button is depressed. However, the Switch modifier works identically to the Mode switching function of the Saitek software. The shift state is active when you press the button and only turns off when you press it again. If you mapped your three mode Joy Buttons as DCS Switch modifiers it would effectively allow you to use them in DCS as you would in the Saitek software and you should be able to use a standard Modifier at the same time. I haven't tried this but it seems logical that it should work, and since you're having such a hard time with the Saitek emulation its worth a try. It would let you shift into 3 modes and shift every button in that mode with a modifier without using a single keyboard command if you wanted. You could still use the Saitek software for key emulation if you wanted as well working in the background, deleting all the shift states and modes leaving you with a single column and all your mode and shift buttons unbound , and having only a few joy buttons bound to keys as necessary for some eventuality you can't foresee. I use this because certain things like the mouse nub cannot be recognized as a joybutton so I just use Bands with key emulation to use it as a make shift hat switch. Hope thats useful enough to you to justify the wordiness it took to express. :music_whistling:

RCtrl-Num0 locks you in snap view mode.

To me its a very romantic and exciting feeling holding short of the runway, hearing that motor whine, bringing the canopy bow down around you, the shrill engine noise fading, the transparent shroud finally slowing and sucking into position as the cabin seals and you configuration for take off, ready to ride into hell. All that'd be ruined closing it too early. 8)

Use this mod. With or without Trackir it allows you to see switches correctly. I consider it one of my must have mods.

Also, the sensitivity of the Steerpoint track deviation can vary greatly depending on the setting in your flight plan. A single dot can represent a few nautical miles or a few hundred feet or alternatively a few degrees. From page 227 of the A-10C manual: If I recall correctly you can set this as a global parameter but also change it individually per waypoint in your FPM page. I never use it so someone who does can correct me.

I haven't tried it but I have used the mode switch on my X52 as a regular joy button in DCS. The Saitek control panel shows that the mode switches are constantly active. Using the in DCS modifier should work fine with them if they work the same with the X55. The problem might come from the fact that when you use the in DCS modifier releasing the main button without releasing the modifier doesn't end the action. For instance I have my trim set to modifier+POV1 on my stick. If I trim, release POV1, the trim hat in game stays depressed until I release the modifier. Alternatively you could more easily, but perhaps with some problems or glitches, use the saitek software to make every joy button do key emulation and the default set up for how the mode switches work means you can do exactly what you want except that you'll need to bind the key commands the game uses. I haven't seen the software for the X55 but I highly doubt that they would have made it impossible to do what every X52 user has been doing for a decade. The software can bind joybuttons to various key commands but it cannot emulate different joy buttons. Its either key commands or joy buttons. I'm pretty sure you should be able to mix and match, so if you made mode 1 use Joybtn1 bound directly to a DCS action you could use mode 2 to bind that same button to key press because when its emulating a keypress its not acting as a joybutton as far as external software is concerned.

Can't you just physically move your default snap view position using the in game controls? Borrow from PeterP. :) http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=96116

The size of that thing tells me your entire head position is wrong. Not to mention the fact that you can see the top of the canopy bow with such a narrow FOV. It can't just be that you're too low or high, but that your entire starting position is wrong, then the adjustment with the seat further throws it off. Try moving the camera to resemble the above screen shot and then it should be obvious if its the HUD or your head position thats the culprit.

The way it was described to me was that when you push the switch up its physically locked until the canopy reaches full extension. You can override this in real life by pulling the switch out and returning it to neutral. I don't remember if this was supposed to be magnetic or if its a mechanical uplock that is released physically by whatever signal indicates to the system that the canopy is fully up. I doubt that the other switches that use magnetic holding would require you to pull the switch out so if I had to guess I'd say this one is mechanical. I could always ask again. :D

So apparently the canopy open switch is meant to lock when you flip it up until the canopy fully opens at which point it returns to neutral. I presume this is what that Button_07 thing is meant for. I'm gonna toy with this. EDIT. Well that was pretty easy to fix. All I had to do was replace the value_up from 0.5 to nil. Works exactly the same as clicking it does now. Didn't even have to use Button_07. This is I assume because of this behavior being built into the clickabledata.lua. It uses the nil command there in the stop_value, and it also has this line: The false appears to line up with the column that defines behavior that corresponds to the canopy open action. No idea if this is at all related or if it just inspired me to figure out the solution.

