=475FG= Dawger

Something like that would not be adjustable

Alpenwolf’s signature has the link to the server discird here it is. https://discord.gg/cmvxug89eV There is a server mission channel with links to all current missions. Funnily, they link back to this forum. Asking questions on the Discord is a good plan too.

Having played PvP air combat games in the past using only HOTAS buttons for over 15 years, I can safely say they are no disadvantage other than they take away HOTAS hats/buttons. Track IR type devices can be equal to hat switches if carefully set up. VR has a distinct disadvantage to the other two in that you must turn your head and body. However, VR is the most fun so thats what I use. This thread smells of the desperation of someone who cannot face up to the required self-examination in order to become better at BFM It is a poor craftsman that blames his tools.

I flew the F1 around at 151 KIAS at 10 units at 9000 kg. The numbers match the published data, indicating there is no issue.

Caucasus map is pretty unreliable for TACAN usage.

I just tested the F1 at precisely determined weights and it matches closely to the published numbers. I don't see an issue. IvanK looks to have resolved this, imo.

User. RA is unnecessary equipment in this fighter.

There seems to be a great fear of math related to the F1.

It appears things have improved somewhat with the cooling system in the K4. However, non-circulating coolant would be only marginally and very briefly better than no coolant at all and the end result would be the same. Without heat dissipation via circulation through the radiators and airflow, the fluid would quickly heat up and create enough pressure to damage the cooling system and/or engine. In the P-51, this occurs in seconds when airflow through the radiator is reduced by flying slow at high power. I am not suggesting this is correct either but it does point to how the two aircraft could be improved by making the two meet somewhere in the middle with regards to liquid cooled engine behavior. Cheers!

Probably bleed air actuator for something. Maybe the nozzle.

As an example, one liquid cooled engine can fly a limitless time with no coolant in the system and another will crack the block, evacuate all the coolant and seize in seconds if flown at high power and low airspeed for more than a few seconds. Both are obviously not very realistic although at opposite ends of the spectrum. From a damage model standpoint, there is a WWII module that can absorb the whole nine yards with minimal damage and other modules that seem to be made of glass. Inconsistent. Yes, I know you are going to tell me they are different aircraft so you can't expect them to be exactly the same. Yes, I know I am wasting my time pointing this out as you are here more for PR damage control than actually trying to figure out what the issue might be. But you quoted me, I got the notification and the Law of the Internet requires a response. I will make you a deal. Ignore all my previous posts on WWII issues in DCS and I will continue to ignore the WWII DCS modules I wasted a few hundred dollars on.

Strange. Mission start worked fine for me. Glad you got it working.

If you are willing to edit the mission, it is easy to make it disappear. Drop a trigger zone on the offending light pole and then create a MISSION START trigger that uses SCENERY REMOVE OBJECT ZONE to remove it. null

If you would like to believe that placing a flap on top of a wing makes it magically do something different than what it does on the bottom of a wing, more power to you. Your use of architectural terms for the curves of arches is an interesting choice. Supersonic airfoils are generally symmetrical. No "Intrados" and "Extrados". In any case, its apparent from reading your last post that further discussion will only be frustrating. Enjoy your weekend!

Any device that changes the camber of the wing modifies its lift. Flaps increase the existing camber to increase lift which creates parasitic and induced drag. A "spoiler" is a flap installed to act in the opposite direction. It changes the effective camber of the wing section, simultaneously reducing the "positive" lift and creating lift in the opposite direction. This is why spoilers are generally installed forward of the trailing edge. This new "lift" force causes a pitch moment and the closer the center of this force is to the center of gravity the more the resulting rotational force is reduced. Anyone who has ever deployed a spoiler has felt the effect it has on the airplane. It isn't just a "disturbance" in the airflow. It feels just like a flap deployment except for the direction of the pitch change. You are overthinking the aerodynamics of spoilers.

Spoilers are nothing more than flaps. They produce negative lift in the same manner a flap produces positive lift.

Most western altimeters are not intended to set QFE and lack sufficient range of pressure selection to do so. Set QNH and do the math.

Amen, brother. It is a very strange phenomenon. They seem to glory in behaviors that are obviously ridiculous while denying the existence of physics in other behaviors. Compensating for something that a therapist could have a field day with. Personally, I find portions of the F1 yaw behavior feels like swept wing aircraft I have flown while the high speed yaw behavior seems odd. I like the flight model but fully expect it to modify over time into, hopefully, something even better.

Apparently, flying through your own missile wake will cause the Mirage F1 engine to explode as well.

You do know hiding or not hiding the stick is a choice you can make? If you don't want it hidden, don't hide it.

No tracking gun shots and 3 minute wake turbulence departure delays are going to be SOP in servers with Wake Turbulence on. Hopefully, it won't be on.

It isn't that the cockpit is too dark. Its the lighting in DCS that is FUBAR. Aerges may have to fudge something. I just turn all the lights up.

The use of QNH and, consequently, QNE is something that has crept into aviation language outside of the United States. You won't ever hear either one coming from a US crew or controller. In the US, the local altimeter setting is referred to as "altimeter" or more correctly although less common "altimeter setting". As in, " Descend and maintain five thousand, altimeter 30.01". In the US, you set standard pressure when climbing through 18,000 feet. The trained challenge and response was always "Set <number>" and "<number> set" In other parts of the world, QNH has crept/adopted into the lexicon and some pilots will use, incorrectly, QNE when they mean "standard atmospheric pressure". It isn't correct but it is now defined as meaning "standard atmospheric pressure". Even the FAA defines QNE that way now. So the short answer is QNE in aviation today always means "standard atmospheric pressure". QNE, in its original form, has no practical use in aviation and isn't used.

It helps if you understand what Q codes are. They originated with the need for shorthand methods to ask and answer questions using Morse code. So each three letter group is, originally a specific question and response. QNH is the question "What should I set on the subscale of my altimeter so that the instrument would indicate its elevation if my aircraft were on the ground at your station?" and the response "If you set the subscale of your altimeter to read ____ millibars, the instrument would indicate its elevation if your aircraft were on the ground at my station at ____ hours." In real world use, you hear something like " Descend to five thousand, QNH 1011". You could ask "QNH?" and the response would be "QNH 1011" The time is implied as currently. QFE is similar except the datum used is field elevation instead of Mean Sea Level. QNE is a different sort of question and answer. If you were to say "QNE?" , you are asking " If I set my altimeter to standard pressure (1013 or 29.92) what would my altimeter read at your station?". This question has no practical use in aviation. No will ask for QNE. You will occasionally hear "set QNE" and "QNE set" (More often the crew will use the actual numbers) as part of a challenge and response between flight crew members. In communication with ATC, if you are assigned a flight level, you are expected to set standard pressure on the altitude upon crossing the transition altitude in the US and immediately elsewhere.

QNH, QNE and QFE in common aviation use are altimeter settings. When you set each one they indicate your distance vertically from a particular reference datum. QNE is standard atmospheric pressure , 29.92 in hg or 1013 mb and results in your distance above the standard atmosphere datum, referred to as your "flight level". QNH is the local atmospheric pressure reduced to altitude above Mean Sea Level at the measuring station. This is what is meant when someone says "altitude" QFE is local atmospheric pressure corrected for temperature. The altimeter will read zero at the measuring station elevation and this is referred to as "height"