Inseckt

Agreed! Slightly OT: I wish that the music would change depending on which wallpaper you have selected. Although I think the newest one is the best so far, I still miss the BS and warthog ones as well. They bring back soooo many good memories.... :)

I would recommend the top I7 model... Also try tweaking your Tir profile for that extra smoothness!

Can report the same issue here with Opera, but no problems with chrome...

No it's not possible, but you probably knew that by now... If you want to go for a high altitude, start with no ordinance. If you are getting the stall alarm, you should level off and build speed before attempting to climb further... Of course I was:)

What's the effects performance-wise? I hope your post is taken seriously, because that looked very good, perhaps even a little too much in the one with the f-15's. Demongornot: Your probably just misunderstanding. I belive that alot of people here would want that kind of possibilities in a flight sim, but are perhaps more understanding of the fact that it is unrealistic at this point in time. The renders you are seeing are are indeed impressive, but not relevant for flight sims (yet; perhaps your grandchildren will experience something like this in a flightsim without compromise, but not any sooner...) and bit OT...

This is le me just wildly and unmoderated thinking: As I understand this new DCS concept, 3rd party developers have the opportunity to create both "DCS" - level or "FC1/2/3" - level fidelity aircraft. Further, it was stated that a certain naming convention would separate the two product types in a easily recognizable manner, or something thereabout. So my point is, wouldn't it make sense to release each FC3 aircraft individually? Give all the aircrafts a slight boost like "improved" SFM and some cockpit upgrades (haven't played the LO-series since FC1 so this may already be implemented without me knowing). The sum of the price for all aircraft would be greater than the originally planned price for FC3, so that the dividing of the product wouldn't hurt potential income, but; you could sell a FC3 "package" that included all aircraft for a better price than one-by-one. This would: on the negative: a) Increase the workload regarding finishing tasks. (ie testing more installers, separating documentation and so on...) b) Someone only wants F-15. In this modular release, the ED income is less because he pays less than entire FC3 would cost. on the positive: c) Increase the income for ED. Despite point b) It would be more people who wanted several aircraft and thus paid more... d) This is my main reason why I would like to see this: The entire DCSW concept would be more consistant. Ie the structure would now look like this (in my head): DCSW: DCS: A-10C by ED DCS: KA-50 by ED DCS: F-15E by IRIS DCS: Mig-21Bis By Bezcel(?) [...] FC: F-15C by ED FC: SU-25T by ED FC: Su-27 by ED FC: F-22A By IRIS [...] Other: CA by ED Other: Nevada By ED Other: Map X by Y [...] e) I'm no legal expert, and I think it was already discussed in this very thread, but this approach would perhaps not need the LO brand anymore?

Which equals nevada release? Ok, cool....

Have ED said anything about making their SDK for EDGE available? Either to licensed 3rd parties or anyone? on another note: I too support a giant blank ocean, I mean, why not? Should be like the simplest thing ever....?

I still have more than seven hours left of my tuesday, so it's a kind of relative measure. We can't but assume that it's still tuesday as long as there's tuesday somewhere in the world, if considering Wags update as some sort of deadline...

Actually, by law, it will be slightly less than the 1990's one...

Cool!

spot on!

The simplest solution would be to set QNH in the ME to 760 which equals normal day and thus altitude will allays equal flight level. (760 mmHg = 29,92 hPa). I think the actual problem lies in terminology. Not everyone is aware that altitude means barometic altitude above sea level, while flight level and height means something else. So this must be specified unless obvious when assigning one of the above... And further, when specified, the player should be expected to carry out a pressure correction if assigned an "altitude".

Reo, you are right, the difference would be a lot bigger if this indeed was the error, my fault for rushing a reply without actually investigating actualities. About the pressure setting, 29,92 is indeed "normal day" as Ian suggests, and is the setting that is used on all aircraft above a certain "transition altitude" (which varies around the world). So the value you are reading of the HUD or whatever is not your "altitude" but your "flight level". This is how it's supposed to be, but I didn't think the diffrence of 40 mmHg would give a deviation of 2000 ft. It must be something else me thinks. (or am I just not investigating actualities again?) Edit: on second thoughts, it might not be so weird after all, 720 is a pretty extreme setting it would seem, and might well give a 2000 ft error...

Regarding the altitude thingy, could it be that you are mixing up feet an meters? IRC altitudes in the ME are given in meters, while obviously in the cockpit it would be feet. In this case I think setting the option of units from metric to imperial should do it (in the options menu of the ME) cheers

I would guess it's only a coincidence that you recovered from the dive at an altitude that was warm enough for the pitot to unfreeze...

I would guess slowing down for any airplane that has another in close trail is a no-no...

Yes, but in this track the HUD is showing the exact same as the VVI, (the TVV? is slightly below the artificial horizon, and "we" still appear to be climbing in relation to the tanker). It goes for the same thing... It would seem so. What is this maneuver?

I'm afraid that is "simply" an animation and does not have any physical effects on other objects...

LOL, I checked the track and the reason which has eluded us is perhaps the most obvious! wait for it!... (drumwhirl)... There is nothing wrong with the VVI. The tanker itself is descending! (I think the reason is it's starting altitude vs. it's next waypoint or It's starting speed is to low to sustain current altitude, (the tanker has a very high AoA...)) :megalol: This is an example of where a prime assumption is erroneous and creates a wild goose-chase:) Cheers!

In RL: Perhaps but I doubt it to be enough to actually affect the VVI... In sim: pressure waves, vortexes and other "wake" effects are not moddeled, so no..

I think the above is dubious (no offense). Although I wouldn't be the right person to say anything for reference, I'm pretty sure the VVI don't have gravity (or acceleration) in it's input. I think it's simply connected to the pitot static system which are used to tell airspeed and barometric altitude. It then simply tells you the how fast said altitude is changing. If gravity or other forces is the reason for the behavior of inaccurate VVI, it would have to exert enough forces one the needle itself, to actually overcome the mechanical forces behind the gauge, which I believe on a small needle is, well, dubious (allthough EtherealN's statement suggests acceleration can affect the VVI, so I can't be 100% certain).... And to further shoot this statement down, the behavior explained above is the exact opposite of the behavior of the VVI in-sim. I you pull back hard, the the VVI will accelerate in a clockwise direction:) Cheers Edit: Not my intention to be hard on your first post. Welcome to the forums;)

Remember that the needle is not exactly "on" the background, it is in fact some millimeters "out" from the background, this may give inaccurate readings when looking at from an angle. It can even be seen in cars, when the driver and passenger would read the speedometer differently. This is also the case in DCS and I could imagine it could be substantial due to the (in some cases) high seating in the A-10. To get accurate reading, look at the VVI from directly in front of it (which may be hard to judge)...

yeah, this is my understanding as well, trimming while in autopilot will accumulate to the degree it's no longer sustainable. Very small control inputs should be fine though...

you mean .ogg? Anyway, DCS has been compatible with .wav since BS1 (at least), and I would guess it still is, allthough since .ogg is it's native filetype, it might perform better.