gospadin

same haha but saving $50M (mostly in repairs, I assume) is a nice bonus

That logic exists for IR seeker heads e.g. AIM-9, but A2G missiles are a different class of missile, and I am not aware of it existing in-game yet. We can't invent new behaviors like Heatblur did for the Viggen, since we don't have API access.

We haven't figured out how to lock the shrike yet for players, but it's fully functional for AI. IRL, the shrike was just shot towards a radiation source and it did its own guidance, there was no explicit target designation. The Mk-77 has to map within existing bomb capabilities, but there may still be room to improve it. Currently it's just an iron bomb in the code. --gos

You can get it from some companies, google should help you. 100m data may be free even from various governments. For higher resolution or curated data, you usually need to pay.

Even if we don't post in our own thread very often (our progress is slow, so we like to group stuff into monthly updates), we're reading these forums. If you have questions, please feel free to ask away and the team will see it. :pilotfly:

I have a 2nd ED account that I used to buy an extra copy of NTTR for my laptop, so that one could probably be used to host. I certainly have enough PCs, and my internet connection would be sufficient. Just would have to find a place to put it (physically) and leave it running where my dogs won't knock out the power cord. =P

For clarity, Sport isn't on the A-4 team. His job looks way cooler than mine, since I have to pay to fly.

The problem with a prediction is our current pace is very irregular due to everyone being a volunteer with their own lives, jobs, and time commitments. Certain things can only make forward progress when 3 or 4 of us are simultaneously spending time tweaking items, and since we're all in different timezones, that can be a particular challenge. We're working now to enumerate a punchlist of remaining work, and maybe I can publish it in the April or May updates. --gos

btw, can't possibly be london in that picture. Visibility is > 3 SM.

G550 for DCS confirmed!

Just SEL for now, and it's a part 61 school so the curriculum is free-form.

In hindsight, I think the SFM brake controller has a fixed stopping force, which may or may not match the stopping force on the Su-25T. (which has a MTOW of over 40,000#) Our initial stopping distances were under 1000' with the A-4E at 14,500# until I implemented a new brake controller. It's relatively easy to reduce braking force this way, but I have no idea how one would increase it.

VRS isn't an issue with any sustained forward movement. Your goal should be that the transition out of ETL and into a hover should be done while in or nearly-in ground effect. Referencing a standard height-velocity diagram, your goal is to enter the gap (and get through it) quickly, assuming you're starting in the upper right corner somewhere: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicopter_height%E2%80%93velocity_diagram As to terrain landings, yes, you wouldn't roll them. You'd transition to hover, then set it down. Hopefully by the time you're low enough to be in ground effect you have cover. --gos

Great to know, thanks, it does feel like I'm learning to fly from scratch sometimes. This morning had an actual attitude indicator failure while rotating for takeoff, to which my instructor replied, "might as well fail both vacuum gyros" as he covered the direction indicator too. Since my CFI's PTT was inop, I was 100% of the radios for the first time as well. Exhausting! --gos

Sorry, not nearly as cool: 182RG and 172P. Working on my instrument rating IRL. :pilotfly:

I have vids of me screwing around in planes from the last few weeks, just not the A-4. =P

awesome, thanks!

I recorded a relatively fast descent-to-land a while ago, which shows control inputs. I do get a small tail strike, but not enough to break anything. Internal View: X5XvDsOo03k External View: D9pUXFbKDfI Retreating blade stall (RBS) / Vne is going to be the limiter on rate of descent, unless you're willing to specifically put it into VRS with a recovery, which would be incredibly risky. I'd imagine normal combat landings would come in low-and-fast just above the tree tops, where the same landing flare would apply. At least, this was how it was done in the jungle terrain of Vietnam. In non-jungle terrain, might be better to ingress high then descend, since it's harder to avoid small arms fire due to the lack of coverage. --gos

You haven't seen my code yet, challenge accepted!

Unfortunately, if they're already financially non-viable, there's not much incentive to keep the business going longer while working through those arrangements. If they're in bankruptcy, they may not even be allowed to transfer assets/IP to a 3rd party without going through the courts too. (At least in the US) As DCS scales with more 3rd parties and more modules, their current system feels unsustainable to me. I think they need to put more responsibility on the 3rd parties to own their individual module release schedules, with some form of API tied to the base engine, but that doesn't require all modules' copy protection to be updated weekly. Countless times we've waited weeks for fixes "ready to go" that could possibly have been hotfixed, but were waiting behind ED's master release schedule. --gos

Hawkeye60 has already done the work for you, see above.

Just a quick comment, a mini March update if you will... We're still here, still working in the background, but at this time the team is not ready to show any of the work in progress from the last month. Hopefully some things come together by the end of April, for another big update. --gos

Literally just save off the old UH-1 model files (Bazar/World/Shapes/ab-212*.edm) then rename uh-60a.edm to ab-212.edm and see what happens. (or replace with your own uh-60.edm if you have a higher poly model)

I think those relied on the fact that they were FC3 without clickable cockpits. Unlikely you could map the UH-1H the same way. That being said, you could just swap the external model and it'd likely work just fine.

I don't believe it's possible in the same way, since the RU RWR isn't a separate draw surface, it uses the normal in-cockpit animation arguments to light the various indicators.