Tom Kazansky

Agreed. By holding back purchases we risk the entire amount of investment we put into DCS. I don't know what is right or wrong, but I for one don't want to wait and see whether some day some other company will deliver what ED did and does. In good times, and bad times...

Me neither, and it is still to good to be true. Like many German users here there would be a (small) chance that our home towns are part of this map. I would be too hyped to post my feelings if this came true.

.

I just checked the BALT HOLD behaviour in the Hornet again, and what I find interesting is: 1) If your stick is not totaly centered in pitch (Y-axis) when you press BALT on the UFC, a warnig tone sounds, the BALT does not engage BUT(!) without doing anything else but moving the stick slightly into the center of the pitch (Y) axis, the BALT mode still engages. Again: This happens without another press of the BALT button on the UFC. 2) And this is why no. 1) is helpful: the BALT mode does not disengage by releasing the slightly uncentered stick, because (and that was news for me): The limits in wich the stick must be centered to engage BALT are significantly smaller than those you have to exceed to disengage the BALT mode by deflecting the stick. So as a workaround I recommend to move the stick in the pitch axis as soon as you hear the warning tone (that is heard after a non engaging BALT mode after BALT-button-press) until the BALT mode engages. Btw. If your stick is uncentered in the x-axis, there is no problem at all with the BALT mode. You can even deflect the stick quite a bit to the side, as long as your pitch is centered to engage BALT. EDIT: and now something completely odd: I slightly deflected the stick from the center in pitch axis, pressed BALT, the warning tone sounded and BALT did not engage (as expected), then I waited more than 10 sec before moving the stick to the center and BALT still engages (without pressing BALT on the UFC again). I have no proof from real life, but this seems odd, doesn't it?

+1 Deadzones kill precision in formation flying and air to air refuling. It makes no sense to spend hundreds of bucks for a good stick/base and add deadzones. No offence to the work around here, but the limits in the DCS Hornet seem too narrow to be realistic.

It concerns me that somebody hasn't been learning too much over the last few weeks.

Will we be able to drive e.g. a Humvee right into a CH47? And of course out of it again by ourselves with Combined Arms?

Ich finde es auch komisch, aber tröste mich mit der Aussage, dass die EA-Feature-Liste vor dem EA-release veröffentlicht wird. Es wird mir also die Möglichkeit gegeben vor dem Kauf zu sehen was kommt, wenn ich das wichtig finde. Übrig bleibt nur die Frage ob das dann nur beschreibt was im EA kommt, das heißt, ob das was später kommt auch aufgelistet wird. Das wär schon wichtig. Gerade wenn/weil ich nicht ein total überzeugter CH47 Fan bin, aber mich dafür interessiere.

Thx @Hiob Just requoted that because on my end the format wasn't readable. No offence.

thanks

Is it by about or to about 70%? Just curious.

40nm turn radius would be quite off, according to the following info: Found some good insights on almost every AAR aspect where it is stated that a RL* pattern is more like max. 20 nm x min. 50 nm https://wiki.ivao.aero/en/home/specialoperations/Documentation/AAR Edit: *the info is from the IVAO website, so I don't know how close it matches RL info.

Ich bin gespannt wie die 3840 x 3840 Pixel pro Auge (mit FovRendering) der "Super" einschlagen werden. Obwohl der Aufpreis natürlich heftig ist, sehne ich mich sehr nach mehr Auflösung. Vielleicht auch weil damit die Qualität der Kantenglättung immer weniger ausschlaggebend wird. Interessant sind aber für mich alle angekündigten Varianten. Auch wenn ich (noch) kein Pimax-Fan bin.

By definition, "Phantom pain" refers to painful sensation perceived in a part that is not present.

... the first plane with an even bigger angle of stabilizers to the outside, that came to my mind was the YF-23 Black Widow II and I found the following interesting behaviour: while taxiing on the ground the YF-23 moves its stabilizers clockwise in a right taxi-turn. correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean a right rudder press. the control surfaces ot the much more perpendicular (i.e. vertical) stablilizers of the Hornet move "counterclockwise" (or to the right, in this regard) with a right rudder press. This tells me, that if the stabilizers are installed with an higher and higher angle to the outboard sides, the effect I described in my previous post becomes so pronounced, that it is the better solution to invert the stabilizers' movement to get the roll/yaw you want to get. Here is a YT video of the right taxi turn (starting at 34min 50s), you might need to slow the replay speed down to see it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYLiMYGBE2Q#t=34m50s I admit that's a far excursion, and not a proof by no means, but it helps me understand what could be going on, till proven otherwise.