roadrabbit

:helpsmilie: Does anyone have a quick solution to adjust the brightness of the VASI/PAPI glide path indicator lights at the side of the runways? My lights show way to bright and look like field fires rather than precision lighting. I did see somewhere (saved games folder?) some mention of lights with two sets of numbers against three entries (differing ranges?). Wpuld I be correct in thinking that editing these numbers to different values adjust the brightness of these ground lights? The usual 2 virtual beers to the first correct answer :smilewink:

Agree entirely. I shall research extra RAM to see if that helps, especially after a reply that my system should be able to address it. :thumbup:

:music_whistling: I spoke too soon, and SiThSpAwN is probably right! We (my computer and I) crashed again. So I re-did the CMD line fix. This time it did roll back to version 1.2.5.17086. Since then I have been flying and all my old missions now work again. I have even upped the scenery and have bushes, trees and birds in places I didn't even know I had places (where did those oil rigs come from?). Yes - I'm enjoying DCS World again :D

That's what I expected to happen, but when I loaded DCS World the sticker said 1.2.6. :unsure: I'm no computer expert, as I said, just glad to be back flying. I'm also pleased that my 8 Gb of RAM appears to be working fine - I really didn't want to have to add more. As a follow-on, I remember being told that with my set-up more than 8 GB would be wasted and unusable. Is this true, or just another myth that floats around the various forums (fora?). :book:

:book: Don't think so. Try going to the DCS 'Saved Games' folder and search for and open the config line with 'Aspect Ratio' in it. It usually has a number after it such as 1.3333333333333 after it, which helps to identify the correct line. Alter the number to 5.333333333333 and <Save>. Now, when restarting DCS World open up Options and you should see the correct aspect ratio of 5.33333333333 is now set. Check also that on this Options page that "1 screen" is selected (you are treating your three monitors as a single screen, right?). Now when you begin a Mission or Campaign your three monitors should be reset to what you had before. :thumbup:

I've also written elsewhere, but Skatezilla's remedy worked for me: Start Type CMD Open Command Prompt. Type: CD\ ENTER Key Type: CD Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Bin\ ENTER Key Type: DCS_updater.exe update 1.2.5 ENTER KEY Did you try this? It's not clear from what you wrote

DCS World Crash and Possible Fix :D I am back flying after following one thread which recommended the following: 1. Click on <Start> 2. Type: CMD click <Enter> 3. Type: CD\ click <Enter> 4. Type: CD Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Bin\ click <Enter> 5. Type: DCS_updater.exe update 1.2.5 click <Enter> This worked for me (no, I don't know what it does!) and I am back flying. Although it has 1.2.5 in the above command line entries my DCS World still shows 1.2.6. Perhaps someone more computer literate can explain? Who cares - I'm back flying:pilotfly:

:( I have had similar problems as Radar Rider. Ever since I loaded 1.2.6 the furthest I have got into a mission is Runway Start - then black screens (but without any odd noises, and the computer still appears to be running - but is locked to the black screens). It was no problem with DCS 1.2.5. I have followed many of the suggested solutions without success: 1. Go to Start>Programs>DCS>Repair DCS World and click on Repair DCS World 2. Rename the DCS <Saved Games> folder to DCS1 3. Full uninstall followed by re-install I also did a <System Restore> before doing another uninstall/re-install. I am not keen on the DEP (?) line edit under the CMD prompt as I am not a computer expert and would not know what I was doing, or how to undo it if it did not work. I am really hacked off and want to go flying again :cry:

Solution given to me on another thread was to go to ... User/Saved Games/DCS/Config/Options.lua and open the file for editing. Scroll down to the line with <aspect ratio> in it. It has an '=' sign followed by the number 1.3333333333333 Change the aspect ratio number to 5.333333333333 and <Save> That's it! No other changes necessary. I am using 3 Samsung 23" monitors with TrackIR 5 detuned. :D

Gentlemen I point you to 'The 3 R's of 1.2.6' thread: 1. Try "Repair DCS World" - go to <Start> then to "/Eagle Dynamics/DCS World" and click on "Repair DCS World". or 2. Rename the "DCS Saved Games" folder go to ... User/Saved Games/ and rename the DCS folder to "DCS1" then restart game or 3. Do a complete uninstall/re-install, but do consider the rename option above as well. These suggestions appear to have solved many of the crashes being experienced.

:cry: My frame rate hasn't changed from 40+ fps since upgrading to 1.2.6, but my system crash rate has! Initially all seemed OK but today I have yet to complete a take-off. I have tried three times so far and each time my system has crashed to 'black screen'. :helpsmilie:

:) Why not go to somewhere like Sochi-Adler (there are lots of 'markers' alongside the runway) and using a set load see where you stop from 100 knots. Then get someone else to do exactly the same, (except prior to upgrading to latest software) and compare stopping point. It might be your braking technique has just improved :D

:music_whistling: I was a bit 'previous' with my comments above and the non-latching returned the next time I loaded up. Nothing I did within the TrackIR set-up changed anything, even setting all flying 'games' to my own created <A-10C> profile. Loading up the latest drivers for my NVidia GTX590 card did the trick, and now I have a much more natural response profile for lateral head movement. :D

:thumbup: Excellent! Many thanks for the assist. It now latches and works for the A-10C. The default is designed to work with a single monitor, I think, and with three monitors the lateral feedback is too sensitive. Now I have calmed it down a lot laterally and it works much better (for me, anyway). Thanks again.

:helpsmilie: Probably something simple, but I have set up a new 'profile' for my TrackIR5 and it won't latch onto my DCS A-10C. When I check the title/profile page under <Advanced Settings> it shows the name of the profile I have saved to use with the A-10C as being latched, but when I launch DCS World and the A-10C it has obviously gone back to the default TrackIR profile. However, when I exit DCS World and recheck, it still shows the new TrackIR profile as linked to the A-10C. Appreciate any assistance.

:thumbup: I would be very interested to see it! My aerodynamics is maybe a bit rusty but I recall that the C of G is always forward of the main wing centre of lift (except in some 'fly-by-wire computer controlled flight bodies such as unmanned missiles). This centre of lift is at about 1/3 of the main wing mean chord, so on a straight wing design like the Warthog you can think of it as 1/3 the distance back from the wing's leading edge. [Counter-intuitively the tail-plane provides negative lift. This arrangement provides stability in flight where a small displacement in pitch results in a pitch couple (rotating force) that counters the small displacement and restores the aircraft pitch attitude to that existing prior to displacement. If this was not so, and the C of G was behind the main wing centre of lift, the displacement would result in a pitch couple that increased that displacement. This would make such an aircraft impossible to fly by a human pilot.] So, in the real world, the C of G for a Warthog should be forward of the 1/3 mean chord. Even if sitting static on its tail the C of G should therefore still be ahead of the wheels if the main gear was undamaged (from looking at side views of the aircraft). In another life I remember a Boeing 707 freighter sitting on its tail as the groundcrew hadn't put the tail prop in place prior to unloading from the forward freight door. As pallets were unloaded the C of G moved backwards until aft of the main wheels and embarrassment all round. Because of this possibility crew were always very aware of C of G position! :megalol:

:( Probably something very simple - my Taskbar is locked at the top of the screen. I want to move it back to the bottom of the screen. Note: I have tried clicking and holding on a 'free' area of the Taskbar and dragging it as per Microsoft's instructions, but no joy. I have also right clicked on the Taskbar and brought up 'Properties'. It shows the Taskbar to be 'Not Locked', ie no tick next to the 'Locked' tag. The box showing position shows 'Top' confirming it is at the top of the screen. I can then open up the options menu and select 'Bottom'. I then click on 'Apply' and then 'OK', but the Taskbar remains resolutely fixed to the top of the screen. :doh:

