KansasCS

Title says it all. NDBs are OK for non combat navigation, but a DME for more precise location callouts would be nice. 4 working rsbn/prmg stations is rather thin.

are there any issues spawning in the instrucotrs seat as the server host? I heard it causes crashes. Just wanted to confirm.

Obviously, this isn't an issue for the 109, However, this really needs to happen for other warbirds. Is this being worked on?

Good to know! Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I got it working again for now. Until the next win10 update I guess. This is directed towards the LN Team: How can I reset my amount of activations? I am down to 5. 90% of activations were used due to faults and errors on your part. Come next year and I'm left with asking for an additional activation every 30 days. I would like to avoid that.

Same problem here. Reactivation recquired after win10 update 2 days ago. Getting this error message. Edit: this what I'm getting after I tried a reactivation once, which ended with the activation window not responding and trying it again. My profile says it activated today, yet I'm still getting these errors. This is beyond annoying. txtC13F.rar

Maybe I should rephrase: What are the current limitations/critical bugs concerning multicrew?

I was thinking about getting the L39 for a second time, as a sort of backseat option for I want to give people a lesson in flying. Has multicrew performance improved at all over the past months in 2.0 or 1.5?

So why have a bug thread on flight performance? No one can tell if something is off and the ones that do tend to lack the data or the rights to prove their claim. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

The Outremer campaign for the L39 was modified and made available for the Su25T. I would like to fly it in COOP with several Su25. Any idea if this would work by just changing the aircraft and player to client and adding 2 wingmen?

There is no chart in there illustrating ITT as a function of throttle lever or rpm. It just says that in emergency fuel flow override, the engine can reach a higher thrust but also heats up and should be maintained below 865°C. That is it.

That is a), not realistic and frankly quite unsatisfactory for a lot of people and b), beside the point. Yoyo, or any other dev for that matter won't change flight models based on feeling. Only hard evidence. But just because that evidence is incomplete, doesn't mean it's wrong. From what I understand, various sources that have since been deleted in this thread cite higher temps as the norm, whereas Yoyo's documents do not. If, as sithpawn said, it is up to the community to come up with solid and comprehensive sources that prove the current modelling is wrong, then I guess we are at an impasse. Crewchiefs, pilots and manuals can state ~865°C all they want. If it's not a comprehensive datasheet that states every last parameter, it will be most likely disregarded.

Obviously no one has the pedigree and volume of data needed for Yoyo. That doesn't mean it isn't out there and probably a lot easier to get a hands on by employees of ED, who have the license to model the hawg. Or was the data given a one time glimpse, never to be updated? Of course they have a lot on their plate, no one is denying this or putting ITT numbers above any other project going on. But the fact that this discussion is still going and was reopened sort of hints at the possibility that the engine code is off a little. Why else discuss it if it has been proven otherwise? What is stopping ED from acknowledging a deviation, jotting it down on a list of lesser important stuff and following up on it when permissible? Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Certainly the information given should be enough to warrant further investigation? Or is a 1-2% margin not enough to justify rewriting FM code? General honest questions: Is it up to the community to provide for every last little temperature figure, graph or chart in order to raise concern? Shouldn't substantial pointing in a direction be enough? At which point does ED say: Our data says otherwise but this guy seems to raise some issues with enough evidence to make it worth looking into, because heck, there is a very slight chance we might be wrong? I guess with the volume of raised concerns and 'bug' reports, the bar is set pretty high, understandably, but still. About the data used for modelling the engine? Was that used from a test stand or extrapolated to match engines mounted on the airframe? Seems like there is a slight performance difference between mounted and dismounted engines.

Philosophical question here: Is it possible and/or was it ever considered by ED to simulate performance variations?

Thanks for the heads up! :) Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I was wondering if there are any good coop missions available for the non T frogfoot. User files revealed nothing 1.5 compatible so I thought I'd ask here. Gesendet von meinem Venue 8 7840 mit Tapatalk

Mig21 and air superiority? Lol. Yes, the bis version can do some AG work, but it's signature task is interception. Same goes for the mirage. Any AA platform that can't hold a candle to the Eagles BVR AMRAAM fire and forget capability is rendered an interception role. The F5, while being a neat dogfighter, too. I'm not saying it is their only task, by all means no. Just that a starfighter, that was notoriously unreliable and good for ONLY high altitude intercept, wouldn't compliment the current DCS roster as nicely as a Thunderchief. That's just my opinion. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

You're completely ignoring the fact that just because there is a demand, doesn't mean it will be done. Jets can be classified, access to them difficult/restricted. Documentation incomplete or restricted, difficulty to code can be a barrier for dev teams doing it the first time. Also, 3rd party devs don't communicate. Just because VEAO made a hawk, doesn't mean aviodev will discontinue their c101. It doesn't work like that. It has never has. Besides, the mirage/mig21/F18 on the way/mirageIII in the works etc pp are all full fidelity stuff. DCS is in comparison to what it could be, still in it's infancy.

Amen to that. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Not sure which Version of the F5 can carry four heaters, the sources differ. In any case, if that would be the case with the DCS version, you'd complain about the lack of AMRAAMs. Again, if you're unsatisfied with it's AA capabilities, fly a different jet. The Mig, the eagle, the Mirage all have more missiles. Right now Belsimtek is focusing on the bugs and getting it out of alpha AS IS. Adding features should be the least of their concern. It's an insanely fun and flexible module. I'm sure Belsimtek had their good reasons not to model a 4 heater version. DCS has a half a dozen dedicated AA platforms in stock, yet people want constantly more. All the time. Calling it now, once the F18 inventory and capabilities are outlined further, people will find stuff to complain about. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I meant in DCS... Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I think you're not getting the point of simulations. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

Goals of devs don't measure themselves by what is useful or not. But by what they are comfortable with modeling and and the degree of accuracy to the real deal. The latter is why we're not having 4 missiles on the F5. You don't see A-G weaponry on the F15 either. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

I second that what ST0RM said. Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk