Druid_

I think this has been fixed but to be sure can you attach a screenshot of what you are seeing please.

Depends on your C of G. Also if your landing on a ship you want to be moving forward.

Not always. Confined space FOB's and FOD ingestion problems don't always permit it. They certainly try to however whenever possible. There are limitations and procedures in place for x-wind Vertical take-offs and landings though.

If you have drop tanks fitted in the mission editor they will be attached FULL. Also as your speed decreases below 60 kts you will lose a lot of lift from the wings and you need a lot of progressive power to maintain a controlled rate of descent. Watch the vertical speed indicator on your HUD. If you start to sink at a high rate then its possible that the engines will not have enough thrust to overcome it. Especially if you are at low level. If heavy, always use the water to boost performance. Also one method is to approach the boat at 200ft and progressively move the nozzles towards 82 degrees. As your IAS decreases if you cannot maintain level flight then execute a go-around by moving the nozzles back slowly (accepting a loss of altitude) to increase speed and lift over the wings and transition back to wing-borne flight. Reduce weight by dumping fuel or do a Short roll on landing. Also its essential to set 82 degrees on the nozzles for vertical hover, any more or less and you are not producing the maximum vertical thrust. Wind affects JPT and not reflected lift so much. If you have a slight headwind hot exhaust gases move back towards the inlets increasing the Jet Pipe Temp. If you are JPT limited then the aircraft will reduce thrust as a result. This however is not modelled in my testing. In fact wind effects are not nearly as dramatic as in the real aircraft.

It's coming.

A great update and much needed hose & drogue aircraft for DCS. Well done Razbam. (recorded in early version. minor bugs present).

I have already asked for this and its done in our branch build. Don't know when it will port down to you guys sorry. The external tanks are filled first for a partial fuel load which is incorrect.

Couldn't agree more!

Count me in one day 1 purchase ! Your product doesn't look like it will break if I sneeze unlike TrackIr.

Arrive in style I always say :)

Shame its not the F-14D, now she really was a beast. Especially the much higher thrust engines. http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/9767/

Aussies only ever look down :music_whistling:

^ correct. The hyd pumps on the 787 are driven electrically. The only bleed system on the 787 is for engine anti-ice. You would only deploy the RAT as part of a checklist or the aircraft might deploy it automatically if a certain failure or combination of failures occurred. If I had to guess I would say it was deployed to supplement electrical power due to failure of a large electrical power source like say an engine generator or a battery/capacitor problem.

in 3. below the group resume (convoy group) command insert a set flag 1 to value 0 command. Currently you are continuously sending a group resume command whilst the flag equals 1 which might be affecting the group. If this doesn't work then it may be a bug and someone will look into it.

Predators in DCS don't have the ability to lase or sparkle as far as I know. Probably because only the later versions of the Predator have the ability to lase iirc.

Where you add PERFORM TASK -> FAC - ASSIGN GROUP in the designation box where you assign laser it should not be orange. For instance if the range to the target is > 5nm then it will say DESIGNATION Laser (problem: D > 5nm) or if it does not have Line Of Sight it will say DESIGNATION Laser (problem: No LOS) There is a limitation with this and that it that LOS is only calculated for terrain and not for any buildings that may be in the way. There is definitely an art to placing JTACS in a good position on the map. I usually assign them to an armed Humvee with HOLD FIRE and INVISIBLE to simulate infantry special forces JTACS.

If I'd been in blighty I would have been there Chris. Looks like it was a good day.

A short story: many eons ago I got my first airline job and rocked up at the CBT course conversion building. There were 2 rooms, one for the B744 and the other for the a340. Fortunately for me I went through the Boeing door. The Boeing lot finished early every day and met in the Bar, went home Friday lunchtime and came back late morning on Monday. The Airbus lot did NOT. They occasionally rocked up to the Bar late in the evening but with a laptop under their arm to continue their studies later. This ^ and a quick look over one studies shoulder at flight control laws and logic was enough to put me off Le Airboos for life. That and I really don't think I am clever enough! One other thing I like about Boeings is when I tell the aircraft 'I have control' .. I do. With Le Airbus ... You never really know. So sorry no fan here although I do think Airbus do a bunch of things better than Boeing. [true story but said in jest! not intended to start a B v A flamewar]

No Tango I am not suggesting those things at all, please go back and re-read my posts. You are reading things into words which do not exist. Emotions are high so I will graciously bow out of further discussion on this as it surely gets no-one anywhere.

Sorry T but once again you are exaggerating quotes, first Wags and now mine. I did not say 'until the last minute', I said "until the end of your development cycle" which surely it is given the existing development timeframe? Obviously, emotions are high but please don't exaggerate quotes that cloud perception. Obviously, you and ED need or have communicated on this and in the end its your decision but I think given the aforementioned support it's a shame if you do not continue with this project.

Come on Tango lets be fair about this. Where did Wags say this? He said "given the massive amount of work we still believe needs completed, we see that this would be difficult for them." which to be honest you have admitted to by the fact that you have waited until the very end of your development cycle to get a third party to develop a cockpit for you. In summary, read 'difficult' as opposed to 'not capable'. If you can get something out of the door by December as you say then you know full well that you will be ahead of ED on this given ED's previous development cycles. To just abandon the project on this announcement is confusing to me to say the least. I have every wish for third parties to do well and I hope you reconsider your options on this especially as you have already completed so much of the project already.

Even Airbus can't do it. Far too complex for its own good. If I were Veao I wouldn't even attempt to do a full simulation of the RAF a330 because after all it's a combat sim not FSX. Basic functionality to allow it to operate as a tanker should suffice, full systems modelling would sap their resources and quite possibly not be worth their time given the market demand for such a product in DCS.

#1 Depends on the loadout on the F-86F as the B-52 can do M0.86 and 50,000ft. Try slowing the B52 down a bit (don't forget the speed you set in the ME is True Airspeed and not indicated airspeed). #2 Large aircraft in the ME have never been able to be set as multiple units in one group. This is because they are unable to land in formation like smaller aircraft can. This is why the advanced action command 'follow' was added to the ME to allow large aircraft formations and aircraft of different types to formate between specified waypoints and at specific distances/positions as set by you. Btw there is also an 'escort' action too if you want them to formate and protect (i.e. escort) the aircraft it is linked to.

V nice pics there indeed.

That does appear to be the case at the moment but wether or not that will continue in the future I don't know.