beers

Beta Manual Typos what i got so far: :smartass: pg 27 1st paragraph "A-10 MissionsIn the 30+ years of operational service..." > "A-10 Missions" as a header, then "In the 30+ years of operational service..." pg 101 Figure 81. Landing Gear and Flap Control Panel the Landing Gear Position Lights all three say "N|SAFE" when one should have L, another R. pg 102 Landing Gear and Flap Control Panel: 7. Turbine Engine Monitoring System (TEMS) switch: "Not function" > "No function" or "Not functional" each reference to the T-Handle: "...shaped handles is located..." > "...shaped handle is located..." pg 130 Fuel System Control Panel: 5. Tank Gate Switch: "...can lead fuel center..." > "...can lead to fuel center..." pg 132 Throttles Panel: 1. APU Switch: "Batter Power" > "Battery Power" pg 133 Throttles Panel: 4. Engine Operate Switches : "Moving one of the switches to the MOTOR position will a throttle..." > Moving one of the switches to the MOTOR position "when" a throttle...

that got my spidey-sense tingling too. First mention I've seen of it.

YOU ROCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

XMAS is here already?!?!?!? ROCKin!

Alaska! Russia takes back it's old colony. Super-powers get it on ...

I think it's more about which processor you should buy... go for the fastest you can afford. Unless you have reason to need a quad core, you'll get more bang for your buck, from DCS and LockOn, with a dual core.

Can't you guys keep a conversation going for more than a few pages without digressing to your dreams of A-10??? Weren't we having fun with a new guy.

not 'throttle', you mean 'cyclic' right? let's not confuse this ;)

RAM is handy and a nice GPU is maybe helpful, BUT CPU speed is nearly the only thing that matters here. BTW, multiple cores hardly matter either. (maybe i missed it, but) ... what is your CPU ????? as you note that you are a programmer i don't expect we have to provide instructions on how to identify your processor type and speed, but if you are unsure, please let us know and we'll provide the extra 3 sentences of instructions. If you don't detail your processor type and/or speed, or provide the DX output, I don't think you are really taking part in this conversation between our community and you, a new and welcomed member.

I don't know about the pimpin' bit, but a map of NYC would simply ROCK. Helo-2-Helo dog fights amongst the sky scrapers!! But it wouldn't be all that much fun for the fast movers, so it's probably a no-go. :(

I have only done the red/blue and I think it adds to immersion. Like someone said, it's like your monitor turns into a window that you are looking through. More than that, the 3D vision gives your brain much more to work with than 2d. I find it is easier to land or perform complex manuvers in 3d due to the increased situational awareness. I don't fly with them often, but I found that using them for a few flights really helped refine my flying skills. It really gives you a better impression of sizes and distances, it almost felt more real in the HOTAS. The only problem with DCS: BS with 3D vision was the HMS, it flickers back and forth from left eye to right eye, so if you rely on HMS then 3D is very frustrating. Does the A-10 has any helmet mounted sight?

I love DCS again, thank you Paul!!!!!!!

RAMjb, over-clock your CPU. 2.4 is not sufficient for DCS (imho). I had a Q6600 o-c'd from 2.4 up to 3.6 and it did wonders. Then I replaced the Q6600 with a E8500 (3.1) and pushed it up to 4.05 and DCS is much better. Not familiar with ATI boards, but latest drivers might help if you're not on the latest. I get FPS drops as a battle comes into view and also as wingmen and other AI come to life.

Dunno what localized version of pre-1.0.2 that you guys were running, but my experience in 1. and 1.0.1 was that all voice com was in the language of my preference; English. Said it before, apologies for repeating myself, but we Americans (or "us 'Mericans" for you GW fans) are much better known for our indiscriminate spending than we are for our multilingual skills. (... or our English skills for that matter...)

Conure; I suspect the behavior you describe, where your pitch pulls up after you trim, is linked to you having ROUTE mode on. maybe? Not 100% sure of how this is supposed to work, but when I trim with ROUTE turned on, the trim is factored into your attitude, but ROUTE mode forces the airframe into a rather horizontal, flat position. (what i mean is that trim is factored in, but ROUTE overrides much of the intention of your trim) With that in mind, (again, not knowing if this is standard-op-procedure or just the way I figured things out), I use ROUTE to point myself to the waypoint (unless I'm pretty much that direction anyway) and then disengage ROUTE, trim my desired attitude/direction, go kill bad guys. Before I settled on that procedure I used to fly with ROUTE engaged almost the entire flight. Using ROUTE all the time, I used to peg the attitude at nearly 100% of the throw of the collective but the attitude would only be a slight bit forward and would give me about 210 km/h (where in that collective position without ROUTE mode engaged the Ka-50 would be well over the 300 km/h speed limit after a few seconds of flight). Hope that helps.

Thanks Dragon for thinking about it ... I suppose I will be learning a small bit of Russian... I would think new-users would find this a bit put-offish. I am hoping ED has some magic wand where they can make the entire language set an option. Remember, us Americans are better known for our indiscriminate spending than we are of bi-lingual skills.

