-0303-

I wanted to have the Carriers steam up and down the coast in an eternal loop. Googled and found this from 2013: "switch waypoint" doesn't exist anymore it seems.

A very good reason for Open Beta is that the majority of MP servers require Open Beta. If not going online you'd miss out. Without a poll I'd guess 90% use Open Beta, it's not a buggy mess, as "Beta" would suggest, it's really not. About getting trainer planes. Unlike real life, one can crash and burn indefinitely while learning. Go for the planes you're into. Grim Reapers warrants a mention. A popular youtube guy who has made tons of DCS videos: -DCS buyers guide playlist Also shitloads of tutorials for every plane, from assigning keys, taking off / landing, how to operate it's weapons. https://grimreapers.net/tutorials/

I got the DelanClip Gamer kit (£39.99 -> 52,67 USD). https://delanengineering.com/products/head-tracking-delanclip-gamer/ and the Strap Mount (£4.39 -> 5.78 USD) https://delanengineering.com/shop/Strap-Mount-for-DELANCLiP-p69711729 Shipping from UK not included. I used the DelanClip kit (PS3 camera + DelanClip) for a year and I would say the little metal frame is extremely sturdy (I've read similar plastic frames, not so much). With a head set or some other way to mount it, the Strap Mount isn't needed of course. I did not have to buy a driver software to make the camera work. I followed this guide: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/34403-a-complete-guide-to-set-up-head-tracking-opentrack/ and this, I believe, was the driver software I had to download (but not pay for) An important note of a small error in the Sturmovik guide. These menu settings (image below) are part of the OpenTrack software, they are not part of the CL-Eye Test software (as image erroneously suggest). OpenTrack menu is: PointTracker Settings -> Camera Settings These particular settings, especially gain / exposure are of a make-or-break character. With them set Tracking works almost out of the box (plus weeks of tweaking, not just curves, also threshold and other ... stuff). Without gain/exposure set as indicated, Tracking essentially doesn't work at all (dots are fuzzy and whole image full of artifacts. Gain needs minimized and exposure needs maxing out. After that there's three dots with zero background noise. Higher sampling setting 125 fps (320x240 res) works better than 60 fps (640x480) IMHO. I did read a lot of reading opinions reviews and found the opinion (by some at least) that the PS3 camera + clip solution is just as good as the more than 5x more expensive TrackIr https://www.naturalpoint.com/trackir/trackir5/

Anyway, most have seen this silly video where a Rafale mod goes down the elevator and parallel park on it's on own power. :music_whistling: No, that doesn't happen. Crews push and pulls it. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257247 Speaking of crew courtesy ..., if I visit with my Spitfire, I'd like the crew to be hospitable. I'd like an invite down the elevator too. An F10 command perhaps for whatever plane parks on the elevator (speculating: if not perfectly parked, the crew could adjust it a little, seems reasonable, real life'y). ~

^ Well, good! I need that, in at least one specific situation. I noticed if I retract the Su-33 gear while on ground, it gets stuck. Nose drops, gear folds halfway, but apparently it's no damage because repair (which also rights up the plane) refuse to operate (*1). Here I need a crane (on carrier or ground) and ask the crew to hoist the nose... Generally I'd really like the crew to help out if the plane is stuck in an impossible position (nose towards tower, stuck in grass ...). *1) Unless, repair has an issue where it refuses to repair unless the plane is completely motionless. Just a hypothesis, I'll post about that in 2.5.5 forum eventually. Repair works randomly on the carrier, more reliably on ground. Hypothesis being that it must be completely motionless to accept repair, but it isn't always on the carrier. Also, I did notice repair on ground didn't start while it was still bouncing slightly from my deliberate propeller breakage. ed/add1 -----Scratch that hypothesis (maybe). A second attempt just now, repair started while still rocking a bit. ed/add2 -----narrow further, repair command doesn't take with tail still in air, does take if tail down, even if whole plane plane still rocking

Whenever you taxied to edge of deck or too close to tower, asking deck crew for a push back, yes please. Dozens of deck , pushing them to lineup and in hangar (I know full P-47 wasn't carrier planes, but idea is the same). Both of these, walking and push back. If they can be done on the carrier, it would be a little silly to not be able to do that on land. On land you could be towed out of snow or pushed back if facing a building. Is this a crane for clearing fouled decks? Lifting airplanes? Doesn't seem big enough, maybe it just moves ordnance.

When it's working, it exists. The Kuznetsov upgrade could include the two tug boats constantly accompanying it, for when it breaks down (= not exist).;)

Not happened on Kuznetsov, true. So Su-33 isn't really meant to land on Stennis. But, neither is the Spitfire, P-51, I-16, Bf109 or A-10. Neither of those has had random damage/explosion for me. I wonder about the Carl Vinson now ... Never seen on any server, never used offline, so I don't know if it also is explody.

CVN70 Carl Vinson is. Stennis selectable in ME. I look through Encyclopedia sometimes to look for what 'stuff' exists. Now if a whole 100,000+ ton carrier is lost, what other 'stuff' could be missing? Unless there is a reason.

Started trying Su-33 carrier landing /takeoff today. Seems I've had 1 random explosion just taxiing and 2 random damage, one parked and one taxiing. Is this a known thing? Edit/add: Make that 3 random damage. One more just taxiing.

The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Philippine_Sea So no one misinterprets. This Wikipedia map is of course much larger than the DCS free Marianas map.

Maybe some day VR will get eye tracking.

