gospadin

Chizh posted in the AIM-9P5 thread that 2.0.3 will be out this Friday. (7/29) http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2856449&postcount=83

That image only has a single pylon on each wing. Likely the customers said they wanted more pylons, and were willing to live with less weight per pylon.

You're talking about the purple chevrons on the map on the kneeboard? They work fine in the huey for me.

I highly recommend Devrim's cockpit mods, they're excellent.

Does this mean that any new weapon created by a mod developer will use the SFM only? And thus have really bad performance? (I assume AFM access requires SDK access to implement the weapon) Or is the distinction based on wsType classes, such that new "bomb-common" models can be created that share the existing embedded AFM based on parameterized data?

As long as you stay out of the death curve areas, you have enough energy to auto-rotate if needed.

Do not raise the collective until after you're out of your own rotorwash. Just push forward (or sideways or backwards).

Okay, wow, I had no idea it was so broken. Maybe SFM would behave better if drag coefficients were modeled better on weapons by the core engine? I can't seem to get any in-game numbers to line up with various published analysis info.

I don't think dumb bombs need AFMs, SFM is plenty good enough for them IMO. What we need is a better modeling of soft damage and armor, for every ground unit. As in, "hitpoints" of various systems and where they're located on a vehicle, along with directional armor that mitigates incoming damage to a certain point. No amount of 20mm cannon fire should be able to stop a T-90. A 2000lb JDAM missing by 5m should still kill it quite easily. Once that's improved, they can work on splash damage and fragmentation damage modeling. The fragments of a 500lb bomb should have a low chance of killing soft targets out to half a mile.

I don't need Nellis ATC to vector me for the FYTTR 3 departure (though that'd be cool). What I would like to see, more or less in order of "importance" to me: QNH instead of QFE on non-Georgian maps (essential for any terrain above 1000 feet MSL) Support for multiple parallel runways Better AI managing / interacting with traffic on the surface Support for all existing ILS approaches Support for GPS approaches (with the upcoming GNS 430) Support for declaring an emergency to ATC and having that affect inbound non-emergency traffic Taxi clearances with pathing Smarter takeoff clearances Support for VOR/DME or just VOR navigation hardware in/near NTTR Support for mobile TACAN stations (trucks placed in the field with mission editor and/or aircraft carriers... seriously, these radios are man-portable these days) Live AWOS / ATIS information, including active runway, so ATC doesn't have to waste time repeating it Separate ground/tower channels

Did you map the differential wheel brakes? Even small brake input that's asymmetric will cause significant yaw. I wait until I've slowed below about 100kts, then I enable NWS and try to hold both brakes even, with as little steering input as possible.

Yup. I have plowed some new paths next to the taxiways already.

I actually prefer it this way.

yup, thanks

what took you so long? slacker!

You essentially need to create a new SFM airplane, reusing something else's avionics/cockpit, and attach the existing model to it.

negative curve won't eliminate the deadzone. That deadzone looks unnatural (in the OP's video). Maybe that's how it is in the real plane, dunno.

South China Sea or Eastern Mediterranean

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but from a CA perspective, it'd be nice to have the possibility of sub-surface vehicles, along with ASW gameplay. Torpedos, mines, anti-ship missiles, etc.

The ATC always gives you QFE. You have to convert to QNH yourself. On runway hot starts, sometimes I see the game engine think I am at zero feet of altitude in NTTR, regardless of the airport. Doesn't happen on cold starts.

An actual magnetic compass doesn't know its grid. Only an INS would know how to adjust a compass-provided value. Actual VORs and VORTACs are calibrated to magnetic headings every 15-20 years, but you have to know on a per-VOR basis what *that* specific VOR wants you to fly, relative to the others. This information is on charts and in the AF/D or Chart Supplements, updated every 56 days.

Pilot (left) upper console has the primary weapon management. UPK = 23mm cannon PKT = nose machine gun (not implemented) PC = 80mm rockets Are you referring to something different?

So doing some testing via external camera, collision model for the skids doesn't seem to exactly line up with the skids. Maybe that's what is causing the issue for me. Because the front collision point seems to be about 8-10" behind the bend in the skids, any apparent front-loading of the helo will cause the skid to dig into the ground. The curved front of the skid doesn't seem to be able to absorb terrain at all. Edit: I also believe friction is too high still as well. Steel on grass should slide for a while.

You're saying that mods (e.g. aircraft we create) that live in that folder aren't subject to the integrity check? If so, that's at least an improvement from what we have now...

F-18 early access confirmed! :pilotfly: