Echo38

Hi folks, some of you may have heard my tale of the bum hand, and why I haven't been able to fly the P-51D in DCS for a long time. If you haven't, here it is, in brief: both of my hands are permanently compromised, and using a gaming joystick is painful. Any ergonomic solutions which could solve the problem (e.g. full-scale stick) are beyond my price range & ability to obtain. Now, I happen to be approximately as fond of the Me 109 and the FW 190 as I am of the P-51 (I'd pick the 109 over the other two, but only barely; P-51 & FW 190 are pretty much a coin toss), so if it turned out that I was unable to fly the P-51, but able to fly one of the other, then it'd be a bummer about the P-51, but can't complain too hard, you see. However, if other flight sim/games are to judge (and I'm more than aware that those games are often very unlike DCS!), the FW 190 and Me 109 are both about as hard on the joystick hand as the P-51. Only when one gets to fighters like the P-38 (don't have to fight torque & gyro all the time) or Spitfire (little stick movement required) does the hand workload significantly drop. So, my question to those who have both the P-51D and the FW 190D and/or Me 109K modules in DCS: which would you say has the lower joystick-hand workload? I have pedals, so rudder work isn't a concern, but rather elevator and aileron workload.

Well, the problem isn't as simple as using real engine sounds; most flight sim/games in the last ~10 years have used real recordings somewhere in their audio development process. The problem is "mixing" it so that it sounds right under all the different conditions. It's an enormously complicated task--far more so than anyone could imagine, I think, without having at least some experience with one of the related fields. This is why even DCS, which has the best sound of any flight sim I've used (some have opined that the Accusim mod sounds closer to the real thing, but I can't comment, as I haven't tried Accusim), won't sound 100% like the real thing under various conditions. I dare say it's impossible to get it perfect, just like the fluid physics of airflow modelling. It's still good enough, at present, that I literally had all the hairs on my arms rise, just now, as I started up the DCS P-51 for the first time in ~a year. (Not my choice to be absent so long, but I'm still not able to handle a joystick for more than a few minutes without pain.) They've done an amazing job on virtually every aspect of the bird, and the sound is no exception. The R2800 is my very favorite engine of all time (don't tell my beloved P-38 that I said such a thing!); I was once lucky enough to be ~30 feet away from an F6F as it started up. Particularly on the Hellcat, the Double Wasp sounds ... well, I don't have words for how it sounds. But it sounds great, a great engine, whether it's in a Hellcat, a Thunderbolt, or a Corsair. I am confident that the sound engineers at E.D. will do it justice.

In the "Controls" tab of the DCS Options interface: what's the "General" in the "Aircraft" drop-down menu? Not to be confused with the "General" category on the "Category" drop-down menu, immediately to the right of the "Aircraft" menu! So, for example: I have the A-10C selected in this Aircraft menu, and View selected for the Category. Now I see that "zoom in slow" is bound to the key combo I've chosen, "Lshift + C" But if I select "General" in the Aircraft menu, and go to the View category, here "zoom in slow" is bound to the default key, "num*" So what is this "General" under Aircraft? Does the sim use this set of keybinds if there is no bind under (for example) A-10C, while I'm flying that aircraft? Are they reduntant (i.e. both keys will have the same effect, but the aircraft-specific one only while flying that aircraft)? So, for example, if I want Lshift + C to zoom in slow for all of my aircraft, can I simply bind that in General, rather than binding it in each Aircraft (as I've been doing)? Or do the General "aircraft" keys only work for aircraft that don't have their own selection in this Aircraft menu? I don't exactly understand how this General "aircraft" works.

They've thus far done a phenomenal job of portraying the sounds in DCS modules. Not 100% like being there, of course (will it ever be so on a simulator? I doubt it), but far better than I ever thought I'd hear in a sim.

The fact that he has written 10,000+ posts on this forum--informative posts--is a good indicator of this, if the quality of the aircraft modelling weren't enough to prove it. Perhaps some of the people in this thread would do well to use the forum search and examine some of those posts, to see the level of detail that Yo-Yo goes into on issues such as this. (A level of detail, I might add, that was never, ever found in any other flight sim/game ... but that's another story.)

Well, I've found at least a partial solution: there are some lines near the top of the server.lua file (at least, near the top on mine), function default_fighter_player(t) local res = { CameraViewAngleLimits = {20.000000,140.000000}, These lines apparently are global for all of my aircraft (which is fine for me, as I want all of my aircraft to have the same values, although it'd leave me out in the wind if I wanted my A-10 to have different FoV limits than my other birds). Editing those values to 30, 100 has fixed my problem in single-player. However, as I understand it, server.lua always uses the host's values in multiplayer, so I expect that, as soon as I join any multiplayer server other than my own, I'm going to be half-blind again. Any better place to put these lines other than server.lua, to work around these two problems?