Jester is a coward. I did a rhubarb, plow the field altitude, to take out russian APC and Shilkas (Hoggit training server) and Jester screamed and ejected. I do this all the time with Spitfire or P-51's.

Had that, landed fully swept as well ... but found the fix. Cheat autostart leaves the mechanical control in full sweep position. The mechanical control must be turned off. Then the electrical back/forward/auto will be in control. Electrical control is on right throttle. Mechanical control is right of right throttle (yellow lever). I think auto start cheat should turn mechanical override off.

Wing sweep control functions offline in Training, shore base takeoff. It is stuck full back online MP? Found it. After auto start the mechanical wing sweep control must be turned off / set neutral before the electric control can control it.

Same question. Ok. I read the free F-14 weekend bit.

Don't be concerned about learning the tail draggers. You can learn it, and when you do, it's very rewarding. The Spitfire is my favorite plane. Doesn't mean I didn't pull my hair in frustration at first. Now it's very easy. It's partly a muscle memory thing I think, like riding a bike. Taking off, focusing on a cloud helped me at first, to keep straight. How not to overcompensate is the muscle memory thing. For landing the two most important things, ball centered and low VSI. There's long threads about takeoffs/landings. A bounce, for example, isn't actually a bounce, it's landing with to much speed and when the tail goes down the wings angle up and it takes off again. That's why landing a three pointer is safe, speed is slow and the wings are already angled up so it can't, won't bounce. Normandy map is small. The best reason to get it is if you know you're going to fly Normandy MP servers. On it's own, the map isn't much.

Experimented some more. Found that unlocked tail wheel takeoff 'probably' isn't terribly difficult. What was difficult was having to balance the elevator a little down to make sure tail wheel is unlocked and not have added longitudinal stability helped by elevator full up on initial run. Was a little surprised to find that trim moves the elevator on power change with joystick immobile. In real life a "servo tab" wouldn't/doesn't do that. But without force feedback, this is, of course, how DCS had to model it. "Servo tab" type: A short video. Note, max back trim, hold brakes and power up will move elevator up despite me not even touching the stick. Elevator going up locks the tail wheel (which I didn't want in my experiment). So for my experiment I had zero elevator trim to have elevator not move at all unless I moved it with the joystick. Takeoff with tail wheel unlocked. Zero elevator trim, 6 degree right rudder trim. Note, I keep wiggling the rudder (watch the tail wheel) to show first the tail wheel being locked (and moving with rudder [21 sec]) and then, moving stick forward a little (watch elevator), tail wheel gets unlocked (not moving with rudder [25 sec]). Got a little OCD with the rudder wiggle, sorry about that. Similar to I-16 or 109, before releasing brakes I put full right rudder to counter initial left swing. A normal takeoff, again rudder wiggle to show that tail wheel is locked and verify that tail wheel does move with rudder during take off.

Yes, I saw the interview with the ex WW2 109 pilot that DCS consulted with in the long takeoff/landing threads. Brakes was routinely used when required. Not an issue of cheating I figured.

Tried that before. Tried again now. It's easy, very similar to with tail lock. Only difference, without tail lock, a little right brake is required. Full power? Usually Do 1.4 ATA. Easier with MW stoff and 1.8 ATA. Maybe because it accelerate faster, or maybe more prop wind over rudder. Put the 109 on the carrier in first attempt just now. Broke the prop but as they say, if you walk from it ...

P-51 has a wide wheel base compared to both Spit and I-16. It also has longer distance between main wheels and tail wheel. Seems it should be easier. It swerves very quickly. It's quite difficult. The only way to test this is by advancing the stick a little forward (to disengage tail wheel lock). By doing this I don't get the stick full back that helps stabilize the first few seconds of the run. It seems to me the P-51 is a lot less longitudinally stable than the Spitfire. Once getting a little speed with the Spitfire I'm home free. It's stable at maybe 40-50 mph (without any attempt to measure). The P-51 needs to exceed 100 mph before it's 'safe' and longitudinally stable (again without any attempt to measure). Am I imagining this?

It can fight itself, it has nationalist and republican skins (Spain civil war) /smartass. Overall I think it's silly to ask for matched counterparts for any plane. At least while the context is a small existing plane set. Each new plane made to expected standard is a big effort. Keep going for planes with the most interest and broadest appeal.

Also noted, accidentally, that it runs 10 km/h faster with tank nearly empty. 410 vs 400 km/h (91 boost/ 2300 rpm level 500 meter).

"Nav light ON" turns nav light on (green/red/white). "Nav light heating switch OFF" turns nav light off. What's "heating switch" about?

Confirm: No sound difference with or without WEP. Condition: Full throttle and rpm (2300/91), level at 500 meter, 400 km/h. WEP on: Boost goes to 107-108 and it accelerates to 430 km/h after a minute ca (level flight). WEP off: Back to 400 km/h. WEP again, engine quit. To much WEP, max 30 sec recommended. ~ Note, 500 meter alt indicated. Took off Senaki, didn't adjust altimeter for sea level. Interesting (or not): At low speed (150 km/h) hitting WEP makes boost go only to 98. One need to exceed 250 km/h ca (didn't test exactly) for boost to go to max (107-108 ) with WEP. Also note, rpm is max 2200, unless one retards and forward rpm lever, then it goes to 2300. As if breaking a wire perhaps. I seem to remember if one runs at 2300 even at boost only 91 for a long while, engine will quit.