I used to make that argument. I just think that every hour flying under one type of configuration programs your brain for a given muscle memory and every time you change it you're changing the muscle memory again which means the relative level of expertise you have is diminished. I don't want to sound like a jerk but its just sloppy in my opinion. I say this because I can say I was sloppy. Sure it was probably easier because my curve was so low, but I had it in place for over 2 years. What did it do to my flying? It meant that my gut reaction to pulling high G turns was wrong when I changed my curve despite having at that point hundreds of hours in the virtual plane. I get it though, this isn't real life so enjoyment does matter. Some people would rather succeed with the limited time they have to play. That's perfectly reasonable. I still think its sub optimal as a learning process though. I'm just saying, if you can stomach the short term failure its better medium and long term. I think you should think differently. Its not your curve thats imprecise, its you. Your brain is not yet able to generate naturally accurate inputs. This isn't surprising because you have no baseline because you're new. Sadly, 50 curve is crippling, as would be 30. I wouldn't be surprised if trying to dodge a SAM you blew straight through the steady to the chopped tone then stalled out. One thing that might produce better results is forget the boom. Forget AAR, instead focus on basic formation flying. Nobody in real life gets anywhere near a boom without at least months of formation flying. Fly on the tanker's wing, turn on your standby HUD, and fly entirely visually. No TVV, no altimeter, nothing. Its horrifyingly awkward, but if you just do 2 or 3 sessions on a wing of maybe 20-30 unbroken minutes, with racetrack turns thrown in, you will find you're learning, plus because its formation flying you can be as close or as distant as you want and as you get better you tighten up. I think this is better for learning even if you keep a high stick curve. I think a lot of the frustration comes from trying to accomplish the hardest feat of formation flying with 0 formation flying experience.I would say its better to handicap your expectations and accomplish progressively larger goals than go for the big one and handicap your brain's inability to react fast enough because you're too inexperienced. To me it just feels kind of like learning inside out. I believe the boom is actually at its bottom of travel then it snaps to something near centre. I don't think its realistic because every video real AAR showed me the boom staying stock still until the pilot gets close enough for the operator to start trying to guide into the receptacle. It makes no sense to me that the boom would rest at anything but centre position when the pilot is pre-contact. One of the more annoying things when learning to AAR is that you don't know where you should be behind the tanker, and this behavior just confuses you more.

Reminds me of the endless tirade about how the Spit and La-7 were OP in IL-2. What I assume is that people will always gravitate towards the TnB fighters over the BnZ ones. Its so much simpler to think about yanking on the stick than trying to manage energy in 3 dimensions for the multitude it seems.

Are you saying that Clod doesn't model high-AoA maneuver stalling at all, or just not well? I don't own it so I'm just curious.

In my opinion any stick curve is ultimately a losing gambit. I used to be a vehement supporter of a very carefully calibrated, barely noticeable stick curve, something below 15 on either axis. I then took a leap, set everything to 0, and realized what a waste of time it was trying to learn to fly any other way. With 0 curve every input is faster. Curve may create (the impression of) a smoother response, but it causes your stick to spend more time in the middle part of your range meaning that there is an actual input lag compared to a 0 curve. It is imperceptible when you're used to it, but if you were to race someone at say 200 feet above the deck through a trench where you didn't know the path you'd find the guy with 0 curve out turning you and reacting faster. With a 50 curve I can't imagine someone not crashing into a cliff face. Another thing that stick curve does is that by its very nature it causes the full range of input to create a non linear response, meaning that at some point in the range you will find your input accelerating. It will mean that gentle inputs at this point of deflection on the real stick will lead to sudden radical ones in the sim. The difference between pulling 3 Gs or 4 Gs is slight, but stick curve means that you will need to mind yourself very carefully when doing anything radical. In my opinion this is a far more critical phase of flight than AAR and sacrificing precision and control in combat so you can tank more easily is not a good trade at all, and by the looks of things even severe stick curve isn't making it any easier for some, so this means that its not the stick's sensitivity that's screwing you up, its your own lack of skill. That means practice, and you might as well not practice a configuration that creates downsides and bad habits that are just as hard to unlearn down the road.

