sedenion

And that's perfectly ok. I think we cannot not settle the debate this time... lets conclude that everybody have its part of "unadapted behavior" to solve.

No. Its problem is a lack of practice on how to deal witch such situation, which leads to increasing problems and indeed, repeating patterns: same causes, same effects, same results. Its main mistake, I think, is that he try to make other people to understand how they uses falacy logic (which they obviously does, like everybody) instead of hitting its chest while screaming in order to communicate at the same level of its interlocutor, then rasing the debate to another level. It clearly does in some circumstances, because many people here, are very prompt to adopt professor or autoriary position to correct others, in order not to restore the truth but rather to humiliate or dominate.

The OP is dealing with a toxic environment, which I personally perfectly identified, where, the goal is not to go forward together resolving a question, but, proving ourself and to others that one know better than others, and sometimes, whith very poors arguments but an huge self-confidence. The problem is here: The OP wants to solve a problem "together" while many others are here to tell everybody how the OP is fool and how they are the best.

That's the problem (and solution). Actually, even once you perfectly understands why and how adverse yaw happen, once you perfectly undstand the role of each control surface, even if you perfectly understand fuild dynamics, one cannot really predict or project exactly what is actully the aircraft behaviors with such theoretical data, and even less considering the aircraft does have fligt control damping and assistances systems. There is a point where one should be able to say "Well, I DON'T KNOW". One can have opinions, making conjectures, and discussion "hey I think this, because of that", etc. but you have to admit that one don't know. The man who piloted the aircraft know, the engineers that worked on the aircraft design known, but, you, me, and almost everybody here simply don't know.

And, that is your mission if you accept it, keeping calm and staying focused in a toxic environment where everybody makes statements based on beliefs with "I have a pilot license" argument of authority.

Wow... I wonder if official french manual speaks of "hectometers" like that... I think speaking of "Meters x 100" is more common for everybody, even in France.

One capital thing to know, is that you have to maintain "pressed" the "lock" button until you lock something or radar back to search. set radar range (scale) to 35NM Identify something to lock move the "cursor" close to that thing press and hold "lock" button

If you speak about the the noise, I think no because this is how the real Cyrano IV scope look-like:

I am pretty sure that EXT.G and EXT.D refer to "Extrémité Gauche" and "Extrémité Droite", meaning respecitively "Left Extremity" and "Right Extremity", refering to wingtip missiles (R550 Magic, or Sidewinder). EDIT: EXT.G Extrémité Gauche Left Wingtip R550, Sidewinder, (smoke ?) EXT.D Extrémité Droite Right Wingtip R550, Sidewinder, (smoke ?) M.G FUS Missile Gauche | Fuselage Left | Fuselage Missile R530, Super 530 M.D Missile Droit Right Missile R530, Super 530 CAN.A Cannons Air Air Guns CAN.S ROQ Cannons Sol, Roquettes Ground Guns, Rockets BOMB.VOIL Bombes Voilure Wing bombs BOMB. FUS Bombe Fuselage Fuselage Bomb Is that answer your question ?

On the contrary, I was realy amazed by the new flight model comparing to the previous one. Purely subjective but I found that landing is now easier, more natural and feel more realistic than before. One thing that changed is that before, if you followed exactly indications and manual, you indeed landed but almost like a robot, on the other hand outside this precise range, landing was terrible. Now, the continuum is well better, and you actually can land a lot more smoothly by "feeling" without keeping your eyes stuck on parameters.

After lot of test and error, studying what part and why moves becomes "sticky", trying multiple grease type, I second this statement. The Molykote fluid silicon grease does a perfect job for the four guiding stems and the contact between bell-like piece and the inner rubber o-ring. But for the contact between the bell and the ball joint, it is not adapted at all. This part is actually high-pressure contact with slow motion, a fluid lubricant, even a common viscous grease, is "rejected" from the contact edges by the pressure, resulting in sticky moves. Here you need a high-viscosity lubricant. The grease that come with the warthog is like this, it paradoxically stick like melted glue, but this is what you need here. On my side I don't have any reference for the proper grease (long story short I only have several grease sample in mustard jars), the gease I use appear to be silicon based since it is white-translucent, very viscous (as said before, almost like melted glue). Before this one, I used a black one, graphit based and very viscous too, which indeed suppressed the sticking effect, but the graphit added an unpleasant "rough" sensation with the need for more effort on moves. EDIT: Looking at videos showing "Nyogel 767A", it seem that this grease is **extremely** viscous and maybe too much if you want smooth and ease moves. The one I use is not soo viscous.

Clickable cockpit is a welcome feature and improve immersion in some case, its ok. I am a little hard with clickable cockpit because module developers tends to concentrate all their efforts on it and to forgot to design good default keyboard mapping with suitables commands such as toggles, cycles and increase/decrease (and sometimes the opposite, you have a toggle while you wanted two separated commands to bind on HOTAS...).

