-
Posts
704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Vedexent
-
Well, nothing wrong with the damage model!
Vedexent replied to Vedexent's topic in DCS: C-101 AvioJet
Not really - was basically on a ballistic trajectory at that point :) Nosed down and crashed just after that picture. -
The Starfighter has always been on my "want to fly" list. It would pretty much need to be PFM, if it's going to be supersonic, however. It's my understanding that the aerodynamic models didn't handle supersonic flight until the F-15 and S-27 PFMs.
-
Poll for Civil Modules you would buy for DCS World
Vedexent replied to Anatoli-Kagari9's topic in DCS Wishlist
I think this already exists - but the name of the mod & software escapes me. One the radio mod systems. -
I kind of like this - especially coupled with low visibility and/or night conditions, you could turn it into sort of a navigation challenge course. Triggers are set for range/altitude/speed, and you have to run through them in order. Or there's the option for racing the C-101EB :)
-
Given the current state of the C-101EB, and the fact that she's not the C-101CC (no weapons), does anyone have any ideas/wishlist for the kinds of missions that they'd like to see in multi-player? Right now it's just free-flight and navigation practice. I might put up a night flight version, and a low-visibility version in rotation ... any other ideas?
-
What do you mean? You have a flyable MiG-29 :P Kidding aside, I do understand. I personally would like a fully clickable cockpit on the Su-25 (and an Su-25SM upgrade). The sad fact is that we can't all have what we want - we'd probably need to quadruple the size of ED and give them a bazillion dollars to have that happen. That's why, while I would be very happy to see "DCS: F-5E", I don't ever expect to see it. That's OK ... I do have a few other planes to learn :)
-
On that note - I'll try and keep the server up as much as possible during the week, but as I said earlier, it's not a dedicated server (it's running in my kitchen, as a matter of fact), and I won't be on hand to reset it if it goes down during business hours EDT (GMT -500).
-
That's exactly what I had up this weekend: brand new mission, from scratch. A free flight mission takes about 10 minutes to throw together, after all. It's a reported bug, it's apparently been fixed in one of the upcoming updates, but it isn't fixed in the deployed consumer versions, so it's going to crop up now and again. Interestingly, according to a different thread, it sounds like you can start the plane without the GPU, but a) In real life this would destroy the batteries and damage the electricals, and b) this damage will be modelled in an upcoming patch (if I understood Tango correctly). However, it means that we could have fired up those planes with "problem" GPUs after all. I solved the playability problem by creating a group of "hot start from ramp" and "start in air" seats as well - no matter what, there were still flyable planes.
-
Figuring out how to start a Kickstarter campaign probably isn't that hard - although given the controversy over the WWII Kickstarter program, you may find some reluctance in the community to go down that path - and we're not going to discuss whether that's legitimate or not, OK? The hard part is finding the development team. While I've never worked in that kind of software (I'm more in the B2B data exchange side), it's my understanding that's it's a fairly small pool of people that have that kind of programming experience. Another really hard part is finding a suitable development candidate. Sure, some people would love to see an F-35 - but good luck getting reliable hard system data! That's why we've seen mostly older aircraft which have been declassified, or we've seen "spill over" from Eagle Dynamics military contracts (like the A-10C). So, you need to find that 'sweet spot' of an aircraft with lots of reliable published technical data, a good development team, enough community interest to make the module financially viable, and enough backing capital. That's assuming you're looking to put together a development team from scratch. Here's a weird suggestion - maybe some of the third party developers are "bribe-able" - "Hey, Leatherneck Studios, here's $500k of Kickstarter money. Build us a MiG-28!" :lol:
-
I would love to see a flyable F-5 - it's in my top 2-3 "I want this aircraft" list. However, in the absence of any announcements as to a flyable version, I assumed this was just an AI model. I would - however - love to be wrong :)
-
You could try "reverse engineering" a number. Look at the 3rd party development teams. Figure out how big they are Figure out where they are Figure out the various roles in their organization (programmer, modeller, graphics artist, etc.). Figure out approximate market averages for annual salaries for those roles, in those markets. Figure out the amount of time it takes to develop a module. Multiply out the total "yearly salary load" by the number of years it takes to develop a module. Add a margin for tools, licensing, overhead, offices, coffee service, donuts, etc. - not all will apply. Some companies might have a brick and mortar office; some may just be an Internet Association. Dividing by another "factor" if they have multiple projects on the go. E.g. Belsimtek probably doesn't need totally separate teams for each project - there's likely a lot of personnel spread over multiple projects. Also - in figuring out yearly salaries - people might have a regular "day job", so the salary figure might not be as high for them - but they would be less effective as they can't give all their effort to a project. It's an approach - but it's not an easy one, and I have no idea what kind of results you're likely to get. OR You could ask some of the 3rd party teams very nicely - but I don't think they're likely to tell you :)
-
At the risk of asking a stupid question - when you say a bug is fixed, I'm assuming that: a) It's fixed in your development version, only. b) It will only be fixed on the "consumer side" once the next DCS World update comes out (or possibly the update after that - I don't know how much in advance of an update that ED might require code changes to be submitted). c) AvioDev has no control when ED will be pushing out the next update. Do I understand the process correctly?
-
That was probably it - I took the default full load. At the risk of asking a stupid question, if I can't contact the ground crew ( no active comms yet ), how do I reduce the fuel load, apart from flying around to burn it up?
-
Or - I could be suffering a pilot issue ;) Would environment be a factor? Pre-dawn, -15C
-
EDIT: I'm assuming here you're trying to make an ILS landing, as you're selecting APP ARM. I think that: a) You need the VOR/ILS radio to be on and tuned to the runway's ILS frequency. b) You need to be be in VOR navigation mode (the TAC/VOR toggle square button to the right of the NAV button - front panel, left of center, near the bottom, over the round gauge). c) You need the flight director to be on V/L mode, not HDG. If you put it in HDG mode, the flight director is following the heading marker on your HDI (the one which in manually set by you, via the heading knob, not the plane's heading), not the VOR radio navigation system ---- EDIT: and yes, as per Tango's post, you have to chase the bars - it's not an autopilot, it's just telling you how to steer.
-
According to Wikipedia, the C-101EB operational ceiling is around 41,000 feet - but I wasn't able to coax her past around 32,000 before the angle of attack necessary to keep from stalling had the plane descending again. Additionally, I got a pressurization warning at 28,000 feet, even though I did have the cabin locked down and pressurized. Are these module issues, or just an byproduct of the aerodynamic modelling in DCS (especially as I've seen reports that the MiG-21bis module can't get nearly the same altitude performance as in the real world)? Either way, I don't think many training flights, or light attack runs (for the CC), need to go over 30,000 feet, so it's not a show stopper, I'm just curious about the - apparent - discrepancy.
-
It's that same bug where sometimes we can hear the GPU start, but we never see it, and we don't get power.
-
Just a caveat: The GPU bug seems to affect the cold planes randomly. You may have to hunt around for one where the GPU works for you. If you can't find a cold ground start plane that works for you, I've also added a ground of hot ground start planes (sitting in the parking spot, all fired up), plus a group of mid-air starts.
-
I just threw up a quick free flight mission on a multi-player server, if people want to practice and learn this plane in a multi-player environment. Look for: C-101EB Free Flight Range And there's an associated teamspeak server here: ts32.gameservers.com:9105 Get online, kibitz with other people learning the plane, ask questions, learn stuff, meet people, etc. It's not a dedicated server, but it should be up for at least the rest of the weekend.
-
There's a thread on the flight computer/director here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=137969 I would also recommend trying out Uboats training missions which include navigation and ILS landing, with use of the flight computer. Those can be found here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=137969 It's also simple enough you can figure it out with trial and error: HDG - flight director vertical needle follows the heading marker on the HDI V/L - flight director follows the VOR or TACAN nav system G/S - flight directory follows the ILS beam, provided that the VOR/ILS radio is tuned to the correct frequency. G/S Extended - Haven't tried this one out. SBY - Standby mode. Flight director is off. ALT - Flight director holds to the current altitude REV - Reverse ILS mode. Not tried this one out PAT - Pitch mode. Again, not sure about this one. APP ARM - appears to work in VOR navigation mode, and automatically flips over to Glide Slope mode, from whatever mode it is in, when you enter the ILS beam. Go Around - Not sure, but I think this directs you around to take another pass at the ILS approach. Some modes can be used at the same time - like V/L and Alt Modes don't seem to be toggled on and off, they have to be over-written, or you can always hit standby mode, and re-program the director from scratch. Feel free to fill in the gaps here :)
-
Definitely noticed the same thing on ILS approach to Kutaisi. Best bet to is to follow the raw ADI altitude needle closer than the outer marker.
-
If we're playing around with the lighting, the barrel counter on the barometric altimeter is quite hard to see during night flying. I would probably think the same of the slip indicator under the ADI, but it's not really usable until the sensitivity gets fixed in the next patch.
-
I asked the same here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=137957 I'm working on the following assumptions: Take off: Take-off Rotation: 100 Knts Take-off: 110-120 Knts Gear up: 10m altitude, 150 Knts Flaps up: 160 Knts Lading: 160 Knts/Outer Marker: Gear out, check landing checklist. 130 Knts/Inner Marker: air-brake out flaps down. 120 Knts - sink rate 1 m/s: Touchdown These are all just working assumptions. There may be much better figures for this - but I haven't crashed and died too much using these guidelines.
-
This is starting to look like the Su-25s little brother. I like!