Pman

Congrats Bud! Well done indeed

I think you under estimate the sheer force required to run these systems. In the Hawk for example even with the engine running it wont charge the hydro system at less than 60% of RPM. Anything below that and the system will discharge with use even with the engine running Windmilling after an engine failure (assuming the engine could windmill after the failure)I strongly doubt wouldn't produce enough Pman

I think the key thing is how far from the target were you when the bomb landed Interesting findings Pman

Not true, I run 3 dedicated machines and it is not a DCS issue, I suggest you look closer at your VPS config. Pman

Currently there are no plans from our side for a meetup this year, Myself and the VEAO team will be at RIAT this year for the RAF100. So won't be at Flying Legends 2018. I think a couple of the team are going to one or two other shows in the UK but no plans for any organised meet ups this year outside of our virtual squadron one. So please don't make plans based on the usual get together that we host/organise. Pman

I was incredibly sad to hear of Eric's passing over the weekend, Whenever I spoke to him I was always taken aback by his professionalism and humor. He will be missed by all those that were lucky enough to know him. Blue Skies Pete

You're welcome! Happy Viffing! Pman

The secondary one only appears when the aircraft is sliding I found, for example in knife edge passes. It shows the trajectory of the aircraft I believe in a lateral slide Pman

Little switch above the fuel cut off leaver on the rear left. DECT I think its called? Pman

Yeah that was there when in NAV mode at least :) Pman

This - I am sure that Zeus marked this as a known issue :) Pman P.s I am just commenting as I have been flying the Harrier alot :)

I can a little With the jpt limiter on the engine won’t go over a certain temp, 710 I think. The engine has a finite life when it can be run over 102% the longer it runs over that or 645 dev then the more damage you do. If you damage it enough eventually what happens is that the jpt limiter reduces the maximum thrust available to stop you destroying the engine. When it reduces it below the water threshold % even with water turned on it will not flow Short answer : you damaged your engine while flying and the limiter won’t allow you to achieve high enough rpm to kick in water is my guess 105% I think is the cut off to engage water flow

I actually speak to Dave , I’ll pass on your compliments :) Before anyone asks yes, I’ve been passing on stuff to razbam based on his comments :) Pman

Have to say that made me laugh more than it should haha :) Pman

Too much lol, We spend more hours in the Mustang than I care to admit lol Pman

34 here My first flight sim was Fighter Bomber on the Commodore C64

Thank you very much :) Pman

Good Luck to you :) Look forward to the competition! :) Pman

I haven't tested this in the IX, but the data in the chart is for a later IX with the rear tanks (an additional 75 gallons ~). For the IX we have the range is considerable shorter when running with those settings. I believe we only have the forward tanks in the IX, which gives a capacity of between 75-85 gallons. For cruising and range you should be running more like +4lbs and whatever RPM you need to obtain 170-180mph to a minimum of 1800RPM. If you need less than 1800 RPM reduce manifold until you hold that speed at 1850-1900 RPM. This should also be run on lean mixture and not rich. This should give you about an hour and half of flying, Maybe if you are pretty good with trimming etc you may get up to 2 hours (giving you somewhere in the region of 300miles range, circa 500km.) Like I said I haven't tried it in sim, but this is how the RL maths stacks. Pman

They use them for training the Battle of Britain Memorial flight crew, No immediate plans, it hasn't even been discussed beyond "We should do that" for the pack yet Pman

Really interesting discussion, I’ve read it front to back, when you take out a lot of the common misconceptions. Few thoughts my side of things. Firstly I'd like to ask you guys to remember that myself and all of the guys in the team that have been brought in to work on the Warbirds and classic Jets have come from this community. We are/were customers of ED and pilots of DCS / Lock on etc so we know where you are coming from. Don't fall into the trap of thinking that developers, not just us, are non-playing members of the community. I fly the Mustang and Spitfire regularly as part of the Virtual Horsemen, as well as the F-86 and Bf109 as well. Developing for DCS is a very long and complicated process, The guys working on our P-40F are not the same team as was working on Hawk, in fact some of the guys who are working on P-40 are the guys (inc myself) who have been providing bug fixes and the development plan for ASM2.0 Everyone thinks that developing for something as complicated as DCS is easy, even I with 10+ years of development and programming experience, thought it was going to be easier than it has been. Every developer that I have spoken to, even members within ED, have said that sometimes things just work out more complicated and difficult than expected. That's one of the things that makes it interesting! Developing trainers, in my opinion, is not always the best way to go, there are simpler aircraft to develop when you remove the multi seat capability, then again you add complications as well, such as with a prop aircraft the back end stuff for things like prop eff and wash etc are all extra things you have to work with that just take time to get right. For example this week pretty much all we have been working on with the P-40 is the ground handling on the take-off roll, getting the behaviour more lifelike and “kick you in the face” as one of the testers described it haha. It is not an excuse but a fact of life that when you work on something like DCS and have XX man hours to work on a project, its takes time. The WW2 team, primarily the guys focused with me on P-40F at the moment have all learnt a lot about developing for DCS and some of the more complicated systems and processes required not only for converting real life systems and behaviours into code base but also to expand and enhance functions. Experience and patience are basically the only things that get you through this. We have also investigated in great detail about doing a dual control WW2 trainer further down the road. The point is that no, trainers are not always the best aircraft to start with as they again add complications, in theory something like a C152 or C172 without multi seat would be the simplest but then even I would find that less than adrenaline inducing. There is a lot that can be learnt from even the most simple of aircraft and I can entirely understand any developer that starts with a simpler aircraft, I would not start with an F22 or the like! You are just asking for trouble, not to mention the motivation hits when after 2-3-4+ years you have little to show for all those evenings you are slogging away at it. Having said that, a trainer is a good way to start for most, the EFM tends to be a little easier, a little more sedate as they are designed from the ground up to have easier handling characteristics for RL pilots to learn on. I have never shied away from talking about DCS development (within NDA restrictions) and anyone who has met me at any of the shows I have attended will hopefully remember that I am happy to talk about pretty much anything aviation related, VEAO product or not! The other thing to remember is passion for the product you are working on, when you have frustrations during development etc you need to be able to keep chin up and solder on, having a passion for the aircraft you are working on helps with this so so much. People have to enjoy the work! I am posting this in an effort to further the discussion in this thread, I ask that you take this post in this way and don’t make me regret spending my lunch time typing it hah! Pman

All in good time, we are working on something else from the Hawker Stable at the moment Pman

From a recent research trip....

The Hurricane that we are looking at is a MkI currently. The model is almost done but its down our list for release candidates. News in 2018 most likely, along with Seafury and Wildcat. Pman

Rock and I have stopped the Virtual Aerobatics pages / server Some of the ex admins that we had during our time with the community have started their own server but it is not owned/operated by us. But for all intense and purposes we shut Virtual Aerobatics down. Pman Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk