Charly_Owl

Guys... I still have all those documents (and more importantly, the ppt files) on my hard drive, no worries. I wanted to re-organize my google drive folder structure. So... I made some back-ups of the files, re-organized my files, and then deleted the back-up files. Just kidding - I actually deleted the originals and kept the back-ups by mistake. That's why the links are all screwed up. It's a honest mistake. I'm currently out of town for work and access to google drive is restricted due to company policy on military sites. Therefore, I won't be able to update the links until I come back home in a couple of weeks.

I should've probably removed that slide... the english cockpit being natively available is a recent addition by Belsimtek.

Very unlikely.

All right, sorry about the super long delay. I double-checked and yes, you're completely right. I'll have the changes updated by the end of the day. Sorry for the inconvenience.

During the initial Normandy alpha release, will it be a separate install or will it be merged with NTTR from the beginning?

@IvanK: I had this exact same issue. What I would advise you to do is to go through the pdf guide attached in the first post of this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=185325 The step I didn't do was the one called "Deleting product registry entries (skip in case of successful deactivation)". Failing to do this step caused a mismatch between starforce and my registry file. I thought I could skip it since I assumed my deactivation was successful. WRONG. I think the "skip in case of..." part should be mandatory. Apparently, you have to do it no matter what (at least for me). Once I deleted the registry manually, I was finally able to re-activate my module for Open Beta 1.5. Follow steps 2a) through 2d) and you should be able to reactivate your license properly. Moral of the story: When writing "you can skip this step if..." in a guide, one should assume that the user will inevitably go "har har I'm lazy, therefore I shall skip this step anyway". Even for experienced users like me.

I may have written this section while looking at John's video at the time. I honestly can't remember if the logic and documentation has changed since the early dev build I had or if I simply made a mistake. I'll have to check. I'm planning a big update to the guide near the end of may after university exams, so I'll double-check every procedure to ensure they're up to date.

Make sure your delete your Leatherneck registry key (using "regedit" commadn in windows) as instructed in the pdf file and follow the instructions in that file. That should do the trick. For some reason I forgot to delete my registry and the mig-21 pop-up asking me for my activation/deactivation of the module would never allow me to re-activate my key. Deleting the registry manually did the trick.

You don't want to picture how real engineering works? Well, you're being willfully unreasonable. You haven't proven anything. Not a single bloody thing. That's the beauty of a forum: you are free to express your opinion on things, and I'm also free to assess whether you're talking out of your arse or not. Evidence seems to point to the former rather than the latter. Being a customer does not entitle you to drive design decisions of a flight sim product. If the FM changes makes your experience in the MiG-21 unbearable for some obscure reason, you can revert back to the previous patch and never look back.

Doesn't matter: being tired is irrelevant. Put yourself in the shoes of a flight model developer for one second. Pretend you have coded the whole flight model by yourself and you know it inside out. Can you picture this? I'm sure you can. Now imagine me coming to you and telling you that "FM is broken, fix it. It's horrible and unrealistic." As a developer, I am sure that you have the best intentions in the world and want your module to be as accurate as possible. Your thought process to approach this situation will very likely going to be something like this: What aspects of the FM does he think is broken? Is that feedback credible? What is he basing himself on to know that X or Y aspect of the FM is broken? What data is he using as a reference? Does this data contradict the data I already have? Does he have any experience with the real aircraft? How am I going to fix anything if he can't tell me what exactly is wrong? The chances are that, with feedback that is vague and unsubstanciated, you cannot answer a single one of these questions. Therefore, the only viable options are either to ask for more information, or to disregard that feedback since you don't have anything you can work with.

Mate... if you want to be taken seriously, provide MEANINGFUL feedback with actual quantitative data and your testing method instead of throwing a tantrum. A FM cannot be tuned or corrected with meaningless feedback like "roll inertia is complete gone", "I won't post any track" "this is nuts" "fix it" "worse FM"... The "feedback" you provided won't get anything solved. Be practical. Be accurate and exhaustive. Otherwise, it's just senseless whining, which is of no use to anybody here.

Haven't received mine either (living in Canada). I sent you an e-mail last week.

I am a tester for VEAO's P-40. http://www.mudspike.com/qa-with-veao-p-40f-preview/

In my humble opinion, I am not really questioning the price of the package... I am however quite skeptical about the sale of the map and unit pack as separate entities. I think it's a safe assumption that someone who buys Normandy will de facto want to buy WW2 units as well; selling a Normandy + WW2 assets bundle as a standard package is a no-brainer. For me, at least. Don't get me wrong, I think the price is fair and comparable to what we paid for NTTR. But like Bounder said, the splitting of the multiplayer community base is a very real issue. Normandy is being marketed as a WW2-era map with WW2-era airports and scenery. I do not believe expecting the map to contain era-specific units out of the box is unreasonable. The necessity for a one-size-fits-all package stems from a desire put all Normandy users on equal ground and streamline/facilitate interactions within the playerbase.

I have a list of a couple of items to fix in the Viggen guide. I'll get to it when I have the time. If you find more inconsistencies (since there appears to be many, as stated by Accipiter), please let me know and I'll have them fixed. I'm just a man. It's easy to be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information for this plane. Mistakes are part of the deal.

