Fishbreath

I gave 1.10u3 a try. There's still a small amount of 'nosewheel steering effect' at low speed, but significantly less—turning onto the runway at low speed requires differential braking. I also find it easier to control. I think it was Corrigan who commented that the previous fake NWS effect required you to take into account the NWS effect and the differential braking effect when making steady-state turns now, but since turns are nearly all differential braking, it's less trouble to combine the two. You just set your pedals for the turn you want and hit the brake.

1.10u3 demonstrates the same issues with directed landing mode. Fortunately, I'm getting better at reading the deviation bars. :P

It's in front of the stick, near the pitot heat switches, IIRC.

It seems like there's no way, though, to copy one deactivated instance of an aircraft within a small radius of a designated point, at a given altitude distinct from the deactivated group's altitude. My change allows that. Doesn't have to make it into the main release, but it doubled the possibilities for me in my shooting range mission.

B isn't a braking chute at all—it wouldn't provide any slowdown. Braking chutes aren't similar to thrust reversers, they are simple thrust reversers. Consider that the MiG, which needs more braking than the Su-25, has only one braking chute, placed directly behind the engine, while the Su-25 has two chutes—again, behind each engine.

Blowing into your own sail does work—see the Mythbusters video, which is pretty solid practical evidence. (It's much less efficient than just using the blowing object as a jet, which is why it takes 95% throttle to move the MiG backward.) They even end up having directional control. This is wrong. Pick up a Kleenex or a piece of paper, then blow at it. If you adjust the angle slightly, so that you're blowing on the paper from slightly below its surface normal, you can feel the airflow hitting you in the eyes. Same effect with a parachute.

I'm with Corrigan—I feel like it's basically the same case. It's an unintuitive and seemingly impossible result, but physics is occasionally unintuitive and seemingly impossible. :P

Yeah, my gut reaction to 'strange nothing has been said about a date' is 'you must be new here'. :-P

'proceed' is how the switch's descent mode position is labeled.

Not a lot of good competition for modern fighters yet, but you have Vipers if you're feeling up to going toe-to-toe with AMRAAMs, and Tigers and Phantoms for fights you can win more easily. :P

£27 is $43. It's not that much cheaper, is it?

A new update appears! The BVR range is fully functional, mostly, so v4.1 is not primarily a testing release.

I have one too (see signature).

Looking at the MIST source, it seems to me that teleportToPoint calls getRandPointInCircle, which returns a vec2 no matter what you pass it, so the behavior where teleportToPoint doesn't preserve altitude is expected, at least. Edit: this change preserves altitude for aircraft and helicopters, if teleportToPoint's vars.point is a vec3. -- Start: 3.5.37 line 5012 for unitNum, unitData in pairs(newGroupData.units) do if disperse then if maxDisp and type(maxDisp) == 'number' and unitNum ~= 1 then newCoord = mist.getRandPointInCircle(origCoord, maxDisp) --else --newCoord = mist.getRandPointInCircle(zone.point, zone.radius) end newGroupData.units[unitNum]['x'] = newCoord.x newGroupData.units[unitNum]['y'] = newCoord.y else newGroupData.units[unitNum]["x"] = unitData.x + diff.x newGroupData.units[unitNum]["y"] = unitData.y + diff.y end + if string.lower(newGroupData.category) == 'plane' or + string.lower(newGroupData.category) == 'helicopter' then + if point.z then + newGroupData.units[unitNum]["alt"] = point.y + end + end end -- End: 3.5.37 line 5033

