firmek

The installer/updater is smart enough to recognize that there is already another version of DCS installed and copies files from it if they are the same. Remaining files are downloaded from network. A side note but IMO ED did a really good job with the implementation of install/update/repair functionality.

Is the icing simulated in a way that it is actually affecting the flight characteristics and different systems, in extreme case potentially resulting in a fatal condition - for instance reduction of rotors lift force, engine output, pitot starting to work like an altimeter, etc..? Or is it only the systems modeling - betty complaining, anti-icing automatically kicking-in and reducing engine power?

The fact that it is possible to lean the head outside so much would be the atcuall problem. What is normal in the cokpit view is that in "reality" - in game the pilot does not sit in the complete aircraft but in a truncated model that should only contain parts which can be seen from the cokpit. Remaining parts don't need to be rendered. Bottom line, it is not the same model as when in external view. It could be but with unjustified hit on performance.

We're getting slightly off topic but the CVT transmission could be used as a good illustration for constant speed propeller. The only slight difference would be that the pilot has an authority over governor max RPM setting while in case of CVT transmission the electronics also take care automatically about the highest needed RPM value. In a car with manual gearbox, by controlling the accelerator the driver is directly operating the engine RPM which directly affects the speed. Switching a gear obviously affects RPM but also the engine power output required to maintain RPM or accelerate. In other words the manual geer box could be compared to a plane with fully manual throttle and pitch controls where chaning a gear works like manually setting the prop pitch while throttle directly controls RPM and power output needed to sustain it. In case of CVT the electronics are maintaining the most optimal, quite often constant RPM. Kind of like the governor with already mentioned difference that in a plane pilot has a direct authority over the expected RPM value. The throttle also indirectly affects a gear = prop pitch setting. The CVT may seem quite unnatural at the beggining as when accelerating from 0 to max speed the engine will mostly keep a constant RPM while how high the RPM value is will depend on how fast the driver wants to accelerate.

This will be probably the conclusion. I wouldn't expect arriving with extreamly precise historical values. This is due to a number of reasons. During the WW2 most of the airplanes have not been equipped with sensors like G-matters not even mentionning flight parameter recorders. If there are any historical pilot reports of failing wings the description will be rather subjective, without any specific values. Considering the manufacturers, at best they probably have been able to arrive only with limits based on educated guess - rather than a measured test results. The flight limits provided to pilots would be taking into account some substantial safety margin. Knowing this margin would still not help a lot for already mentioned reasons - not being precise as also pilot not being able to observe actual G values.

I'm not sure, seems that sometimes mission editor includes those files, sometimes not. I could even recall stock training missions for some of the modules where some of the missions have this problem while some don't, It's kind of a bugger as it overrides all user settings for head position in cockpit, FOV settings etc.

@71st_AH Rob could you check the mission. It looks like it has a view config stored in which overrides the user in cockpit view settings. From http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views

Great choise with Mi-8. As for the english cokpit if I recall correctly it can be selected in the special options for Mi-8. If it's not there by default here are the mods: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/668712/ https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1053263/ https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=114166 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?CREATED_BY=DirtyFret&set_filter=Y The last one may be a bit more performance heavy.

I might be tottally wrong here but the way that I understood how RPM and boost stettings are affecting aircraft performance is: 1. The RPM setting gives an indication to the governor which RPM level to maintain 2. The boost setting controlled by throttle, affects the engine power output which in return with a fixed RPM affects the prop pitch. In example, a higher boost would result in more power needed to sustain given RPM with increased prop pitch.

Just a suggestion but why not to consider updating the motherboard, CPU and RAM instead of GPU. With current prices for a good 1070 card, cost wise it should not be such a big difference. From the performance perspective 760 should be fine for the time being especially in Full HD resolution while changing mobo/CPU/RAM would be much better investment for the future as also leter on it would allow to run a new GPU to its full potential. I was running DCS in high settings and 4xAA in 1080p with 660 Ti (more or less comparable 760), i5-3570k and 16GB RAM. In DCS 1.5 usually with min ~30 FPS on the ground and 80-120 or even more when flying high in the air. Nevada was also mostly ok, apart of flying low within Vegas center area which was too much for that config.

One of the first things to check would be if the motherboard has a PCI-E 3.0 x 16 slot.

Actually its really easy, takes 20 seconds to do. Use SnapViews to set the default position of the head as also default view angles. http://en.wiki.eagle.ru/wiki/Snap_views

After spending some time with Spit I've started to think that the artificial horizon couldn't be that bad. I mean it's an old tech but the way how it works makes it borderline useless. This video shows that it is actually that bad: There also doesn't seem to by any fast erect button. On a side note, the initial gyro rev-up looks insane. Nice to have but would be grate to see it modeled in DCS some day. I could bet that it would made quite a few people hypnotized or seasick :)

Mach .83 or even less could already be enough for the wings to be in transonic speed. On the topic, it seems quite easy to loose wings in Spit. I don't think that the modeling of the wings structural integrity might be the issue but rather the failure is caused by extreamly sensitive elevator. When pulling out from a high speed dive Spit requires to be really gentle with applying back pressure on the stick.

