mkiii

No, it should try to update automatically, and replace 2.0.x as per normal.

I have just tried creating a quick mission with the UH1 (which has an O.A. Temp Gauge) and set the M.E. temp as about 25C, and that seemed to work in the 3d world OK. I would have tested at various altitudes, but the game crashes after a few minutes right now :( I can't remember exactly what the temp defaulted to, but it was certainly higher than 10 degrees C, probably around 17.

Could it be that your AXIS Curves are no longer working the way you expect? If you used any negative numbers, they will now not work since the minimum setting for a curve is zero, and you can't go into negative numbers without using a custom (ie lumpy) curve.

Try this:- http://s7.photobucket.com/user/Bomber_12th/media/vf-b2.jpg.html and this:- and this:- and the ones at the bottom of this page:- http://www.sim-outhouse.com/sohforums/showthread.php/58164-History-and-Details-of-the-P-51D-5-NA-(A-Flight-Sim-Project)/page3 It might be that the single top stripe is just wrong. Heres the official blurb:- "Distinctive Marking - Aircraft" dated April 18, 1944, which specified the form of the invasion stripes to be applied the day before the D-Day assault: "2) Scope a. the instructions contained herin will apply to the following types of US and BRITISH aircraft: (I) Fighters and figher-bombers. ..." "4) Distinctive Markings a Single Engine Aircraft. (1) Upper and lower surfaces of aircraft listed in paragraph 2 a above, will be painted with five white and black stripes, each eighteen inches wide, parallel to the longitudinal axis of the airplane, arranged in order from center outward; white, black, white, black, white. Stripes will end six inches inboard of the national markings. (2) Fuselages will be painted with five parallel white and black stripes, each eighteen inches wide, completely around the fuselage, with the outside edge of the rearmost band eighteen inches from the leading edge of the tailplane." "d) Stripes will in no case be painted over the national markings which will take precedence. Wing stripes wil extend from leading edge to trailing edge. Special equipment such as deicer boots, will not be painted over."

That's a strange looking Spitfire ;) I was hoping that ED might make the seat handle operable to avoid having to fake it with snapviews. After all, there is a big lever, and it is SOP to leave the canopy open, and raise the seat to see out better.

I normally use a Warthog, but have an X52pro to try... I'm not sure axis settings will help that much with taxying, but keeping the stick fully back, and not raising the rpm above 1500 will help enourmously. Also, be sure to tap the brakes when turning, and recentre the rudder. Apply a little opposite rudder and brake once you are turned to straighten up. Remember that you have no direct control over the tailwheel, and it has to be prompted to get it straight again. Do you have pedals, or are you using the X52 twist stick? If the twist, then having just tried it with my X52, a curve of about 20 to 30 might help with the fine control, and perhaps a small deadzone of 4 on the rudder axis. It's not easy with the twist when you have to hold the stick back, twist, brake and manipulate the trottle all at the same time. Pedals make this a lot easier. I normally use CHPro pedals, and use the following for my rudder:- Deadzone = 4, SaturationX = 100, Saturation Y = 80, Curve = 34

ODD. It seems good in Normandy, but I can't seem to get it to behave at all in the NTTR takeoff quickstart. If I could get 2.1 to run for more than 10 minutes without it locking up I would investigate. The Alpha version of FMOptions.lua certainly hasn't been changed with regards to ground handling, undercarriage or any other things that affect ground handling, compared to the release version.

Oh, and for the record, Of course I'm not comparing DCS to WarThunder... That goes without saying, just using it as an example of a popular "Free to Play" download on Steam, which IS what DCSWorld is, (free to play that is), but perhaps not as popular because Hardcore sims never have been. We tend to be in it for the long term, although in smaller numbers. After all, hands up those who still mess with Falcon 4.0 via the outstanding BMS Mod? :thumbup:

That sounds like it might be commercially sensitive info imo, and do you count everyone who downloaded it because it was free and then didn't get any further than the gui before they gave up trying? You can see how many people have made it to these forums and registered ( 57,938 ), but that doesn't mean they are all still using it. These forums have been around for ages. Steam reviews currently number 3,841, & I'm guessing that only a small proportion of people downloading it actually review it, and it hasn't been on Steam for that long, so not too bad. Compare that to 71,903 War Thunder reviews though, and you see what we are aup against. It is probable that some people will progress from that to more serious sims like DCS in time.

Perhaps they need a tickbox that you have to click saying "I understand that I am paying for an incomplete Alpha/Beta version that may be missing features etc." before the customer can proceed to the purchase page. For new users, the lack of any refund option if they buy by mistake unlike Steam, is not so good imo.

Maybe you should try landing on the grass?

The viggen looks outstanding, certainly the best looking kite so far, but I wish someone would do something about the heavily scratched canopy.

