Charly_Owl

...

Nice stats Winchester! Speaking from my personal experience... I used to care about stats back when I first started flight sims. One day, I realized I just didn't enjoy flying anymore when feeling stressed all the time about my K/D ratio. It also meant that I forced myself not to fly certain aircraft because I would inevitably be at a disadvantage, therefore not enjoying everything the sim had to offer. When I consciously decided that my K/D ratio didn't matter anymore, it felt exhilarating and liberating. I discovered an unexpected love for helicopters and bombers and I started having a healthier relationship with flight sims ever since. Although, I can still understand why some people are ultra-competitive and why stats are all the rage for some players. I used to be like that, but not anymore.

Is it functional yet? I wasn't aware of this... a demo about this one would be pretty useful too.

I hope that the WWII-centric 3rd Parties like VEAO are kept in the loop too. The DM updates will certainly apply to their aircraft (P-40F, Wildcat and Spitfire Mk XIV to name a few) as well.

Mirage guide now includes explanation of the latest Radar Special modes, updated controls, an Engine Relight procedure, and more typo fixes. Added: 15/07/2016

Mirage guide now includes explanation of the latest Radar Special modes, updated controls, an Engine Relight procedure, and more typo fixes. Added: 15/07/2016

Updated Mirage guide today (14/07/2016) with the following 1) INS tutorial (alignment, waypoint entry, waypoint navigation) 2) TACAN & VOR navigation tutorial 3) Added PPA logic to all weapons (MAGIC II, S530D, bombs, rockets, guns) 4) Explained missile cooling process 5) Updated autopilot logic 6) Corrected some typos 7) Updated a couple of obsolete images 8) Corrected start-up procedure (including Pitot Heat)

Updated Mirage guide today with the following 1) INS tutorial (alignment, waypoint entry, waypoint navigation) 2) TACAN & VOR navigation tutorial 3) Added PPA logic to all weapons (MAGIC II, S530D, bombs, rockets, guns) 4) Explained missile cooling process 5) Updated autopilot logic 6) Corrected some typos 7) Updated a couple of obsolete images 8) Corrected start-up procedure (including Pitot Heat)

:cry: WHAT? Shocking and unexpected! Mes sinceres condoleances.

Regarding IFR: Well, weather conditions tend to make big multiplayer servers difficult because of the lag. Many people request clear weather simply because it keeps the framerate better for everyone. Regarding night ops: Well, IIRC the Airmobile Event Number 2 had a night op and it was tons of fun (I think there were 32 helicopters who took part). Huey and Mi-8 slicks had to pick up troops from the deck of ships in pitch dark... good times!

I think the question should be "Would anyone fork 60 $ for a MiG-17 when they already have the MiG-15?" instead of "Should Belsimtek develop a MiG-17?".

Has the rocket armament procedures been changed since?

Reporting same issue with Mirage. Each time I start DCS, my default trackIR views get centered in a weird offset position.

The start-up procedure changed. Check out this http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157056 on the "Start-Up" chapter to know exactly what you need to do. My guess is that you are missing the "Press the Engine OFF button" step (at the very beginning) on the left side of your seat. It should be a small red button next to your throttle.

While I agree that the form of the start-up tutorial of the MiG-21 can be improved, I think you are overreacting and taking things too personally. Cobra didn't attack you: he just gave you a gentle reminder that Leatherneck Simulations is very much aware of what the community thinks about these tutorials, whether you believe it or not. Nick is facetious by nature but it is universally acknowledged on the ED boards that he is a class act. While it could be argued that people who don't like the form of this tutorial don't post on the forums, it can also be argued that people who like it and are totally fine with it don't post on the forums either. Still... I've taught countless people about start-up procedures for various aircraft. There are usually 3 types of people 1) those who want detailed tutorials explaining systems in depth like in the A-10C 2) those who find tutorials dry and boring and just want to learn what buttons to push without all this technical mumbo-jumbo 3) those who skip the tutorial and mash every button until something happens/explodes Each developer has his own opinion on how a tutorial should be done. Some are quite exhaustive, others are pretty light on content, and others are simply non-existent (a.k.a. RTFM). A little bit of humor in a tutorial is an effective way to grasp someone's attention and to get him involved in the process. Honestly, I think there is no perfect tutorial. Everyone learns differently and responds differently to different ways of teaching the ins and outs of an aircraft. Some people want interactive video demos, others want a checklist, others want an audio walkthrough, others want pictures... everyone has a "favourite" way of learning. I think it is erroneous to assume that everyone wants the same thing out of a study sim, or to assume that something that does not meet your expectations doesn't meet someone else's. Some people just have a couple of minutes per week to fly and find it difficult to sit on a chair and go through an exhaustive list of buttons to press. Others are real life pilots and want a whole flight manual crammed in a 5-minute-long tutorial. I personally have a very short attention span regarding things that I find trivial or uninteresting. Sometimes, I go through tutorials that I find excruciatingly boring and needlessly thorough... Some other times, I go through tutorials that make me think "uh when and why am I doing that with what again?" Let me be absolutely clear about something: I do believe that tutorials in DCS should be improved. As an example, A2A Simulations has these expertly crafted tutorials on youtube that I think should be the benchmark of every flight-sim-related tutorial. I think you are right in wanting tutorials of a higher quality. However, I also think that what we have at the moment, while not perfect, is definitely not as bad or "unprofessional" as you claim it to be. If your flight sim experience is completely ruined by a couple of jokes in a tutorial that you will most likely go through once and never touch again... then there is nothing I can do for you. I wrote thousands of tutorial pages... and if there's one thing that I learned from this whole experience is that there will never be a perfect tutorial for a world-wide community that has different needs, personalities, cultures, social and education backgrounds.

