Jump to content

-0303-

Members
  • Posts

    761
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About -0303-

  • Birthday 01/01/1995

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Very interesting. I thought it was the magnet and therefore harmless, maybe not. I've not been using it a lot lately but I'm certainly taking notes. I will take it apart (again) eventually, I'm sure.
  2. Just a comment. Used to play another WW2 (arcadish) game long ago. Historical events "Scenarios" was the absolute highlight. Pearl harbor, Big week, Coral sea, Schweinfurt, Regensburg. Watching fuel, keeping discipline, protect the bombers, <profanity>posting on the common text channel ... This game had next to no offline play so community dynamics was different, "everybody" met online all the time (as opposed DCS which I learned is 90% offline players). Given volunteers doing some historical research and willing to "run" (*1) the events I think this has great potential for community building. *1) By "run" I mean player admins with the power to start / restart the Scenario, bounce griefers, readmit disconnects etc. I don't know how DCS works in this regard.
  3. Found on reddit with no information. Reverse image search found this Russian page. https://military.wikireading.ru/27607 Caption. More good I-16 stuff there. I Bookmarked.
  4. It used to be the window could be dragged but now it's fixed in upper left corner. Is it just me? Obviously a minor inconvenience ...and it works again. Something temporary. Scratch report.
  5. "Bismarck", the youtuber talks about this in this video. Watch from 23:45 for example. Start 22:45 for everything(?) LSO this video.
  6. Yes it does breaks suspension of disbelief because it's doable in the physical world and it has been done. Last time famously by a Cessna Bird Dog on USS Midway. Landings and takeoffs can already be done. I'm only asking for the planes to not be thrown off the side by the repair algorithm. Like it worked pre ver 2.6. In history Hurricanes was evacuated from Norway to a Carrier. Never mind it shortly got sunk by a German battleship.
  7. I've experienced autostart failing. it stuck at 20% and then shut itself down. Ove and over again. I got it started by manipulating the throttle after autostarting got stuck at ~20%. It started happening after an upgrade, can't recall when. Or at least don't recall it ever happening before. To vague it up some more, maybe it happened in cold temperatures. Also I can only remember it happening on the Stennis CV. This may have happened 6 months - a year ago.
  8. Same thing happens with Spitfire, P-51, P-47, Bf-109, I-16 ... Funny. When the algorithm sometimes puts those planes on a catapult, the tail wheel is placed on the catapult hookup. This "bug" breaks suspense of disbelief in a bad way. Seems just a small effort is needed to fix it. If ED doesn't want to redefine the plane center they could alternatively just exclude non naval planes from the move-to-catapult-or-elevator algorithm. Repair could work on the spot like it used to pre 2.5.6. Third option, only position on catapults. Suspense of disbelief. People (well me) like to explore virtual worlds. Land Harrier on a freighter. Land helicopter on a truck. Land a plane on the beach, grass field. Sometimes crash and burn, fine. Some limitations are fine. I wouldn't expect Tower to pass the Turing test. "Easy fixable" unnecessary limitations, like algorithm deliberately throwing your plane overboard, no. Besides, planes did land on CV's hook less. It was a part of WW2. Hurricanes was evacuated to carriers from Norway without hooks. Planes got ferried a lot on carriers. One guy lost his drop tank on takeoff, and landed his Spitfire back on the CV without a hook. Once I landed and took off the Spitfire 50 times in a row. I could've kept going except for a server reset.
  9. A simplified summary I prepared two years ago but never got around to posting. May update with corrections / more information. The solenoid 25386-5 can be bought here. The lamp AN3121-313 can be bought from Amazon or Walmart
  10. Is Su-25 an odd choice for a carrier trainer? Imagine A-10 for carrier training . Though A-10 has excellent visibility and a sturdy gear ... Doubt Su-25 was originally designed with Carrier training in mind. But they chose not to design a whole new plane. From a Russian(?) page about Su-25. https://soldat.pro/en/2018/07/06/su-25-grach/
  11. Original source political and omitted. Nice photo. I don't think ED should invest anything in non clickable cockpit planes. But if someone made a Su25-with-hook mod I'd try it. Hm.. Wikipedia states SU-25UTG was only ever a trainer for carrier landings. No more than 10 was ever active. Still active? Wiki is unclear. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-25#Variants
  12. Yes, if the horizon is aligned it'll stay that way for a while in DCS. Not what I'm addressing. Look at my first link: "On some modules, once the artificial horizon developps an error it is unable to correct it." In a real plane, If you fly "watercombed", no rolls, no loops or anything that "tumbles" the artificial horizon you'll never ever have to cage it because it continuously auto erects itself towards the gravity vector (~2-8 degrees per minute). DCS artificial horizons (Warbirds at least) does not do this. They should. In the Spitfire the error is obvious because of the inability to cage. In P-51, Bf 109 you cage and don't think about it. But caging offers the opportunity to easily get the horizon un-aligned for testing purposes: Uncage the horizon while rolled (30, 45, 60 degrees something). Roll back to level and the horizon will be un-aligned (30, 45, 60 ...). Now just fly straight and level and the artificial horizon should correct itself back to true alignment with the gravity vector (perpendicular to ground). The real Spitfire (Dover to Dunkirk timestamp 18:05-27:02) in the video above took 9 minutes. Note, you do not in any way need to fly perfectly straight and level to allow the horizon to correct itself. That would be an insane demand.
  13. No they don't. Not Bf109, not FW190. Not a single Warbird as far as I know, not F-5, not F-86 artificial horizon works as they should. Seems a general problem. Probably a lot more if tested. An easy test: Cage horizon, roll to some degree (45, 60...), uncage horizon and roll level. Now flight straight and level. The artificial horizon should reorient itself towards the gravity vector within a reasonable time (*1). Typical "self erection" rates are ~2 - 8 degrees per minute. The two videos I posted above are the best I come across in explaining how they should work. ~ *1) For the real Spitfire Mk 9 video above (Dover to Dunkirk), the time was 9 minutes (watch 18:05 - 27:02). That was a worst case situation, longest time I think. It started near vertical and recovery from right bias take longer time then left bias due to the earths rotation.
  14. a realistically gyro stabilized gimbal <cough> <cough> <cough>
×
×
  • Create New...