Buzzles

Fri13, I think you're missing detail here. Flightmodel != system model. Wing stall and the like == Flight model. Compressor stall and similar == System model. Going upside down and running out of fuel is done by pretty much all of them as it's simple to model, and generally part of the simple system model anyway. The Mig-21 is not sufferring from fuel starvation at 0-g when the engine shuts down after a couple of seconds, but the actual g-effects on the engine (airflow iirc). That's systems modelling, and something which there's already a special option to disable. Hence the question, which really only ED/LN can answer, but it's also applicable to some of the other modules. The FC + Full will all have the same flight model, but the systems models are another matter. The A-10A for example models less under the covers than the A-10C.

To use the Mig-21 example: If the one in the new MAC pack has simplified systems (all FC aircraft do, they're not just non-clickable), then does that mean the person flying won't have to deal with the 0g limitations of the airplane's engine? If yes, that's one example of a rather large advantage the person using the MAC version would have against someone flying the full module. Obviously, we need to wait and see just how simplified the systems are on these new FC-level versions. As an aside, ED are going to need to make it *very* obvious now that the clashing modules are FC-level and not full fidelity, otherwise they're going to get a lot of strife from new people and bad reviews on Steam about it.

Sith, this kind of response is why people on Hoggit and elsewhere don't think you're being that helpful in this thread. Kocrachon said some very specific and straightforward things for exception handling and being able to cope with mission lua script failures. These are most definitely things that can be tackled. Handwaving those good suggestions for dev focus by going "DCS has PFM's in modules, and is just more complex overall" isn't an acceptable response to a technical suggestion and simply makes it look that just like the rest of us, you don't know what's going on under the hood on a technical level.

The not planned, but feature requested are the underwing cannons + some cluster bombs.

Cuban, can I offer one more piece of advice? Please run your announcement+big posts through MS Word/Google Docs spell and grammar checks, or have someone on the team proof read them. The overuse and rather haphazard use of capital letters in your sentences makes your posts harder to read and also unfortunately gives off the impression (to me at least) as if they're written by an excitable teenager, which you're clearly not. If you're pushing to be more professional, that's a nice easy win for you :)

Call me skeptical, but barely two weeks ago you said you were leaving DCS modding behind: What's changed and reinvigorated you? As an aside, you're literally doing the same thing *again* that's given you a not so great reputation: announcing projects/"news" well in advance of actually having anything.

Wasn't that the stuff done in the start of June patch?

Err, you asked: I answered that question with an implicit suggestion you drop your swapping between admin and user accounts and just use the admin (or give the user admin) because it's giving you no benefit security wise.

Genuine question: Why bother? If it's a non public machine in your home and you're the only user, you gain absolutely *nothing* by penalising yourself this way. If you're of the persuasion to install or run *questionable* software, then you should be doing so using a VM. Any seriously nasty bit of software will exploit a lot of other holes in order to give itself full unlimited admin, completely ignoring UAC. The only point of not having admin privs on a user account is to stop other users installing things/making global changes.

Yeap, cows are good. If we get some sheep, that's pretty much the two most common of the major herd animals covered for European maps. Such a small thing but adds quite a bit to immersion when flying low(ish).

Avio dev have posted up a preview (30 mins!) of their EFM for the C101: Skip to 6:45 for taxi and takeoff. 31:25 for -CC preview too :) Edit: Just seen it was posted here already, but probably still worth its own thread.

Look slick on the whole, but for the love of all that is holy (UX), please remove the pendulum effect from the module descriptions on the front page. Not only is it a bit web 1.0, but when mousing over from underneath, you cannot click on the "Read More" button until it's finished swinging. Mousing over from the top when trying to read it is not good for UX as well.

Anyone from ED want to comment? It's a small but annoying thing.

I can appreciate that DCS is a platform, so people want more stuff in it, but it's entire Unique-Selling-Point compared to other sims is the high fidelity modules. Adding more lofi modules is stepping away from that, and that's the thing that other sims arguably do better currently, or at least offer more ancillary features. It's why I think the new proposed FC4 is a severe misstep. New lofi aircraft that realistically won't be hifi ever/for a long time, is palatable. Dumbing down existing hifi modules is just terrible, and again, pushes the sim into competition with others.

If you want to sharpen up your landings, spend some time coming in to land but instead of actually landing, leave the gear up and get comfortable flying a foot or two above the runway. Once you're comfortable doing that, landing is simply a case of having the gear out and chopping the throttle when you're in that attitude. Also, spend some time flying the P-51 (or TF-51) for take off practice if you're just learning taildraggers, as it's more forgiving.

I'm sure most of those barrels will be okay, they're normally pretty hardy things.

Yes, it does. 4 of them. Personally I found the opposite. I've got the 2nd lightest one in my x55 and hovering is generally fine in helos (only hampered by my lack of pedals currently).

Sparkplug fouling, if it's implemented? I know the P-51D manual has notes about needing to run at max rpm/boost every now and again for a minute or so.

I wouldn't read too much into it. It was only end of March that we were explicitly told that Polychop did not have a licence with ED for the OH-58:

Does "Use the Force, Luke!" not ring a bell?

He didn't. He bought credit on HB's store.

Yes. I've bound the NWS button to the small pinky button on my X55 by the fake lever. Rudder left/right is the twist axis (z?). Press and hold the button and the rudder will control the steering.

VEAO had clearance to do an earlier one. For various reasons it was cancelled after a few years of development. I very much doubt anyone else will get clearance, unless another 3rd party based in the UK turns up and happens to have other MoD related work on the go.

Pretty much yes. Old vid but a good one: You can basically follow that with most jets (Mig-21, not so much) and just go a little bit quicker, and pretty much follow it exactly for any of the WWII birds. The first couple of times I landed the BF109, FW190 and Spit was using that method without even looking at the manual for the proper figures. Edit: No-one has said it, but it's really useful to spend a bit of time practicing flying a couple of feet off the runway under low power. Stopping bouncing becomes really easy if you cut the throttle in that position.

Before people jump on you and say it shouldn't: While it's not designed for it and would simply rip off the plane, it should catch (and then rip off), not just get completely ignored as it does now.