AndyJWest

The mixture control in a Hornet is the big lever on the left-hand side. For some obscure reason, jet-jockeys call it a 'throttle'.

Previous thread on wearing helmets in C-130s: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/377124-herk-pilots-dont-wear-helmets/#comment-5677838 Short answer: it depends, but more likely to be seen in a combat situation.

I'll believe it when I see it. Let me know how progress is going in 2030...

Or make us an entirely-new high-fidelity air combat simulation? For free. With an 'add new aircraft' button so nobody has to wait for pesky developers to make stuff. You want a XB-70 Valkyrie, but can't find it in the mission editor? No problem. ChatGPT will have it ready for you in a few minutes. Yeah, that'll happen... Meanwhile, in the real world, ChatGPT is still struggling with basic concepts like the difference between looking something up in a cited source and inventing fictitious but plausible-sounding citations.

It's easier to keep the F-14 straight after touchdown with differential spoilers (i.e. stick left/right) than with rudder, in my experience.

It would help if the lights weren't almost invisible.

I can confirm that landing on the Tarawa causes a crash, even when calling inbound.

I'd be surprised if the frame rate had any bearing on how often the buttons were checked. More or less any simulation or fast-paced game developed in the last 20 years has separated game logic update rate (checking inputs, updating object positions etc) from frame rate (how often the display is updated). Multithreading is a thing...

Sure, NVidia 'have you constantly as a customer'. That's what is known as a monopoly. And destroying working video cards isn't exactly environmentally friendly...

AI doing what it does best: making crap up.

A cambered aerofoil will generate lift at zero AoA.

Wags' video: Mode 1 hands-off landing from 16:00 on.

Yup. I'd noticed the same thing. Most likely getting a good recording is tricky, given the levels and the inevitable vibration which is going to mess things up. Even something as simple as microphone placement might alter things dramatically, given how close the pilot (or back seater at least, for the two-seat version) is to the source of the noise.

While we wait, video (and audio) of the real thing, from the cockpit of a two-seater. A whole cacophony of angry noises.

Now plot sustained turn speeds and rates.

How long would it take if you had to type it all in from a listing in a computer magazine, 1980s-style?

Why not go the whole hog, and get ChatGpt to fly the plane for you?

Lucky you. Personally, I wouldn't trust ChatGPT to tell me the day of the week. It routinely makes stuff up. It's nothing but a next-word-predictor 'trained' by web-scraping humongous quantities of random dubiously-reliable 'data' from the internet.

High RPM, low MP= safe (within limits). High MP, low RPM = damaged engine. Look for documentation on your engine limits. Stick to them.

Yup, and that is how a balanced system is likely to behave. Looking at blue sky and ocean unloads the GPU, so the CPU is the limiting factor. Down low over complex ground details, the GPU may hit its limits first. Maybe once in a while you'd hit near max load on both CPU and GPU, but it is likely to be transient.

There are flight manuals for various versions of the F-104 about, and some of them include a section on 'Flight Characteristics'. I've not found one for the C version with this, but the basic aerodynamics won't have changed. The section goes into a fair bit of detail regarding why, despite the 10° anhedral (on what is almost an unswept wing), due to the T-tail acting as a fence on the rudder/fin, inducing greater roll in a slip, "the aircraft possesses a normal positive dihedral effect". This to me would suggest that the aircraft should be at least a little more stable in roll. The same section also has data on the stability augmenters, showing their damping effect diagrammatically. I seem to remember one of the manuals stating that the roll augmenter should be turned off in some circumstances (above a certain speed, with missiles/tanks on the tip stations, I think), but I can't seem to find it. This would imply that even without the roll augmenter, it should still be stable in roll.

Seems to apply to GBU 54s too, on the Harrier at least. I've not tried the remaining GBUs.

I've been trying out the C model. Looks are excellent, but I'm a little unsure about the flight modelling. I can understand it being sensitive in pitch, but it seems to actually be divergent in roll: trimmed hands off, it will fairly rapidly roll off to one side or another, to an extent that I'd have thought unacceptable in a real aircraft. Is stability augmentation working? Turning roll augmentation off via the switch seems to make no difference.

Before everyone gets totally overwhelmed by entirely undue hype, I'd strongly recommend reading what Dassault actually wrote. There is a Rafale in the new 'simulation' section of their website store, but it is for MSFS. link If they add anything from DCS to the store, it is presumably going to be the Mirage F1. They clearly aren't developing anything themselves, all they are doing is providing links to sellers of Dassault aircraft on existing sims.

I've seen that, but frankly I'm sceptical. The wingspan is reduced by less than 2%, and the wing area well under 1%. Could easily just be placebo effect. Even in the real aircraft, trying to measure such effects would be difficult, and most likely overwhelmed by other variables.