ouPhrontis

Despite the tradition of what beta and stable software versioning in software would mean in other software; currently for DCS people are using what suits them best†, so I think it's for the individual to make up their mind which version to use; perhaps there's a feature you wish to take advantage of, currently as of this post the F-18 was available only through beta, perhaps another module only has a moving map on test in beta and so on. No software will be completely bug free, all code sucks to some degree, it's just some code sucks less than others, so use the bleeding edge versions with the understanding that not only 'There Be Dragons', but that by not having the availability of a public beta branch; they'll be fewer eyes on the software and therefore those few individuals that send comprehensive bug reports will be limited to in-house. †Which is great; so long as users understand that usually with concurrent stable and beta releases of software - not just DCS - beta is more prone to change, due to it being a test-bed, before being considered for merge into the stable branch.

Can I have access to the time-machine you're operating?

I feel the need, the need for a Kenny Loggins royalty payment.

On looking at the poll options, should it really be limited to existing modules? I think I understand the reasoning, that it's because the bulk of the work is there, at least for models and so on, yet I cannot help but feel that perhaps for FC something different should come to the flight-line, something that would normally be overlooked due to lack of granular detail that'd warrant the simpler flight model and yet could also complement the higher fidelity models too; say a flyable S-3B with buddy refuelling, torpedoes, bombs, rockets and ECM.

The difference is that one ought to* have some feedback to know you're engaging reheat, those that flew the pattern would probably not wish to be hitting reheat whilst trying to maintain a good circuit and not get too far off their numbers. *In reality, don't mistake this for me advocating for unrealistic lights etc, I'm not. I am all for 1:1 cockpit realism, the throttle in the actual F-18 AFAIK has a mil to reheat bump.

If the WOD is straight down and strong enough to add a buffer; I don't see why not.. as to whether that'd ever be sanctioned in reality... doubt it, unless there's unusual mitigating circumstances, wartime etc.

Mine might be, odd: What I did was to try and go one-to-one for lateral and roll movements (ish) and keep yaw pitch at a smooth but accelerated style, it felt weird to have a mid-point indent of little-to-no movement. This was to minimise head movement side to side and a little fore-aft, as in an actual aircraft you're strapped in*, usually with a multi-point harness. *There are in some airframes a strain-relief lever so you can shift about a bit more. DCS.zip

I suppose CGI will save us from seeing them engaging <insert-substitute-here> Personally I'd prefer to see them carrier landing Folland Gnats post grocery run. Yankee Doodle Floppy Disk, this is Foxtrot Zulu Milkshake, checking in at 700 feet, request permission to land.

Check this out, too; 8.2.10 Landing Pattern. Page 354 onward. from; https://info.publicintelligence.net/F18-ABCD-000.pdf From the LSO perspective; https://info.publicintelligence.net/LSO-NATOPS-MAY09.pdf

Oh fantastic, thanks for the response on that. It'd be interesting to explore if there's a limit to the length/size/channels, I recall back in the day with ARMA2 we'd have to break up audio files to say play music, as it was limited to N seconds.

On a brief search of the internets for black A10s, I can throw a spanner in the works; Behold, a Snow Hog; https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/2000/1*1CPPAE1ZENVJGaICB3jzpA.jpeg https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*gxNLZ-0Hzy3tajP8BZZjSg.jpeg https://medium.com/war-is-boring/in-1982-gorgeous-a-10-snow-hogs-trained-in-alaska-fb972d3c0160

As with any aircraft, it seems to ring true in simulations; finger and thumb, no need for a death grip and rarely any need for large deflections.

That's quite surprising, considering how niche this side of flight simulation is. Excellent work ED.

Oh I absolutely understand that, yes, I got a strong indicator that it was a trials thing, that they had one jet strapped down in the very centre of the deck and an observer recording the show. I assume you highlighted that as an extreme example though, such that under normal circumstances a change of heading would still be accompanied by a (lesser) rolling of the deck that perhaps we're not currently seeing in DCS?

