Flamin_Squirrel

Ah now that could well be true, good point. May I suggest a bit more... diplomacy? You've put your point across much better in that short paragraph than in the last few pages. Just a thought. :)

Ultimate realism means starting with a prop plane, flying the sim for an hour then it uninstalling itself because you're not in the top 0.01% of people who didn't get chopped. DCS strives towards as much realism as possible. Adding features to make it less overwhelming to more casual players widens the player base without sacrificing realism for those who want it. ED understands that; why you don't is more of a puzzle.

Yep, that's not what I don't understand though - force or displacement, it's still just X and Y values. What has G got to do with that?!

:huh: I'm confused, I don't know what you mean by "G-stick".

Indeed it isn't that simple, because ED also get a cut of the sales - I expect that to easily compensate for the effort required to integrate the module into DCS.

I could be wrong, but I don't believe civil 737-800 have LVP capability either.

Again, you've made no case as to why having an option to make things easier takes anything away from the high fidelity modules ED produce. Also the FC3 planes have proper flight models, so to say they are nowhere near a simulation simply isn't true either. I'm up for as much of a faithful recreation of the real aircraft as we can get, but if DCS followed through with your argument to its logical conclusion, DCS would only allow you to start on prop trainers, then uninstall itself because you weren't good enough.

Good for you. Like it or not, most people flying DCS aren't that hard core. Options to make DCS accessible are already in it. Take them away and make it inaccessible to anyone who doesn't have several hundred $ of equipment and hours to burn learning the details, then it kiss goodbye to a significant number of players and quite possibly the future of DCS along with it.

This request takes nothing away from this sim for you or anyone else. And this sim means different things to different people, so you have no business telling others how to enjoy it.

Apologies if this has been posted before.

Right, but not the comment I was referring to. Move along.

SUBS17 likes to tell RW pilots they're wrong. Just ignore him.

Agreed.

Ironic that you've criticised people for not being willing to take the time to learn when you've not taken the time to understand their argument.

Yeah that ^^

No that's your opinion; I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt. Regardless, this argument serves no purpose. Help, or ignore the OP. No need to put the boot in.

Were they? Please consider that OP was asking what the CAP does, not how to use it. As far as I can see, a single paragraph outlining its purpose would have answered the former (e.g. it's for interfacing with various navigation, targeting and radar functions). RTFM would only be a reasonable response to the latter.

True, VPC do seem to have upped their game. Good to see!

If their grips where directly compatible sure you might have a point, but they're not.

Yes, hence the 'make more than four of them' comment!

I think you misunderstand; it was a cheeky response to whether there were any differences between each companies production being able to match demand :music_whistling::D

I saw something in your video that you can do differently that might help: don't set wings to auto straight away, wait until 300kts. You'll bleed speed faster, reducing your turn radius, so you won't have to pull so hard. That should make maintaining height a bit easier. Credit: Victory's landing guide.

That's outstanding MJDixon, I've only got a score that high in the Hornet.

Yes.

Hopefully this should do: