mkiii

Maybe if it creaked and groaned more like a real aircraft does to tell you it is unhappy, then you might be prompted to ease off before this happens. How many wings fell off undamaged Spits during the war - does anyone have records? A story showing the strength of those wings (compared to the pilot onboard) is illustrated here:-( a 600mph dive and a somewhat bent looking spit after recovery) http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160505-the-spitfires-that-nearly-broke-the-sound-barrier

Some older liveries do not work if just placed in the Saved games folder. It seems to depend on what is actually altered & the aircraft involved. In these cases, as you found, it works if you just manually place them in the game folder. This is where you should be using JGSME or better still OvGME to place your MOD - and manually disable it before any updates.

What exactly do you mean? The armour plate is shifting? Are you using a headtracker, VR, or view keys? I don't see any problems (headtracker), other than it obscures the view a little - but it IS a small cockpit, and has little room for a pilot to look back. I find that the most comfortable view over the shoulder is when I lean forward first - which is more realistic anyway. If you mean something different, then perhaps a screenshot showing your problem might be a better idea.

I have also just noticed that all white text is either heavily bump/normal mapped so it appears sunken in when illumination hits it from the side - creating an unpleasant effect. I wonder if this is deliberate, or related to the bug that causes red markings to appear as if having a bump or normal map. To be fair, the spit cockpit is the worst lit of the lot - light leaks into it from any external source, and the guage illumination is probably the least annoying, considering that it is a day fighter. Remember that the guages are NOT lit - they have glowing paint applied. That effect should not be seen during daylight unless the dial is in deep shadow. The main problem with the spit dial paintwork seems to be that it has copied a 70 year old example that no longer appears white, nor glows. {EDIT} At least the light leaking into the cockpit seems to be fixed in the latest Beta. So Come on ED - make the gauges glow in the dark like all the other pits already, alright!

None of this is on topic IMO. You guys are talking about cockpit illumination, not gauge illumination. That is completely wrong in the DCS Spit. Those things should be glowing like Chernobyl at night. They aren't and no amount of floodlighting is going to work - that is designed so you can find a switch in a dark cockpit or read a map - not see what airspeed you are going at or whether you are inverted. See here for a comparison: - Start at about 13:00

MadCat1381: As I mentioned - in my little unscientific test - this was due to (me at least) naturally easing the stick back as I turned. Note I tried NOT holding the stick & it did not happen. However - i don't see how using arrow keys as suggested previously proves anything - all that does for me is initiate a sudden 100% left or right roll movement. @DD Fenrir: Nope - When I say nose drop or otherwise, I'm referring to it's relation to the horizon Yaw - not pitch. I'm still a bit confused as to the contention that it only happens at full aileron deflection - If I do that, then I'm not turning, I'm in a continuous roll. Anyhoo - MkIII over & out. Clearly some people think they experience it, and others do not. Maybe some of us are so ham-fisted that we can't see subtleties ;)

Beaufighter: Reasons: Rockets, Torpedos, Bombs, Guns, Night fighting, RADAR, British. Beautiful!

It may be cheating, but try loading the mission into the mission editor and save it in you user missions as a new file after editing all the start times to daylight - say 14:00 rather than midnight. You will be able to see what should be happening a bit better before trying the original again. Note that you have to look at all the mission parameters. Just editing the mission start time isn't enough.

Maybe one day, the DCS manuals will actually contain info on how we should fly them and we can all agree on how it should work? We can't even qote RL manuals here without risking our posts being deleted.

Do you mean "Landing - Difficult", which is the Su-27, in bad weather at night? The other one for the Su-33 is on the carrier. The SU-27 mission takes you on a path between waypoint 0 and 1 near Beslan, meaning that you will be heading roughly in the direction to pick up the Return path when prompted. Before you get to that point, use the radio and request a landing at Beslan - if you don't contact them, the runway lights will not come on. Also, keep your speed down to what the HUD suggests, drop your gear, use your landing lights set to FAR, and keep above 600m until you are on the approach. The HSI does not give you anything useful in this mission. However, the ADI will guide you until you can see the runway. Use the Horizontal and vertical lines to keep on track until you can see the runway, the Horizontal line will drop as you approach the outer marker. Now you can see the runway hopefully, and start to descend at a decent angle. The Horizontal and vertical tick marks on the ADI are usefulfor correcting while you are a way out, but rely on your view of the runway and the long localiser needle for your heading. Landing is another matter - get jiggly with the rudder and stick that crosswing is a pita. Not only that, you are told to input rudder left and bank right, at a point where the winds might be different. Try the opposite initially and see if that helps, then use left rudder and right bank as suggested once past the inner marker and nearer touchdown.

