jaylw314

The bug is less that the MFCD's are too bright--it's more so that the BRT +/- rocker does not affect the backlight brightness at all, as it should and used to.

The Maverick IR and EO seekers have much lower resolution than the TGP camera, so in cluttered areas, it can fail to lock or lock on the wrong pixel if you're more than 5 nm away.

AFAIK, no. Landing and repair does not fix it, you need a new plane

Ooof, you are correct, I forgot you can change the FP waypoint attributes in the FP menu itself Don't listen to me, listen to @Frederf

I think I know what you're asking, but correct me if I'm wrong. Are you asking why the NAV--> ATTRIBUTES page still says TO FROM even though the STEER PT knob on the AAP is set to FLT PLAN? AFAIK, the NAV-->ATTRIBUTES page allows you to set the default waypoint attributes when you create a new waypoint. The fact that is says TO FROM simply means that if you create a new waypoint, it will create the next new waypoint with the enroute steering attribute set to TO FROM. To see or change the actual steering attribute for an existing waypoint, you have to look at the existing waypoint, like in the WP MENU-->WAYPT page. However, when you turn the STEER PT knob to FLT PLAN, the HSI automatically goes into TO TO steering mode and overrides the existing waypoint's attributes (without changing them), so if you look at the WAYPT page, it will still show its existing attributes (TO FROM, in the case of the video above) TL;DR -- When you turn the STEER PT knob to FLT PLAN, it is always in TO TO mode and any existing steering attributes are ignored.

LOL Polarized sunglasses aren't terribly expensive, although nowadays most cheapo sunglasses are plastic. I don't know that multiple polarizing filters make things better, because the LCD still gets completely blocked at multiple angles.

A lot of civilian avionics screens are vertically polarized (I think) for that very reason, but the problem is that even a civilian GA cockpit is a pretty dynamic environment. Every time you reach for a control or switch, or try to pick up traffic out to the sides, you're moving your head around. I found out I couldn't use my polarized Ray-Ban's because every time I reached for the radio, my head would tilt a bit and the GPS screen would suddenly go dark. Thankfully, I only had one GPS screen, but I can imagine it'd be pretty distracting to have all the various screens in the cockpit throbbing on and off every time you moved your head, and I have to imagine a fighter cockpit would be even much more dynamic.

Ah, I see, my bad on the WH throttle. I do, however, recall seeing a "Engine Throttle IDLE" keybind in the past that confused me, that is no longer there, but then that sounds not to be the problem

You want to bind these under "Systems": IIRC, there used to be a "Engine Throttle (Left/Right) IDLE" which they removed a few updates ago. I think they were trying to make all the modules a little more consistent, and replaced it with a different command that does the same thing. Confusingly, they left the "(Left/Right) Engine Throttle Set OFF" in the "Special for Joystick" category, which does the exact same thing as "Engine Stop (Left/Right)", but there's no corresponding "Engine Throttle Set IDLE" anymore). This happened a few months ago, so if you haven't updated it in a while you may have missed it, and your controls are probably bound incorrectly now. Fix it.

Is there a possibility your button 3 has become intermittent? That's the only other thing I can think of.

I tested out putting the slew on a hat switch and the coolie switch with a modifier on a winwing orion, but it worked exactly as expected, so it's not clear it's a DCS issue. Is there a Virpil software app running in the background? Or there may be something different about the way the mongoose encodes button presses? I assume you've added the button as a shift modifier? Have you tried running it as a toggle modifier?

Cool beans, also note that you can cycle weapon profiles using the SEL rocker on the UFC, even if when HUD is not SOI. Some people find it helpful, others not since you have to take your hand off the controls. I find flipping the HUD to SOI has become muscle memory.

Oookay, I think I get it now. At the east/west edges of each grid zone, the northing lines don't quite line up with true north, they actually overlap a bit, since there's no way to paste 100,000m flat squares on a round surface. I was just thinking about the whole grid zone itself is aligned with true north, but that's only true in the middle, then

I do, and you've managed to confuse yourself. Good luck!

That's why I clarified "sideslip", which is straight uncoordinated flight, which is what people seemed to be confusing with "crabbing" A "slipping turn" is uncoordinated flight during a turn, with too little rudder A "slip" can be any uncoordinated flight

Oooh, I hadn't thought about the ruler/XYZ north, I was just turning my eyeballs to follow the grid squares I still don't get how UTM north would be different from lat/long north, though; I mean, the grid zones are DEFINED by the 6 deg lines of longitude, right?

?? a slip (sideslip) by definition is a constant heading, not a turn.

A wings level crab is still coordinated flight, and the ball will reflect that. "slipping" means you're drifting one way through the air and banked, so not wings level.

Wait, I thought grid zones were aligned with true north, so they should be the same?

A crosswind from the left will tend to do 3 things to airplanes on runways, in order of increasing wind strength: Yaw to the left (upwind) Roll to the right (downwind) Drift to the right (downwind)

I wonder how much the DCS A-10C does the automatic LASTE wind correction calculations? Is there a difference, say in starting a mission in the air and dropping bombs vs taking off and then dropping bombs? Presumably in the 2nd situation, the LASTE would have the data to correct for wind and temps at different altitudes as you climb, whereas in a air start, it wouldn't. These are the sort of things I should probably test but am too lazy to get around to it, since we can just lob GBU-54's at targets anyways

I think "polarized" specifies the direction of light they allow through. I also think the splotchiness you see with some windows has to do with tempered glass--the varying stress in tempered glass shows when viewed through polarized glass. In engineering, the effect is named after some dude I can't remember. I think the effect is less in acrylic, but still can be noticeable.

So, don't take off above max gross weight from any of the runways at Ramat David Those are some bumpy runways!

The predominant limit for all maximum weights is generally structural, but occasionally it's defined by a performance limit (or some other feature specific to the aircraft). Since maximum weights are usually just defined by the manufacturer without indicating what the reason for the limit is, it tough to know how often it ends up being influenced by a performance limit. AFAIK it'd be a pretty safe bet on any maximum weight that the reason for that limit is structural. FWIW those structural limits probably have a built in percentage safety margin, like a 50% safety margin to structural damage at 4.5g, which IIRC is the old FAA requirement for civil aircraft. I don't know what the definition is for the A-10C, but I suspect being above a maximum weight will not result in the plane suddenly snapping in half, but the safety margin at high g's is probably reduced below what is considered safe.

In theory, yes. In reality, glasses are polarized in one direction (horizontally?) to kill reflection off the ground or water in front of you, which would be polarized the other way (vertically?). Planes can be in all sorts of directions and surfaces, so while one particular direction may have less glint, most other directions would be less affected