Oydoron

To get this going with the current engine, yes, you'd need to do another render just like with the mirrors. In this case though, it'd need to be full quality full frame rate. You just move the point at which the video is rendered closer to the window in a direction tangent to the window plane, let's say 4 cm for sake of this example. In this way if you are looking tangent to the surface of the window, the only distortion is everything is 4cm closer. If you are looking through the window at 45°, everything is 2.8cm closer, but also 2.8cm lower. If something is very close to the window, this makes a big visual difference, the further away it is the less difference it makes. Once you are past the nose, it doesn't really matter. You'd also of course need a different clipping frustum for this render so that things within the cockpit don't appear in the window render. If you end the frustum at a point within the window, it'd only render a portion of the frame giving the effect of the frame being shrunk by refraction. There may also be a way to cheat. Since the primary issue is with things close to the window, you could have a second cowling model that is shifted slightly from the first. Perhaps a shader could only render the original one if the z buffer does not indicate a window intersection, but render the second one if it does. I'm not sure if this is possible with shaders and would just be a cheap trick. It would look exactly the same in 99% of cases. You'd run into issues if other things got close to the nose of your aircraft as they would not receive the same treatment.

Just some additional ideas for people modding out there. I found that the gardena connector press fits 3/4" rigid electrical conduit perfectly. I search around and found this http://www.homedepot.com/p/Southwire-3-4-in-Liquidtite-NM-Straight-Fitting-Connector-58133702/204755884 3/4 in. Liquidtite NM Straight Fitting Connector Which nearly press fits 3/4" rigid electrical conduit one one end, and the other end fits into the remaining gardena piece. The metal washer that comes with it does not fit in there, so I picked up these: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Halex-3-4-in-Rigid-Plastic-Insulating-Bushing-4-Pack-27527/100159912 3/4 in. Rigid Plastic Insulating Bushing (4-Pack) Which do fit with zero modification. Because the lower connector is for thicker pipe, add a lot of black tape to the bottom of the conduit and to prevent slippage on the top, add just a wrap or two to the top. Grind the top down as usual. I'll probably need to do a slightly better job, but it works for now. I might eventually try taping off the plug and pouring wax into this, then use that to make a plaster mold, and then use that to put epoxy where the wax was in order to make a perfect fit. Looks a little bit wild, but it works well. Minimum extension is about 9cm.

And so long as only a small fraction of users have access to FFB, there is no motivation to add that to the engine.

Wonder if it would still let you fly free modules. DRM is always a bummer though.

linux-track is awesome: https://github.com/uglyDwarf/linuxtrack I've tested it with flightgear on Linux with my ps3 eye and IR clip. I really like the test mode, it puts you in a simplified virtual cockpit so you can adjust curves and things like that and see how it would actually function in game. As far as bringing DCS client to Linux, it would probably need a DX11/DX12 Gallium3D interface. Even then, I doubt there would be significant motivation from ED. But at least with a Gallium3D DX11/DX12 interface, it would be more likely to be able to run under wine. This would of course also require support for wine for Gallium3D/DX11 and Gallium3D support for NVIDIA hardware.

Actually if you'd read the thread and the P-51 manual, you'd see that the rocket is released when it's built up enough thrust to snap the retaining cable. This could impart a small reverse recoil.

Right, the same reason that the prop has to spin faster gives you greater roll (and pitch) rate. Your roll rate is limited by the wings having to push a crap load of air out of the way. When there is less air that needs to be pushed out of the way, you can roll faster. But at the same time, your IAS is limited at altitude, and a lower IAS gives you less control authority. But at the same IAS, the control authority should be similar. If you want to test control responsiveness, fly at sea level at a given IAS in level flight, then try the same thing at high altitude. Note that if you gain or lose altitude during your maneuvers, other factors will probably change things around a bit. I think gaining TAS is quicker at high altitude, but gaining IAS takes longer. I've rethought the turn rate thing by imagining two aircraft on a turn table, one far out, one close in. Both are turning at the same turn rate, but the one further out must have higher loading.

Might this be to a reduced amount of power being available? For sure, if you don't have as much power, you can't sustain the same turn. As far as turns you can sustain, I'm fairly certain that if you have the same IAS, same bank angle, and same AoA, you'll get the same turn rate in degrees/sec and same g-load. The turn radius will be much larger. I haven't found verification yet.