:huh: Er ..... not necessarily. If the main gears were wiped off without damage to the nose-wheel, the aircraft would still "sit on its tail". To rotate the C of G aft with respect to the wheels at any point would require the aircraft to be in an incredibly nose high attitude - and any touchdown attitude (a/c attitude to runway, NOT to do with angle of attack) greater than 16 degrees would result in the tail striking the ground (actually the bottom of the tail fins) first. The main gear would also have the wheel struts pointing forward by the same angle, and as has been shown earlier, this could also result in the main gears collapsing forward. This high attitude would be unsustainable and therefore only momentary. I have reproduced the 5 degree runway approach slope previously described, with gear down and full flaps, speedbrakes set to 40 degrees. The lowest stable speed attained was 105 knots. I had 25% fuel loaded and no weapons loaded. An earlier flare than normal resulted in a smooth touchdown with no bounce. At Sochi I stopped less than halfway down the runway. Whilst all this is very interesting, wouldn't it be more practicable to just fly the aeroplane as intended? :music_whistling: When in doubt - go around!

Agreed. From elsewhere on the forum I gathered that 'take-off trim' could be read as 'take off trim' i.e. set trim settings to zero or neutral displacement. It certainly seems to be the case from my experience just now: Altitude 2,500 ft, speed 280 kts, no armaments loaded and 60% fuel. No auto-pilot engaged and trimmed to fly level 'hands-off'. Pressing the trim button for 3 to 5 seconds, with no HOTAS, produced an immediate nose up with a definite roll to the right. Hands back on and regained 2,500 ft and re-trimmed to fly 'hands off'. Autopilot engaged and then trim button pressed as previously. There was an obvious trim change which the autopilot countered with a minimal altitude and minimal roll change before returning to wings level and 2,500 ft. When the autopilot was then disengaged the aircraft imediately reacted in the same way as when the trim button reset had been pressed with no auto-pilot engaged. It would not be surprising to find the real world aircraft behaving in the same way, as it would then be the case of the KISS principle at work. :D

Hmmm! I guess we can all try it and see what happens. :music_whistling: It may turn out that it requires weight on the gear and is thus it would be inoperative in the air. OR ...... it may work in the air, but beware! If the aircraft has been trimmed away from the default setting to maintain level flight, setting it back to default neutral will put the aircraft out of trim, with potentially interesting results. I shall try it out next flight just for the fun of it :D

Interesting replies! I guess this is one case, perhaps, where the Beta version of the DCS A-10C differs from the final release version? Anyone who has followed the ED-Wiki training videos by Tyger will see that all three of his mirrors are operating as mirrors. Of course, this may not be the answer as during his demonstrations of 1/2 Cuban and Cuban 8 his G meter remains at +1 - just how does he manage to do that?? :joystick:

Surely the decript 'Beta' means it is a version of the game - it is just a name. Some games there is no difference between the beta version and the final release, and with the replies above, it sure seems likely there will be little difference between the beta and the final release. Even final release games get updated and various bugs get ironed out, so they have different names too, usually in increasing numerics. So, what's in a name? Sometimes very little, sometimes a lot.

This could possibly be due to the home language of the programmers. Maybe in their language the word for mirror doesn't begin with the letter (or sound, if cyrillic) 'M' ??

:cry: I think that if you had checked your landing gear you most likely had torn off both main gears - wheels and struts. The nose wheel was probably on the ground as normal. This would account for the nose high attitude, and discounts the suggestion of an aft shift of C of G. If there had been an aft shift of C of G to the extent you theorize, the aircraft would in all probability have been uncontrollable. [Your approach path of 5 degs is really steep (as you know). Even the standard approach path of 3 degs would likely damage the landing gear if no flare was made. This latter approach angle would equate to a descent rate of 500 ft/min and the 5 deg path would equate to 840 ft/min, both at 105 kts airspeed. Another point to note is that a very late flare can momentarily increase the descent rate of the main gear due to the rotation to the flare attitude - this is known as "driving the wheels into the ground"!]