This is going too far, far beyond the common sens to me. Transposes with car driving and imagine a driving simulator where you have to grab up your mouse then move your "head" with the HAT to point the turn signal stick behind the steering wheel and click over with left or right mouse button. Do you realize how disabled you are with your mouse and your HAT-moved head ? Clickable cockpit is simply a pitty substitution to make the user able to interact with all things, because all cannot be properly bound to keyboard shortcut, and this would even be almost impossible to memorize all thoses shortcuts. But, in fact, the closest substitution available for panel/button/switch interaction, except the HOTAS, is the keyboard. So, if you don't want to bind such vital switch to your HOTAS because of some realism considerations, you however should at least map it on an easy to catch keybord combo. Because using your mouse pointer to pick up the switch on a virtual cockpit is even less realistic than using HOTAS button. I had hard discussion about this some years ago while clickable cockpit bacame the super "must-to-have" feature. Speaking of realism about moving a mouse pointer in a vritual cockpit to click up a switch is in many aspect a nonsense. One better should create well studied and ergonomic keyboard mappings.

This comes with other discussed flight model "issues", like lift at low speed, yaw stability etc. These are fine tunes that will be (hope so) adjusted over time.

Rafale RAFAEL : RAFALE :

I also found that payload drag, not only wingtip missiles, seem a bit high. Applying trim once you fired a missile is really not optional.

Hi, New version of Combined Full DX Mapping Script moving to version 1.7. The main change in this version is the addition of Digital Axis mapping for Throttle microstick (SC) and slider (Friction Control) axes. To be simple, the microstick now also act as 4-way hat, pressing DX button for each axis direction. Same thing for the slider, which can now be used as 2-position switch with a inactive middle position (I was sick of this unused FC slider, it can now be used as Landing Gear lever). As usual, each Digital Axis mapping can be disabled or enabled within the main script entry file, bey setting the proper macro-define to 1 or 0. Also notice that Digital Axis mapping does not disable axes... they still usables as axes, they simply also emits buttons input. This release also include the small modification done with the "hotfix" version 1.61, which modify the advanced AP Module to emit buttons inputs in well defined temporal sequence with a small amount of delay between each input change, in order to make them properly catched by DCS which. Indeed, since some updates, DCS did not properly catch simultaneous (or too closes) inputs. Maybe this is a feature, even if I don't well understand the purpose. Download Link in the initial topic

I deleted my post, but, then. Nothing magic, intents of flaps are (in most common design) to increase wing curvature which increase pressure differential effect of the laminar airflows, increasing suction effect, in two words, increasing lift. What make high-lift flaps increasing lift is not so much the air pushing the flap under the wing than the low pressure and suction effect over the wing (like usual wing profile). both flaps and spoilers are "flat rectangular surfaces" but they do not act the same manner and does not have the same effect. And that is a good point for you... indeed, in such case, "killing" lift in one wing side, may create a lift vector pointing in the opposite side, but, not because spoilers act as reversed flaps and rather because spoilers killed the lift on one side. As I said before, aileron in upward position is more likely to be compared to a "reversed" flap, as the goal is to keep laminar airflow (avoiding drag as much as possible) but varying wing geometry in order to change lift vector direction (or simply magnitude).

Oh mate... the certificate business, this scam that runs since the "green lock in address bar" delirium... Or how to pretend security by exposing $igned $$L certificate while sensitive data are saved in plain text in database. And now they do the same for softwares, with other goals, while most of available software in "software centers" (especially smartphones) are full of security breach when not pure scams... Not to mention Windows 11 that comes slowly with its "Trusted Platform Module" scam to prevent you to use your computer as you want.

Win64/Packed.VMProtect.E seem to be often detected by ESET and sometimes McAffy on various games. Description on ESET website : Thanks ESET for this brilliant and meaningful security report. I am always amused to see antivirus and projection software screaming for "trojan alert" considering the true nature of Microsoft Windows and how easy it is to fool antivirus. What I will say here, will shock people but I don't care: As a general case, with variations from one editor to another, antivirus and protection softwares are illusion of security highly costly in terms of computing resource, and sometimes, in terms of money. Prefer to choose antivirus software according the less computing resources it use to pretend protecting you while it sends your computer usage statistics to motherhouse, in order to disable those integrated in Windows (especially the Antimalware service) that do the same but in an even more costly way while deleting files that Microsoft don't like. Some real good things you can do to secure your computer: Install an Ad Blocker to your browser. Some of them probably send report to motherhouse (everybody does that nowaday) but they will blocks almost all scam attempt. Be care of what you download and install in your computer, do not rely on your "antivirus" or "antimalware" software, use your brain. Learn to recognize scam and phishing mails, be careful before opening joint pieces.

Oh, Ok...

Actually, no. Flaps change wing geometry (for the most common design on fighters, it basicaly increase wing curvature) which allow to increase lift without changing wing incidence (usually the wing extremity still unmodified, this produce a kind of double-properties that reduce stall speed).

An aileron in "upward" position may be compared to "inverted flaps" but not the spoilers. Aerodynamically speaking, flaps "exagerate" (and/or extands, depending design) the wing profile, increasing air flow depression in the wing extrados, increasing lift (and drag by the way). Spoilers act very differently: located on the wing extrados, they are making an obstacle to the air flow, creating turbulance, so kills the lift on that wing section (like a localised stall), and inducts a lot of drag. While flaps are here to increase lift, spoilers are here to create a stall effect (which cannot be reasonably named negative lift).