Is it possible to get back the english radio speech that we had prior to 1.0.2? ??? I understand ED is going for "deep emersion" but really, is it more realistic for me to pretend I am a highly trained pilot in a flying death machine where I cannot understand the words said to me (unless I take my eyes off the world and look at the caption at the top corner), or is it more realistic and emersive for me to have radio communication in my own language even tho that language would never be heard in that flying death machine in real life? I mean... the cockpit labels can be in english. I am surprised how much it bothers me, but it is a heavy damper on my enjoyment of the game. Was this an oversight? Or is this a change by intention?

I have found that the mods by goldfinger35, http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=46389 help wingie's IQ. His mod #7 is related to AI IQ, not sure what he did, but I get a bit more respect, better luck with him taking up a stand-off position, if I send him after a general area, he seems to actually stop the attack once he has exhausted Vikhrs rather than going in with rockets and gun.

I tried the nvidia stereoscopic eye-candy (red/blue glasses) back in DCS 1.0 and found it pretty nifty. I had to dumb down the graphics settings in any way to save FPS, so it didn't look excellent, but it was quite cool. When LO was upgraded I got it and when I found that I got great frame rates I tried the stereoscopic (night carrier landing is quite an engaging experience in 3d) but something just felt off. I never flew LO before the recent upgrade so I had nothing to compare it to. I just recently drive BS through a mission with stereoscopic turned on and at first found the same, "this is odd" feeling that I had with LO. I reduce the 3d depth and flew some more and by the middle of the mission I think I have defined what is wrong. My determination of the problem is that my head position, relative to the hud and to the airframe, is skewed. If I center trackIR and my head is centered straight down the airframe, the visual 3d offset of the nose, weather-vane, frame of the HUD, all look to be in order, BUT the HUD symbols are squished to the left. The altitude bar (which is to the right of the symbology) is directly over the center line. Also, in this "center" position, the green circles that make up the HUD image are skewed as if my head is to the right of center (but I just centered trackIR in this position). If I them move my 6dof head to the left so that my right eye is looking straight down the center-line of the airframe, the HUD (half or wich is not even positioned on the glass of the hud) appears centered. And I just want to end with a mention that the HMS could be the COOLEST thing about stereoscopic if DCS could just make it appear on one of your eyes, and if it would not jitter back & forth. I guess it will be about 1-2 years before real good 3d becomes affordable, so no hurry, but really, this simulation in real 3d is mind-blowing.

related-but-not question; If the best way to install 1.0.2 is on a fresh, clean installation of 1.0.0, and if most of us here are already working on 1.0.1, it would stand to reason that just about everyone of us made our backup, uninstalled, re-installed and then applied the 1.0.2 update... so my question is, if the programmers KNEW they WANTED us to be working with a clean/fresh install, why did they waste the time of having the installation program make a backup on the fly? (I only note this because I had to do the whole thing 3 times, 1st time, didn't know about the "upgrade from 1.0.1 is not supported" and found out why, fps went to hell, 2nd time I got a blue-screen-o-death just before the installation completed, learned the lesson "don't install a new app on an oc'd machine on a hot day, wait until it cools down")

Dragon, you are a blessing to this community!

I'm no Frazer, so I look forward to seeing his thoughts on your question, but I will suggest that having the heading A/P disengaged will not get the results you want. Totally not a side note, the A/P is the core of your question (i think). I suspect you would benefit from experimenting with trim. When transitioning from straight to curved path I would have the trimmer button pressed. Holding the trim will sorta disengage the heading A/P, and then once I've established my turn (tilted in the angle and a little rudder as well), I let go of the trim. Try this and you'll find that you are trimmed into the turn and your heading A/P will keep you heading in a turn. As you near the end of your intended turn, depress the trim button again, establish your straight flight-path and let go of the trim, no slip. I think that's will help with what you are looking for.

YOU TOO CAN FLY A REAL HELICOPTER ... an R/C heli ... Experience the shift of simulator to real flight for yourself. There are a few simulators out there, some a bit $$ but some cheap, and there are all sorts of heli's. I taught myself how to fly DCS:BS, reasonably well enough to wonder if I could get a real one up and down without mishap. When I saw how current r/c helicopters have advanced in technology, it's a nifty hobby, so I took a stab. I bought a small fixed-pitch 4ch and a sim (that uses the controller for the R/C with a usb hookup), and here is what I learned; I first tried to get the r/c heli in the air. mistake. While waiting for replacement parts I tried the sim. I had the same trouble that crashed the real bird. duh. Corrected my mistake, invested several hours of practice and got to the level that I expected it a sure bet I would get the real r/c up in the air, 1 minute of steady hover, back on the ground. SURE BET. I tried to apply my sim lessons to the real r/c. mistake. While waiting for replacement parts I found a wealth of information on the web about learning to fly a "real" R/C heli, starting with "scooting" around on the skids on a flat floor and working up from there. I now can fly the little guy quite well, indoors, out in mild wind, nothing fancy, but functional take-off, flight and landing consistently (more than i can say for my DCS:BS skill). Summary of lesson; sim helps, but real is a different world.

Danny, ease up... the ED team has enuf pressure to get an excellent release. I think it is safe to say that they are not sitting on the finished product giggling at how awful it is for you to wait.

Clarification please, I understand the sabot to refer to the casing around a shell/bullet/projectile that makes a snug fit around the projectile as it moves through the barrel, but that the sabot is dropped from the projectile as it leaves the barrel. I know that the forum's standards of "queen's english" are loose, but we oughta be clear about military tech terms. Is wikipedia off on this word too?