Vibora

Welcome. And thank you for your report :). Fixed.

Fixed.

We have fixed several error log messages.

Nice video kontiuka, thanks :)

I have reported this to ED and they should take care of it. Thanks for your report. I recommend you proceed as Rudel_chw told you. Set the DCS folder to your AV exclusions and make a repair.

We are adding them, thank you. I don't see such issue, both using clickable cockpit and keyboard or joystick buttons works OK. I don't see a need to increase the speed, any intermediate altitude or pressure can be set. Maybe depends on the precision of the keyboard you use. Anyway I'll keep an eye on it and see if some further tune can be done. Same as above. No, there isn't. You can download a C-101 flight manual from internet. Google "C-101 manual de vuelo". You have performance tables in it. Take into account that it is in Spanish and that it is an old version of the manual, so some data is outdated. For example, gliding performance tables are not correct. The climb in the C-101 is performed with MCT, Maximum Continuous Thrust (ITT = 832ºC) or with Maximum Cruise Thrust (ITT = 795ºC). Warning: never exceed an ITT of 832ºC for more than 5 minutes. I made a test at Batumi to see if some bug appeared lately, and I didn't see any issues with ILS coverage. I had LOC (Localizer) signal at 45º offset from QFU (runway magnetic heading, that is, runway centerline extension). I had GS (Glide Slope) signal at 17º offset from QFU. I also got GS signal 14 NM away from the airfield and got LOC signal 63 NM away. It could be a loss of coverage or an issue in a specific airport, in that last case it is a DCS issue and there's nothing we can do as a 3rd party, since it's not a bug in our module. I flew that approach to MinVody and indeed there is an issue with that ILS beam. The LOC signal is lost at around 3 NM away from threshold and GS signal is lost if you are a bit below the GS, though it is not lost if you are correctly in the slope. Both signals are lost for a brief moment. You should report this to ED, as it's obviously an issue with the map or DCS navaids, there's nothing we can do about it, since it's not an issue in our module. In fact, I tested it in A-10C and I could see the same behaviour. Since MinVody airport is at 1000ft, the OAT is aprox. 8ºC. You need to use engine anti-ice, and pitot heat as well, of course, since it's mandatory for all flights, but in this specific case, you could very likely have issues with air data instruments if you don't use pitot heat, due to ice accretion. Welcome.

Hi frumpy, Nose up tendency during roll: kengou already answered this. There is a vertical component of adverse yaw effect when you are in a bank. Coordinated standard two minutes turn: You keep making the same error. That rule of thumb is not precise enough. You should use the real formula, or you can find the bank angle for a certain rate of turn and TAS in this link: http://www.aviationwebdevelopment.com/samples/rateandradiusofturncalculator.aspx I made the test in our C-101 and in the F-5 with same correct results. The TAS for a 2 minutes turn at a 30° bank angle is 210 kts. At 1000 ft with ISA (29.92 inHg, 15°C) a TAS of 210 kts corresponds to 206 kts IAS. You can check it here: http://www.indoavis.co.id/main/tas.html Flying with those parameters, I get a standard two minutes turn with precision enough. It took me 2:02 min to complete a 360 to the right, and 1:58 to compete it to the left. We have to take into account pilot error, as keeping exact bank angle, speed and altitude is not easy. Check the attached screenshots. Bank scale: we have already corrected it, thanks. BTW, in a second attempt after correcting bank indexes, I got the opposite results, 1:58 right and 2:02 left, which could confirm that these minor deviations can be due to pilot error. Bank indicator: please do it the other way around, set the correct bank angle for a certain turn rate and check the indicator, you will see that there is no error. Take into account that there are induced pilot errors in the tests. Check the attached screenshot, keeping 206 KTS of IAS at 1000ft, ISA, and 16° of bank angle, which is the one that corresponds for a 4 minutes turn, the turn and slip indicator show a correct indication, needle on the mark. We consider our simulation is at a high professional level, we have used the real aircraft data and our developers are aerospace engineers. Of course, there can always be some unwanted bugs, including graphic glitches as the one you reported with several banking marks displaced 1 degree. Screenshots.rar

Thank you! :)

You men the adverse yaw effect then. In fact, it is only a very brief climb indication. It shouldn't affect your IFR flying as the aircraft will soon start descending. If you want to do a coordinated turn you should apply some rudder while the ailerons are deflected to keep the ball centred. BTW, SFM has nothing to do with AFM, if you had seen such effect in the SFM then you would have seen it in any other DCS module with SFM.

You are using IAS instead of TAS. I guess you did your tests at around 6000ft. In that case, flying at 6000 ft, if you set 230 kts of IAS and a bank of 30º it will take the time you say to turn 360º, around 2 min 20 sec. You should set an IAS of around 190 kts, equivalent to around 215 kts of TAS, which is the true airspeed you have to use for a coordinated 2 minutes standard turn. Take into account that the formula you use is just a rule of thumb and it's not precise. If you use the real formula, you have to set the IAS I told you for 30º of bank. You can check it in this web page from Luis Monteiro: http://www.luizmonteiro.com/Article_Bank_Angle_for_Std_Rate_05.aspx Regarding the climbing issue when banking, i don't see such effect. But if there would be any it could be caused by the adverse yaw as kengou said.

Hi. Currently it is not supported, but probably will be implemented later (no promises or dates yet).

We'll take a look at it. Txs for your report.

That was already in our to-do list. Bringing up the kneeboard linked to the map case. I find the F10 map feature a bit arcade.

Yes, multicrew is WIP. It will still take some time though.

Nice, thanks! :) The Mirage F1 is under development.

De nada. Un saludo.

OK, missed it. Anyway, there must be something wrong in your throttle, if it works correctly using keyboard. Did you try with other axis? (assign throttle to other axis).

There is thunderstorm set in that mission. Change it to rain and all will be good, if you use anti-ice system. I copy paste my own message from some months ago: In the middle of a thunderstorm, ice accretion can be so high that even anti-ice system is not able to cope with it, and that is what we also have coded. Unfortunately right now in DCS there is no option to set thunderstorms in a certain area, it is just thunderstorm on or off in the mission.

I confirm, W key was already there and we added the axis.

OK, I guess we'll have to join the arcade club :) Solved. In fact we had it already done for keyboard with W key. Check next update.

Nice that you solved it using keyboard. Did you check inside DCS that throttle moves fully forward? You can do it in control options and using the controls indicator (RCtrl + Enter).

Of course we can add it, but: You can't steer the C-101 bellow 40 kts without differential braking. It's definitely something arcade and would confuse some users, thinking they are doing something wrong or there's something buggy or missing. Even some users get confused now, so adding this feature would confuse people even more.

It should work. Please, check this video that I've just recorded.

Thank you. You are right. Having realistic flight models and systems is fundamental in any simulation, whether if it's a combat, or rather military, environment or a civil one. That includes the possibility to use a realistically implemented TACAN, ILS or whatever navigation or radio system, as well as hydraulics, electrics, etc. The possibility to train basic or advanced flight maneuvers in a trainer with a realistic flight model is also essential.

Fixed. Check next update.