This may be true for most forum regulars, but how can you know that there aren't thousands of Steam users out there that just DL the free base sim and maybe one or two FC3 aircraft, and outnumber the hardcore sim enthusiasts 10-fold? After all, the game mode is there, and has been since the beginning afaik. I doubt that ED would release any numbers to confirm or deny this. That said - I'm now a even less sure that we will ever see full fidelity clickable FC3 aircraft. On the need for that, I agree, but my money would be on Su-25 and Su-27/33.

TBH, it's about time that the kneeboard and other "standard windows" behaved like the NS430 window does, that allows you to not only position it where you want, but resize it. just like just about every flight sim out there. I'm getting too old for all this hunting down obscure lua commands just to be able to move a control indicator or whatnot an inch to the left. You might want to have a look at Kneeboard builder, if only to create some pages that you can use as examples.

You can't change them in FC3 A/C. For whatever reasons, this topic has never been answered on these forums. I don't know if the newer separately available versions act any differently, but I doubt it. Nothing really works that well unless you are using 1, 2 or 3 identical monitors. Beyond that and things like this become a problem, but at least some editing can be done in non FC3 A/C to fix Control Indicator and Kneepad positions.

Amen to that.

Nalchik RW 24 approach is obscured by very large trees, making it difficult to see the approach lights on what in real life is a clear patch of ground judging by Google Maps images.

No. It still happens as of todays update.

I'd rather see a full blown SU-25 T or otherwise. Much more going on in that pit.

Not sure which version of F4 you are running, but the one that begins with B, has an M and an S in it lands smoother than any FC3 module. AOA donut, and FPM on the threshold - land. badda-bing & nary a brake-chute in sight.

Testing Testing Testing

I know this is a vey old thread, but did anyone find out why this happens. I get the double spacing, which is less of a problem, but I also get a huge blank space at the end of each post - even a single ime:- witness....

For Me the Dora in props followed closely by the Spit. In Jets, I'd say the Mig-29 is a pig to land, everything else seems easy enough given the correct approach & airspeed. The Albatross is difficult to persuade to stop flying however - it is very floaty. Choppers, the Mi8 is probably the hardest to do if you are in a hurry.

I just tested the Spit in a new empty mission with no wind starting airborne at approx 7500ft and a speed of approx 260mph. Trimmed for hands off level flight, and re-trimming after each change of speed/maneuvre, altitude regained. RPM set at 2700. No rudder input, no back stick, controls are released after turn initiated. Referencing Turn & slip & Climb & Dive indicators. At initial speed & alt, gentle nudge into a port or stbd bank of 25-30deg no rise in nose. Nose drops 200fpm initially - rising to 4000 after a few seconds. Slight back stick easily arrests this. Beyond 30deg, affect is amplified. No rise in nose while initiating turn. Same conditions, at 140mph, 25-30dec bank initiated, roll holds at level flight, increasing bank to 35-40deg initiated a slight nose drop, but also a tendency to recover back to level flight. Nose drop more pronounced in Stbd bank. At 120-130mph, trimming is a little more finicky to achieve hands off. Results pretty much the same as before, but a slight (100 ft/pm) nose up in a port bank, and an equal nose down moment in a stbd bank. I'm assuming this is more to do with torque effect than adverse yaw. Both tended to nose down once in the turn. Flying naturally, with hands on stick, and initiating turns at low speed showed no adverse yaw other than the slightest rise of the nose caused by stick pressure. Now I know that the type of ailerons used on the spit are designed to alleviate this problem, so I never thought it felt wrong, but certainly there is nothing noticable in moderate bank angles. Now as Yo-Yo says, it should be noticeable at full stick & low speeds. I am not seeing this at all in the Spit. The only thing I can see happening is a natural tendency to pull back on the stick as you initiate a turn. This causes the nose to rise. Removing that from the equation by just moving the stick left and right using finger or palm only ever results in a nose down moment for me. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? What am I missing here? [EDIT] I have tried a similar test in the Mustang, which of course has a different wing and aileron setup, and still can't see any adverse yaw tendency when JUST using ailerons to bank.

1st thing they should do is scrap that awful tiled scratches normal map for the transparancies. The rest of it is pretty good right now imo.

He's back in todays Beta update.

The upward force of the bounce is far more excessive than the force imparted by a slightly heavy landing. If the thing is landing that heavily then something will give - it won't bounce 50 feet into the air & do a half forward roll imho. In my case, the problem is not the stick or the curves - it's the setup of the aircraft. I'm not fussed enough to waste time on it any more - there are plenty of modules that work as intended.