ouPhrontis

I pick references out the quarter-panel windows as mentioned before, that coupled with the slip indicator, though don't keep your head stuck in the 'pit too long; you should still be able to glance at the slip to the edge of your vision as you up throttle 'til the nose comes down. Though don't rely on the slip indicator for such things, tail dragger endorsements will have an instructor hide it, use it in conjunction with other cues.

I'd like to see the text chat disabled, too, though I'm sure it'd annoy a lot of people that rely on it. I'm aware we can individually switch it off, but I mean a server side disablement.

Certainly better than having ones noggin in the 'pit whilst eyeing the meatball.

Flying the Gazelle here and I don't use dead-zones or curves, also as with what I've gathered from those flying the UH-1H; don't try to correct every little deviation, make subtle corrections for each moment and wait a second to understand the effect it's had, because it's all too easy to attempt to apply multiple inputs to correct for all the yaw, pitch and roll moments and it become a chasing game of PIOs. Eventually it can all be pieced together with muscle memory.

Look back at the room where you're situated, too, as there may be something shiny/reflective that the camera is confusing for the TIR-clip.

Tangmere is up the road from me, lovely place and they have a couple of Harriers there. Yes it'd be great to have some accuracy over the airstrips, having personally flown to local airfields that were actively used during WWII and even WWI (like Old Sarum) I'd love to see these realised to some degree of accuracy; I don't mind popping down there and getting some material either, because Old Sarum still has some of the original buildings standing... any excuse to have a ganders at a Harrier and grab a cup of tea and some biscuits, of course.

I'd seen extensions for the Warthog stick that would somewhat mitigate for the dead-zone PIOs, and one could apply a curve to the cyclic axis; though I've so far gotten away without doing that. Currently I find I can get satisfactory control of the SA342 with the CH Flightstick, though it's a little bit of 'pat-your-head-rub-your-tummy-and-tap-your-feet' for a zero ground track hover.

I'm aware he has 4, DDR3 is not outdated for this application at all. But for modern boards that support DDR4 (and if the build is new that no RAM has been acquired yet) it'd be best to go with DDR4, the price point may even be the same, plus benefit of denser ranks. Gaming wise, you will not notice the difference. Rendering a complex scene in 3DS Max however, or high definition video editing/rendering; one may experience time savings.

There'll be very little to no noticeable gain from DDR3 onwards with gaming. You'd only really notice the difference if you're heavily into CAD or related things and render times were an important concern. People obsess over RAM speed lately, particularly overclocking, don't go that route either, unless you enjoy flirting with corrupt data Long and short of it; DDR4 is a-okay, heck DDR3 would be just fine too.

That'd make for an interesting callsign.

Cool your jets, Turbo; there's nothing stupid about this at all, this is how the programming world has operated for quite some time. Open Beta is there for public testing and feedback, don't fancy walking into undesirable crashes or broken functionality; stick with stable. By way of example, operating systems like those of the Unix, GNU/Linux variety; if someone runs an unstable version of it, they are effectively stating they're willing to troubleshoot problems, otherwise stick with stable.

Because 2.5.1 is available for public testing, we can all chip in and test it to lend feedback, more eyes on the prize. The changes in Open Beta should be considered unstable. Stable does get updated as it progresses, when 2.5.1 is considered stable; your 2.5.0 install will be updated.

Well I picked this particular airframe for discussion because it was somewhat used in a light CAS role, or at least intended to be. Next to that was seeing the rather absurd inclusion of the P51 for recon and cargo runs on Blue Flag's NATO / Warsaw Pact conflict server, this to my mind is far more fitting. -edit- I would also like to see a C-123, but it's rather big to fill the current role people are using the P51 for on Blue Flag, and the C-123 wasn't armed, unless you count Agent Orange.

If you already have 2.5.0 installed and you download and run the installer for 2.5.1; you will have two DCS World installs, one 2.5.0 and currently 2.5.1

Reflective things in view of the camera can mess with it too, so any shiny cups/glasses on the desk, pictures right behind you etc. I think the absolute ideal circumstances would be a matt dimly lit backdrop, so when I'm home it's full basement dweller mode.

And not necessarily with our knowledge, do you perchance have some grenades procured from the black-market, sir? Check the bags, check all of them!

I've only had wobble as you describe it when I'd inadvertently damaged the TrackClip-Pro for the headphone mount, they're really fragile at the pivot points (mine snapped at the fork to the three IR lights), I bonded mine back in place as the mechanical joint is very small. If yours is not damaged then I'd look at how you've got that mounted to the headphones, perhaps the clamp is loose. Oh, and be careful with the TrackClip-Pro, did I mention; they're fragile... I think they make them from biscuits. -edit-; I should add that the wobble will almost certainly be coming from the clip wobbling, whether you're using the baseball cap reflectors, or the pro clip.

This would be a fine fit with what we currently have, in my opinion. Served different roles, armed/unarmed, could also appeal to casual fliers in/out of DCS' hardcore base, and those looking for something of the fixed-wing variety for cargo runs in Blue Flag. It did have its issues though and only saw service with the US and Thailand, plus it was apparently rather fragile.

Curious, I wonder where the moon was positioned when that occurred. -edit-; Second thought, it's probably nothing to do with that, perhaps LOD change or issues casting shadows on angled surfaces.

Not so far no, but then I suspect that I've had sufficient airspeed to give the stabilizer surfaces on the Fenestron some authority to keep the boom inline with my direction of flight. Here's a quote from airbus; "Overall advantages of the Fenestron include significantly higher safety levels on the ground, during landing/takeoff operations in confined areas, and in flight; enhanced anti-torque control efficiency; reduced power demand in forward flight; and lower sound and vibration levels."

Not noticed that at all, on raising the collective in slow flight/hover; I've had to counteract for the torque-yaw with right AT-pedal, though on having enough forward speed much less to none-at-all was required. I've not lowered the collective aggressively enough in a hover state though to see if the opposite is true, due to not wishing to put myself in a close encounter with VRS.

Just an hour or so ago I flew a brief sortie in an SA-342 Lima and picked up my P2 from Zemo-Azhara, the instance he jumped in our radios went on the fritz (turned off) and went off freq, I was also locked out from using them, only P2 could adjust them, he had access to comms and NADIR, this was by no means a full test though, just heading back to Sukhumi for tea and biscuits.

It's always been there, at least I've seen it, it is just relatively small.

I'm not denying the presence of scratches on canopies, on the contrary (especially in GA where cost is more of a factor). We had cracks on some of the older club operated glider canopies from drops, with patches and anti-travel holes drilled. Your camera is focused to the canopy, when I fly; I'm not focused on that, I'm looking beyond it for traffic and so on. Those are light scratches along with apparently dirt, not quite what I'm seeing in the Harrier. Long and short, in my humble opinion, as a flyer; it could do with toning down.

No. I'm not interested in fictional content, for me the draw to DCS (and indeed its main strength) is simulation, albeit with some fictional scenarios.