The link to the Spitfire guide is here in the first post: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B-uSpZROuEd3Y1dhWFhKSVpPbms Just click on it, click on download, and you'll be able to save the pdf file wherever you want on your computer to see it directly or print it. The other guides I do are located here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

Good catch, Blech. Fixed.

Fellow canuck here. I'd just love to see the whole London-to-Berlin area modelled... but let's be real for a second. If we want this area size to the level of detail we want... it'll take years before we can get our hands on it. From a business standpoint, the area ED is doing at the moment makes sense and leaves enough room for interesting gameplay.

The Spitfire is much harder to takeoff and land properly (you'll hear the "rudder dance" being mentioned often here). I've flown the Spitfire in DCS many, many hours. It's one of my go-to planes whenever I feel like flying. The P-51 and the Spitfire are two of my favourite modules. If you want to know more about what you're buying with the Spit, I recommend you check these out: This way -> https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

This way -> https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

When I wrote my guides for the Mirage and Gazelle, the information that I could find was super restricted and kind of vague... there is no way you'll find a NATOPS manual for any french aircraft/helicopter. You don't realize how secretive the french government is about its classified/restricted data until you've tried finding a specific information about a specific system. There is a huge difference between what's available for US-built aircraft on the internet and what's available for french-built aircraft. Also, from all the hours I have on the DCS Gazelle, the comment about the SAS is completely true. I heard lots of people complain about the "scripted" behaviour of the flight model, but when I ask them "well, try to perform a turn at this specific bank angle and maintain it", then they realize that the SAS is actually "fighting" them. The system is invasive and I immediately see a difference when flying the Huey, which doesn't have this system: you feel you have so much more control over your helicopter. There is often confusion between a "script" a la SFM and an actual system doing its job. That's true not only in the Gazelle, but in other helicopters as well. I know what you mean about mountain flights. I haven't seen it modelled in DCS, and I had the chance to talk to a couple of helicopter pilots who told me stories about their flights in mountaineous areas. The wind drafts suck you down really easily if you fly too close to the mountainsides. There are various phenomenon that pilots are trained for, and it is a very different way of flying. While it can be argued that DCS isn't really aimed at training real life pilots, I think it's unfair to say that it has zero training value. You CAN do the procedures by-the-book if you want to train this way. Lots of folks in the 229th Virtual Air Cav train as per the -10 manual of the Huey, meaning that they plan their payload, plan their torque values for different flight phases and states. These guys have pilots from all walks of life; Black Hawk, Huey, 412 pilots, you name it. DCS gives you the possibility to go as deep as you want (within the limits of this sim, limits in terms of simulation scope), assuming that you have the material to learn how to fly it "the way they do in real life".

I'd rather wait until the radio is fully functional. According to Grunf, it is not at the moment.

Mate I really can't blame you for not having gone through 130 pages of information instantly. You're always welcome to ask if you need to know about anything.

I've had this very same issue as well. It seems to be an issue on Leatherneck's side. I have no idea if this bug was reported yet. Hopefully someone already did. This is why I purposefully left the radio tutorial as incomplete.

What Dimitriov says is true. I've seen both sides of the medal, from brief experiences in a real helicopter to a full-blown level D simulator. If DCS was aiming to be a level D, the system and hardware requirements would probably say: 1) Real Cyclic and Collective 2) At the very least 6 PCs with top-of-the-line hardware 3) A motion dome with actuators 4) A perfect replication of the actual cockpit with properly calibrated pedals, cyclic, collective, throttles, etc. 5) Several full-time employees with high salaries 6) Clearance to access restricted/classified material 7) Some crazy electricity bill 8) Pay a couple of millions for the sim, and hundreds of dollars per hour of flight time Many times, I felt this urge to argue for pages and pages. However, one day I came to the realization that my relationship with flight sims will only ever be as good as I allow it to be. I can choose how I want to approach DCS: as something that will make me feel constantly disappointed for not being "perfect" or as something that is good enough for me to learn new stuff to a "good enough" level of fidelity and enjoy myself. I take DCS for what it is rather than what it's not, and I found myself having a much healthier relationship with flight sims ever since. Just because perfection is unattainable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aim towards it though. FM discussions have always been, and always will be part of flight simulator forums. My personal approach to FM feedback is: if you have hard data that you can share, please do share. If not, find some to back up your claims. "I don't think it's right" just doesn't cut it unless you've flown 2500+ hours in the very helicopter you're discussing about. "I don't think it's right" doesn't help the engineer/coder at all. It doesn't help anyone. More often than not, people feel a genuine need to help but don't act in a way to produce meaningful results. I found the "You've never flown a Huey" bit to be needlessly harsh though. While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (and between you and I a level D sim will never be perfect either for reasons I won't go into on these forums), I think we need to give credit to the mad geniuses behind the FM code that gave us the FM behaviour we have now (either for the Huey, Mi-8, Ka-50 or Gazelle) that needs only one medium-end PC to process. For a 60 dollar package and the level of expertise, effort and selflessness needed to develop these modules, I think DCS offers an incredible bang for the buck.