When I get my copy of Normandy, I fully expect to be able to get caught up on church spires, otherwise it isn't a proper sim ;)

Nope.. I mean .38... ;) Wouldn't want to damage the "Effeminate" wrist of a Brit on a "handcannon" like a .45. It doesn't balance too well with the pipe either. https://americanhandgunner.com/exclusive-web-extra-handguns-of-wwii-part-3/

Don't you mean many/most are not reporting issues... It's not quite the same. I imagine that most DCS users don't even frequent the forum, especially if they are newly inducted Steam users.. I find that the problem seems to come and go, depending on what the latest update has done. No changes to my system inbetween. The biggest thing that has upped my overall performance is a: swap file on SSD only, B: Make the CPU O/C as fast but stable as I can, while using minimal GFX O/C. Using 16GB RAM, which DCS is certainly not using up, and 4GB GFX which it may be - Inbetween those is 8GB of shared memory. I rarely get anything too problematic in 1.5, but 2.0 is a stutterfest at times, usually at Nellis/Las Vegas of course.

Having had a bit more of a play, These settings worked well for me, without completely removing twitchy behaviour. Taxying behaviour seems good, and landing/Takeoff involves a lot less bouncing from one wheel to another. tailGearYawDamperK = 26.0 -- Original setting 36.0 tailGearSpringForceFactor = 10000000 -- Original 17000000 mainGearSpringForceFactor = 3.2 * 1000000 -- 6.2 * 1000000 mainGearBackDamperForceFactor = 70000 -- Original 10000.0 Lowering the MainGearSpringForceFactor seems to have the greatest affect, Allowing You to rev up & down on full brakes with gentle bobbing of the wings on the tyres rather than the wheels actually bouncing off the ground. I have read a number of pilot accounts and test reports on Spits from the prototype to Griffon engine Marks, and none mentioned any digging in of the wings or massive ground looping on landing, in fact they say the opposite, and seemed to be implying that the handling was pretty tame, with only visibilty, and nosing over under harsh braking being noted as issues. And I use these notes as a general guide:- http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?72714-SUPERMARINE-SPITFIRE-Take-off-and-Landing-Guide {EDIT2 tailGearStaticForce = 30000 -- Orig 3000 THIS Is the one that really does it for me. I tried this after reverting all the others back to their original settings. Note that this is 10x greater than the original, but still lower than the Mustang. Did a zero get left off this and the 109K? /EDIT2}

They'll get a dose of Webley .38 medicine!

You colonial types have no decorum, always in a rush... What's wrong with taking in the sights at a leisurely pace on the way down while firing up a nice bit of rough shag on the trusty old briar, but still wanting to be back at the NAAFI in time for tiffin? What?

The FMOptions.lua for the Spit, 109 and Mustang (first 40 lines or so), bear some looking at, It seems clear that there has been some cutting and pasting of default figures. So I decided to have a fiddle, The ones that look interesting to me are tailGearYawDamperK (Not sure, but increasing this seemed to help with shimmy) tailGearSpringForceFactor (I tried reducing this to 12,000,000 & seemed less bouncy on the tailwheel ) mainGearSpringForceFactor (I tried halving this to 31,000,000 & was less bouncy on the main gear, and less likey to veer off the runway. The original setting is the same for Spit and 109, but much lower on the P-51D) TBH, I'm more convinced that the damping is off rather than the forces involved, not that I have any data to support that, but having worked on tail draggers, I never saw anything bounce as high as the tail of the Spit in DCS 3 times in a row. Maybe the Riggers have inflated the tyres and Oleos too much? Anyone have a clue?

Amen to that Hellfire. If I could migrate all my modules to steam right now, I would do so. Just today, Starforce was going through its occasional "This module (that I am showing you the key for right here on screen) has no key... CLICK! I already have a key... CLICK! This module is already registered BS. I dont recall ever having that happen on steam. And (I know.. don't start a sentence with and) let's not forget the Mig-21 DRM fiasco....

I know this is an old thread, but take a look here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178430

That photo is a distorted, and has over blown contrast making the white look bigger than it is in the original. Here are better photos of the same MkIX showing normal roundels. Note Aircrew who have no idea how / where to push a Spitfire. Nothing changes ;)

Just an aside on those that say think that model enlargement is a bit of a cheat, then please note that the A400M sim (real world full motion, full size mil sim) uses model enlargement to overcome screen resolution problems, and those screens using projectors are a fair bit larger than our monitors. And yes, buy the Dora for sure. It's frustrating at first, but then things just click.

One other thing about that lua file that bothers me is the setting for the effective fire distance: tbl.effective_fire_distance = 1000 Shouldn't that be more like 1800? Does that number have a real effect in the sim & do shells "disappear" at 1000m? Figures for the (M2) .50, which can be found out there on the web often state 2000m Maximum effective range from a tripod, ie stable mounting, and ball ammunition. Other round types have lesser or greater ranges. Reading the Army manual on the M2, it figures about a 3m drop at 100m range, so that's worth noting. Obviously the gunsight should be compensating for a set range/bullet drop. At 700m, it is a drop of just 1m, and below that, presumably it is more or less flat. Reference:- http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/23-65/ch62.htm#s1p1 Obviously the

I'd hazard a guess that changing the M200 mesh at this stage is probably quite low on their todo list.