Ornithopter

Hi, I have a new problem with Simshaker For Aviators + Sound Module. Recently, I've started getting the following error: Simshaker no longer connect to DCS. I am almost 100% certain that this is related to my recently updated VPN, as the error does not occur when the VPN is paused. Other than turning off the VPN, which is not an optimal solution, what can I do?

Other than spot things and work the sight and shoot the missiles, what other responsibilities does the front seater really have, in real life?

Since drive space is obviously a concern for a lot of people whenever a new terrain is released, I found this post with info on how to do symbolic links for DCS terrains.

Muchocracker, LoL, you are trying to be reasonable again, and you know that hasn't really worked so far in this thread. Pilum has said that he is leaving the thread anyway, having said the same thing over and over ad nauseum, each subsequent TL;DR post only different from the previous one by the increasing level of obnoxiousness and self-righteousness. Most of the people on this thread seem to realize that despite us all wanting "realism", its ultimately a video game and that the developers will do their best with the public material available.

I guess the time has come to learn how to do symbolic links or something on Windows, because my 1TB DCS drive is starting to hurt. We can put a map on a different drive and get it to work, can't we?

I tend to snake down the runway in most planes, not just the F1. I reluctantly used the calibration tools to tweak my toe brakes (MFG Crosswind pedals) so that I get full brake deflection from each wheel at about 50-75% of the total movement range, and it helps a bit. An alternative, and probably better solution might be to physically adjust the pedal position and angle to better match my desktop setup and my feet. The difference with the F1 compared to other airplanes however, is that the aircraft seems to have very narrow gear and is therefore very tippy.

The Bullpup, by comparison, is clearly a very Dumb weapon. It might even rank up there with the dumbest weapons of all time!

Laser guided bombs, Mavericks, Walleyes, and Shrikes are sort of considered Smart. aren't they?

Interesting. The VVI is "instant" in the Phantom? There is a table in the real F-4E manual to calculate "altimeter lag", so I'm aware there is also that. My eyes gloss over that kind of stuff. However, I'm not of the impression that the the VVI works instantaneously. Are you guys sure of that? Generally, when I'm flying level, or level turning, I'm primarily referencing the movement of the Altimeter needles, and the VVI as secondary, because otherwise I tend to Porpoise too much, hence my advice to the OP. It seems that if I try to make small corrections based on the VVI, especially during a turn, I'll end up falling behind the needs of the aircraft, and my altitude keeping will suffer. But I don't seem to have that problem with the Altimeter. Frankly, I've spent too much time placing a velocity vector on the horizon line on a HUD, with planes like the Hornet, so have probably gotten very sloppy in general.

Don't know if you're doing this, but don't use your Vertical Velocity Indicator as a primary instrument during a turn. Watch your Altimeter and determine how your vertical speed is trending based on the movement of that needle, not the VVI, because the VVI lags, and so will your control inputs.

In real life, was it always standard procedure for the pilot to do all the pointing and slewing? Did they ever have the pilot point the nose at the target, and then have the WSO do the precise slewing and locking part? As pilot, unless my target is a building, I find it a bit difficult to get more than 1 Maverick off on a single pass, at a single vehicle, and with a reasonable standoff distance.

How do you know, though, Lord?

This is really un-Hip.

The UH-60L would be a good fit too, because it would fit into both 1991 and 2003+ Iraq wars, or even a later. I'd rather have the L.

If you're so intent on learning what a "real pilot" knows, then why don't you take private piloting lessons, and earn your PPL? OK, everyone gets your point, the Yak-52 and other training aircraft in DCS aren't teaching you what you want to know. You've been given many opinions, but your views seem to be unchanged, and unmoved from your original post. What more does anyone need to say about it?

@dcn It seems you're looking for a flight simulator to spoon-feed you everything you need to know. No matter what plane you choose to learn on, just like in school, it helps to have a textbook, and you must do your homework. As pointed out by everyone here, there are all kinds of flying resources. For example, you might start with something like the Airplane Flying Handbook: https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/1117 . That book alone probably has half a dozen pages just dedicated to turning an aircraft. It will explain basic manuevers, patterns, constant speed props, and many other useful things.

The F1M is my most anticipated plane in DCS, and all of flight simulation right now, just to put it out there.

Start with a FBW aircraft for the "Ab Initio" training, so you can master basic skills? OK, whatever works for an individual brain....

I would suggest your brand new to flight simming friend get the C-101 and the Flaming Cliffs 2024 module. If they want to learn the basics of flying, since they're so new, they can learn on the C-101. If they want to fly an F-15 or even an F-5 in easy mode, they can do that too. They can even do Brrrrt in the A-10A. And you would suggest they fly, what? The Thunderbolt II? A non-flight-simming buddy that has what kind of hardware? Is he going to buy a Thrustmaster Warthog right off the bat? As you say, "That would be sure to get a laugh." If they have a different level of experience on the other hand, like years of flight simming behind them, that's a different matter entirely.. The op suggested that he wanted to learn more real world piloting stuff. If all he wanted was a very complex video game, then I doubt he would have made this topic. Quit pointing out that there are no real world consequences to crashing in a flight sim. No kidding? Do you think we are all that stupid? I'm just saying it's a matter of whether you are actually as good at your video game as you think you are!

I'm going to guess that some of non real pilots in this thread started doing flight simulation with some version of MSFS flying Cessnas and learning how to do the very very basics, before DCS even existed. As with a musical intrument, most people benefit from playing scales before they play a Zeppelin song. Don't assume that everyone just jumped into some complex aircraft like you claim to, without having a significant amount of prior knowledge and skill. If you started with one of the most system-wise complex aircraft in DCS not "knowing what the flaps are for", that's great. Congratulations. There is something to be said about jumping into the deep end of the pool to learn to swim. But I'll bet there are a heck of a lot of things you don't know compared to virtual pilots who started with simpler airplanes, in simpler sims, and possibly decades before you. The original poster wanted to learn how to "fly" in a flight simulator, acquiring the basic skills comparable to what a real pilot might learn. His main problem seems to be that there is not enough tutorial material provided with the so-called training airplanes (of which he appears to only have the Yak-52). As you point out, there is an abundance of tutorial material on the internet or in books, so that's his problem--you get out of flight simulator what you put into it. Regardless of the tutorial quality of some of these airplanes, some posters in this thread are simply suggesting that easier training aircraft can be useful, starting with something simple and working your way up. For someone brand new, there is something to be said about a very stable airplane with little more than a stick, a rudder, a throttle, and a 6 pack of traditional gauges. As I said before, you've stated that you don't actually own any of the DCS trainer aircraft, so therefore you really don't have any idea what you didn't learn from them, or their provided tutorials.

Using BJ55's bomb table example from above, the release altitude is 1000 ft and horizontal release range is 2603 ft. You say "You should meet the planned profile at the moment of release though, so that your entered Drag Coefficient matches." What if the drag coefficient is more or less correct, but I'm 500 feet too high, or I'm not exactly perfectly level around the predicted time of release? Aren't I going to still miss the target by a long way? Are you saying that the WRCS is smart enough, without Radar or Laser ranging, to automatically adjust the Release Range based on my deviations from the originally planned profile, as long as I push and hold the bomb button at exactly the right moment? Additional question: What if my initial speed or altitude are off as I overly the IP and push the bomb button to start the sequence? Because the WRCS is doing things dynamically, that shouldn't matter, should it, as long as I am physically right over the IP? Or does it?

So SharpeXB is arguing that eveyone should just jump into planes such as the A-10C because that's how he did it, therefore planes like the Yak-52 (or even the jet trainers) have no purpose. I'll totally agree that there is a wealth of training materials out there in the world. But you, DCN, are arguing that you need an airplane to teach you such things as the ability to "turn correctly". Whether the included tutorials are up to the task of not, isn't the Yak-52 the appropriate plane for you to be able to practice those basic skills?? If you're at that level of skill, wouldn't you want to learn to fly the simple stuff in a basic airplane? If you truly think the trainers are worthless, then sure, go jump straight in to one of the airplanes with the biggest learning curves in the game!!! On the positive side, a plane such as the A-10C is very "easy" to fly. But not as easy to work the nav systems or weapons systems. You might even be so sharp that you'll be rattling off Mavericks and working with Bullseyes and SPIs in no time,lol! But keep in mind, none of the tutorials for those more advanced aircraft will teach you basic airmanship, any better than the trainers. I truly think you will be a much better flight simulator pilot if you learn the basics of flight in a simpler aircraft. I'm talking simple stick and rudder stuff. If I was coming to flight sim brand new, I probably wouldn't have picked DCS as the very first one, but if that's all I had, and those training aircraft had existed back then in DCS, I would have definitely taken advantage of them. I'm glad they exist now, because it helps me even now to go back to the simple stuff, instead of being one of those HUD-zombies or capable of doing nothing more than following a magenta line. It's amazing how bad one's skills can slip when you're never doing any more than just putting a velocity vector on a virtual horizon line on the HUD.

So you're saying that you don't even lift, bro? Full disclosure: I only have the C-101, but that's enough for me to weigh in on this discussion, isn't it? But how could you possibly be so vehement in your opinion about the value of these kinds of aircraft, if you don't even have any of them? If Aviodev ever gets the Sea Eagle cruise missile in order, I'll bet I could penetrate a wall of Zeroes, get in to the Japanese fleet, and sink the Shokaku with the C-101. You keep pointing out over and over that it's just a video game, so why such lack of imagination and rigid thinking when you ponitificate about the worth of such an airplane, and how others should value it?

I think most people would agree with this, generally, although a step ladder approach to learning would be preferable to many. Re-reading the original post, he is primarily talking about the Yak-52, which has no weapons, therefore he questions it's usefullness and playability. That's a personal choice (many enjoy flying a GA airplane in MSFS, where there is no combat at all). Since Combat is DCS' middle name, it's understandable that one might not be interested in non-combat aircraft. But let's keep in mind that the MB-339, C-101, the L-39, and even the Mirage F1BE, are also fully combat capable. There are all kinds of combat scenarios that these aircraft can fit into. You can strafe trucks, drop bombs the old-fashioned way, and you can dogfight with guns or IR missiles. If playing online, an optional human player in the back seat obvoiusly doesn't have to be an instructor of any kind; They can act as WSO, Navigator, a FAC, or just a buddy along for the ride to chit chat. It's really all up to the imagination.

If I was starting flight simulation as a complete newbie, and was brand new to full fidelity DCS planes, I think I might look very seriously at a trainer aircraft as my very first module. Maybe people who consider themselves experienced in DCS, or are real pilots, forget that there are basic things to be learned. The people in this thread alreadt know how to fly patterns, do radio navigation, fly at night, instrument approach, drop a bomb, etc, but if you were completely new to it, it would likely be easier to start with something simpler than a Tomcat or a Phantom. Even the F-5 could be overwhelming to someone compIetely new. I imagine there are people that don't even know what the flaps are for! I didn't say a trainer aircraft is "necessary" for a video game, but traditionally one starts with arithmetic before algebra, don't they? There is certainly nothing wrong, and probably everything right, with someone sending themselves through a simulated "real" training pipeline with the appropriate level of complexity at each stage, stepping up to more complexity in increments, instead of just being overwhelmed.