I honestly don't know how you do it, needing to have your hand pushing on the stick at all times. That thing you say about feeling like its more accurate if you have the stick under pressure, I'm pretty sure thats the result of our crappier than real life spring centring sticks at work. Very few consumer sticks aren't mushy at the centre point.

I have both of those. I was deeply disappointed with Air Combat Manoeuvres: The Technique and History of Air Fighting for Flight Simulation. I didn't feel like there was anything in there I couldn't learn from reading threads on the IL-2 Ubi forums, the "bible", and several other free sources. It has lots of big pretty pictures in it, far more than it has meaningful text. Its a shallow overview of some largely general concepts. Its not the least bit in depth. I think it would better benefit a console player than someone who has already logged countless hours in any DCS level simulation. Waste of money in my opinion. As for In Pursuit: A Pilot's Guide to Online Air Combat, well its been several years but I got it free, and not the illegal way. http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/lento_ohjeet/inpursuit/inpursuit.pdf I consider it a much more engaging source specifically focused on the online kind of flying. It is not as dry as the bible and as such its easier to start with, but still has enough depth to make it so that you're getting more for your time spent reading it than the first, utterly useless, book you linked. Its also free, so its full of much more win. [2cents]For what its worth, in my experience just reading volumes of information doesn't teach you much. Its very difficult for many of us to visualize things and get an understanding of the speed that these occur at when reading, even when you can see the diagrams. It would probably be better practice to read and fly at the same time, comparing what you do on a regular basis to what you're slowly coming to understand. Back in the Il2 days I would record tracks of my online flying and review the good ones and try to relate what I saw to what I'd learned. My best experience with learning how to fight in multiplayer was to be obnoxiously conservative, flying like one of those poker players who never bets or sees a flop until he has a top 10 hand, or the nuts. Then commit to a single pass, then extend and run away. Too early on I found that committing to a full engagement with only rudimentary skills would overwhelm me and I learned nothing from my encounters other than how annoying it is to die and have to respawn. [/2cents]

^ That is an excellent choice. I love the blurred background.

Mach 4.3? Is this airframe, even re-engineered, capable of this kind of performance?

X52 with spring tension mod and Saitek Pro Flight Rudder Pedals.

If I've interpreted the tail registry visible in the first photo correctly (N607QX) its a CRJ-700. HUD symbology looks to be a common system used in various airframes however.

Don't be too consumed by the heroic cowboy mentality. You'll miss the value. The Ka-50 was specifically designed to minimize pilot workload to allow him to take on the dual role of being the gunner in this gunship helicopter. The idea is the autopilot fights the airframe, you fight the enemy. As for the autopilot channels, I remember reading that real Ka-50 pilots are not permitted to ever fly without at minimum the main 3 channels engaged unless they fail.

I literally laughed out loud. You are basically not flying the Ka-50 at this point, you're just fighting a losing battle. Note: I laughed at how horrible that experience must be for you. I also laughed at the fact that you haven't even bound the one button you should be pressing more than any other by far. It was a laugh of bitter compassion. Its okay. Things will get better now. :thumbup:

Yea but you forget that they said they'd communicate. They said things like "Alpha prob in Feb" and stuff like that, and so when you say things it behooves you to follow up on what you said, either to do as you said or to communicate how what was said before is not possible now. Its rather petulant to say that since people are babies on the internet its perfectly fine for a company that has taken people's money to outright ignore them when asking for information about things they were promised information on. Here's an idea. If some company wants to ask people on the internet for money they have to take with that money all the whiny bitchy nonsense that comes with people on the internet who have expectations generated by having been asked for money. If this was merely a matter of them showing off art for a privately funded project that'd be one thing, but its clearly not. You equating fulfilling the terms of a contract, in good faith, to being babied is absurd, and I wonder how people can be so cavalier about things like this, especially after seeing what happened with the Mig-21 fiasco. Anyway, my money isn't caught up in this so I don't want to grandstand, I just can't help myself with some commentary though.

I'll give that a shot, thanks.