hein22

Thank you Kate. I like that you have taken the lead on this, it was somehow needed. I think the navigation suite must be completed way much sooner than your plan suggests and hotas functions should be added first with no regard to the system being completed at 100%. If a hotas can do something let it do it, why delay it.

I'm sure the module is great, I've seen a lot of positive things about it, but honestly multicrew was a must for me and if you don't mind me saying, I think it should be a priority given it is a two seat plane and one of its major things that can draw customers is that fact. Thanks for your reply.

I was just about to buy this module until I read this. I loved the engine fail simulation and all the IFR suite and western look it has. But I was looking for a multicrew option to play with some students and polish some aspects they wanted. So I guess the C101 is not the best way to get this done if it has these bugs. Very disappointed actually but thank you so much for this report that let me know its shortcomings.

Thanks Vibora, I'll go ahead and purchase. One thing to note, I think the SME meant that the limits of the CC were so much higher, that full throttle didn't make the temperatures or compressors RPM to exceed them. So my question is: did you (apart from removing the limitation) increase those limits as well (in code and gauges markings)? Or just removed the fails and that's all? Thanks again.

Yeah, the DCS AI wasn't ready to go along with the supercarrier. Another mistake in management IMHO.

This is exactly what I was talking about. Maybe I am terrible at making a point clear. I need to work on my english.

Hey Mika, thanks for your insight. I see what you mean about not being an f18 thing and you're right, I was looking into a different aspect of the whole dcs engine. Thanks and stay safe.

Hi, I was looking to buying this module for training with some students and I wanted to ask if the engine limitations are still correctly modeled? As well as if the IFR suite works correctly? I also find very strange about the CC no limits thing. I watched spudknocker video and he was having some nasty temperatures in the interstage and nothing ever happened. Thanks.

This is so not true. Not only a video of a video is by no means a way to judge quality or readability, but even watching one will make everyone see that the dcs hornet has a problem in coding. The problem is that the layers of text are mixed with the layer of the map, therefore every correction with knobs and buttons (bright, sym, contrast etc) is done in only one filter.

No problem norman, no harm done. I think there's been some confusion about the topic. If you're interested we can continue this over PM and I'll do my best to explain the point, but mainly all of you guys are describing pure plain maths (basic one) which is lovely and accurate, but the day you encounter a headwind that strikes your aircraft at exact 0° from your nose with 0 deviations per second give me a call and together we'll call the guiness so they can put that on paper. Unfortunately I was talking about something too practical for everyone to understand, at least those who are not involved in real life operations. The bug (or not) in place was supposed to be about a possible simulation of the small variations that the atmoshere has every second. Remember the wind isn't a magical blow, but a mass moving and you move with it. I appreciate your insight.

Thanks Meyomyx. Yeah, I know how it is, but IRL 30 knots head or tail wind won't slow or speed the object that exact amount of knots but it will modify the pressure reading with that precision; There is where you see small differences in indicated airspeed. But like I said, it seems that level of depth may not be simulated at all. What you guys kindly explained is correct for study cases, just not that exact in the real world.

May I ask how it will or should work?

I think CSEL never did. Don't know if it is accurate though.

THanks Mika, but that's not how it works IRL, just in papers. 1+1 isn't 2 in the atmosphere. 1 knot headwind will not slow you down 1 exact knot. So IAS do change. I understand you teach it this way, but in practice is different. I guess ED simulated it like plain maths and I was looking to see a too high level of depth that pilots see IRL.

I unblocked you in a pursue to seeing you be useful in these forums some day, but I see you are still the same limited and not very bright guy you've always been. I see why people don't usually like you.

It works fine for me. The whole UFC. A track would help.

Did a test with a strong head wind and constant power setting, then turn to have a tail wind and the groundspeed changed (ok) but the CAS in HUD and HSI did not. I know the ADC plays a role in here but IRL both indication changes to show the pilot the airspeed above the wings so he can evaluate lift and others factors important. Track attached. airspeed and wind.trk

This is one very unfortunate things that many cannot believe that wasn't fixed yet after years.

Any news?

Any news?

This happened to me as well many times.

Did you see my track Santi? Is this intended or not? Thanks.

Over the years we have gotten used to the word stable meaning "it doesn't crash or have an impediment to run". So the bugs are not the standard of quality here. Standards are more about code complexity and stuff. I hate it, but it is what it is and we have to respect that.

It happens sometimes due to a bug that's been here forever. Just press undesignate until WPDSG works again. If necessary, make a new tgt and undesignate from there. I will work that way.

Thanks for the support guys.