Filament

All well and good.... Might I recommend - professors - that we put down the chalk, and stroll from the Embry Riddle aeronautics lab to the A&P hangar? In that location, we can hail the Belsimtek mechanics over to our F-86E that is waiting conveniently with all access panels and hatches removed. If you can agree to "split the diff" between 505-540 lbs. - after much abuse of the Greek alphabet, maybe the Belsimtek A&P trainees-without-math-data-handbooks can re-rig the pulleys/cabling/fasteners/etc. to put this bird in a condition wherein we can slap an airworthiness certificate on it. Sound like a plan? :thumbup:

All I want to add, is: :thumbup: Curly! Splendid job!

I'm not sure who your comment is aimed at leafer, but probably toward me. So, in that event, I'll add to it: These are ALL among the best FM's that we have NOW in the industry. That's all. They're dynamic. Weights, balance, trim - these all affect the way every one of these aircraft - in every one of these sims - in how the craft flies. And there certainly are 'holes' and 'flaws' here and there, in various subtle ways - in the modeling. Is this not the case, in your opinion?

As one who watched hundreds of F-86 landings by the ROKAF from the flight line, when I was stationed in Korea (they had the F-86's - we had F-4's at the time)... ...they used aero-braking. A LOT. The nose wheel would stay up at least a 3rd of the ground roll, or so. That's 'real world.' ;)

Y'know what? I'll add my 2 cents. More than that, did I vote with my wallet for this excellent-in-most-respects aircraft. The rudder is wrong. I don't care by how much, at what speeds, in what configuration, under what loads/wing-loading...blah, blah blah. No 'real' aircraft would do that - especially in low-speed regimes. NO aircraft. Turbine or prop or glider. I don't care if a 'bunch' of rudder is added, so that we can tune our controller axis to dial it out! At least cross-wind landings, etc. are more 'believable.' We can argue about 'how much' should be present at what speeds, etc....LATER. Fix it. Now. It's wrong.

Good points, all. I remember when DCS started out. I thought, "wow - a battlefield environment! Air and ground! It'll either set the bar, or be an epic fail." It hasn't failed. It has set the bar. But it hasn't succeeded yet. Because it's trying to be all things, to all people. This is a high-fidelity sim. The highest yet created. Just one of these aircraft, properly and thoroughly known, would be enough for a lifetime. Any of them, is at least an "8" on a 10-scale (to me). The flight sim "niche" (in terms of numbers of us), has dwindled since the DCS project started. Fortunately, most of us are fairly well-off and are professionals - so it makes life doubly "challenging" for the developers. We're intelligent enough - and experienced enough - to know when things "aren't quite right." They do this because they have a passion for this also! And they probably knew - like we suspected, at the start - that they might be biting off more than they can chew. And it is fun to land an A-10 or a helo on a dirt road, and run over and jump into a Bradley on go blow stuff up on the ground after you missed it with your last bomb! ;) It all mostly works - not 'epic fail!' I agree that we should just hang on until EDGE is released. But I also think that Wags and team should tire of boasting about being a "Kool-Aid mixer" in his sig, because we're going to start holding their feet to the fire and fixing anything that's been glaringly-wrong for 2 years or more! 'Nuff said. Great points, all! And Happy New Year - and thanks to the team, too, for all your hard work thus far!

Well - you're correct in one sense. I suppose I knew about the 'long standing bug.' But I presume you miss my point...you guys are extending your arms, thinking that the shot of EDGE heroin is going to 'make everything right.' It doesn't matter. Adding more A/C and terrain modeling (exponentially adding to the complexity of 'things to be corrected') doesn't do anything but provide a little more 'eye candy.' Weights/balance/FM's, etc. - I can deal with these. Laws of physics departures - in spades - now, we have a problem. Flaps, on the helo - nice 'reach,' but failure - in attempt at 'punking.' Happy New Year to you, as well! These are not $2 iPad apps we're dealing with...

Alrighty....I think I'm done (for now). Most recent example, is a crushed Ka-50 nosewheel on the deck of the Vinson - into the wind - blades down relative to the wind - sliding forward, with the ship doing ~15 kts. in my direction of facing. Huh? In IL-2, if I want to roll *back* - I just extend flaps! These design teams are affiliated (or at least talk to each other, occasionally). I'm out. I own almost ALL the modules. I would think that after an expenditure of ~$250-300 I could expect something to work correctly here, after 2+ years of this! I've got a litany of these complaints - but have 'sat' on them - until now.' I realize there are many models - and soon to be many terrains, instead of the same 'ol Crimea area, for 10 years or so. Fix this $hit! Stop all development of new models until everything currently existent, or in the pipeline, works perfectly (or very, very close)! We've already paid for it! *Crowd-funding mode OFF!* *out*