I don't know if it has ever crossed your mind... but in my experience, submitting feedback to professionals with a modicum of courtesy and respect usually gives good results and makes every party more receptive to each others' ideas. Your remark, on the other hand, is rude, arrogant, unfunny and unprofessional. Unless your sole purpose was to make the developers fume and discredit your point, I really don't have a bloody clue about what you were trying to achieve with that comment. Being blunt can be effective; being mean-spirited never gets anything done. There is no cultural or language barrier that good old plain common sense cannot cross. There are ways to make a point without antagonizing your interlocutor. I strongly suggest that you learn them.

You are very much insane. I love it ;)

Uh, is it out-of-date already? :huh:

I have a feeling this thread is drifting way off topic.

I don't think we'll ever have a 100 % historically-accurate line-up of aircraft. Especially NOT for a study sim like DCS. I accepted that a long time ago, and sooner or later people will have to get a grip on reality. A "WW2 era" theater is what we're going to have. Period. It can be argued ad nauseam about what P-51 block we "want" for the sake of balance or historical accuracy, or what german fighters should or should not have been modelled... the conclusion I've come to is that people will never be happy no matter what. Hell, in another sim about the Battle of Britain, I've heard some complain about the fact that the ratio of Spitfires was "off" in multiplayer servers (Mk I vs Ia vs IIa) and was not historically accurate. Some want a Hurricane with Hispanos instead of .303 machineguns. Some want historically-accurate ratios of Bf.109E (E1 vs E3 vs E4 vs E4N) and debates about "why the E4N was not produced in great enough numbers to be modelled in game" go on for weeks. In my experience, competitive people want to fly the best fighter available more than they care about their historical relevance. Given an infinite amount of time and money, I'm sure a "historically-accurate" lineup of aircraft and theaters could be achieved. But the reality is not that perfect due to schedules and budget. Developers have real-life constraints about what documentation they have access to, what they can or cannot model, what aircraft they have available to use as source material... It's extremely difficult to find an aircraft variant that has every bit of documentation available. Accurate guesswork is often required and it's a daunting task. Most of the time, the result of guesstimates is a jigsaw puzzle made of pieces that "sort of" fit together. Therefore, the modules and the variants we have are a result of a compromise more than anything else. I attempted to make a full 3D model of a Spitfire in CATIA about 2 years ago in my free time... I had to give up at some point since the variant I was going for was missing important info about certain parts of the aircraft since the technical drawings I needed were either lost, destroyed or missing. Some aircraft parts were sub-contracted to small companies that do not exist anymore. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for other aspects of the plane. TLDR: I'm happy with what we have. Sue me.

Unless you have a proper cyclic and collective, there is no way you can translate "realism" into a 5-in long stick and a throttle quadrant. I've flown real helicopter simulators with the physical hardware and it's pretty different. There is a level of precision with the inputs that you just cannot achieve even with hardware like the Warthog HOTAS (unless you have a custom extension). The best we can do within the scope of this sim is find the setup that we are the most comfortable in. The "recommended" curves and saturation settings are by no means absolute: tweak them to what you prefer. Some people like curves, some don't... same goes for saturation.

Yay!

Updated P-51, FW.190 and Bf.109 guides to use uniform presentation template. Also added a little more information about radio procedures and navigation.

Are you sure? ED's manuals appears to suggest that this feature currently works in Caucasus.

Hi everyone, Can anyone provide me with a clear tutorial on how to use the AFN-2 homing device on the FW190 and the Bf.109? The manual isn't quite clear on how to set up the frequencies via the mission editor. FW190 in Mission Editor Bf.109 in Mission Editor I did consult Lino_Germany's tutorial (Einsatz der Funkausrüstung in DCS World) and the Bf.109 manual and the FW190 manual, but for some reason I just cannot track any sort of signal, whether it is with the FW190 or the Bf.109. 1) Which frequencies must I enter and where to track airfields or specific beacons? Are trackable beacons limited to VORs only? To ATC frequencies only? To units only? To zones emitting a radio signal only? 2) I assume that the predefined AFN-2 homing frequency can be entered manually via the mission editor for the Bf.109. However, the FW190 does not have such an entry. These systems should basically be the same and work the same... why the difference? What is the correct procedure to set up the desired frequency via the mission editor for each aircraft? 3) What is the step-by-step procedure to track the beacon? For the FW190, I read that you must set up your FG16 radio to any channel that has the correct frequency preset (however they can only go from 38 to 42 MHz) and set the "HOMING" mode selector switch to "ABST". For the Bf.109, channel selection is pretty much the same but the "HOMING" mode is set with the "Y ZF" selector. So... help, anyone?