mkiii

4thd'd

The SU-25T is certainly much heavier than the earlier SU-25. Have you flown that one? It's much nicer to fling about. The engines are by no means massively powerful. The combined thrust (and weight) is similar to that of an A-10 according to the figures on Wikipedia, but it certainly scoots along a fair bit faster than that aircraft, athough with greater wing loading on the smaller wing area. From the manual:- "Although the Su-25T is much improved from the standard Su-25 in regards to its weapon delivery capabilities, its flight performance has taken a step back. The added weight in particular has given the Su-25T poor performance and handling. The Su-25T is a powerful weapon platform, but it takes a skilled pilot to fly it well."

Same here. Deselecting them all but one works fine.

@imacken: Just FYI although you have probably figured this out by now. Using the Updater Gui Utility depends on the version that you have selected in "Select Build to Manage" in the top right corner afaik, so if you have more than one version installed, then it is important to make sure that you have the build selected that you intend to edit.

...MkIII Ducks for cover... Incoming!

After a swift demise in a Mig29s on a Quick mission, I decided to spectate the unfolding battle. A pair of British Apaches were launching AGM-114k Hellfire at various groups of Red armour. On every other launch, the Apaches pitched up to around 45 degrees to launch at distance, then back to level hover. The missile then homed in on what appeared to be a ballistic trajectory, and usually resulted in an air-burst of the missile a couple of hundred feet above the target, seemingly missing. Usually, the next launch would be in a more normal looking flat trajectory, usually resulting in what looked like a good hit. Is this normal behaviour or a bug?

Thanks RedGlyph... so whatever happens, it needs to be deactivated before the next patch. That will make 6 reactivations for no other reason than this module has messed them up since I bought it, compared to zero problems with much older modules. I can live with that, but I expect there will soon be a lot of confused and annoyed people who don't read the forum, and haven't got the message.

I'm mightily confused now. I had no idea this was going on and carried out the last update on the release version leaving me with corrupt gfx on the Mig-21, but a reinstall of the files fixed that. Activation was not asked for. V2.0 Is also fine and at the latest version. I just had also updated the Beta, to see what was new, but only just started getting Mig-21 activation problems after I did a repair action - nothing before that. I can't reactivate OR deactivate it at all in the Beta, and don't want to delete the registry keys, since they appear to cover all installs not just the beta. Can someone please explain what happens to my beta mig-21 now? Will it suddenly start working again when the next update happens? Do I have to completely remove it? How come we don't seem to get these problems with any other module? and am I wrong in thinking that users should not be required to hack the registry because they want to use a product. Not to say that I am not able to do this, but many users may not be quite so used to doing that sort of thing just to fly in a flight sim.

I know how you feel. For me, BMS is more like an aspiration really. One day I really will read all those manuals and understand them ;)

That's a shame. With the (Now Official) Benchmark Sim (BMS) 4.33 mod installed, F4 is a whole new kettle of fish - gfx are much, much better, and it has lots of nice radar, weapon and onboard system improvements, as well as 3d clickable cockpits and new campaign areas such as Israel and the Balkans. Just check out the vid on the link above.

Clearly it is confusing, since this has already been covered in previous posts. Setting the slider curve to -39 is not going to put it at 140 degrees in the middle of its range. The default settings are (usually) 20 degrees min. to 140 degrees max, (depending on settings in server.lua or views.lua if there is one). For example. The Ka-50 has a min of 20 deg and a max of 120 deg, and a middle of 70 deg, so no amount of curve setting is going to get the mid point of that range near to 140 deg UNLESS you tweak the lua files. You can get almost 120 if you set the curve to -100, but that means that there is no point to it, since all you can do is zoom in. Do you see now, why we have to edit lua files?

Well I hope that you never have to "Deal with it". I get the feeling that anyone not using a wide screen setup seems to think that those who are, are getting above themselves or cheating in some way. Get over it guys, we are not all 15 year olds with no cash. Sometimes we want a decent setup, and have scrimped enough to buy more than one monitor ;) I believe that the main problem is where the middle is rather than the min or Max. The default FOV is usually 20 to 140, which gives a middle fov of 80 degrees. This is Fine on a single monitor, but this means that your face is up against the HUD in triple monitor setups. For example, on my setup, a fov of about 137 to 140 degrees gives a fairly undistorted view, but to get that as the middle point (since I use a Warthog throttle slider - which is most stable at mid point - either side of that can cause jitter), the min and max need to be equidistant on either side, so assuming that a max FOV is no more than 170 to be sensible, then the min can be no more than 110 degrees. This works for me (I use 115 to 165) to give 140 mid range. Any tiny tweaks can be done in the lua or by setting a curve in the axis for the slider. Having said that, why on earth in the 21st century are we still having to tweak obscure script files to make this bleeding thing work? Come on Devs add options to the sodding GUI.

