AndyJWest

Good luck finding the necessary publicly-released documentation for any British Harrier.

Yup, something is definitely off. Jester wouldn't select the laser code, and then wouldn't switch to GBU 16s after I'd dropped GBU 10s (as dumb bombs, since the laser wasn't working).

A hard landing can result in worst than a blown tyre. This was the result of an impact at about 1,200 ft/min, followed by a bolter. The wheel is canted over at a funny angle, and wouldn't retract. Trying to land on the carrier didn't seem a good idea, but I just about had enough fuel to reach a nice long runway...

The answer is very simple too: No, there is no chance for this, since ED requires freely-available published sources to model an aircraft and its systems, and it isn't available.

You are clearly reading far more into that statement than what it actually says.

As far as I'm aware, Windows limits a single device to 128 buttons. There are however ways to get around this by using multiple virtual 'devices'.

As far as I'm concerned, if I have as many rotor blades at the end of the flight as I had when I started, that's dignity enough...

I gave it a go, with the Heatblur/IndiaFoxEcho F-14. Didn't have much luck though, and only managed to connect very briefly. I was having real problems with throttle control, which seemed off somehow - maybe just finger trouble, but I'll have to investigate further. Has anyone tried the stock Asobo F/A-18 with this?

I saw that, and will probably get around to trying it sometime. Not sure how useful it would be as a training aid though, given how different the flight modelling tends to be.

The 'break away' message seems to be triggered too easily, but you can just ignore it and still connect. As for tips, the Harrier is tricky in AAR, due to the location of the probe. As always ensure you are properly trimmed, and try to focus on the refueling aircraft rather than chasing the basket.

That's the GUI scaling bug: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/355700-flickering-and-partial-gui-menus/

You'll need a change of tyres and underwear after that...

Yup. turns out my first guess was correct. Suppose it makes sense, though it must have reduced the useful bomb load with that thing full. https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/uk/raf/lancaster/lancaster-iii-with-long-range-with-tank/#google_vignette

Arghh! My eyes! Seriously though, what the *@#$ is that? Some early experiment in conformal fuel tanks? A fairing for a concealed rearward-firing 16-inch gun? A predecessor to the dropping-lifeboats-from-B-29s concept, that was rejected because having to roll inverted to release the boat seemed an unnecessary complication? We need to be told...

A question on launcher functionality: What is the intended benefit of deselecting 'use in game' for a module if you don't intend to use it in a session? I assume that the intended purpose is to improve performance in some way, but how, exactly? Is it expected to (a) reduce RAM usage, (b) reduce loading time, or (c) reduce CPU/GPU load while running? And if so, by how much? Having options is good, but it would be nice to have some idea as to whether they are worth taking advantage of, and what we should be looking for when trying them out.

Why stop at a blowable Portaloo mod? We've already got firm video evidence that they have STOVL capabilities. We need a flyable one...

Take a look at Spitfire cockpits, where they can't even agree what to call something. 'Undercarriage' on the instrument panel placard. 'Chassis' on the control itself.

Anything a Chinook can do, a Merlin can do too...

You need more than that to correct for wind.

When you say 'easier in DCS AV-8B', what are you comparing it to? I can't see anything in publicly available official documents that suggest that thrust vectoring should be used for spin recovery.

Just a heads up. The AV8B paint kit seems no longer to be available for download from the Razbam website. No further comment....

Yup, definitely twitchy. On the plus side though, I managed to land it on the airfield I was aiming for at my first attempt.

Given just how common it is for people to buy DCS stuff they never get around to using, asking them to only pay for the stuff they actually do use instead looks like a highly effective way to lose money...

If all else fails, you can always resort to armchair test-pilot stuff. It shouldn't be too difficult to get a ballpark figure for the best glide speed for a given configuration by careful observation of airspeed to rate of sink ratios, and a little maths. And if you have AoA information available, use that instead of airspeed.