lmp

Out of pure curiosity, what's blowing up in the top right part of that screenshot? ;)

Table 52 on pages 32 through 34 lists various landing gear related limitations, including max unstick and touchdown speeds, maximum weights, maximum speeds at which it's allowed to retract/extend it etc.

How about we add some more key combos: - extend arm toward gear handle - grab gear handle - release gear handle - move hand back to throttle ... which need to be used before and after moving the gear lever. Because, let's face it, the pilot has to do all those things too ;). Seriously though, to all the poster worried we're trying to "ruin the realism". We're not. We're exchanging our ideas as to how to streamline the user interface part of this simulation. The part that will always be very artificial because we don't all have a MiG-21 cockpit at home. Instead we use flimsy devices such as a keyboard and a mouse to operate all the systems and so all the things a pilot has to do have to be split into bindable actions. All we differ about is how we want those actions split. Do I want the gear handle to automatically return to the neutral position? No, that's a thing a pilot might realistically forget and it carries important consequences. On the other hand, a pilot simply wouldn't be able to press the chute release button without raising the cap, while I can press my key combination perfectly fine and I have no feedback that the cap is still there unless I look at it. Thus I personally believe it would be better if the release chute key combination automatically removed the cap, while still retaining the option to flip the cap manually. You can agree with me or not, and I'm certainly not demanding that LS caters to my wants, but I do not understand the criticism that this suggestion "makes it unrealistic". Certainly not more than axis curves and deadzones or central trimmer mode in Ka-50...

Ok, I just checked and you guys are right of course. Wow. I don't know how I got it into my head that it won't work without manually lifting the cap :doh:. Sorry for the confusion.

The problem is, unlocking the safety, pulling the leaver up and then back to the neutral position in real life is natural and practically a single motion. Memorizing RSHIFT + G, G, CTRL + G isn't. Especially if you include all the other buttons and switches with safeties. I don't see how cluttering my head with tens of key combos is realistic - whether they are the default ones or set by myself. Does the pilot have to do that? Nope. We fly our virtual planes with input devices very different from the ones in the real thing. That's why for example all DCS helicopters have several options for trimming. That's why we get to set curves for our stick axes. Because of hardware limitation there often isn't really a perfectly realistic solution. We should have options to tailor the interface to ourselves here and there. Nope it doesn't. Nothing will happen if you do that. EDIT: Ok, nevermind, I'll check that. If that would suit everybody, I'm fine with this solution as well. But I won't assume which solutions are easy or hard to program cause I don't know the code.

Hmm, right now there are three buttons responsible for missile release: missile release missile release cap up missile release cap down How about adding a fourth... missile release auto which would raise the cap if needed and activate missile release. This way whoever would want to use the old system would still have it, and I could bind the new function to one of the precious four buttons on my stick.

I have to agree with Flagrum here. While I've gotten used to the whole gear up process, I'll routinely go into a fight with the missile release capped. Now in the real world I would just lift the cap without looking. Or really thinking about it. But in the game I have to either memorize some obscure keyboard command or look down, let go of the joystick, find the mouse, hit the tiny cap with my cursor... where was that Phantom again? Oh yeah, on my six, getting ready to kill me. I find it neither immersive nor realistic. And I'm thankful that LS inconsequently didn't force us to lower the gun trigger manually as well. I would love it if you only had to lift safety caps when using the mouse.

First one who does that in the MiG-21 wins ;)

I think I'm seeing some microstutters too unfortunately, though overall FPS went up by 5 - 10.

Cool stuff, guys :)

Hey, I know the cone bug is annoying, but I think you took it too far ;).

<gossip mode> Considering the recent AH-1F and Su-27 speculations, I hope we'll get another very interesting newsletter soon :music_whistling: </gossip mode>

No, no, no, you got it all wrong. It's supposed to move up and down to account for the change in center of gravity due to fuel consumption.

Looking good :)

It's always a trade off - develop a feature that may attract more casual players, but also less agile players or those with worse equipment. Or don't develop it, save some money at the risk of scaring off those players (and getting the bad rep, because they didn't enjoy your game). Considering that in this case the simplification has already been done and also assuming - of course I may be wrong here - that this would be relatively simple, I'd go with an option. In a different scenario, I might be more in favor of just doing it the realistic way. Of course ultimately none of us know how difficult it is and whether LS have the resources and are willing to do this, but religiously being opposed to ANY form of catering to more casual players (not saying that anybody here is), regardless of the costs and benefits involved makes no sense to me.

It's interesting that you mention the P-51D, cause it does have a take off assist slider and auto rudder option. It is in essence the same thing - a feature for those without the hardware or the agility or the time to master the aircraft in "max realism mode". I don't own the Dora, so I can't say if it has something similar, but the F-86F has the option to automatically rise the seat for better visibility during landing, and the Mi-8 has a control helper option. So it's not uncommon for DCS aircraft to have such features outside of the regular difficulty settings. Frankly I don't get the "set it to max realism or go find another game" attitude. Do we need to be so elitist? I don't think so. Simplified taxiing is already in the game. Resources for its development were already spent. I don't see a reason to throw it out. Let the people who want it have the option to use it. For the rest of us, a realistic option would be great.

If it's the video I'm thinking of, then it's indeed of the SM version. No betty in the vanilla variant I'm afraid, you'll have to learn the cockpit warning lights.

I read it again and now I got it. But since I wasn't the only one confused, it was probably a good idea to add that clarification. Voted yes :thumbup:.

Is it yes I want a realistic behaviour or yes I want a simplified behaviour? The poll question and answers are unclear.

I would also like that option.

So this one, below the scope: http://i.imgur.com/fDcvJrC.jpg 1) I turned the RP-22 off after completing the mission objectives and was on my way back and after some time of the radar being off, the light turned on. Should that happen? 2) Shouldn't it be ВЫКЛ СТ. instead of БИКЛ С.Т? 3) In the manual I believe the active jamming and turn off radar lights are mislabeled.

But that's the thing, it doesn't lie in the mountains. That's why I was testing there. My guess is, at the moment, the aiming computer in the game uses AGL altitude instead of ASL altitude as it should. Anyway, thanks for explaining how it should work IRL :thumbup:.

Did some more tests and I have two conclusions: 1) Turning off the RV19 radio altimeter switch doesn't affect the operation of the ASP - you still get range in the same conditions. 2) I got good range with the radar off and diving at 50 degrees.

Yeah, I tried that too. When I dived towards the peak of the Elbrus I didn't see the range needle move until I was over to summit (and now aiming behind the mountain). I got the same result whether the RP-22 was on or off. So it does look like the ranging data comes from the radar altimeter. But then there's the 20 degrees pitch limit mentioned in the manual? I'm pretty sure I was steeper...

I just did some tests and I noticed the ASP is getting ranging information even when the radar is off (well, on standby, I didn't try fully off). Is this correct? I did my tests high in the mountains - that would exclude the barometric altimeter - with dive angles exceeding the 20 degree limit of the radar altimeter. If I'm correct that would leave the radar as the only possible source of range, but it was off. Can anyone confirm my finding and/or explain what's happening?