AndyJWest

Is there any evidence that AzurPoly (which seems to be their actual name) actually want to do business with ED? Developing for DCS is a very different proposition than for MSFS, and they may be perfectly happy doing what they already know best.

It does. And there is another, more subtle benefit: Extending airbrakes, and thus increasing zero-lift drag, 'flattens out' the IAS/drag curve at approach speeds, making an aircraft less sensitive to minor changes in pitch and/or airspeed. This effect is described in the RAF Central Flying School Manual of Flying Volume 1, pages 7-8, 17-18 (Download from UK government website here).

It should be noted that it is entirely possible for an aircraft with a 'flat bottomed' aerofoil profile (e.g. the classic Clark Y) to fly inverted. I've learned over the years to largely ignore explanations of lift that treat it as some sort of magical attribute of aerofoil profiles, or indeed of 'wings'. The simple fact is, if you have relative motion between any solid object and a fluid it is immersed in, and the object is asymmetrical perpendicular to the flow direction, there is liable to be a net force generated at right angles to the flow. Wings are just particular shapes chosen to exploit this as 'lift, while minimising 'drag', a force exerted on the object in the direction of flow.

Needs A FLUD.

Just try again. It was an issue at ED's end, not yours.

Tried that. No effect. EDs servers clearly can't cope with the load. Again...

I'm having the same issue. EDIT: Why the heck has this post been tagged as 'Solution'. Nothing is solved.

It's been that way for years.

Just think of the time, effort, and expenditure that could be saved if aircraft builders didn't have to install wings at all, and just installed an angle instead!

Gimme banana. Piasecki HRP Rescuer. Yeah, I know. No DCS map for it. I still want one.

Given the angle of the display impact line, I'm not surprised you are missing. I'd find a mission where you don't have a crosswind. Or at least bomb into wind. And then concentrate on using the proper technique, which is to place the velocity vector beyond the target, align the impact line with the target, and pickle as the CCIP impact cross walks up over the target. Having said that, cluster bombs have often been problematic in DCS, with issues both with aiming and with fusing. If you are new to CCIP, conventional low-drag iron bombs are easier to get consistent results with.

That has to be about the least helpful request for assistance I've seen.

What an absurd thing to get worked up over...

Had the same thing just happen in an F-14 (monitor, not VR), while lining up to drop a GBU-24 onto the Syrian Presidential Palace in Damascus from 35,000 ft. The palace was blinking in and out of view, while the buildings around it stayed visible. As I got nearer the issue went away, making me wonder whether it is some sort of LOD bug.

I posted this in another thread, but I think it bears repeating here: Given its current limitations, I think it was a serious mistake to add the 'save' option to the menu by default. People who don't obsessively read the forums etc are going to use it, find that it doesn't work remotely they expect, and assume it is bugged. This forum, along with Steam and Reddit, is going to be swamped with 'bug reports' and complaints. The 'save' option should have been added as an option, to be turned on at the players own risk, and clearly marked 'work in progress'. It is also a very bad idea to offer the existing mission title as the default file name for the new save. People are going to accidentally overwrite existing missions.

Given its current limitations, I think it was a serious mistake to add the 'save' option to the menu by default. People who don't obsessively read the forums etc are going to use it, find that it doesn't work remotely they expect, and assume it is bugged. This forum, along with Steam and Reddit, is going to be swamped with 'bug reports' and complaints. The 'save' option should have been added as an option, to be turned on at the players own risk, and clearly marked 'work in progress'. It is also a very bad idea to offer the existing mission title as the default file name for the new save. People are going to accidentally overwrite existing missions.

Interesting stuff. I can't link them (forum rules), but there are real-world 'official documents' with tables giving ballistic data for Mk 82s etc which seem from a quick check to give similar but not identical results. As for GBUs, from comparing data the same document it confirms that they are a little more draggy, as one would expect. As graveyard4DCS notes, a GBU isn't going to be following a ballistic trajectory though (or not intentionally ), so the difference need not be significant.

How long will it work? For as long as Defender etc allow users to add exclusions: which is going to be always, since it is a necessary function of AV software.

The bank angle for a given radius turn is entirely dependent on the true airspeed.

I wouldn't describe most AV software as 'snake oil'. The issue is that people clearly don't understand how it works. It isn't infallible. No legitimate supplier of AV software claims it is. It inspects code, and if it doesn't already match known bad data, then applies heuristic analysis to see whether it has characteristics similar to malicious software. If the code looks questionable, it blocks it, and informs the user. It is up to the user to decide whether the code is in fact malicious, or whether it is a false positive.

According to a 2008 'official document' which I can't reproduce here, F/A 18s had DTED by then. It was integrated into both the HSI (as a grey-scale height map option), and into TAWS.

It should probably be noted that if there was a way to reliably write/compile software in a manner guaranteed not to trigger AV detection, the creators of malicious software would be doing the same thing. AV software relies on pattern-matching and statistical methods to detect potential viruses etc, making false positives inevitable. This is why Defender and the like allow trusted software to be excluded.

Yeah, right...

Bad links.

Hiding away essential information in tutorials made by third parties has absolutely nothing to do with air combat simulation.