BeachAV8R

I'll counter that with - maybe some of those civil side guys will bring something to ED that will improve the DCS World combat environment. Again, better weather, better ATC, better AI, who knows? I don't see why that would be the case. Third parties have their own "studios" (virtual or otherwise). ED might have to up the quality assurance and integration staffing, but otherwise I don't see why it would be a big hit to ED. How is that any different than releasing dozens of aircraft modules? And as far as I know, you can fly online with FSX pretty much with whatever add-ons you want installed on your local machine. As long as the MP core components are always common, I don't see a problem there. VATSIM is populated with hundreds (thousands?) of people with varying FSX installs and it doesn't seem to be an issue. Again, I don't see the downside of widening the DCS World base. BeachAV8R

Exactly! And the one thing that always leaves me scratching my head when I read people sort of talking down the civil flying aspect of a sim is that expansion in that direction can ONLY improve the combat flying aspect. I mean, if you want to fly combat in a populated, realistic world, you NEED the civil side stuff. ATC improvements, weather improvements, and what combat pilot is going to complain about the ability to see DCS quality civil content in their combat world? DCS: Boeing 737, DCS: Grand Caravan, etc.. Wouldn't you want to see these aircraft taxiing around and bringing DCS World alive? I'll go one better. It isn't unusual in a combat environment to see these types of aircraft operating in a civil aviation manner. Go to Afghanistan or Iraq and you'll see airbases with AH-64s, F-16s, Boeings, cargo planes, etc...all operating in their respective ways. There is plenty of room for inclusiveness in DCS World. And it becomes doubly attractive if you are talking about bringing in established FSX or X-Plane developers that don't sap any strength away from ED or Belsimtek or Leatherneck..ie: Carenado, Flight1, CaptainSim, etc.. It's a win/win with no downside in my opinion. BeachAV8R

I fly for a living and have had lots and lots of failures that were not the result of being shot at. Systems failures have many root causes - and I'd guess that even for military aircraft, non-combat systems failures have resulted in more emergencies and losses than combat related damage. The end result is the same however.."hours of boredom punctuated by minutes of sheer terror.." BeachAV8R

Posted a first blush look: HERE! :thumbup: BeachAV8R

I agree - I can go kill 12 tanks with my Vikhrs, but the mission isn't over until I land - and just flying, navigating, and landing the helos can be as challenging as the combat part. Throw in some mechanical malfunctions from damage and/or poor weather and you have some sweat inducing moments. Last night I flew on a public server and my best memory of it wasn't the blowing stuff up, it was getting damaged, having my hydraulics knocked out, and having to land on my belly at the airfield to hopefully survive and repair. Same goes for UH-1H and Mi-8 insertion missions - very tense and the flying is the lion's share of that feeling, not the combat. I really think there is far more crossover in the perceived different worlds of civilian flight sim enthusiasts and combat sim enthusiasts. That's why at PC Pilot I've been trying over the years to showcase how deep DCS products are because I think FSX type pilots would be amazed at how complex some of these DCS platforms are, and how nice DCS World in general is (terrain, atmospherics, lighting). Granted - DCS World isn't nearly as big as worldwide FSX coverage, but I don't think the two types of simmers have to be mutually exclusive. BeachAV8R

Posted over at SimHQ: HERE! Good to get back into the Shark..however incompetent as I might be now.. :megalol: BeachAV8R

I'm feeling the need for a Ka-50 revival on my hard drive..so I'm wondering what mods I might be missing out on? My current install features: Ricardo's (and Devrim's) HD Black Cockpit v2.1 - HERE Diego's FARP Textures - HERE Devrim's English HUD mod - HERE Isegrim's Ka-50 Sound Mod - HERE Toby23's Colored Shkval Mod - HERE That's my short list. All added with JSGME, although you have to be careful to change "aircrafts" to "aircraft" in some of the mods directory structure or they won't install properly... Nice work by all the modders... BeachAV8R

Is there an updated empty file structure zip file available..or is the one posted on page 1 of the thread still valid? I know for sure the "aircrafts" has been changed to "aircraft", so are there any other file structure changes that need to be updated? Just starting to get into using JSGME after having Ricardo's HD Ka-50 pit deleted for the dozenth time.. :thumbup: BeachAV8R

Good to see you around Ironhand. Count me as a fan.. Yeah, I'd love to see what you could do with the new mission editor. BeachAV8R