Well...since I'm the OP, I can hijack my own thread and go OT... :P ON-T, the F-86 flight model is wonderful! My fav, by far! I even managed to bork a couple of take-offs and cart-wheel after dragging a wingtip - without really trying very hard! :doh: I'll be spending many hours, with this one! Flown correctly, it's very easy manage - punishing, when you don't. :thumbup: Overall, I think most of the FM's are a little too real - since many of us are anal flightsim enthusiasts - if it's not hard, it's a porked FM, right? :music_whistling: And go back waaayyyyy far back...farther back than the Flanker series. And this whole 'trend' with the vociferous 'whining' started around the time of F-15 and CJ having to put on his flame suit before wading into the feeding frenzy. Anyway...my most-pressing "dislikes": - BS2: I don't like the laser burnout and the cumbersome-ness of the autopilot and flight director. These are not 'mis-modelled' - I just don't like 'em. Still love to fly the 'Shark, though. - A-10C: Great, if you've got a Warthog. Hard to rig if you don't. But definitely doable/have-done-able. Overall, just too damn hard to kill targets. If it were that way IRL, there'd be 4 sorties for every kill. Probably down to practice - but not every jockey with a Hellfire-bearing platform of some type (for example) spent 500-hours at the 'range' to get to an 80% kill ratio - I'm sure of it! This is my 'order' of "best" or "most accurate" sims - all the Russkies are intertwined and affiliated, and at the top...see a trend? :P - Rise of Flight - IL-2 (series) - DCS - X-plane (if you have some of the Carenado planes, they're quite good) That's it, for now... hijack's over! :D

I'll keep this brief. Although I own "nearly everything in the stable" I initially shied away from this module, as there were a few-too-many 'complaints:' -Yaw, but no directional change (vector) -No nose-wheel/inadequate nose-wheel steering -Lands too fast, doesn't slow down, no speed-bleed This is not a comprehensive review! I'm a busy guy, enjoying Christmas, like you. So...on with it... -It yaws AND changes direction fine - what's yer' gear? :dunno: -Map a button for nose-wheel steering - no issues here! -Between trim, throttle, flaps, speed-brakes and 'flying it with the AoA and regime that would normally be expected' I encountered no problems. I even landed it with 2 bombs, rockets and 70% fuel with no damage (full realism). :thumbup: * Granted, I'm not a 'rookie' with THOUSANDS of hours in the sims we all fly, over 20+ years, and am not a beta tester or developer, but I know a lot of you guys in our hobby - 'on the oblique.' :music_whistling: I almost 'passed' completely on this offering, because of a 'porked' FM (my interpretation of comments) - even though I used to work the flight-line in '79 at Kunsan AB, when the ROKAF flew our F-86's, while we transited from F-4's to F-16's. That would have been a HUGE mistake! :( I'm done with this 'missive.' There are lots of 'umbrages' I have with "ED stuff" - but this plane ain't one of them! * The reason Santa returned without the reverse-gifts he was going to give all the adults of children who dearly deserved it, was that this was an over-zealous orientation flight - I had not even a HINT of RTFM! "I got this!..." with switch-flipping and assuming you know what processes are needed for arming/firing/dropping are not greatly different from "honey...watch this!" ;)

This whole thing is sooo reminiscent of the Janes' F-15 dayz (circa 1996-7 or so). Remember that? CJ and company on the forums almost everyday addressing the 'whining' about the power output of the F-15E as opposed to the C model, etc. and why it can't go vertical with all those stores, etc. etc. -The same guys are here. Some developers, too - all working hard. -We're older now, and still have our pet 'concerns.' -We're more focused, and willing to 'pitch in' - because we 'bought in' - and there's, frankly, no better flight model anywhere - save IL-2 and associated. -Carrying on from above, all the vitriol of the 'purists' (us) are focused on "what's left of the flight community(s) offerings" and are all the more adamant that it "finally be correct...." (whatever "it" is - and there are many aspects). Let's all step back...take deep breaths...and realize that we're all on the same page, here, at the core.

The DCS_updater.exe launches the interface (menu for creating missions, options, etc.). Whether this 'patches thru' to call the game from the interface and keep all the settings you specified, I don't know. I have my Nvidia Settings control panel to launch DCS.exe using the "Nvidia Performance" settings that I've specified, going line-by-line through the configuration options that then calls the game, at the location in the /bin folder that I "told" it to go to, FWIW.

Yep. Been there, done that. :doh: The last time I had 'issues' that no other solution would fix, that's what I did. Copy it somewhere else 'safe' (make a backup) so you don't lose your configs before you do delete it, though, in the event that this winds up not being the solution.

Deadboss, I'm not a developer, but I've experienced the same thing (engine spools to only 3000rpm). I've learned that if you try to start the port engine first [ALT+ HOME] you'll experience that - and if you then try to shutdown the port engine [ALT+END] and start the 'correct' one first (starboard - CNTRL+ HOME) - the 'damage' is done. The problem will persist. I always make it a point to do the starboard one first (CNTRL+HOME) and haven't seen the problem since. In fact, I make the starboard engine 'priority' for starts and shutdowns - last to shutdown, first to start up. I can't comment on the other things you mentioned, as I haven't seen them. Clear skies...

One simple (and most frequent) thing I've learned is, if the red light on the left side of the front/main panel is flashing, and there are one or more circular red lights lit (indicating fore/aft/port/starboard locations) - it means that you are about to have your 'frame perforated, or have components of your 'mount' shedded/shredded in a sudden/violent manner by something that doesn't appreciate your being there. :music_whistling: