ouPhrontis

It is isn't it? There's an interview on YT with the chap that put this together for the book, who himself flew Harriers in combat. Great read. For the curious, here are some records set with the GR.5 3,000 metres 36.38 seconds Andy Sephton 6,000 metres 55.38 seconds Heinz Frick 9,000 metres 81.00 seconds Andy Sephton 12,000 metres 126.63 seconds Heinz Frick

I don't run curves for flying the SA-342 or UH-1H, or anything else for that matter, that's with a normal short-throw desktop CH stick, it took a few minutes to hover-taxi accurately though. If you're constantly changing the input settings early on rather than stick at flying it, then I think you might be making things harder on yourself. From the Huey to the Gazelle they certainly aviate differently, but I wouldn't say one is harder than the other.

Art Nalls privately owns an ex Royal Navy Sea Harrier XZ439 and has demonstrated getting to 10,000 feet from ground level in 1 minute. Of course these time-to-climbs are competitive and they'll be carrying very little fuel for anything other than the record attempts, let alone anything else in there.

Also here, at chapter 'Another Racing Start' is described in detail a record attempt back in the day, with some parts of the flight coming close to your recording; Harrier Boys; Another Racing Start

It's from Jane's All The World's Aircraft, 1988; This was a record set, and there are events for different altitudes and aircraft types; but I cannot find any source material at the moment. Across the variants the initial rate of climb is approximately 50,000 feet per minute, of course that cannot be sustained, but it demonstrates how incredibly powerful the Pegasus is, especially with later variants (like the AV-8) where they lightened the airframe further with carbon composite wings etc. You could've gotten a better time-to-climb and gone further of course, with managing energy, but then also factored in (in reality) would be preserving the engine so it could be used again and not scrapped after.

Well, the early GRs did come with a cassette tape deck, for loading mission data into the computer, though you could run it in playback mode and pipe music through it, so probably apropos that you'd have 70s music, not sure how'd transiting to a CAS mission with Night Fever playing would grab me though!

If you're taking exception at the ability to nose up from a hover and climb vertically, yes; they really can do that, it was known as the Farley take-off, he often did it at airshows. In the video where you climbed vertically to almost 29,000ft in under 3 minutes, that time to climb is inline with earlier Harriers, like the GR.3.

The Harrier's powerful Pegasus has it still holding the time-to-climb record up to I think it was between 10-15,000 ft from ground level, it out-climbs the F-15 up to that point, after which the F-15 beats it to somewhere around 51,000 or more.

Agreed, in pure aviation terms the P-51 has power to weight in buckets; in order to get airborne one only needs a fraction of its power, which is why quite a few people get unstuck with it, that excess power it less noticeable in fixed-wing jets because there's no harsh roll/yaw moment when slamming the throttle open, plus with the TF-51 it is even more pronounced as it is no longer carrying ordinance etc.

It's a speed brake, I imagine the Tucano is quite slick.

It's misleading, DCS won't be using all those cores at once.

I assume there's a good reason for going with a laptop, being that for the same money you could build a much more powerful home PC.

BAE Systems own the manufacturers rights.

Perhaps there's something funny going on with the software used for turning the webcam into DIY TrackIR, conflicting in some way.

There's the rub, even at 192GB I'd have to leave enough to not starve the OS and so on from normal use of RAM. I am quite content with how spritely DCS and everything else is from the SSD's nigh-on full speed now. Bandwidth wise, this machine has two hyperthreading hexacore CPUs, triple channel for RAM, so that'd probably be the minimum way of trying such a thing. It'd be nothing more than a proof of concept, though I've not too much desire to mess around with this, or my DCS install (due to not wishing to upset keys etc). I'd certainly be interested if it works when/if anyone else tries it, the machines I have did have an option for battery backed-up RAM, though I doubt mine have this.

I think I found the line you're referring to, is this the one?

Excellent, will be very useful. Scan-reading NATOPS and I don't see this method mentioned though, I've probably overlooked it.

I successfully moved the entire DCS directory across to another drive without issue, so there shouldn't be any need for soft linking it. Sounds like you've messed with RAM disks before, so as you know they just appear to userland as another drive letter, I doubt there's anything more needed than what I had done with moving DCS from my OS drive to a PCIe mounted SSD. I might give it a go at some point.

I'm currently running DCS off an SSD mounted on a PCIe lane and that method pretty much hits the full 6GB/s the SSD is capable of with benchmarks, DCS loads in seconds. Though yes, as a proof of concept a DCS (or anything else for that matter) on RAM disk would be quite amusing. Though currently DCS occupies about 113GB, so I'd have to only select a few modules to test. I could bump my rig to its full 192GB limit, but I don't think I have the sticks available.

Everything in RAM is lost on a power-cycle, you'd have to start over each power-on, i.e. build a RAM disk, move/install DCS etc.

It is tempting, 72GB RAM here, but then of course none of it will survive a power-cycle, which for shifting things across etc would be a pain.

Perhaps straying off base a little, but it's on point regarding most radar SAM sites in DCS, learn the technique of getting the launch site on the beam when a SAM is launched, then notch it with a set of chaff released at intervals say once every .5 second in counts of 5-6, keep your eye on the missile, it'll be in lead pursuit when on you, then appear to lag once spoofed by the chaff. Remember; beam the launcher, not the missile, at least this works for radar guided missiles with the like of say; 6, 8, 9 etc.

What method are you using to disable the ethernet device?

The playback runs all the inputs from the player, so any slight error in reproduction at the beginning gets magnified the longer the track, I don't know how it records AI, other than a guess that if player inputs are faithfully reproduced then it'd follow that AI would behave as they did in the original live play-through.

In Unix you can nice processes so they take different levels of priority, I see there's a Windows equivalent at the command-line too, with start; though I'm not sure exactly how similar it is, but it could be worth exploring in this case, something along the lines of; START ["title"] [/Dpath] [/i] [/MIN] [/MAX] [/sEPARATE | /SHARED] [/LOW | /NORMAL | /HIGH | /REALTIME | /ABOVENORMAL | /BELOWNORMAL] [/WAIT] [/b] [command/program] [parameters]