Hey All, I was just watching the Su-33 carrier landing tutorial (the ones that were recorded from FC2 I think) where Wags is going over the proper procedures for doing a circuit in the Su-33. At one point, he goes landing gear down and mentions that flaps move automatically to the landing position. When flying in DCS World, I noticed that the flaps do not automatically move to the landing position upon gear extension. Should they automatically move or is it correct now that you have to select landing flaps? This is a link to the video at the appropriate part: <start subliminal message> PS - Someone put a tailhook on the Su-25 so we can pretend we have an Su-25UTG <end subliminal message> Regards, BeachAV8R

Yeah, I'm sorry, I just found that thread that discussed this. Apologies for bringing up a known issue.. Looking forward to the corrected one.. BeachAV8R

I was coming to the forum to ask this question - but it looks like I was beaten to it. I would love to know what the normal reserve for that pneumatic reservoir (?) is - (like approximately how many brake applications - understanding that is a highly variable thing). Just wondering if real MiG-21 pilots had to be very careful about wasting it or if it was one of those things that there is plenty of, but you still have to be mindful of. As Esac mentioned, I tried wasting mine and the needles still pop up to the same setting each time. I was hoping to see a slight drop each application.. BeachAV8R BeachAV8R

:) So it's not just me. I mean, you can twist the knob and set the Hgmm in the window, but it seems you are right..it always needs to be set on 760 to properly show the correct elevation. The only reason I noticed it is that I'm putting together some training documents that reference the pattern suggested in the manual, so adherence to altitudes is necessary. Disregarding the altimeter pressure setting solves that problem..as long as 761 gives the proper reading that is good enough until they get it working properly.. BeachAV8R

OK - so I changed the player aircraft to the A-10C just to see what's going on. I call to takeoff and the controller gives me the same altimeter setting of 29.80. I put that in the Kollsman window of the A-10C and I get 960' = 292 meters which is a fair bit closer to 320 meters expected field elevation than what I get in the MiG-21. So is the MiG-21 altimeter bugged or am I just being dense? BeachAV8R

Well, I just went in and took a screen with less parallax and made sure the needle was right on 757 (can someone check my conversion that 29.80" = 757 Hgmm?).. And I show the altimeter off from field elevation by about 265 meters - not an insignificant amount when talking about shooting approaches. Temperature in the mission is 12C, so I wouldn't think there would be a big temperature correction factor. Again, someone check my math and logic here because I can't figure this out... In the ME the weather is showing 760 - which is close enough to the verbally reported 29.80 by ATC... I'm starting to think I should just disregard the altimeter setting called out by ATC and instead just plug in field elevation while I'm holding short. BeachAV8R

Alright - I'm stumped. Show me the error of my ways. I'm at MinVody and getting ready to take off. The tower gives me an altimeter setting of 29.80"Hg. If I put that into an Hg -> mmHG conversion calculator it comes up with 757mmHG. If I roll 757 into my altimeter, it shows 460m instead of what should be 320m field elevation. Both the chart and the F10 map view show my plane as being 321m, so the altimeter is definitely wrong on that setting. Does anyone know why this is? :cry: BeachAV8R

Cool. Just planning ahead for the Thrust SSC module... :megalol: BeachAV8R

Can someone confirm that Mineralnye Vody (URMM) is the longest runway in DCS World (4,070 meters / 13,350 ft.)? Just curious and a quick look through the plates *seems* to verify this, but just trying to keep myself from looking too stupid.. <g> BeachAV8R

I wouldn't be surprised to see some RED v. BLUE range objects (such as psuedo airfields) to pop up by modders at some point. Allowing for perhaps more distance between RED v. BLUE scenarios. I'd guess.. BeachAV8R

Wow. That was awesome..! I'd log that landing.. BeachAV8R

Nice job LN. This investment in customer service will pay huge dividends down the road. I think you are building a very loyal customer base with your attention and (exhausting) work. My guess is that much of the community wouldn't blink twice at a pre-purchase deal for the next module given your excellent customer relations. Building the module is only part of the formula..you guys are doing awesome on the customer support side.. BeachAV8R

Nice job at keeping going Leatherneck Simulations... BeachAV8R

RCtrl Rshift D... Map it to a button.. BeachAV8R

I thought there were. Shift G or Alt G or Shift Alt G or Shift CTRL Alt G or something like that.. It's like Twister for your fingers... :lol:

Video of Cobra: :megalol: BeachAV8R