Ff you could have one thing in the next update it would be…
-
Very sure. You can adjust the position of those detents - physically on the Cougar, by disassembling the throttle and adjusting the position of the detent rings, and digitally in the BMS software,
by RTFMby moving the throttle axis to the position desired for a detent, then left clicking to set the position of the AB detent, and right clicking to set the position of the IDLE detent.Oh, I was forgetting about detent rings. I removed bump base because I don’t want them as they are too loose to use as a idle detent, but too noisy while moving throttle between IDLE to MIL.
However removing bump base also removes AB detent. I have to reinstall them and try adjusting detent rings again. Thanks.As for point 3… I did think you were talking about the analogue cutoff. Its been a long time since I used the default shitty cutoff mode, but I dont seem to recall what you describe. You are saying that the IDLE position becomes the location of the throttle when you click the cutoff detent, but this is not what I recall happening. I recall that if you do not immediately retract the throttle after clicking the detent, the aircraft will rapidly rise above idle RPMs. So perhaps one of us is misunderstanding the way it works, or perhaps Ive misunderstood what you are saying?
When starting up the engine you forward throttle from the IDLE, click the idle detent, then retract the throttle to IDLE.
Idle detent clickable position is just on the actual idle detent of the 3d model of throttle when they are on IDLE position, but it wil be on the root of the throttle after we forward them,
So while in engine start up procedure in falcon, we click throttle itself. -
An option to clear all PPT without resetting the whole data cartridge.
-
An option to clear all PPT without resetting the whole data cartridge.
I think WDP planner can do this. Failing that, one can always do it manually just by editing the .ini file.
-
Fix the ICP GPS data entry bug
When manually entering a GPS coordinate (say for a target) when in the cockpit, the least significant digit will be off by one. This is not a problem when the coordinates are entered in 2D via the DTC. The work around is to enter the LSD as one value higher than you want.
My mate Cham and I verified this in multiplayer together
-
This post is deleted! -
Fix the ICP GPS data entry bug
When manually entering a GPS coordinate (say for a target) when in the cockpit, the least significant digit will be off by one. This is not a problem when the coordinates are entered in 2D via the DTC. The work around is to enter the LSD as one value higher than you want.
My mate Cham and I verified this in multiplayer together
Civilian aviation GPS (i.e. GNS430 and 530) does the same. May be it’s a feature and not a bug?
-
Civilian aviation GPS (i.e. GNS430 and 530) does the same. May be it’s a feature and not a bug?
Cant imagine why it would be like that in RL modern GPS, even if the Viper doesnt behave this way. Would like to know why.
-
Improve the simulation of carrier landing. Add the ATC’ radio list for aircraft carrier’s BRC when approach.
-
Improve the simulation of carrier landing. Add the ATC’ radio list for aircraft carrier’s BRC when approach.
that’s a good one i like the idea
-
What I mean is that the aircraft never despawns like ground units.
The proper software term is persistance.
Aircraft should be persistant in the campaign world.Each aircraft if received battle damage would be in maintenence needs day before you can ride again depending on damage.
More minutes on older frames increases likelyhood of random failures.
This would make flying in Campaigns even more immersive and fun. Right now losing a plane almost has no consequences landing like a fool or rolling around in grass no consequences.
If you have your settings on realistic there should be consequence and reward for flying accurate. Even small bonuses for proper use of taxiways and ATC. ETC…
Small things like that slowly added on to the campaign would really put it in the next tier of fun for campaigns. -
Cant imagine why it would be like that in RL modern GPS, even if the Viper doesnt behave this way. Would like to know why.
At 3 digits behind the decimal, the accuracy is roughly 1m. For civil use, that’s more than precise enough, so it doesn’t really matter if you’re 1 or even a few digits off. For military purposes, however, that 1 meter difference could mean the difference between the JDAM blasting through the window or hitting the wall.
-
What I mean is that the aircraft never despawns like ground units.
The proper software term is persistance.
Aircraft should be persistant in the campaign world.Each aircraft if received battle damage would be in maintenence needs day before you can ride again depending on damage.
More minutes on older frames increases likelyhood of random failures.
This would make flying in Campaigns even more immersive and fun. Right now losing a plane almost has no consequences landing like a fool or rolling around in grass no consequences.
If you have your settings on realistic there should be consequence and reward for flying accurate. Even small bonuses for proper use of taxiways and ATC. ETC…
Small things like that slowly added on to the campaign would really put it in the next tier of fun for campaigns.–----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree with that idea. Add random failures in the campaign. The probability of failures occuring should be dependent on supplies and fatigue. -
The posts about the moving carrier in multiplayer have been moved into their own separate thread here. Bumping this thread back to the 1st page.
-
I would love some nice conversions with the boomer during long lonely refueling lol
-
Improve the quality of building’s image especially the runway’outline in the DBS1 and DBS2 mode.
Add the SAR mode in the BLK52+'s radar.
-
Implement DBS modes realistically
-
…roll out the F-16V upgrade.
-
Implement a moving map display… I know a chunk of F16s don’t have one, but it would be nice to have…
-
That would be for the newer F-16’s it would be unrealistic to put that in any of the older variants but yeah i agree would be nice to have that once they ever simulate the newer variants
-
That would be for the newer F-16’s it would be unrealistic to put that in any of the older variants but yeah i agree would be nice to have that once they ever simulate the newer variants
As with dozen other details, this would be configurable through Avionics Configuration.