MrYenko

All those systems were added in later versions, and all are much easier to retrofit to the airframe than anti-ice. Particularly bleed-air anti-ice, which requires rather substantial structural integration. The original A-10 is a much different, simpler, beast than the C model that is portrayed in this sim. Also, most Cessna 172's have ILS receivers. :P

Glad none of the Brits got hurt... Thats like the end of the godamned world. :cry:

A few thoughts... So far, we have 2 close air support aircraft. A fighter would certainly be possible, but there are some structural issues to contend with when looking at future aircraft development. I'd personally love to see DCS: F-111F, or DCS: A-6D, however, both of these are strike aircraft. The gameworld as currently presented, I don't think has enough space to properly portray that sort of mission. That doesn't even begin to address the concern about whether a 9 hour strike mission would even be fun... I also fail to see why DCS should be limited to present day aircraft. DCS: F-14D would fit very well within the curreent gameworld. Particularly if set in an 80s cold war gone hot scenario, intercepting soviet heavy bombers attacking the battle group. Similarly, an F-4 sim would be amazing as well, as well as being a multirole aircraft.

Engine driven hydraulic pumps are sized to provide full rated flow and pressure at or below engine idle RPM, for example, the most hydraulics-intensive phase of flight is approach, IE: you have all the primary flight controls moving about, flap extension, gear extension, etc, etc, all while the engines are at or only slightly above flight idle. Also, brakes use a very small amount of fluid to do their work. Essentially, the brake is already filled with hydraulic fluid, it simply needs to be exposed to pressure in order to clamp the brake disc. On most systems, the brakes aren't eve exposed to full system pressure, but are exposed to a reduced pressure supplied from a pressure-check valve. This doesn't answer the question about he simulation, merely provides some background. Also, anti-skid does NOT equal automotive anti-lock. As mentioned, aviation anti-skid is light years more advanced than ABS. Correct use of either system, however, is to use the amount of brake pressure desired, with no brake pumping. ABS is pumping far faster and more accurately than any human ever could, and anti-skid systems work best with smooth, even control inputs.

Bind and use the trigger 1st stage command. On the real aircraft, and I would imagine with the TM Warthog HOTAS, the cannon trigger has two stages, the first stage engages the cannon stabilization mode of the flight stability system, the second stage fires the cannon. Please note that none of the above are the proper terms, I'm on my phone, and away from the flight manual... I only have a single stage trigger on my HOTAS, so I have to use two buttons, but now I can put every round from a burst into a target only slightly bigger than a tank at 1.5km. The tendency to pitch up on cannon fire goes away. :)

I was using Modman 7.3 up to a few days ago when I had a hardware failure in my computer, with no issues. Great application. Fast forward to today, new quad-core machine, everything works great, and now Modman crashes on start. Always the same error, when it gets to "Clearing temp files," I get this. Problem signature: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Application Name: modman.exe Application Version: 7.3.0.0 Application Timestamp: 4bf61a2f Fault Module Name: PBVM105.DLL Fault Module Version: 10.5.2.7757 Fault Module Timestamp: 48be0ac5 Exception Code: c0000005 Exception Offset: 001a48cb OS Version: 6.1.7600.2.0.0.256.1 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Information 1: 28c7 Additional Information 2: 28c777163f2564a23e8de3a5fe7497bd Additional Information 3: 0073 Additional Information 4: 007347ac8c01ac1639a5d53d87b3405b Any help'd be appreciated. :helpsmilie:

I was on a fresh install on a (relatively) fresh OS install, installing from the website download, and I remember clicking simulation during installation.

First, my track was recorded towards the end of about an hour of me running into hills because I was having insufficient collective response, therefore, I was not as objective as I could have been. Second, the godamned thing was in game flight mode. Made me look like a hero, in terms of stability and clean manuevers, but not exactly what I was looking for. Somehow, game flight and realistic avionics were selected, and I didnt realize that was even possible, so I assumed that since I had complex-systems, I also had complex flight-model. Not so. USER ERROR. :doh: Thanks for the feedback, though. With the flight model now set to realistic, it behaves exactly as you describe, and how Ive learned it should. Also, I never knew it had the nifty flip up glareshield for the HUD, so it wasnt a TOTALLY useless post. :P

Track attached. Note immediately after takeoff, I even tried the Flight Director mode, holding down the brake, and swinging the collective around like a madman. You can see it in the commanded blade angle indicator. Compare and contrast with the VSI. I'm annoyed. collectivebrakesucks.trk

I seem to be at an impasse with the ever-lovable AFCS. It seems that even with the Altitude channel disengaged, the altitude hold mode switch (Radar/Baro) in neutral, and the autopilot command switch on the collective (Route/Descent) in neutral, the AP is still trying to hold altitude. I have to move the collective at least 20% in either direction to get any result, even using the hold-and-move method with the collective brake. Needless to say, 21% more collective than I want results in... Odd flight behaviors. (ROLLERCOASTER OF ANTI-TANK LOVE) My understanding is that with the altitude channel offline, I should be having unfettered collective control inputs, is that wrong? Am I missing something? :joystick:

Mine is tanks. It seems like some of these tank gunners need to get out of the armored branch, and into scout/sniper school...