A very basic explanation is that lift is calculated examining how much air is hitting the wing at what speed, and what the AOA is. - You go twice as fast, you hit twice as much air. - Air density decreases and there is half as much of it, you hit half as much air. - To balance the two, you need to go twice as fast (TAS). This again, a simplification, but your IAS is really just a measure of how much air your aircraft is hitting. So whatever your altitude, temperature, air density, etc, if it says 250km/h IAS, you always need the same angle of attack to maintain level flight. Incidentally, you are also experiencing the same amount of drag, but are going much faster. Yay fuel efficiency. Turning circles are wider because you've scaled everything with air density. You still need the same amount of air to pull a 2g turn, you just have to cover a lot more ground to get it. I'm pretty sure your turn rate in degrees/sec, AOA, and g-load will be the same given the same IAS. You can calculate the circumference by multiplying your TAS by 360/turn rate, and then radius by dividing by 2pi. (Or vice versa to get the turn rate) Once you add power, you run into two problems. The first is that there is less air for the engine to work with, so you burn less fuel and get less power. A problem battled with supercharger stages. The second is the faster air that was working for you on your wing is working against you on your prop. To push as much air, the prop must spin twice as fast. On one hand, it's still pushing with the same force as before, just like the wings. But on the other hand, power is force * distance, and the prop is covering twice as much distance with the same force, so it needs twice as much power. So you end up needing twice the power to go twice as fast (TAS). Normally, the power/speed ration follows a cube law, so a square law is quite the savings. This can also be explained in that the most efficient speed for a plane is usually not too far from stall speed with a high AOA. When you fly at low altitude, it might be fuel efficient, but it's super slow. At high altitude, you are actually booking it at this high AOA configuration. Once you go high enough, your IAS approaches stall speed and your vertical indicator starts pointing down. If you try to correct for it, you'll stall and need quite a bit of altitude to recover. If you compare the Ta-152 and the Dora, the Ta-152 has much more wing surface, which gives it a lower stall speed, and a bigger engine to give it more power at altitude.

Flying at high altitude is pretty much identical to flying at low speed and low altitude. The higher you go, the more engine power you need for the same IAS, and thus as you go higher and higher, you'll end up flying with a greater and greater angle of attack. When up at high altitude, take a look at your IAS and then use the map to look at your true airspeed.

When the bomber mafia was in charge, allied fighters did not descend below a certain altitude to engage. When Doolittle took over, the new goal was to destroy the Luftwaffe. They descended, they chased, they searched, etc: [Youtube]TmzzuMzOcKM Start at about 27 minutes. Well, you probably want to watch the whole thing anyway.

Ah, launch tubes These have tubes And tubes here too. But the P-51D has no tubes. Is the recoil of a single 46g bullet even noticeable in the mustang?

This is unlikely to function due to the way the splitter is wired: The pins labeled mouse go to one connector, the pins labeled keyboard go to the other connector (5V and GND go to both). However, both connectors will then look like this: So two of the pins won't have a connection.

It wouldn't be a DCSW 2.0 requirement, it would just be if you want to communicate with ATC via voice instead of the function key menus. As a native English speaker, it's not really an area I'm familiar with. For me at least, some languages I don't mind learning a few words in as they have a lot of similarities and a latin script. Others I'd rather see localized (Chinese cockpit? No thank you)

It's included in all editions of Windows 8.0, 8.1 and 10. In all likelyhood the majority of DCS players are currently running Windows 7 Home, so they would be forced into whatever localization they had Windows set to. If DCS had comms recognition for that language, they would be good to go, otherwise they'd need to do a free upgrade to Windows 10 to get support.

If DCSW 2.0 could integrate directly with the Microsoft Speech API for communication with ATC and wingmen, that would be awesome! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Speech_API

It'd involve teaching the AI to fly a damaged aircraft, which would probably be quite an undertaking.

It appears he got the question confused with an earlier line of questioning about takeoff. It was asked whether he needed much rudder on takeoff. He explained that on the 109, you often needed to use brakes to steer the takeoff, but on the 190, the rudder had plenty of authority and you never needed to use the brakes.

Are you flying straight and level?

I wish they would change to some blob based render. Calculate the visible area of the aircraft (eg, small for straight on, large for seeing the bottoms of the wings) in arcseconds² and then render that much brightness and size. Then if it's less then a pixel, you'd still get a dot that would be brighter or darker depending on aircraft orientation. With the current LOD code, it just renders a cube at a certain distance.

Your argument would be great if you assumed that the P-51 was a sphere. It of course isn't. If the Mustang is flying away from you or towards you, you are looking at the wings edge on. The wings are only a few inches thick, good luck spotting those at such a distance. And the fuselage is less than 3 feet wide and about 4 feet tall. If anything, the game is being generous. A better estimation would be to examine the total area presented to you and figure out how many pixels that should be, since that gives the total amount of proportional photons you are getting from the plane. It's when the wings are angled that you have your best shot, but even then, they are only 8 feet wide at the widest, and 4 feet wide at their narrowest. Good pilots of course know this and will present the smallest profile possible when escaping or approaching, they are basically invisible until they are right on top of you. So the problem comes down to yes, it's hard, but at 2 miles a 3 foot fuselage only takes up less than half a pixel. Even at 1 mile, it's just barely a pixel wide.

The ability to cant the pedals near horizontal means you can rest you feet on the pedals comfortably. Using them with your heels on the floor is possible, but they have a full range of motion, so it's a bit unwieldy. Additionally, they have a lip, so it'd be uncomfortable to do so barefoot. And of course you would not be able to use the toe brakes.

Wearing a spacesuit certainly doesn't help.

Not only that, the visibility is so limited, they have a chase car and spotters for takeoff and landing to tell the pilot where he is in relation to the runway. http://jalopnik.com/5537629/the-140-mph-chase-cars-of-the-us-air-force Oh, and stopping? That's what the wing tips are for.