Corrigan

Why would it be in ft/s? That speed is km/h (knots) if the unit system is set to metric (imperial) in the options.

Read the discussion thread and the Dolphin quotation.

Alright, so we're 30% off, it seems. Could use a tune, I guess, but it's hardly game-breaking.

No, I don't think so. You'd still be able to turn like now, tightly under full braking. The only difference, I think, would be that the unrealistically good rudder authority/"nosewheel steering" we have now, under no braking at all, would be gone. And also, I'm proposing this as an option.

Yeah, that's not gonna cut it. :smilewink:

Do you have hydraulics? I don't own this aircraft but I guess that's how they're controlled.

Yeah, the thread title (as opposed to the poll title) is maybe what confused you. I agree that it's a bad title, but I can't edit it, sadly. Maybe a friendly moderator could affix "option" right before the question mark.

What? No it isn't. This poll is about an OPTION letting us choose between the settings "realistic" and "simplified", similar to the engine management option. I'll edit for clarity though!

Which unit is that? km/h?

I posted a poll here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=131408 That's probably a better way of letting LN know how we feel.

EDIT: To clarify, the question this poll poses is "Do you want an entry in the Special options menu which allows us to turn on a more realistic method of steering the aircraft?" EDIT 2: A summary of the issue is this: IRL, you can't turn the plane at all without braking at the same time, at least until the rudder starts to get authority at fast taxiing. In the sim, we can turn using just the rudder, even at very low speeds, just as if we had had nosewheel steering. This is unrealistic. Following a discussion, a consensus was reached that, according to the real literature, the current behaviour of braking and steering on the ground wasn't realistic. It turns out that this is intended, and that the decision to simplify the behaviour was taken due to tester feedback: I have a feeling that the vast majority of people here would like the realistic behaviour, so I'm starting this petition/poll to convince Leatherneck to at least give us that option. I know there are many things LN have to work on at the moment, and this can easily wait until the more pressing issues are under control, but at some point I feel this needs to be sorted out. We play DCS because it's the closest we can come to flying these aircraft. Even if a system IRL is terribly designed and a pain to use, we want it!

Could you not make it one of those special options, like the engine management? It could even default on. Please?

Literally what it says; displays are updated every frame. Generally regarded as a waste, so leave it off.

No, the curve slider. I'd set -15, check, adjust. Rinse and repeat.

Tweaking the axis curve so that it's steeper before the detent and shallower after should work. You'll have to play around with it, obviously.

"Resolution of cockpit displays" controls mirror resolution as well, but I dunno what's going on in your screenshot. Try turning it up?

Great idea, thanks!

It's not only the MiG, so it's a DCS thing I guess.

It's cool, sometimes people miss obvious things and then stuff like that is helpful. :)

It's the bunker.

Thanks, but I (and probably others) have been using external view for the important altitude figures.

Looking gorgeous as usual, Mustang. Do you use sweetfx or anything of the like, or is it just cold HDR and your shaders?

I've tried a few times, years ago, and I found they were unrealistically high. Like, you can probably expect at least one serious fault in a mission. It might have changed, though. If it meant I had to deal with a mission-jeopardizing fault every ten missions or so, I'd probably play with it on.

I checked your track, and took some screenshots. I tried my best to make the screens representative of the respective phases of flight. The first one, the one with lights ON, is from your first landing. Note AoA of 6 deg, IAS is 400 km/h and throttle is at something like 82%. The second (lights OFF), is from one of the aborted landings after you refuelled. I think it was the last go-around before you actually landed. In any case, it's the approach which starts at 45 mins into the track. Here we see 7 deg alpha, 400 IAS /and 85% throttle. All in all, I had trouble seeing what your problems were. I'm not saying there isn't an issue (so maybe someone else could check too?), but as a spectator I found it very hard to see what you were feeling. Overall, the screenshots are very similar, also in fuel load, vertical speed and the phase of the approach. Could you maybe rewatch and point out to me, via video or screenshots, what I am meant to notice?

I think it'd sell 35 copies.