Jump to content

Flamin_Squirrel

Members
  • Posts

    2663
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Flamin_Squirrel

  1. I don't think I see anything wrong here. I expect the wings on the real thing can take more than 14g without snapping. And the FCS isn't foolproof either. Abrupt stick commands can exceed the capability of the G-limit system.
  2. They'll use them sometimes, but not in a tactical environment. That's what both Frederf and Jeepyb refer to. edit:// looks like I'm contributing to a topic derail. Apologies. I won't say anymore on this matter.
  3. That's civvy altimetry, exactly what Jeepyb just said they wouldn't use.
  4. You're talking as if it's something they can do but chose not to. Maybe that's the case, but, if this isn't even something that's possible in ED aircraft I doubt it would be straightforward.
  5. I'm only theorizing, but MP seat switching (not being possible) might be a DCS limitation rather than something HB chose to disable.
  6. :huh: That's a separate issue, so now I'm not sure what you're struggling with.
  7. TACAN works fine. Can you post some screenshots so we can help?
  8. I do have a point. You're just not listening. Yes you're right users should put some effort into their own research. But even the NATOPS won't give you all the answers. Combined with more incomplete modules, understanding what's correct or not is only going to get more difficult, and more threads asking questions will be an inevitable result. If you disagree with that, come back with a counter point instead of more insults.
  9. Right. Except it's not always obvious to someone if they've made a mistake or found a bug. With early access becoming more widespread these questions are going to become more common. Unfortunately I see it getting harder to get answers, as the self appointed forum police attack people for not knowing the answer (even if they don't either) or repeat the "it's early access" line as if that helps anyone. Apparently questioning that behaviour has got me labelled as a whiner. I guess the irony of this statement went right over your head, because you just proved my point.
  10. Yeah that's how I expect it to work too; but (at least for me) it isn't doing that. Pulling the handle puts the brakes on full :shocking:
  11. This post reminds me of Lewis' law. The point of this thread is, as I see it, is: asking if people can please be permitted to raise an issue without others polluting their threads accusing them of raising a non-issue. ... and lo and behold, people are here, polluting this thread, saying it's a non-issue.
  12. IMO, this thread is aimed at the wrong people. There is very little unconstructive whining on this forum, and when it happens the guilty party is usually shot down fairly swiftly. Fanboys on the other hand are far more insidious. They shut down valuable debates on the pretext of 'defending' the devs and are often beyond reasoning with.
  13. It seems to me the only person making assumptions is you. You are in no greater position of knowledge than anyone else in this thread. And no-one in this thread (that I can see) is saying "this is definitely a bug". Someone made an observation about something that they couldn't recreate in the DCS module. Thankfully the guys at ED are more open minded that you, so it's now being looked into. Apologies the above sounds personal, and I tried not to be; I just don't understand why you're so sure no bug exists.
  14. I believe it's realistic. The crucial difference is the wheel is spring loaded to the middle in the real thing, which no desktop sticks have to my knowledge.
  15. Straw man argument. By that reasoning why bother with trying to make a sim even the slightest bit realistic even when following a checklist. Your point about where this bug, if it is one, sits on the priority list is valid but that's a separate argument.
  16. The checklist or warnings are not relevant. They neither confirm nor deny if the observed behaviour is correct. This is a SIM. Deviations from procedures should result in no less realistic behaviours than when they are followed.
  17. Oh, which one's that all about? Is it a GPS alt? Thanks in advance.
  18. I'm not ignoring your evidence, it's good stuff. But while your evidence says that you should T/O with flaps in half, it says nothing about what would happen if you don't. And that's the point. Thus far, no-one can say categorically if this is a bug or not, which is why it's an interesting talking point.
  19. I think much of the data pages are WIP. e.g. I don't think the A/C page is functional at all at the moment.
  20. Sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't aim for a realistic (and proportionate) response if we deviate. Learning and understanding the consistences of your mistakes is valuable IMO. The primary consequence of a no flap takeoff (in general, not hornet specific) is longer and faster takeoff runs. If you plan for it and are light enough that might not be an issue depending on the airframe. Thanks. I wish more people would be open to discussing topics like this instead of mindlessly dismissing them. The FCS will schedule flaps as a function of AoA and other factors (once weight is off wheels), so the switch may well have remained in auto.
  21. A video showing a RL auto-flap takeoff. Perhaps there may be other factors at play (who knows, maybe they're especially configured to be able to do this) in that particular jet, in which case it wouldn't be appropriate to the model in DCS, and the current behaviour is accurate. In which case, say that. If someone sees something strange and asks what's up, 'because checklist' is an extremely poor response and answers nothing. It stifles interesting debates, makes for a hostile environment, and people trying to learn the whys of this plane reluctant to ask questions. Also, what average_pilot said.
×
×
  • Create New...