lmp

If a programmer is outright stuck, or has an important decision to make, he consults his colleagues. That's how it works in every healthy company and that's how it's been everywhere I worked. But if a team is not understaffed, permanently assigning more programmers to it just causes a big mess. And stalls other projects where the reassigned programmers would actually be useful. I've seen this sort of mistakes made and generally everybody in the industry learns quickly that certain tasks take longer and there's only so much you can do about it. More hands on board means better in some occupations but not in other. Do you ask for ten dentists to work on your teeth when you're in a hurry? ;)

Software development doesn't work like factory production of goods. You can't always just throw more people at the problem and solve it faster that way. Every new programmer on the team needs to communicate and coordinate with the rest. If there are too many of them, work cannot be divided efficiently. Also, moving programmers between projects is a long and therefore costly process. The new guy on the team will need to learn the ropes and will take up a lot of his senior colleagues' time as he does so. Most of the time that means that for a few days, weeks or even months he'll be slowing the work down rather than accelerating it.

The G meter is on the other (right) side of the panel.

Also, Western AWACS crews (English speaking) give you distance in knots and altitude in feet, while Eastern (Russian speaking) use meters and kilometers per hour. So you'll have to convert.

Systems based on weight on wheels exist but aren't fool proof. If you raise the landing gear lever on the ground and fail to correct it before departure, the landing gear might retract during take off - once you're generating the lift to remove enough of the weight to turn of the safety, but not enough to climb. This is generally a much more dangerous situation than the aircraft "sitting on its belly" in the hangar or on the taxiway.

Wow, I haven't though about it, but you're right :lol:.

I think you ought to post your plea in each of the subforums as well and maybe also the bug sections. We have a wishlist forum of course, and dozens of already existing wish threads everywhere, but why limit yourself? ;)

But it's pretty much a given that a Tomcat/Phantom without backseat AI would sell worse than the same Tomcat/Phantom with backseat AI. That's what I believe McBlemmen was trying to say.

You are wrong then.

The Polish word "cyfra" means numerical digit ;)

Out of pure curiosity, what's blowing up in the top right part of that screenshot? ;)

Table 52 on pages 32 through 34 lists various landing gear related limitations, including max unstick and touchdown speeds, maximum weights, maximum speeds at which it's allowed to retract/extend it etc.

How about we add some more key combos: - extend arm toward gear handle - grab gear handle - release gear handle - move hand back to throttle ... which need to be used before and after moving the gear lever. Because, let's face it, the pilot has to do all those things too ;). Seriously though, to all the poster worried we're trying to "ruin the realism". We're not. We're exchanging our ideas as to how to streamline the user interface part of this simulation. The part that will always be very artificial because we don't all have a MiG-21 cockpit at home. Instead we use flimsy devices such as a keyboard and a mouse to operate all the systems and so all the things a pilot has to do have to be split into bindable actions. All we differ about is how we want those actions split. Do I want the gear handle to automatically return to the neutral position? No, that's a thing a pilot might realistically forget and it carries important consequences. On the other hand, a pilot simply wouldn't be able to press the chute release button without raising the cap, while I can press my key combination perfectly fine and I have no feedback that the cap is still there unless I look at it. Thus I personally believe it would be better if the release chute key combination automatically removed the cap, while still retaining the option to flip the cap manually. You can agree with me or not, and I'm certainly not demanding that LS caters to my wants, but I do not understand the criticism that this suggestion "makes it unrealistic". Certainly not more than axis curves and deadzones or central trimmer mode in Ka-50...

Ok, I just checked and you guys are right of course. Wow. I don't know how I got it into my head that it won't work without manually lifting the cap :doh:. Sorry for the confusion.

The problem is, unlocking the safety, pulling the leaver up and then back to the neutral position in real life is natural and practically a single motion. Memorizing RSHIFT + G, G, CTRL + G isn't. Especially if you include all the other buttons and switches with safeties. I don't see how cluttering my head with tens of key combos is realistic - whether they are the default ones or set by myself. Does the pilot have to do that? Nope. We fly our virtual planes with input devices very different from the ones in the real thing. That's why for example all DCS helicopters have several options for trimming. That's why we get to set curves for our stick axes. Because of hardware limitation there often isn't really a perfectly realistic solution. We should have options to tailor the interface to ourselves here and there. Nope it doesn't. Nothing will happen if you do that. EDIT: Ok, nevermind, I'll check that. If that would suit everybody, I'm fine with this solution as well. But I won't assume which solutions are easy or hard to program cause I don't know the code.

Hmm, right now there are three buttons responsible for missile release: missile release missile release cap up missile release cap down How about adding a fourth... missile release auto which would raise the cap if needed and activate missile release. This way whoever would want to use the old system would still have it, and I could bind the new function to one of the precious four buttons on my stick.

I have to agree with Flagrum here. While I've gotten used to the whole gear up process, I'll routinely go into a fight with the missile release capped. Now in the real world I would just lift the cap without looking. Or really thinking about it. But in the game I have to either memorize some obscure keyboard command or look down, let go of the joystick, find the mouse, hit the tiny cap with my cursor... where was that Phantom again? Oh yeah, on my six, getting ready to kill me. I find it neither immersive nor realistic. And I'm thankful that LS inconsequently didn't force us to lower the gun trigger manually as well. I would love it if you only had to lift safety caps when using the mouse.

First one who does that in the MiG-21 wins ;)

I think I'm seeing some microstutters too unfortunately, though overall FPS went up by 5 - 10.

Cool stuff, guys :)

Hey, I know the cone bug is annoying, but I think you took it too far ;).

<gossip mode> Considering the recent AH-1F and Su-27 speculations, I hope we'll get another very interesting newsletter soon :music_whistling: </gossip mode>

No, no, no, you got it all wrong. It's supposed to move up and down to account for the change in center of gravity due to fuel consumption.

Looking good :)

It's always a trade off - develop a feature that may attract more casual players, but also less agile players or those with worse equipment. Or don't develop it, save some money at the risk of scaring off those players (and getting the bad rep, because they didn't enjoy your game). Considering that in this case the simplification has already been done and also assuming - of course I may be wrong here - that this would be relatively simple, I'd go with an option. In a different scenario, I might be more in favor of just doing it the realistic way. Of course ultimately none of us know how difficult it is and whether LS have the resources and are willing to do this, but religiously being opposed to ANY form of catering to more casual players (not saying that anybody here is), regardless of the costs and benefits involved makes no sense to me.