Scott-S6

Consider the service ceiling of the viper, issues with engine failures over 80kft, effects of loss of cabin pressurization at that altitude (no provision for a pressure suit) and so on. There's little sense in having instrumentation that can measure well beyond operational range and 80kft is massively beyond operational range.

You're probably out of luck then.

Have you tried fully turning off the power to the screens? We have almost the same model of adaptor and I see different behaviours with different displays. Some displays keep the hdmi live when on standby - my main cockpit display does that so I shut down power to the whole cockpit when not in use. The small displays dissapear (as far as windows is concerned) when I tap their standby buttons.

The European law is that you have to honour it if it would be reasonable for a customer to believe that it's correct. So if a $500 item is on sale at 10% off for $4.50 you don't have to honour it. It's obviously a mistake. Is it reasonable to think that a module on pre-order is 70% off? Debatable. If they stated $80 with 30% off = $24 then people would be able to see that it's a mistake.

Or that could mean that they don't have a release date but the delays have not been related to development.

I see you're extremely new (welcome!) so here's a little tip - everything is always late (sometimes years late) and however long you think something will take, it'll take longer! This module in particular has been a marathon. In 2012 people were rather optimistically saying that it might be out in 6-12 months, the pessimists were suggesting 2016. A few days or weeks delay as they muck about making videos for ED's website and YouTube channel to support the pre-order doesn't tell us anything either way about the state of the module. (and don't forget it's going to be years more until it's finished, regardless of what state it hits EA in) So I guess the message is - don't get wrapped up in waiting for modules or features because that way madness lies. Fly what's available and have fun.

Since the current very simplified model uses a single value for RCS that value is (supposedly, I don't think ED have specified exactly how they come up with those numbers) an average of the aircraft's loaded RCS from different directions, which is a reasonable abstraction given the limitations of the current model (using the frontal clean value would not be a reasonable abstraction as it will be wrong in every circumstance that matters). That value can still be improved with better data, whether measured or simulated, but it needs to be RCS from several directions, loaded, and it needs to have or be able to generate data reasonably consistently for all aircraft in the game so that the relative values are meaningful. Changing only some aircraft based on a different methodology creates detrimental discrepancies. if OP wants to say what document he's referencing we can at least talk about the methodology behind those numbers and whether there is something useful to be learned there.

That's the whole point, it is not an improvement. The clean values are simply not relevant. The frontal values alone are also not relevant. If you want to demonstrate that the average, loaded values are different to the value used in the game, that would be useful (because that is what the in game value is based on). This isn't. What is your source document and why are you being evasive about what the source is? There's no reason not to identify the document.

Deliberately basing the RCS values on incorrect (clean) data is the opposite of realism. This isn't out of the box thinking, it is just a terrible idea which you have failed to justify in any way. Additionally, you haven't produced any actual data, just some numbers with no source which are, therefore, worthless. To suggest that anything should change based on those is ridiculous.

Why would we want the DCS value which is supposed to be an average to match the best case scenario real number? How does that make any kind of sense? At minimum it should be based on stores loaded numbers - how often are aircraft flying combat missions without pylons in DCS?

So you're cool with it taking them more than ten years to get close to early access but a two week delay on a milestone that isn't directly development related makes you think the module isn't going to be good? Please do explain the logic there.

If it was Zamak, which is a specific proprietary mix, they'd say so. Actual Zamak isn't especially easy to source in China so that would be a big deal for a Chinese manufacturer. It's generic zinc + a bit of alu + herbs and spices. And you're right about the weight - the difference would be very obvious if it was alu. I have no idea how someone could think these grips are alu.

Whenever someone says "aluminium alloy" they're saying that it's zinc. Cast zinc is 90-95 zinc and most of the rest is aluminium. AKA pot metal. This is what the winwing and TM grips are made of.

You can adjust the throttle curve in each aircraft so they all use the same detent. Very easy with this handy tool. Much easier than changing the physical detent every time you want to fly a different plane. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3315617/

The problem is that if you get the curves set up for the maverick then the tgp is unusable (too slow) Make sure your mavericks are calibrated, use the tgp to acquire the tank and handoff to the maverick. Even after they fix the maverick slewing this will still be easier because the targeting pod has better optics.

The real jet requires more force for full deflection than the winwing base (or the non-pro realsim) can sense. Body mechanics are important with a force sensing stick, you need to get it off your desk and down by your thigh and you want a forearm support (look at the F16, F22, F35, Rafale - they all have an arm rest). You'll also need a very sturdy mount if you want anything close to correct forces. If you're going to keep it on your desk then you will need to dial down the forces considerably.

That's a much better analogy but still faulty. Tickets are a finite resource, selling of them needs to be well organized and timing matters because it affects people's ability to get one so you have to publicize the date and stick to it. This is more like selling the code so you can watch it on pay per view. You can buy that on the day pre orders open or a week later or a month later, it doesn't matter. The day that pre orders open isn't an event, it is basically meaningless here. Pre order is delayed again, so what?

Just two weeks....

Even using the term "release" to apply to early access becoming available is misleading, imo.

They don't have a damper. The Virpil Torque pedals have a clutch which also acts as a damper.

Getting everything right first time so that training missions don't need to be changed is the ideal scenario, of course, but how often does that happen?

Keeping them up to date as the module progresses is the most important thing. When modules hit maturity but the training and manual are now broken that kills it for new players interested in the aircraft.

When you're paying another man to provide the wood your family needs they can't be too fussy.

Go into the lua for the MFCDs for your aircraft, in the purposes line remove render_purpose.HUD_ONLY_VIEW

This is exactly it, not enough sunk heat. The solder is returning to solid while the iron is being removed. If the object is hot enough then the solder will remain liquid for a few seconds after removing the iron, allowing it to return to shape.