some1

Always nice to see updates to some older modules.

Mine has been working for half a year so far with zero maintenance required. Best to check their Discord and look at the support requests there, but I don't think there are any serious issues so far. A few people damaged the thread on the part where you screw the grip on, but that's fairly easy to replace. Belt drive may need tensioning after a while.

The heading indicator should have four fixed markers at 0, 180, +45 and -45 positions, allowing for precise orientation of the compass card. They are missing in DCS. You can spot them on every real cockpit photo of the instrument.

Yawn. Wake me up when there's a meaningful performance difference between gen4 and gen5 in the games we can play on a PC. And by meaningful i don't mean "0.5 s faster loading". Then I'll go and but gen5 drive, most likely with better specs, and for a fraction of price of what is available now. Until then, well, at least you can keep getting excited about benchmarks.

Nope. What I'm stating is that in real world applications the actual technology inside the disk is the primary thing which determines performance. The interface also matters to some extent, but not to the level synthetic benchmarks suggest. The current PCIe Gen.5 disks can produce huge numbers in synthetic throughput benchmarks, but it does not translate to practical results much. Direct Storage works on any NVMe disk, even Gen. 3. So far in that one game which has Direct Storage and which people bothered to test, Gen. 4 disks are basically as fast as Gen.5. And while Gen.3 is slower, it's nowhere near the difference you can see in CrystalDiskMark or other benchmark software. https://www.tomshardware.com/news/directstorage-testing-shows-pcie-3-drives-are-basically-as-fast-as-pcie-5 As for the current version of DCS, I have both NVMe Gen.3 and Gen.4 drives in my system, and loading times are the same on all of them. I tested. No word from ED on Direct Storage coming to DCS any time soon.

The results of practical m2 benchmarks are nowhere near the synthetic ones, especially with computer games. Here you can see that some Gen.4 drives score better than Gen.5, Gen.3 are mixed with gen.4 with no clear difference and sometimes even SATA drives give better performance than NVMe. And overall, the difference between "decent" and "top" drive are so small, they aren't worth paying for. https://www.techpowerup.com/review/crucial-t700-pro-4-tb/16.html

That's not how any gunsight works. Wingspan is not an input to a ballistic solution. It's only for the pilot to visually estimate range to target. Which he does not do if there is a radar lock, like in this case.

The radar gunsight does not use wingspan setting, it's only for visual aiming without radar lock.

In DCS the distance markers presented on the gunsight are weirdly spaced. They are at 2000m, 1200m, and 300m respectively. Which makes it quite hard to estimate distance to target. 2000 meters is way to far for effective gunnery. Even MiG-29 real manual gives 1200 meters max for accurate gun aiming and 800 meters effective gun range. Doubt the older system would fare much better. The marker at 300 meters is useless, it's the same distance you get "breakaway" red lamp next to the gunsight, so it's redundant information. On a real footage you can see the markers were evenly spaced, so it was possible to read the distance like on a scale. https://youtu.be/inOKZ7kIRnA?si=1wqcgD-EM6Q2KDav&t=2379 And here is an interesting interview with technician, who worked on Polish Mig-17s equipped with RP-5 radars. He says the 3rd marker was at 400m and the max effective range was 800 meters. https://www.polot.net/en/wsk-mielec-lim-5-p-radar-izumrud-rp-5-1959-675 So unless Razbam has better source that clearly states that currently implemented markers are correct, they should probably be placed at 400-600-800 meters respectively. Or 400-800-1200 meters if you believe MiG-19 would be set up for longer gunnery range than MiG-17.

Since somebody from Razbam on their Discord claims that it's been fixed for ages. No it wasn't. It's as bad in the latest DCS version as it was 3 years ago. New track attacked. 300 meters and I'm not hitting anything. 19-2.trk

Many of the early and pre-wwii fighters were like that, including Hurricanes and Spitfires. But none of the models we have in DCS. What we do have is the ability to turn off the automation and control the pitch directly in manual mode in p47, fw190, bf109.

It happens because it's bugged, simple as that. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/333296-ffb-trim-issues-with-iceman/ You can disable "FFB Enable Trim Offset" special option for the Tomcat, this seems to be the culprit, but you'll loose realistic force trim effect.

Yes, this has been improved but not fully fixed yet. What works: CDI and bearing pointer now align correctly in all three modes. CDI is centered when the course is set to the bearing pointer. VOR mode shows correct indications. What still does not work: - HSI TACAN mode shows true bearings instead of magnetic - HSI GPS mode shows true bearings instead of magnetic - GPS screen shows true bearings instead of magnetic, which contradicts IFE own manual This can be checked using the mission I posted here: https://forum.dcs.world/topic/316047-vortacan-course-setting-incorrect/?do=findComment&comment=5336338 The waypoint is over at LSV Tacan, so the bearings should be 25 degrees, yet both TACAN and GPS modes show 37 degrees. null

For the keys assignments, most (maybe all) of them will work if you load the old profiles, it's just they are located now in "SA342 Pilot" folder where they used to be in "SA342". Click the "Load Profile" in DCS, point to the old diff file in "SA342", and it should work.

Bumping this topic again. It's nice that we get PBR updates and other things, but the cockpit geometry still needs to be updated. For the shadows to work correctly in current DCS versions the model has to be closed from all sides (in other words, have a roof and walls on the outside).

This is a bit of a mess in DCS. Some addons use full axis travel but shift the centre point with FFB (A-10), some use fixed centre point but don't use full axis travel (F/A-18), and some use fixed centre point but scale the forward joystick movement different than aft. And some addons let you choose, like the F-5. I'm not aware of a setting for A-10 that could change this behaviour in DCS. I recalibrated the axis in my joystick software.

It's not, ED manuals are simply wrong. The only difference here is that the English call propeller an airscrew. You won't find that even in the real period manuals. This is not the kind of knowledge that a WWII pilot needs to be concerned with, as he only really needs to know which way to push the lever to increase rpm. Even the backup manual pitch control switch in p47 is still labelled "increase rpm".

It's "P" for propeller, not pitch.

It can be at high altitude near published top speeds. The prop speed through the air is the sum of its rotational and forward movement.

As far as muddying basic understanding, it's you who brought propeller tips exceeding the speed of sound into this discussion. Despite what you wrote, this is not the reason for RPM reduction after takeoff, or for the continuous RPM limit lower than MAX. Propeller going supersonic may be a factor in high speed flight at altitude, but not during slow climb in a dense air near the ground.

Just to get everyone on the same page, as I have some doubts if you all talk about the same thing. http://essentialpilot.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/f0268-01.gif low pitch = fine pitch. That's high rpm setting. Also higher drag if the engine is windmilling. high pitch = coarse pitch. That's low rpm setting. Also lower drag if the engine is windmilling. Maximum RPM is determined only by engine redline. The propeller is driven by reduction gear, which in case of Mustang/Spitfire keeps prop RPM below 1500 when the engine does 3000. If the engine spun faster, or the prop was bigger, they would simply install larger reduction gear. The engine redline is usually determined by the engine ability to handle inertia forces of its pistons and valves. But as you've said, the engine is not supposed to immediately disintegrate from running at rated max rpm. High RPM low throttle setting is the worst for economy not because of the propeller, but, among other things, because the fixed engine driven supercharger robs the engine of a few hundred HP at such speed, while at the same time the supercharger output is immediately wasted because of closed throttle. It's burning extra fuel for nothing.

The manual says "a potentiometer with 3 markers" which suggests an axis.

An axis I think.

Manual target wingspan setting, used when you don't have radar lock.

If you own a Rhino, you should be able to simply click the "sticky" checkbox for the spring effect in VPforce configurator, and that should override whatever DCS is setting. Obviously use this option only when flying F-16.