Shahdoh

What about the consequences of keeping the starter on full time? No damage/failure of the starter/booster coil?

Just tested this myself, and yes, the starter is providing ignition (Which, come to think of it, it should not be, at first I thought it did). Pretty sure it should only be turning the engine over, and only the magnetos can provide ignition. Ah, ok, thanks Yo Yo, that explains it.

Not sure why you quoted my comment. But the case to have the static there is for the other people that ARE there. That they do not see an aircraft POP into existence. For realistic immersion, it is something that would be nice to have. Unfortunately, for CLIENT aircraft, it is not possible at this time.

Nope, and confirmed, holding starter switch, which does provide INITIAL ignition, does work to keep it working. It is just not intended to KEEP it running. What should happen is failure of the starter after keeping it on continuously. In the actual aircraft, it is a spring loaded switch. You would need to continuously hold it on, something no pilot would ever do. On the computer controls, one could set it up as a toggle and that allows this to occur. For accuracy, it should be setup like the spring loaded switch and it will quickly remind you to turn on your magnetos.

Yep, sounds like it was on a single magneto, engine will not fire if both are off.

Would guess that something else is not setup correctly. Trim on either Mustang works fine for me and I fly them a lot. I know track files can be a mess sometimes, but might want to try and provide one to help us see what is going on. Usually air starts can be a bit more reliable for track files if that helps any.

It was not a bad idea. It has been something many have tried to do many times before, but it is just not possible with the current mission editor options unfortunately.

Are there any other programs running alongside DCS? If not, then there is nothing to Alt-tab to (Task switch). You can have just about anything else running, an explorer window, voice program, anything. Task switch to that, and then, if you want/need to see your desktop, right click on the task bar on the bottom of the screen (which should now be visible) and select "Show Desktop".

Its still on PRE-Order. News letter said Early ACCESS will not be until June.

I see the spit get an early jump on the K4, so initially the spit has the lead. Its a shallow, low altitude dive and still the K4 catches and passes the spit at the bottom. Whats wrong again?

You need to go back and read my posts again, 2 of them already identifying that the 50 has higher velocity and that has been factored into the kinetic energy impact. As far as the variety of rounds used, the 50 had them too, and being 4 times larger, the effects from them would be greater as well.

But it does not equal the same mass. The rate of fire of the 7.62 is only a bit over twice the rate, but with a bullet that is 1/4 the mass (and less muzzle velocity). So, using simple, rough math, that is about 60% of the kinetic energy of the 50. Not saying the 7.62s could not down an aircraft, but using more than twice the ammo to do roughly 60% of the damage calcs out to needing just under 4 times the amount of ammo to do the same amount of damage as the 50's. And this is based on a 1 for 1 in guns, the Mustang has 2 more that is not even in the above calculations.

I know that, but per the damage capability of the current I-16, the larger guns would not be needed. The damage from the 4 7.62's is sufficient.

That comparison was made because people are saying the guns are as or more effective than on the mustang. Im pointing out, they should not be.

Kinetic energy calculations of the 2 rounds: Will go with 200 grams for the x54r which has an energy of 3,238 foot-pounds for a 200 grain bullet at 2700 fps. The rate of fire is only just barely twice the rate of fire of the .50 for a rough total of around 7-8000 foot pounds of energy impacting for every single round from the .50. The .50 calculates to an energy of 14,943 foot-pounds for a 800 grain bullet at 2900 fps. There are 6 guns vs 4, 3 of which are within inches of each other on each side. There is MUCH greater damage potential from the 50s, so that they have the damage generated by the I-16 to be anywhere near what the mustang can deliver needs a serious looking at.

The real question is did the pilots tweak them to their own desires, or were they set by the factory/mechanics to be in a specific criteria. Pilots messing around with things like that on the ground without the ability to change it once in the air could have disastrous consequences.

Yes, lets keep things in perspective, see how much larger the CARTRIDGE is. That is the powder behind a barely larger bullet. Now, here is how much larger the .50 cal is compared to the x54r: So, 4 of those 7.62's are suppose to do the same damage as 6 of the 50's? Why would they even have put in larger guns in ANY aircraft if that gun combination was so powerful....hmmmm?

The bullet of the 54r is the same diameter and only a few millimeters longer than the 39 round. I would not call that a "MUCH LARGER ROUND". What makes the difference is the amount of powder packed behind the round. This is where the greater power lies. Still, find it hard to believe that it would match the damage capabilities of 6 or more 50 caliber guns or the cannons.

Warbirds of Prey is a WWII server on the Normandy map utilizing the asset pack. There are AI out there for when the client list is low. We use a very subdued label mod that helps those with lesser graphics systems see targets at ranges others with better graphics can see without. There are both ground targets and air targets to deal with and if not enough is going on, can use the Radio F10 option to start either offensive or defensive missions (1 of each can run at the same time) to support or defend against. This is a more mission oriented server that cycles every 6 hours rather than an always up quake fest that others might be. Hope to see you there! ~Salute

Did you set a TIME for the player aircraft? That has caught me a time or 2. (You do not want to, the aircraft will not be available in the mission until the designated time)

Sorry, just noticed the question there. If the mission has Asset Pack units, the client has to have the Asset Pack to join the mission. The asset pack is more like a map than aircraft modules. With aircraft modules there is a CORE MODS folder that contains the information of the unit for everyone to see, whether they own the module or not. With Maps and the Asset Pack, there is no CORE for everyone to see. So, you must own them to be able to use/see them.

Destroying bridges to disrupt logistics and movement of the enemy is a pretty significant strategy. With the vehicles crossing anyways, it makes that aspect useless and immersion breaking. Just another realistic aspect we just have to avoid like so many others until they get it fixed.

Try this instead of "Late Activation" 1 - Set the group as "Uncontrolled" instead. 2 - Go to the groups "Triggered Actions" tab, add a new "Perform Command", "Start". 3 - Then you can setup your trigger for whatever you want to activate this group with the "AI TASK PUSH" which will haven an "AI ACTION" now available to select. This will be the groups name and action of START. This will cold start the aircraft, since they were "Uncontrolled" to begin with. Depending on which airports you are using, some have start locations at the end or very close to the ends of the runways. These are the locations you want to start your alert aircraft from, paying attention to which end of the runway they want to take off from for current mission conditions. Good luck.

The I-16 is developed by another 3rd party right? Do you really think they are relying on a 3rd party developer to showcase the new damage model?

(Sorry this is in English) The Mission editor "View Unit List" option will show every unit and on the right side, which module it came from. If blank, it is an item not requiring any specific module to be able to join in Multi-Player. If NOT blank, the client will need that module in order to be able to join. And I may have misunderstood the original question, the dedicated server does not need any of the modules to run the mission. Good luck with your mission building! Google Translate: L'opzione "Visualizza elenco unità" dell'editor di missioni mostrerà ogni unità e sul lato destro, da quale modulo proviene. Se vuoto, è un elemento che non richiede alcun modulo specifico per poter partecipare a Multi-Player. Se NOT vuoto, il client avrà bisogno di quel modulo per poter partecipare. E forse ho frainteso la domanda originale, il server dedicato non ha bisogno di nessuno dei moduli per eseguire la missione. Buona fortuna per la tua missione!