Well, I've tried adding the old line CameraViewAngleLimits[A_10C] = {30.0, 100.0} to server.lua & also, separately, in view.lua, in the DCS installation sub-directory; I've also tried adding it to snapviews.lua (created by hitting the "save snapview" key in-game) in the Saved Games directory, as notes in one of the other files recommended making changes there rather than in the default file. I even tried copying view.lua to the Saved Games directory and adding it to that. As all that failed, I tried altering the line to resemble existing lines in other files; I added the line CameraViewAngleLimits = {30.000000,100.000000}, to the ViewSettings["A-10C"] = { part of the server.lua I'm stumped. Nothing works; I'm always stuck with the default, extreme settings for min & max FoV, and I can't fly blind like this. When I hit my "zoom all the way out" key, everything's too tiny to see, and when I hit my "zoom all the way in" key, I have no FoV. Surely someone knows the new lines & which files to add them to. I'd appreciate help getting my old camera settings working again, with the new .lua file system.

You really believe that? Okay, yep, I think this thread's done. Time to move along, yes?

Wait, what?

I have been known, from time to time, to mistake a trolling attempt for a legitimate disagreement, but, sometimes, it's clear even to me which a post be. Not gonna bite, my friend! Do have a nice day, though : )

The burden of proof is on you. You are making the claim that the simulator's modelling of the Me 109K is incorrect, so the burden is on you to prove this statement. I do not make the claim that the simulator's modelling of the Me 109K is correct (nor the claim that it is incorrect), so I have no burden of proving it correct (nor incorrect). I never made any such claim, nor do I hold a belief to the effect of either claim--as I said earlier. I already addressed this, earlier in this thread. I will not repeat myself needlessly. If you are interested in having a conversation, I suggest going back and reading what I wrote. What is it, exactly, that I said about control stiffening? I'm curious as to which of my statements you're referring to, because what you imagine I said about control stiffening appears to be rather different from what I said about control stiffening. Incorrect. I never said that, nor did I imply it. I understand quite well that different aircraft react differently to various things, and have understood this ever since I first flew several different aircraft, in reality, years ago. I restate: I did not say anything which could be interpreted, by any stretch, as a suggestion that all aircraft react the same to control stiffening; your accusation is baseless & false. Do not put words in my mouth, please.

One of my three favorite ships, the Corsair! I'd rather have a P-38, of course, but I'd not look a gift Corsair in the intake, so to speak. (Actually, I would look in the intake, but ...)

Exactly how long? Until you come up with sourced figures, you're just tossing about subjective adjectives. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't read my earlier post about those subj. adj., but I am disappointed. (If you reply with "very long," I'm going to break my monitor with my scream.) I did read it. You(pl) listed speeds, but no real data for the degree of stiffness at those speeds. In which case, the speed alone is useless, because you're ignoring the vital question of "how stiff." By giving the speed but no figures for stiffness, you're giving a condition but not the data for it! Don't you(pl) understand that "it gets very stiff at X MPH" isn't hard data? In order for that to be useful data for the purposes of flight sim development, it would have to be something like "at X MPH, a pull of C lb. of force is required to move the stick D% past E% deflection," or whatever. The point is, how stiff is "very stiff"? (Replace "stiff" with any other adjective you wish--gentle, far, fast, whatever!) Do you(pl) still not get this, after all I've said?

Awesome! Too many of us sim pilots (myself included, I'm afraid) don't do the tests we should, to help ensure the sim's accuracy. We need more virtual test pilots!

I'm pretty happy with my zoom with keys; I just need to know which files to edit and what lines. It's changed a lot since I last set it up.

When I saw this discussion on another forum, a long time ago, I think the consensus concluded that the 109E had a different slat mechanism than later 109's, and it was these early-type slats that tended to "stick" and thus "go bang," with the later ones presenting fewer or no such problems. I do not have a reliable source for this; it's just a memory I have of hearsay. Still, it might serve as a pointer for someone with access to good sources, to go digging. : )

Sharpe, that doesn't look like it can work with keyboard; can it? I use keys for zoom.

No, the module manager says "no keys" (even for my A-10C, which is currently activated--I flew it with no problems). The P-51D was a (digital) gift from a friend, and I've owned it for several years, so I don't know how to re-access the key now that the web site's locked me out from my keys (so to speak). Well, looks like a ticket's necessary after all. Thanks for the tips.

I tried adding my old line to that file, but it didn't work. I didn't see any existing lines that could be recognized as having the desired function, either. What's the new format?