Just because a pilot was consulted, doen't mean he's on call all the time, and for ever more, unless he's a full time employee, but then he wouldn't be an active Mig-21 pilot would he.

the glowing switch labels are simple, just changet the rgb colour from red to white on the textures named with _N_ in the cockpit textures zip file EG Mig-21-cockpit-T_1_N.tga.dds and similar. The instruments are trickier. The main set of instruments texture is Mig_21-cockpit_018.tga.dds, with an alpha channel that seems to define the amount of red glow. Where this actually gets the red colour from is beyond me atm. Perhaps it is defined in a lua file, or even hard coded? Perhaps mainpanel_init.lua or materials.lua in the main Cockpit folder of the Mig?

Tiff, Tempest, Mossie, Sea Fury (we could pretend it was there ;) ) I want them ALL! With only one British fighter, if we discount the Hawk, I feel that the Commonwealth is poorly represented. Come on chaps!

I'm not sure, but some textures must only be used by AI, where others such as the A10 seem to have their own. I tried a quick test, editing one of those and like you, nothing showed up. Just keep looking. sooner or later you will find the right ones.

Armstrong Whitworth Albermarle (Paratroop transport, and glider tug) British and Canadian forces. http://www.aircraftaces.com/albemarle.htm

They seem to have moved around a bit since that mod. I can't find the files it is referring to, but the A-10 weapons textures are in Bazar\textures\World\textures\A-10_Weapons.zip, although the names seem to be different. There are also copies in Y_Final_Texture for some reason. I get the feeling that some of that may be due to my not having installed from scratch since the early days of DCSWorld.

That sounds like what I read. That it was originally meant to be capable of showing Situational Awareness, using a datalink, but all that was implememted was a non functional switch :)

It's the guy in the back messing with you ;)

I used an X52 pro, and still find it useful for more delicate operations (Flying the Huey) where tiny inputs are needed. The Warthog is great for a workout on Jets, but I think it's a tiny bit too well sprung without an extension, for WWII Fighters. Agreed, the X52 is a bit floppy, but you can beef up the feel of it without taking it apart, just by compressing the top of the spring where it meets the handle. I just have a thick bootlace wound round it a few times, and trapped by the tension of the spring. It makes it much stiffer, but can be removed in a thrice. I agree with the others that for taildraggers especially, that rudder pedals are important. I can't vouch for the expensive ones, since I just have cheap CH Pros, and they work fine.

The gear doors are opened by a groundcrew operated switch in the left main gear well according to the pilots notes. The flight controls are on a different hydraulic system to the "Utility" devices. As far as I can tell, the doors should be up when the gear is down. Collapsing the gear, with Emergency UP & MAY give them time to open before the gear folds & the nose hits the deck, but I don't think you want to do that ;) Pilots notes (For the E model) here : http://aviationshoppe.com/manuals/f-86_flight_manual/f-86.html

If you haven't already done so, you might also want to look at Chucks very nice guide for the F-86 and most other aircraft. See here: - https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135765

Maybe they look too steep because you are looking at them at an angle, perhaps your cockpit view is not centred, or head tilt, fov or some other factor is making your pov of them wrong? Surprisingly, the manual barely mentions them, and then, not until past p300 as far as I can tell, but the included training missions do cover their use. If you are not convinced by the angles, you can check them easily. From a decent altitude, fling straight & level, go to idle and nose down so the top of the mirror bracket is on the horizon, this is 30 degrees. The Artificial horizon should also say 3-0, and looking out to the side, the 30 degree line will be level with the horizon.

Look it up - They lost a lot of pilots in training because of the Sabres unpleasant pitch up on takeoff. The pilots manual has a large warning regarding the a/c pitching up on takeoff, enough to stall the aircraft when raising the gear if the speed is too close to minimum takeoff speed. I suspect the same must go for the flaps. Is he raising both at the same time? EDIT: That aside, the online only part seems to say something isn't normal there. I certainly can't get it to pitch up to vertical, even when deliberately doing everything wrong.