GhostDog

Thanks all, I'll give it a go.

Just took the plunge. Followed the upgrade guide on the MS website and everything is smooth sailing so far. Can't wait to test FC2 :D Edit: A big hiccup with my Netgear wireless adapter. No WHQL drivers available. No worries though, another adapter is on hand. . .

FC only.

Any recommendations on how to belly land without blowing up? :D Speed, etc. . .

While practicing touch and go's in the Su-25, one of the wheels on the landing gear became stuck in the up position (guess I landed a little too hard). Any suggestions on how to force the landing gear down in that situation, or what to do if one of the wheels won't descend no matter what?

Ditto.

Cool, I'm glad it helped. :thumbup:

I wasn't saying they necessarily had to be the same, just that I don't imagine adjusting one without adjusting the other. But, as you say, it's a matter of preference.

The curvature setting for the x axis and the y axis.

Depends on your joystick. I have my curve at 10 for both pitch and roll, and I find that dampens the response just enough to make my turns and climbs smooth and trimming more precise. I don't edit the user curve, I use the curvature setting.

:huh: 1. Yaw wouldn't have much to do with maintaining straight and level flight. 2. It wouldn't make much sense to adjust the curve for pitch without adjusting the curve for roll. 3. Trimming can be done with the keyboard, or with the trim wheel on your joystick, if it has one. If you adjust the curve for pitch and roll, it affects your trim wheel as well. 4. The fundamentals would be practicing using throttle, stick pressure and trim to maintain straight and level flight at a constant speed. It's not an easy skill.

Have you tried adjusting the input curve for your joystick in the axis tune panel? Part of the problem could be that your joystick settings are too "touchy" and you're having to fight against excessive input from small movements. And GG is right, don't rely on alt hold or autopilot. Practice the fundamentals.

It would be better to paste your dxdiag in a text file and attach it to your post.

Thank you for bringing the discussion back to the plane of reality Grimes. And another point to get us even closer to Earth. . . Exactly what are the folks who are arguing for excluding human piloted SFM aircraft from multiplayer arguing against? Other player's preferences? Simple distaste for another individual's choice isn't a reason to not make the choice available.

With respect to tactics, procedures and physical environment, the DCS multiplayer environment is already highly realistic. Making simplified flyables out of existing AI aircraft won't change that. The only thing that would change is the individual player's flying experience if they choose to fly a simplified aircraft. Obviously, no one would be forced to fly a simplified aircraft in MP.

More revenue from MP add-ons = more dev resources. Obviously I don't know the specifics about ED's financials, but I would guess the revenue stream they get from their civilian DCS releases is a small trickle, comparatively speaking.

P.S. simplified flyable != LOMAC/FC2

Not from my perspective. As I see it, the standalone DCS product and the multiplayer environment are separate things. You could add all sorts of extensions to the MP environment (new maps, new AI aircraft and vehicles, even interfaces for synchronous play with 3rd party games) and not change the standalone DCS aircraft simulation one iota.

Adding simplified flyables for multiplayer doesn't change that in the least.

It already exists. What good reason is there for not perpetuating it in a different form?

AFAIK, Ubi owns the publishing rights to LOMAC and derivative products, but not the aircraft models or the code. All of the planes that are in FC2 are in DCS. To get a collection equal to the FC numbers is going to take a lot longer than 5 years. And there's no guarantee about the diversity of those aircraft. If the USG contracts with ED for five U.S. helo sims, you'll get five U.S. helo sims. That's fine for standalone play, but not so much for multiplayer. Okay, so some other form of flyable with reduced complexity. It doesn't need to be a standalone product. It's just a matter of making some of the AI aircraft in DCS flyable in multiplayer.

I assume you're talking about the A-10. You can shut down one engine at a time. To shut down the left engine, hit RAlt + End. To shut down the right engine, hit RCtrl + End. RShift + End shuts down both engines simultaneously.

That brings up the related issue of the difficulty of server management in general, something that an increased focus on multiplayer could perhaps help to address.

That's a server management issue, not an aircraft issue. Reduced complexity isn't a cause of bad behavior in servers. Conversely, increased complexity doesn't in and of itself improve flying discipline.

There's room for both the survey sim and "hardcore" experiences in the DCS multiplayer environment. They're not mutually exclusive. Meeting the demand for the survey sim aspect means more money to improve the study sim aspect in the long run.