=475FG= Dawger

Think of the map revenue stream. $10 per cubic parsec and pretty easy to generate.

You got that backwards. The $4000 PC is better for practicing highly classified touchscreen operations while the serious simulation hardware is better suited for getting to know the basic flight characteristics.

Why no X-wings or TIE fighters? I’d love a BG Viper.

Jester thinks many runways are taxiways and starts in with the stupid inanity during takeoff. Try a different runway.

Guayaquil, Ecuador has a hump that would launch us airborne about 5 knots early on our annual fuel stop there headed south. Slope is always a consideration for takeoff performance calculations. Humps and bumps are common.

ED will always tell anyone to “prove” something is wrong with data. However, there is absolutely no data that indicates the G-limit will be exceeded at any other roll other than “maximum rate, 360 degree roll (aileron to the spring stop)” There is no data, no limitation that addresses any other situation. So someone at ED made it up. Most likely they just slapped in a linear relationship to make the wings snap off when you input any sort of roll above 5.2 G Of course they aren’t disclosing the math to us, just telling us to disprove something they invented. It is bit frustrating

Don’t use the ADI for the ILS. Use the HSI only. Once you understand flying the approach with only the. HSI for course guidance, you might begin to understand the Flight Director on the ADI. And learn how use an instrument approach chart to draw out the relevant information.

That’s how I got into VR. I wanted a big screen but a Rift was much less money . Bought the Rift. Now, I wouldn’t consider flying on a pancake.

The ‘needles’ on the ADI are a dual cue Flight Director. They are not driven by localizer and glideslope radio signals directly. As I said before, you don’t know what you are looking at. Aviation requires a building block approach to learning and flight simmers never get the first blocks and then blame everyone else when their sand castle washes away.

I assume you mean the needles on the Attitude Indicator. I don't know the A-10 II but we shall assume the needles on the attitude indicator are a dual cue Flight Director. Dual Cue Flight Directors ARE NOT ILS needles. A Flight Director tells you where to maneuver based upon the information you give it. You have told the flight director that the approach course is 000 or North. You are flying South. The FD thinks you are flying the wrong direction and is trying to fix it. Single Cue versus Dual Cue Flight Directors No, you just don't know what you are looking at and YouTube is NOT aviation instruction by any stretch of the imagination.

Your understanding of the ILS is accurate. The problem lies with individual aircraft avionics setups. If you are using a dedicated VOR/ILS receiver and display head, there is no way to set the course and thus it is always accurate. Old HSI systems also didn't require dialing in the course needle but doing so made flying the approach make more sense. Anything with a blended navigation system/FMC will require you to know that system in order to know the correct procedure. When I quit flying for a living, everything I flew did all that stuff automatically once you punched in the planned approach. I can't answer specifically what is required in the A-10C II or whether it is modeled correctly in DCS.

It depends on the equipment in the aircraft on whether or not you need to set the course. Anything with an HSI should have the localizer course dialed in.

10 years and 7 days...

I don't know who moved this here but this is a PvP server, not a squadron recruiting post.

Blue needs you Transport of troops is vital to victory in this PvP server

Blue needs you. Transport is vital to victory in this PvP server

Blue needs you

@Grimes Hello, Do you know of any reason why this would not count CTLD dropped infantry?

Never flew a single FBW aircraft. Airbus or otherwise. The only Boeing I ever flew was the B-17. And you illustrate my point beautifully “can’t understand how you have to fly a sim different to a real plane” That is the very definition of unrealistic simulation. You can hop in several DCS modules and fly it like the real thing and get the same behaviors In the F-5, this will result in very unrealistic results

Floor mounted stick, 20 cm extension. 15,000 hours in real airplanes. The DCS F-5 is the issue. The F1 and F-4 are the examples to compare the F-5 to. But thanks for adding to the huge pile of "GitGud". I use it to fertilize my garden.

I appreciate that you are working to make it happen. I am sure you understand my frustration due to issues introduced by ED left to linger for over three years now in what once was my daily MP ride. I hope whoever decided to introduce catastrophic wing failure to the F-5 without fully exploring its impact has since been re-educated. Its too bad this wasn't recognized years ago and the F-5 reverted. At this point, I am pushing the issue out of principle. The past is gone and cannot be re-created. I am unlikely to fly the F-5 again, in any case. I will say that I do not trust ED to not do something like this in the future so I won't buy an ED produced module unless that trust is somehow restored. How that would happen is beyond me.

An educated guess would be slat deployment. One of the “techniques “ to prevent snapping the wings off is to set the flap system to off because when the slats auto-schedule at about 320 knots, the G spike can induce wing separation.

Yes, I have been saying this for about two years now. I actually would have no problem with the current catastrophic wing failure, as unrealistic as it is, if artificial feel was modeled to make it impossible to generate 13G in a few thousandths of a second and the roll limits were interpreted properly so that minor aileron application doesn't snap the wings off. I posted this request a year ago.

It makes it unrealistic because, in the real world, there is inertia to overcome and it takes time to get the nose moving and for the G to onset. With nearly instantaneous control deflection, techniques that work in the real world will snap the wing off. For example, break turns. The goal of a proper break turn is to alter direction as quickly as possible i. e “square the corner” To do that, a common technique is to unload, roll (because breaking uphill is a very bad thing), take out the aileron input, pull the stick abruptly back to initiate a hard break and immediately position it forward to avoid the over G. If you use this technique in the DCS F-5, the instantaneous control deflection will cause instantaneous G onset and the wings will depart. This is why it is extremely unrealistic. The G onset is so rapid it appears that G is tied to stick position instead of the aircraft acceleration. It forces one to use unrealistic techniques in order to retain possession of important aircraft components.