Vitormouraa

I agree with zhukov032186 here. The politically correct here is strong. Guess what, killing is also wrong and illegal, but we also do that in games. Please tell me, those people who play FPS games, have you ever had those moments where you flanked their entire team and found YOURSELF behind the team, ready to kill a bunch of them with a machine gun? Is it a great feeling huh? Multi-kill is awesome :) But I don't see people complaining about that. Killing a texture in a game with a shape of a human that is falling with a parachute WON'T hurt anybody, so why are these people so angry about that? Jesus I haven't seen one of these in a while. Seriously, people, this is just a game, calm down, nobody's hurting anybody with that request. One can live without it, that's for sure, but who cares if it was a feature? Can we please change the gun textures as well to water guns? Change the blood in games for something else, like a blue goop? Because wanting to see blood means sadism? I'm impressed. This is a sim, and it would be interesting if it could simulate all aspects of war. D-Day was sad, but it is in a game called COD, which makes you think about those people who died in the war, but NONE of that in a game is wrong or immoral, being on the German team killing the blue players on that map won't make you a psychopath.

Why would it? From a marketing perspective, DCS has seen a few rebrands when it was bringing a new graphics engine, although Vulkan API is a major update, I don't see DCS receiving a new number because of that. We recently had two major graphics engine update, new PBR and deferred shading rendering in 2017 and 2.5 this year. Along with 1.5 in 2015.

Yes! Great news!

That's exactly what it does. You seem to misunderstand him, however, close or open don't necessarily mean 100% closed or open. If you take a look at this chart you'll see that the ground idle is actually correct, it corresponds to the actual numbers in the NATOPS. Keep in mind that the nozzles also control the turbine temperature, they must open or close in order to maintain a proper back pressure and temperature.

Spoke to a retired Hornet pilot today about this, he said it's WIP, he can't say much about the engine response, he needs more time in the sim. But one thing he pointed out is the fuel flow, he said it doesn't work right, if you set a specific FF for a known approx AS, you don't get it consistently.

That's a pretty engine! RD-33?

That's fine Nick. Do you have any pic of the new exhaust btw? I'd love to see one!

Yep it wasn't.

Nice! Thanks.

Regardless though, the nozzle is pretty much empty and is missing details. Things I wouldn't expect to see from HB.

That's how it's done, good job HWasp!

Indeed. Thanks for the info.

Good stuff, thanks! Any word about the first question, however? Is that even a possibility?

Very nice. Interesting how you guys are going to model the failures, I'm actually curious about a nozzle failure in DCS. If the nozzle gets stuck in a transition from MIL to MAX AB, where the nozzle must open in order to change the nozzle area and also keep the backpressure under the limits, that actually can overheat the engine, is there any word about this? Excessive backpressure could make the temperature between turbines (Normally T5) exceed its limits. is that going to be modeled too? Also, last time I asked you guys about Ram Drag, and the lack of it in the last update (by Heatblur too). BlackLion gently sent me a message saying it wasn't modeled due to lack of documentation, but you guys actually found some documents about the F-14's inlet efficiency. How's that working for you guys? Not sure if that's a sensitive question but I'm curious :P Thanks!

Don't want to sound like a jackass, but "aircrafts" doesn't exist. :music_whistling:

NS430 being charged for different modules? Why so much sarcasm though? Also ED worked on the 2.5 for two years ish and it was a free update. So you're saying they can't implement a GPS model into the modules? Anyway... just my two cents.

I meant all modules, not two. But yeah, it kinda is. But not a biggie, the problem is when you fly 10 modules and you want the 3D model in all of them. You know?

That's fine to me if the NS-430 is integrated into the module core realistically, i.e if there is a failure in the electrical system it will not work properly etc. (Although I am not sure how NS-430 is fed IRL). But the problem is, if you want to have the 3D model for all modules, it'll get pretty pricey. Perhaps that's their concern... who knows.

Excuse me, who said this? I actually asked Belsimtek back when NS-430 was announced, about other modules using NS-430, and they didn't say anything about other modules using it, they said they were investigating this possibility, but it doesn't say it was going to. Then again, it's in plural; "modules". Image from Facebook.

Maybe not, one could clearly understand that the NS-430 was initially developed for the Mi-8, but it's going to be expanded to other modules. But it's starting with the Mi-8, which means it's going to be available for other modules in the future, although it doesn't mention if it will be for free or it will cost X. do you understand where I'm getting at? I'm not affirming anything, just trying to help you. Since you were looking for evidence that indicates the NS-430 would be expanded to other modules.

Perhaps this? https://belsimtek.com/news/1788/

Nice!

Hornet is still drifting like crazy on the Stennis deck. Or it wasn't supposed to be fixed in this patch?

There is already one.