A few years ago, when I first installed DCS, I immediately went poking about files & asking on the forums, and figured out how to edit FoV & other camera angle limits. However, sometime during my involuntary break from DCS, the system was changed, and now my old files no longer work properly. I've done a few forum searches, and can't get a comprehensive answer which doesn't involve the old (now out-dated) methods. There's some new files (views.lua in the CoreMods dir/subdir's), but these only seem to exist for the newer (third-party?) aircraft. The A-10C and P-51D don't seem to have them. So, what's the most current way to edit the min & max FoV for the older aircraft, without effecting multiplayer compatibility?

Exact words were: "We are currently experiencing problems with processing support tickets. This ticket has been closed. Please reopen this ticket if the problem hasn't been solved. Please excuse us for inconvenience." This is why I'm reluctant to send a support ticket. But I don't know that there's anything else I can do, in this case.

Okay, regardless of whether I'm being trolled, I will assume (ha) that someone may be reading who actually cares about the truth of the matter, and so, the old P-40 / A6M story: I once saw a wartime comparison of a P-40 and a captured A6M, in which the test pilots compared acceleration from a level start. The P-40 pilot's report contained both his written description of the test, and also the numbers in a later portion of the report. Someone on a forum for a different, older flight sim/game linked to the first part of the test, in which the P-40 pilot said that the P-40 accelerated "very rapidly" away from the Zero. The forum-goers began clamoring, then, that the in-game P-40 and/or Zero must be wrong, because the difference in acceleration between the two virtual aircraft was barely noticeable in-game. After all, the real pilot said it should accelerate away "very rapidly!" Well, someone then linked to the second part of the test, where the same P-40 pilot actually gave the numbers: the P-40 got roughly 400 feet ahead of the Zero after one minute. You see the problem now? All of the simmers were like, "But 400 ft/min is very slow! That's never going to be enough to get out of gun range. How could he call it 'rapid'?" And to us flight simmers, who are trying to get out of virtual gun range, only gaining 400 feet on the bandit, in an entire minute of running, is indeed slow. But to the test pilot, making his out-of-combat comparison, the same figure felt "very rapid." Moral of the story: just because a real pilot calls something "very rapid" or "very gentle," does not mean that it's the same degree of rapidity or gentleness which you imagine when you hear those words, nor which you mean when you say them. One man's X can be another man's Y, when subjective terms are concerned. The pilot is not wrong to call it "fast," nor are you wrong to call the same thing "slow;" however, all must understand that these are subjective terms, and thus mean different things to different people (and/or under different circumstances). This is why you cannot use a real pilot's assertion that a stall is "very gentle" to try to prove that the simulator is wrong. Exactly how gentle is "very gentle"? We need figures (and, moreover, figures from careful & methodical tests, not casual & inconsistent ones); subjective opinions, particularly second-hand, cannot make an accurate simulation.

I don't have to fly the 109 to be able to point out logical fallacies others are making in their discussions about the aircraft. Don't assume, simply because I oppose someone who's making (with a fallacious argument) one claim about a subject, that I believe the polar opposite claim. The world isn't black & white, see. That is, one can point out the invalidity of someone's weak evidence, without proving (or making a claim about) the contrary position. This isn't a binary problem. My point isn't whether or not the virtual 109 is right or wrong; in this, I make no claim in either direction, because I see insufficient evidence for either case. Rather, I pointed out that the things which your friend is using to try to support his case, cannot be used to support his case, and I explained why. If you truly do not understand this, then I am sorry for you. But I still believe you to be trolling me, instead, as a glance at your past posts indicates that you "stalk" me (the fact that you knew that I don't own the 109 module, when I didn't even remember your name, was a red flag; a quick check confirmed that you have a history of attacking my posts).

This is a multifaceted problem; it seems to belong in both the "payment and activation" section and also the one for "forum & site issues." I cannot re-activate my P-51D module, because I cannot get the website to acknowledge that I own any of my keys. I own the boxed version of the A-10C, so I simply opened the box to get my key for that, but I'm told that the DCS main web site is supposed to show me my keys when I log in there. The main DCS web site lets me log in with my account for it (separate from this forum account, of course), but then once it has logged me in, it says that I have no account, in the place where I'd normally go to examine my keys. It shows me logged in, with the correct username, but there's a "you have no account" message. If I have no account, then how did it let me log in? With the same username and password as I always have, the same account which is tied to my keys? Do I need to create a support ticket? Last time I did that (about something else), I waited for days and then they closed the ticket without addressing it, saying that they had too many tickets at the time. : /

I make no such assumption. I never said, nor implied, that the FM is 100% right. You are (falsely) assuming that I believe that. Do not put words in my mouth. I have seen a veritable plethora of evidence to support my claim that various people use the same word to mean different things. I am not going to bother throwing it before you, however, because I cannot believe that you are unaware of the truth of this; rather, you look to be trolling me. Enjoy.