Luzifer

The first Jumo 004 series had no fuel governor so the throttle position directly controlled fuel injection. So the pilot would have to be careful not to advance the throttle too far for the current engine RPM. I don't know what kinds of interesting failures these could bring about, but just one would be to cause a flame-out which in turn causes the fuel to be blown out the turbine unburned I guess. On the ground it could pool in the rear of the engine and catch fire. Later 004 series would automatically limit the fuel injection, but I don't remember how much service they have seen in the 262.

It's hardly the only plane. It is special in that it is a button that needs to be held where in most other planes it is a toggle that needs to be pressed to switch between nose wheel steering on/off. Naturally if the plane has no nose wheel steering it doesn't need to be turned on or off.

More generally, exchange the up and down values as well as the value_up and value_down values. Often up and down are the same, but if they aren't they must be exchanged.

Ähm... Ausgabe 1 zu 1,99 Ausgabe 2 zu 6,99 Restliche 118 Ausgaben zu je 12,99 Macht 1541,80. ... Und wenn der Preis schon nicht abschreckt, mit einer Ausgabe pro Woche dauert es über zwei Jahre bis alle Teile zusammen sind.

Eh, wieder so ein Abo-Modell. Die sehe ich immer wieder mal in der Werbung, mit der super günstigen ersten Ausgabe. Das Geschäftsmodell kann ich mir schon denken: Anfixen mit günstigen Erstausgaben, dann wird es teurer und weil man schon so viel Geld reingesteckt hat macht man weiter um nicht mit einem halben Modell für die Tonne dazustehen. Die sagen ja nie, wie viele Ausgaben es dauert bis man alle Teile hat. Weiß da jemand, wie viel dieses oder ähnliche Modelle dann insgesamt kosten? Moment, doch, in der FAQ stehts: 120 Ausgaben. Macht dann 1541,80 Euro.

Also, you don't have to worry about it downloading everything again. When the installer/updater sees another installation of DCS, it will copy over everything it can and only download the parts that are new or changed. Handling wise it's just like Art-J described, it just automatically avoids downloading where it can.

The ARU changes the ratio between stick deflection and elevator deflection. So it adjusts a mechanical lever or something. There is still direct (hydraulic boosted) mechanical linkage from stick to elevator. It is not in any way comparable to FBW or even stability augmentation. The only way it contributes to stability is by limiting elevator travel at high speeds and thereby giving the pilot finer control, which would reduce the possibility of pilot induced oscillations.

300 km/h isn't that fast and "not too hard" is relative. The problem with flying a sim is that you can't feel that you're pulling too hard - in a real plane you'd notice very much that you're suddenly at 6 g or whatever. Just go to certain speeds, look at the g-meter and pull. That should give you a feel for how hard you can pull.

If you have rudder and elevator authority it's not a flat spin. There is no standard exit out of a flat spin. It's either shift CG forwards or do stuff with throttle and ailerons to drop into a normal spin.

Die haben doch irgendwann schon mal gesagt, dass sie die FC Flugzeuge nicht klickbar machen. Das soll als Abgrenzung zu den anderen, tierfergehend simulierten Modulen so bleiben.

Again, there is precedent in the Ka-50 which has extremely reduced INS alignment time compared to the real world.

Man hat schon vor über einem Monat gesagt (weiß nicht mehr genau, wann), dass das Flugmodell von RAZBAM für die Entwicklung stabil genug ist und übernommen wurde und damit das SFM Geschichte ist. Auch denjenigen, die nicht suchen und das wiederholt gefragt haben, wurde das geantwortet. Also zumindest das wurde doch wohl gut genug kommuniziert.

I've seen that canopy bug on the forums before — was it before release of the MiG-21 or the F-86?

I think it was said that we can't make INS entries in the first beta release, so I guess you're going to have some difficulty getting a CCRP solution for dropping the bomb. You'd have to visually identify the targets and do a CCIP run. If I understood things correctly, which may well not be the case.

... in North America. Just for completeness.

:doh: People, the VID uses exactly the same optics as a HUD or reflex sight. All it lacks is 1 (in words: one) mirror. So you look into it directly instead of through a reflection. By all the puzzlement and wonder in regard to the VID going around here I'd half expect the people posting this to go "WHAT SORCERY IS THIS" when encountering a HUD.

Everybody speculating about a release this weekend should keep in mind that there usually aren't major releases right before or during a weekend. The devs don't want to work weekends to provide hotfixes if something goes horribly wrong with a patch.

That's what I said. The only difference is the lack of transparency. That's the only thing the glass is for, reflecting the HUD view into the outside view.

I think we can rule out a release for 1.2. That engine is pretty much end-of-life and will be obsolete when 1.5 leaves beta. I doubt any developer still puts effort into making new developments compatible with it.

But the optical illusion (well, not so much illusion as projection) is already mimiced in plenty of aircraft in DCS. Here, the linked Saab history leaflet even spells it out: The same as a HUD only without the transparency. This is nothing new or groundbreaking in the context of DCS.

Optics wise, it looks no different from reflex sights and HUDs. We already have plenty of those in DCS.

You can't generate a synthetic runway display based on ILS. That only tells you how much you're left/right of the localizer beam and above/below glideslope. For display you would need distance, direction, elevation and orientation, none of which is supplied by ILS. So the INS together with a runway database is the only possible source providing that information.

"Mitte Dezember" war wohl die Aussage, die erst vor wenigen Tagen nochmal bestätigt wurde. Ein bestimmter Tag wurde aber nicht genannt.

Good thing you have an ejection seat then, because if your ADI breaks in bad visibility you'd be dead otherwise. Seriously, with that high drift accumulated in just a few minutes of regular flight and apparently no self-erecting mechanism whatsoever, the SAI is worse than useless.

Maybe if you don't use a SSD, because of long access times on concurrent accesses. A SSD should eliminate that reason, unless you think about something else.