+1. Personally the only time I run the TARGET is to set the LED's status. Otherwise, all of the bindings can be done: 1. In-game. All of the basic stuff like axis, most of the stick configuration. Unfortunatelly the axis have to be checked and assigned when running a new module for the first time. Otherwise the default assginements are a mess, usually all devices are duplicated and assigned to all of the axis. For some reason DCS doesn't bring a default, clear setup for one of if not the the most popular hotas. No need to touch anything for A-10C - it's the only one module for which warthog works perfectly out of the box. 2. Using .lua key files. More advanced but in reality an easy way to create actions for 2-way or 3-way throttle switches. Negative side is that first time it may seem a bit difficult. Also modifications have to be restored after DCS update (though it's usually not more than copy - paste the file). Posities are that once done for the first time, it's easy to apply the same method for other aircrafts, gives a lot of flexibility, it's much faster than playing with TARGET, there is no need to run additional middle-ware. Another important aspect is that this way all of the settings are in one place - in-game, which makes it easier to maintain. The procedure is described in a number of threads - sorry, I don't have time to look them up now. Any specific module and specific keys that you would like to map from throttle?

Great review. Did you think about creating an english version for wider audience? PS: Utwierdziłem się tylko w przekonaniu, że może lepiej zachować gotówkę a przede wszystkim czas na inny moduł. Może nie chodzi o to, że z F-5 jest coś nie tak ale z drugiej strony z punktu widzenia systemów, uzbrojenia oraz co najważniejsze zawartości moduł nie przedstawia nic szczególnie pociągającego. Trochę szkoda bo może implementując średnio ciekawy samolot BS mógł pomyśleć o marchewce w postaci ciekawej kampani. IMO, głownie dla miłośników F-5.

The trick is that there is no trick :). Just create a new profile or copy an existing one, modify it and save - the icon looks like a floppy disk.

- when entering the runway, make sure to roll few meters straight - brake to stop, hold on the brake - push a bit of right rudder, stick ~1/3 to the right - rev up to ~4 boost, - release brakes, rev up to ~8 boost, rather slowly, withing ~2-3 sec - maintain alignment with the runway using rudder, try to avoid using the brakes - as you gain up speed slowly bring the stick from right to center Then again, the most important thing is to practice. Create a mission with Spit hot on runway to save some time. Good luck :thumbup: Edit: it's not how it's stated in the manual but personally for take off, I only trim the rudder a bit to the right - more or less so that the letter "R" from "rudder" is at 12.

Agresive flying, low and fast will always consume a lot of attention. Still, compared to Huey or Mi-8 the Ka-50 is much easier to control in pretty much every phase of the flight. For instance, you really need to take a lot of effort to bring Ka-50 into VRS while Mi-8 requires a lot of attention to the flight parameters in order not to bring it into VRS. Hovering, especially when transitioning from a level flight into a hover or keeping a steady hover is just a breeze. Even maintaining a leveled, straight flight or making coordinated turns is much easier. To picture it, the difference between flying Ka-50 and Huey is almost like between Mirage and P-51. Please don’t get me wrong, it's not a criticism. There are good reasons why most of the gunships have a pilot and a weapons officer. Ka-50 was designed with a goal to be operated by a single man, allowing him to focus on all other tasks rather than fighting with the thing to keep it from crushing into the ground. With Huey or Hip most of the time attention is consumed by controlling it. At least until spending so much time that flying it becomes almost a second nature. From the other perspective, if you have a good experience with UH-1 or Mi-8, after defeating first confusion made by how the autopilot channels and modes in Ka-50 work, learning to fly it will take just a few moments. I don't think it would work so easy the opposite way. That’s actually also an positive as it gives more time to study other great things about Ka-50 like the data link, ABRIS, weapon systems, tactics etc.

You can also use the snapviews.lua and server.lua with view configuration stored in DCS, Saved Games folder. The good side is that the view values can be set really precisely while as those files are not in the game folder there is no need to use any mods which updates are overwriting. The config can be even done in a way that there is no zoom out effect when entering the cockpit (this is a workaround rather than a fix though).

+1. A change would be refreshing.

The question is if you're interested in more combat missions for a change? If yes then go with Ka-50. Consider however that flying it IMO is a totally opposite experience to Huey or Mi-8. The fun comes from Ka-50 ability to employ weapons and applying tactics rather than from enjoying its flight characteristics. In other words, it's not soo much fun just to fly which mostly comes from the fact that a lot of the work is done by the autopilot. Mi-8 as far as great it is, it has the same role as Huey. It's a bit faster, more stable and can carry more armament then Huey but from the application perspective you'll fly similar type of transport missions. Personally I would recommend both but first the Ka-50 for a change. I have both transport helicopters but in reality, I've ended up flying only one of them when I'm in a mood for a transport missions.

I have to admit that I didn't even try to restart the engine . As soon I got hit I thought that it's a perfect time to start looking for some nice, flat piece of land to have a controlled crash :) That is just evil :) But seriously. Loved the campaign :thumbup:

Please have a look on the "silver winter" mission. It look like it is running with the view config included in the mission file.

I wouldn't be so sure about it. Some time ago it was stated that Normandy will be released before 2.5. Q1 for Normandy could also mean Q2 for 2.5. Then again, at the moment we're just guessing. Still can't wait to fly Spit over Normandy :thumbup: It's quite interesting as probably many people consider WW2 as not the main stream in DCS. Apart of the map, Normandy will bring a lot of AI units while with 4 WW2 airplanes and more in development, WW2 will probably have the most complete representation in DCS :). IMO, it would be great to see more era/theater focused development in the future. Map, AI units and then the modules. This way we could use planes simulated in extreme level of details in realistic scenarios.