julian265

Also because it was cheaper, I seem to remember.

I use FTNIR 170, however I do not use any special protocols - but rather manually assign the axes in each DCS module using the vjoy emulated controller from FTNIR. Zibell, I don't need to restart anything using this method. I can give more details if required.

One of the benefits of using long-throw controls and rudder pedals!

I have the same issue - blinded by magical smoke that stays with the plane

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_mil#Metric_Mil-dot_formula Quoting mils without a distance doesn't mean much... Unless you are under the impression that accuracy decreases linearly with distance :lol:

Normally I set dead-zones in my tracker's translational and rotational curves so that minor real head movements don't disrupt aiming. I have to tweak the snap view defaults file to correct the neutral head position as well (all DCS views default to a too low angle IMO)

The timeline you mentioned disproves it, however you could reasonably think that they'd increase low RPM boost to compensate for a cam with more overlap, which doesn't produce as much power away from peak RPM.

Be sure to read this thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=121296

Given the trouble you've had with them - I suggest you don't try to use other people's profiles, clear your button and axis assignments, and assign your own. (but leave the settings for the A-10 alone). Yes, you can control trim wheels with buttons. I use the trim hat on the stick for trim in the P-51, and the DMS left-right for rudder trim. You're lucky that it's just recently that you can adjust your controls without leaving the cockpit (press esc for the menu) - we used to have to end the flight, adjust, then re load. Handy hint - open the controls configuration screen, select the relevant plane, and press a joystick button - the button (if assigned to anything) will be selected to show you what it does.

Just checking - is your fuel booster pump on before you switch tanks?

Neither - it's simply zero to full control surface deflection, being mapped to zero to full joystick deflection, with the transfer function (relationship) being linear.

If you want a realistic visual *effect*, a sim needs to break some visual scaling rules. Players *need* to be able to spot as distant contacts (as dots) whilst in wide view mode as they would in narrow view.

Ha! Awesome

I read your link because the 50% engine life sounded like sh!t to me, and found that it was. I then noticed the other points which disagree with your post. The valve seat erosion problem was caused by the additive used to stop plug fouling, which they stopped using, not the lead. I agree that if we use 150 grade fuel in the sim, we should have to deal with plug fouling. I also think that different fuels should be available for mission designers to specify, to allow for mission balancing and different locations and times. However, given this fuel's historical uptake, I think you are overstating the down-sides. From your link: "As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP – designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft – was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts. " Workload "under modeling" is not something we have to worry about when engine operating limits and all controls are modeled, such as they are in DCS (note that plug fouling is already modeled at idle - it could be expanded for different fuel). Further, I don't think the linked throttle/RPM lever is very much of an advantage (you don't need to change RPM from combat setting when you change throttle), however automated mixture, oil cooler and radiator control are (which is why they became standard in many aircraft) I am also peeved by "xxx won the war" posts. :smilewink: However I think we need to be careful to avoid cherry-picking data, and posting misinterpreted information (like you did with 50% engine life vs plug life, reversion to 130 grade, and valve seat erosion due to fuel vs anti-leading additive). I'd prefer that the most common variants/states/fuels of each aircraft made it into the sim (at a given date), then expand from there and let the players decide what to use.

Actually 50% decrease in spark plug lifespan... due to excessive leading (fouling), which was preventable by running the engine at high power at regular intervals. Where did you read that? Seriously? It is up to mission designers to choose aircraft availability. Besides, changing or cleaning plugs is not a difficult or long operation, I don't think it needs modelling... Especially if we aren't modelling the difficulties faced in maintaining all DCS WW2 aircraft, under their specific wartime conditions.