That is insane, I cannot imagine that manoeuvre would be done on a regular basis, only in an emergency, as everything would need to be strapped down, all hell would be breaking loose above and below decks otherwise.

Yes, Ctrl+Z increase speed, Alt+Z to decrease speed, and Shift+Z to return to 1:1 speed.

Just been messing with track replays, I can change view. That's in 2.5.2.*

Love to, but TrackIR works well enough for me at the mo', looks/sounds awesome though. Fox; in that track - I should've mentioned - it seems you can only view my inputs whilst in the cockpit, I think all my TrackIR inputs are included though, apologies for not cutting out the startup, you could fast-forward through it with Ctrl+Z and then go to normal speed with Shift+Z At no point did I engage auto-hover etc.

Here's a quick hover I slapped together just a minute ago, you can see my inputs by pressing Ctrl+Enter. The inputs aren't huge. sa342_crude_hover.trk

There's trim on the CH stick, but I never use it, I trim within the simulation, and due to flying out there in the real world I was taught to always make use of trim, it lessens the workload. You'd be surprised how you can think you could hold a constant pressure on a stick in a real aircraft and keep level or climb/descent constant, one glance away whilst looking out for traffic and when your gaze returns to the front and pit; you're no longer where you want it to be. It was trim for level and show me your hands from the get-go.

Maybe it's different for each manufacturer's product, but for my CH stuff they offer a calibration tool, because for whatever reason if you don't do that; full ranges are lost in some axis and that can lead to over-sensitivity or loss of range, so after booting into Win; I have to go through calibrating each input device, and the range of motion for each axis. Laborious, but necessary (for CH things).

I think I need to get the UH-1H to compare this against. Whew well that was some bucking bronco right there on watching your second track - I was playing Bad Moon Rising CCR at the same time for effect - it's tough to say what's at play, because from my perspective it does look like a series of over-corrections again, I'd be looking to see if the input devices are calibrated correctly at that point and not over sensitive, though from the sounds of it you've probably already ticked that box. I initially found it tough to spot land the Gazelle, but I've not had it get wild on me like that, and nice one on trying to see if steady speeds can tame it, it will of course do about 200 kph without issue, but getting into a prompt hover takes some relatively aggressive inputs. I did notice you seemingly enter VRS once or twice too, or at least have a high right of descent in the hover, rather than rip up the collective at that point; exit it laterally with cyclic. Kudos for sticking at it though, it's probably one of those things that'll have everything you're doing click in place.

Cool, very green with envy here. If I was making that decision; I'd go for one which would accommodate a stick between the legs, rather than off to one side. So a gap, much like you see with an ejection seat.

Okay had a watch of your track. Without directly seeing your control inputs (there's probably a feature in Tacview I don't know about, or don't have access to with the free version) it seems like you're over-correcting in several places, but most noticeably AT input, this would compound other areas due to each control having an influence on the other, at that point you're trying to control the yaw and then notice you're out of position and give it loads of cyclic input and it turns into a chasing game. It's not gonna be easy with twist grip for AT, but subtle inputs will be the key, so coming into a hover for you might be best doing it progressively, slowly scrubbing off speed, I did notice you do this, and as AT input becomes noticeably necessary; go easy with it, correct for each thing in turn. The difficulty for you I think is keeping a heading in the hover, and then everything else comes unstuck, AT input creates subtle moments in other areas which while if unchecked can cause a series of PIOs if unnoticed or acted on late. When in hover with the Gazelle and most all convention rotary wings; a constant off-centre amount of pressure on the AT pedals is required to maintain a heading, adjusting the collective and cyclic change the amount, too. I think all that would be much easier with pedals, because currently one hand is doing the work of two inputs, I cannot imagine this is easy. Apologies if any of this is old-ground and teaching you things you already knew.

This is business as usual here, too. I just invert them in settings. CH Pro pedals.