311Gryphon

Ironhand, I learned a ton from your videos and I've always found them both helpful and approachable. You also helped me out here in these forums. In fact, I'm not sure I would have figured out how to get a kill in the F-15 had it not been for some good advice you gave me some time ago. I've referenced you in several of my own videos to try to help people get more information than I can provide if they want it. Thanks again and I look forward to more of your extremely informative videos on YouTube. Cheers!

I know it has been discussed at length but I still find it odd that some of us are stuck on the idea that Normandy only existed during WWII. Saying that we're breaking simulation rules (getting unrealistic) by flying modern aircraft around the Normandy map is only valid if you think of Normandy as only existing in 1944 (give or take a few years). I know the architecture is congruent with that time frame but there is absolutely no reason a person couldn't put together a realistic scenario for a modern conflict using that terrain. There, I've said my bit!

Umm, I don't see the problem with making the map capable of utilizing modern equipment. Sure, it's meant for WWII scenarios. Why limit it to that? Oh well. I think the map is beautiful but since I don't really fly the old birds much I doubt I'll worry much about buying it. If I could set up some kind of halfway believable but fictitious modern scenario in it then maybe it would be worth it. I'll have to think on it. It would be pretty sweet if there were map options that could help manage the era and what kind of technology is available or not when someone is building a mission or campaign.

LOL, so the answer to not having to read all the forum posts and/or visit the website and facebook page of every developer who made a module I own before updating is to go through the changelog line by line? If that's the stance then that's the stance. It's a curious one in my opinion. At any rate, I'm very happy the oscillation is getting a speedy fix. Thanks for the info! EDIT: And to clarify the changelog comment I do think that having the changelog linked in the updater is a good thing. If we all have to get used to reading it before updating then so be it. I'm not going to, as some of them can be quite involved. Not all of them but I've looked through changelogs before and it's about the same as my wife scrolling through facebook posts for an hour without actually seeing any of them. Anyway, thanks again.

I think the issue most people are having is that they didn't know they needed to deactivate MiG 21 before updating. Since I believe most of us probably run the auto-updater that launches every time we launch the game to stay up to date there is a pretty solid chance that the next time we play that is exactly what is going to happen. It seems there should be an easy way to either know before we update to deactivate MiG 21 or an easy way to get it to work after we update. I'm honestly not sure what goes into making this stuff work so I hesitate to get too critical or propose "sure thing" solutions. However, I will say that I have a fairly large stack of games that gather the virtual dust not due to how good (or bad) they are but due to how much work goes into getting them to run and keeping them running. I play games to relax, not get more stressed out. That's what work is for. I just really don't want to see any DCS modules winding up in that stack.

I understand but there are a large number of players that go to work for 10 hour days then may go home and fire up DCS to let off some steam, they let the updater do its thing, then find out they were supposed to do some background work to get their MiG-21 to work. I don't have much time to read changelogs and various facebook pages. Perhaps a dialog box when running the updater that shows a link to that post in the forums before I updated would have been nice. I'm not trying to complain here, just trying to offer some other alternatives to make sure people don't accidentally mess something up just because they didn't look in the forums before letting the auto-update run.

Thanks. That is probably what is going on with MiG-21 but those instructions don't seem to be very well communicated unless a person experiences the problem then goes and searches the forums. I did a search and came up with nothing helpful so maybe it was a search term issue on my part. I'm not sure how better to do it but maybe the error box that pops up when I launch DCS could be more helpful with instructions instead of how it looks/is worded. Anyway, thanks again.

Altitude Hold Autopilot Problem I updated to the latest version of 1.5 last night (1.5.6.3930) and flew a mission. I put the hawg into an altitude (bank) hold in autopilot and went to work in the CDU. I noticed funny shadows oscillating back and forth and looked outside my cockpit to see the plane rolling back and forth wildly. I tried to reset and it kept doing the same thing, starting off rolling slightly but quickly excalating the amount of roll oscillation. In Altitude/Heading hold it behaves just fine. I tested it in a couple of different configurations and I'm just not sure what is going on. I'm not sure if this is a bug or something I'm doing. I've never had this problem before so I'm leaning toward bug. ${1} I also get MiG-21bis errors when launching thanks to the "parting of ways" but I haven't looked into that much yet. Knowing the way this normally works these will probably be fixed about the time I get done posting this...

I think you jump right in! The only flight experience I have is a bunch of research I did as a kid and teaching myself on Flight Simulator 3. I got the A-10C first and while it is a lot to learn I think it is probably the most fulfilling to learn. It took me a long time and I'm still nowhere near an expert but especially if you already have the HOTAS you'll have a lot of fun. As people mentioned there are a lot of resources to help and if you're willing to put in the time you'll be rewarded.

Wasn't that a B-2? It's been awhile since I saw that movie. What they flew at the beginning was a B-2 but I don't remember if there were any other planes in the movie.

Is there a story behind it or is it just for fun?

Nice! Wish I had a wing man who didn't already own NTTR! I would love to tool around in the Viggen! Good luck, everyone and thank you to Leatherneck and the 104th for spreading the love!

"Damped" Dampened would mean it got wet. Sorry, I couldn't help it. A few of my friends have a running gag about the usage of "damped" versus "dampened". Anyway, I tend to agree with the few here who have posted that they don't think it is quite correct. I'm glad to see some deliberate work going on with this. I do think the A-10C is probably far and away the most accurate combat sim on the planet, at least available to weekend warriors like me. I also think it is a dream to fly with whatever inaccuracies it has. However, I've always felt like it was a bit too limited in performance with or without a load out. I've never flown one, but you can look at flight characteristics and see that they don't quite match up with what real pilots are able to make the plane do. That isn't all about the flight controls or the G's (although I'm certain those matter). At certain flight parameters the plane should do X. If it doesn't, then something may be off. Anyway, just thought I'd throw my two cents in. I think most of the community is overwhelmingly happy with the A-10C so most of us just want to know that it is intentionally being looked at. If nothing comes of it, no worries. If something does, it will undoubtedly remain at the top of the food chain of commercially available combat flight simulators.

It's a shame. I hope that gets fixed sooner rather than later.

I had it happen a couple of times. I'm guessing it has something to do with the air flow getting to a point where the nose cone can't adjust to feed properly into the engine. I could be wrong though.

Old post, but I'm curious how they got camera views in that video from 3:11 to about 3:19. I have a feeling I just haven't found the right commands or speed settings but I can't do a realistic camera strafe or linear pan (not perfectly sure how to describe it). There is another video of the F-15C where they got an outstanding pan past two planes in formation.

I've always had problems with tracks in general. Maybe not the same issue, and mine has been with SP tracks, but the majority of the time when I play back a track at some point any player controlled aircraft starts behaving oddly. This can start very early in the track leaving me to watch my A-10C taxi into a building or it can be later on after take off leaving me to watch my F-15 roll slowly over and dive into the ocean. It seems that in general the tracks have some major issues. I don't even bother using tracks any more unless I need some video clips that I can't get very easily while in mission and then I just do what I need to do early in the mission so I have a better chance of getting the clips before the track goes haywire.

This is a very interesting topic. Hopefully more information to come soon. For one, I'd rather it not become HARDER to shoot things from the cockpit of the F-86. It already seems to be a pretty tough gig. For another thing, I'm not sure how the overheating changed POI and ballistics in real life but it just doesn't seem like shooting for a few seconds would cause that much of a difference. I've never shot an M2 but I've shot a lot of other guns. They do get hot quickly and the ballistics do change but I wouldn't think it would be that dramatic. Ah well. I guess we'll see.

Good call. I usually download one so I can look at it during my lunches at work or when I'm on the road. At home I can use the one in my docs. Thanks. EDIT: I guess I could just copy it to a flash drive and take it to work. LOL.

I'll second this. The A-10C has lots of switches and systems and it took me quite a while to get to the point where I felt pretty comfortable using the main ones. Flying is pretty easy, using the various weapons systems...not so much. Once you get it though it is insanely rewarding. I didn't play the module non stop, I took a lot of breaks from it, but after about 2 years I finally felt pretty good. Now I need to get back in and work more on running the CDU! Good luck and happy flying!

Nice. I hadn't messed with that but it sounds like it doesn't set their formation till the way point is activated or something. That's probably the incorrect way to describe it but if I remember correctly Operation Flashpoint and ARMA way points worked similarly.

I must have gotten an incomplete one then. It just stops at Page 161. Abruptly. Plus there are a lot of notes about fixing one thing or another, things that aren't in the module but are referenced in a photo, etc. I'm not wanting to nit pick those items because my main objective isn't to have the manual highly polished but to have it useful. More than anything I was just disappointed that the major systems that I want to learn to use seem to be past page 161. I also found the manual hard to find. I believe I downloaded it from a forum post here after I looked on the DCS site and the Belsimtek site (but couldn't find any downloads for the F86 on either site).

Interrogative: what user mods are referred to for the UH-1 and F-86? I'm pretty reluctant to start installing mods as I don't want to break the game or make any of the modules less realistic. I did use a canopy mod for the F-86 before 1.5 since it was nearly impossible to see out of in some cases. I'm very interested in mods but definitely don't want anything that reduces the realism. Thanks.

Luckily they have millions of photos of Europe from WWII. They took overlapping photographs so they could get an idea of the height of objects too. I'm not sure if those photographs are searchable but I don't believe they'll have any trouble getting a realistic map for us. Then sadly, there aren't many people still alive who would know the difference if it isn't right.

In some of the SP missions the wingman does. Is that just mission scripting? If they can do it I'd assume we could do it too but I'm not very good at scripting so I'm not certain.