Flamin_Squirrel

No it shouldn't. The tanks are pressurised unless the probe is out or bleeds are off (or weight on wheels IIRC). Unless there's some other obscure information we're missing, it's a bug.

Damnit. Where'd you see that?

Wouldn't it be 3? We've not had October's update yet. Although that should mean we see something today, but it's been rather quiet...

Excellent. Now, how about an updated version of your carrier landing guide of yours :music_whistling: Thanks for your continued input! :thumbup:

:doh::doh::doh: Forgot I'd downloaded it. Can't find the online version now either. Sorry.

This guide recommends 17. *link deleted*

I'm not forgetting anything. And nothing you said contradicts what I said.

No it can't. At 350kts you'll cover 4nm in 41 seconds. Even with lead breaking overhead the ship, that leaves ~14 second interval between following aircraft, which isn't much.

I never said there wouldn't be any damage. I was responding to the idea that exceeding G limits would definitely result in wings snapping off. Nothing more.

You're still missing some1's point. Depth of field is a result of focal length, something our eyes have to adjust for (the same as a camera) and is one of the ways we perceive depth. Focal length is fixed in VR, so we've lost this information. VR only provides depth perception through stereoscopic vision - it's totally independent of focal length. Whether this makes much difference to the topic at hand is perhaps more up for debate, but the idea that it could seems perfectly possible.

There's a specific reason why the Apache is a challenge to get used to: All the helmet sights we have so far just display a bit of symbology, so very different.

In VR, helmet sight symbology appears in both eyes, but shouldn't it be right eye only?

No it isn't. Kickstarter allows entrepreneurs to offload much of their financial risk onto other people, while maintaining 100% of the equity in their company. It's a win win for you (and I don't blame you for using it). I, therefore, would not take on that risk for you without something in return: in this case, a heavy discount on the final product, which I personally don't think you're offering at the current prices. Just my honest feedback. Regardless, I hope you succeed.

The difference is if you don't receive anything from those companies, you can get your money back.

I've done a quick search and sure, most are generic boxes with less features, but the only one that I can find that comes close in price is VPC's box. Most cost half, or less, than this one. So not off to a good start on the value front, and when you combine with the risk of kickstarter, I think this is in the order of twice the price it should be IMO.

I'm sure you're right, and I totally accept that view. On the other hand, a Warthog throttle costs less, and has the added complication of moving parts. It's a lot of money, especially with the added risk of being a crowd funded product with no guarantee of delivery.

Looks very nice, but also very expensive for what it is IMO. Shame.

Waving hands? Check the outside view, is your launch bar definitely engaged with the shuttle? You might not be forward enough.

I think if systems had been released in a completed state it would have been sensible advice. As you point out though, it's been an exercise in frustration.

That's how the TACAN display on the HUD works, just to confuse you!

It sounds to me like you've misunderstood how to use TACAN. The arrow points in the direction of the course you've set. If the arrow is pointing up the HUD, your heading matches the course; if you turn, the arrow will turn accordingly. Its displacement away from the VV indicates whether you're to the left or right of the course you've set. In the image below, the course set is approximately 280, and the aircraft is to the right of course. Here's a VOR trainer that you can play with. It works in a very similar way to TACAN: https://e6bx.com/ifr-simulator/

What? The A10 released near as damnit feature complete.

It's not stopped updates on other modules. It's possible there's a specific reason why the SC has been impacted, but it's not unreasonable for the OP to ask the question without the default "it's EA" excuse being regurgitated.

Agreed, I also find this a problem.

Looks fine to me. Bear in mind that as you increase G, your ability to remain level becomes more difficult to maintain as the plane becomes more sensitive to bank angle.