I bet this mirrors a lot of opinions here, but I thought I'd add it to the pile. I'm just getting in to DCS P-51, but have heaps of experience with online IL-2 with no labels (not for the last year though). IMO DCS world will need to have server adjustable visibility settings for WW2 style combat. It seems that spotting a P-51 from any useful distance requires full zoom, which is unworkable. IL-2 used to have a minimum of 4 pixels per plane (aka a dot - two bright, two dark pixels), that became visible at a certain distance (perhaps the distance was a server setting). This enabled people to spot planes many km away if they paid enough attention - dots weren't obscenely obvious, especially against terrain backgrounds. They changed their contrast dependent on range. When starting out with IL-2, I used to think the dots weren't visible enough - but that changed as I learned the slow scanning technique that was necessary to find them. The problem with IL-2's dot system was that the monitor that you use heavily impacts on the ease of finding dots - to the point where some people would drop their resolution to 1024x768 to help them. I found 1920x1080 manageable, but screens with small dot pitch put the user at a disadvantage. IMO the sim needed to take screen resolution into account (if not dot pitch) when adjusting dot contrast, and perhaps size. The dot system worked much better than what we have now in DCS world, I believe that it should be used, but make settings available so servers can alter visibility settings to their target players. I agree that labels are one way of simulating better visibility of close planes, but I hate how they look, how glaringly obvious they make things, and how they make it almost impossible to escape by hiding. There are so many real accounts of pilots having fleeting combat encounters, and then not being able to see any one else. Also of pilots escaping unseen. The label system defeats this important element of online combat (especially when they are visible through parts of your own plane). This is especially important when you are in an inferior plane, or inferior situation - you need at least a chance of escaping, otherwise things become too predictable and certain planes are not flown.

Are you using any saitek software to modify the joystick's output? (if that's possible... I wouldn't know, I'm not familiar with it) In DCS world, go to the axis assignments options section, and for the joystick's pitch and roll axes, click the tune button, and check that the transfer function is linear. Sorry I couldn't remember the exact names of menus/buttons/settings!

Normally the main rotor's thrust vector is pointing downward and backward (and a little to one side). Any roll will point the thrust vector off to one side, which will reduce the downward thrust... Unless you pull more collective. Therefore, if you want to maintain your speed AND altitude through a turn, you will need more collective. Why get into semantics when the basics prove a point?

Except for the centre clunk.

Nothing new here... but it might give people some ideas. I put the warthog's grip on my old uni joint stick (see http://www.jpfiles.com/hardware/uni_stick.pdf ) This stick doesn't have any centring spring, which might sound strange, but I don't mind it at all. The stick and stick adapter's weight give it a good feel. The ADC is a BU0836A, with duplicated 25 pin sockets to input the hall effect sensors and joystick buttons. I wasn't happy with the out-of-the-box warthog stick movement. Even after I removed the larger spring, the clunk (from new) when crossing the centre point was just too much. I also felt that the static friction was too high - requiring too much force to get the stick moving - which often meant overshooting the desired position. This was particularly noticeable when air-to-air refueling in A-10C, and with the fine controls needed for UH-1H. It's all mounted on aluminium extrusions, which allow easy adjustments to critical dimensions, and are quite rigid. Previously the warthog stick was mounted on the right side, like the throttle in the following photos. The pedals are supported and pivoted by a lazy susan bearing. Unfortunately this bearing has too much lateral slack, so I will replace it with something else. I also need to add another support to the stick mounting pole - it can tilt forward or back if you place too much weight on the stick. Laterally it is rigid. The warthog grip is easy to re-wire, owing to the switches all having wires that run to a circuit board, and consistent colouring. I needed to plan this one, rather than my usual thinking while soldering! I also used diodes, but probably didn't need to. I can post the connection list if anyone wants it. a few cable ties later... I had an adapter turned up by a machine shop, to fit in the drive-shaft of my stick base. It just needed a few layers of electrical tape to make it tight when in the drive-shaft.

PeterP, don't waste your time trying to explain things to people who are (knowingly or not) trolls. I have had similar un-constructive "discussions" in the past - every time you run through your logic of one issue, he ignores it and moves on to something else, never acknowledging anything.

I can't compare to TIR, but FaceTrackNoIR 1.7 - which tracks 3 LEDs with the freetrack module - is working better than FT ever worked for me... Which was pretty well. FTNIR is a smoother, and has more flexible output options.

Imagine a triangle formed by running a line from the left side of your monitor to your head, and from the right side of your monitor to your head. "Realistic" FoV is when you set the in-game FoV angle to the angle between those lines. However, you will not be able to make out distant objects as well as humans do, so this is not realistic for resolution - which is why sims/games include variable zoom. You can zoom out to get wide FoV as humans have, and zoom in to get the resolution that humans have. So there is CERTAINLY not ONE "realistic" FoV.

If you're struggling to find pedals, you can always make your own. Your budget would allow you to get some nice parts made... It's just a question of design.

Firstly, I'm not a FTNIR expert, and others are probably more useful thanI can be. Does the display in FTNIR match your head movements? Have you read the posts linked in post 20 in this thread? In DCS world, make sure you don't have your mouse or other keys or axes mapped to view commands that you want freetrack to control - check the views section, and the axes section. Make sure that FTNIR is not too sensitive to your movements also.