I'm having some trouble with the teleportToPoint call at the end of this function: function bvr_spawn() -- Groups e.g. bvr.template.far.modernfighter have standard orders -- for a given type and spawn zone local orders_template = "bvr.template." .. bvr_current_location .. "." .. bvr_template_argument -- Group names e.g. bvr.phantom.ir_missile for cloning local group_name = "bvr." .. bvr_current_type .. "." .. bvr_current_armament local template_route = mist.getGroupRoute(orders_template) env.info("template_route\n" .. mist.utils.tableShow(template_route)) local template_position = mist.getLeadPos(orders_template) env.info("start position\n" .. mist.utils.tableShow(template_position)) for i=1,bvr_current_count do local vars = {} vars.groupName = group_name vars.action = 'clone' vars.point = template_position vars.disperse = true vars.maxDisp = 3000 vars.radius = 3000 vars.innerRadius = 100 local new_group = mist.teleportToPoint(vars) mist.goRoute(new_group, template_route) env.info(i) env.info("spawned new unit " .. new_group .. " after template " .. group_name .. " with orders " .. orders_template) end end There are two template groups interacting here: the plane template (group_name in the code above), which controls type and armament, and the orders template (orders_template), which has orders and behaviors. Both templates start deactivated and are never actually activated at all. The intention is to keep one copy of the plane template out of the way, to avoid cluttering up the map, teleporting/cloning it to the orders template's position and orders as needed. teleportToPoint works correctly in that it teleports the groups to the orders template's location, but it doesn't change their altitudes—they start at the plane template's altitude. Is that intended behavior?

I'm pretty happy with my VFR landings and my ability to construct the RSBN box. Now I'm working on heads-down PRMG landings, which are proving to be tougher for me, especially since I'm trying to work it all the way down to the minimums. Not a lot of room for mistakes when you're only allowing yourself to look up at 100 meters. :D

Go read the easy nosewheel steering threads in the MiG-21 forum. :P

A friend of mine and I have flown this twice in the last week or two, him in the Su-25T and me in the Huey. The first time ended in disaster as the AA got me, and, more embarrassingly, him, before we even got to the extraction zone. The second went better; I got the asset on board, but tried egressing in a direction contra the briefing, and ended up with a windshield full of 23mm shells and two dead pilots. Good times, though! I have a version with the unchecked-comms bug worked around. If anyone wants it, and Psyrixx is alright with it, I can post it somewhere.

I see where you're coming from, but you're making the mistake of assuming that every single person who might consider buying DCS is okay with that, when it's clearly not so—there isn't even unanimous agreement here that there shouldn't be the option, and the forums are probably ten times as hardcore as the average person playing the game. (This is just how forums work.) That's why I think there ought to be the option, even if the work for taxi assist wasn't already done. You and I don't pay the bills for people like Eagle Dynamics and Leatherneck, it's the tens or hundreds of DCS customers for each one of us on the forums who do, and ignoring them is the quickest way to turn your vibrant simulator package into a ghost town that crumbles under its own weight.

It doesn't follow logically, necessarily—the high altitude/cruise performance concerns are almost certainly not caused by a lack of engine power modeled across all altitudes, nor is it a certainly that the BLC power model is tied to the output thrust rather than the throttle setting, nor is it certain that the amount of air going to the BLC system rises and falls with the engine power setting in the first place.

I'm not familiar enough with civilian flight sims (or flight) to know much about VOR navigation, but here's how I think about it. The fat end of the ЗК needle references the station in all circumstances. If you're flying outbound, the thin end of the needle represents your desired radial (so the head is pointing at the station). Inbound, the fat end represents the desired radial. That squares with how the flight director directs, and with how the localizer needle works.

I was referring to the Leatherneck MiG-21bis manual—it claims that the approach they're modeling is a 4-degree approach. 2.4 may well be more accurate for today, though.

On p.119, the English manual says the descent angle is 4 degrees. (Which seems very steep to me!) I don't know if it's in the same place in the Russian manual, and I'm afraid my Russian is too rusty to check. It's right by Image 9.15. Thanks for the link to User's research.

This is concern with realism taken way too far, especially because the gun camera has no function and no effect on flying, utilizing, or fighting the aircraft beyond very, very slightly reducing vision out the front, and double especially because there are probably an infinite number of more important improvements to make.

2 units = 1 degree. (Landing AoA units is 22, I think.)