Leaderboard

MIG-23 MLA

This has been discussed on these forums plenty of times before. At the risk of posting this only to get a snide and dismissive remark back, OP asked for some examples of the F-14's actual "g" capability in the real world (that it can pull more than 6g) while also providing a few non-sequiturs (e.g., Kara Hultgreen's death which was caused by impact with the ocean due to ejection as her aircraft rotated past the horizon due to a compressor stall induced by pilot error and not following the bold face while she was flying the same jet that pulled a 10.2g avoidance maneuver 13 years prior; and an F-14 which was destroyed due to an engine failure that led to an explosion and blaming it on a 6g pull). So, apart from the fact that Grumman considered the aircraft's safe symmetrical operating envelope +9 to -5.5g, and +8g with 6x AIM-54, 2x AIM-9 and two tanks [1], that the original design requirement was +7.33g, but Grumman's performance design point was 7.5g, e.g., for wing sweep and glove-vane assisted "g" authority [2], that the ultimate symmetrical limit was considered +13g [3], there several examples of beyond 9g pulls by real-world F-14s that I can think of where the aircraft was completely undamaged after the fact. Just a few examples of which I am aware: +12.2g by "Hoser" Satrapa in a guns-D pull against "Hawk" Smith during ACEVAL/AIMVAL[4]. The way both "Hoser" and "Hawk" discussed the pull from either of their perspectives was that this was a last-ditch absolute max g pull to deny Hawk a gun shot, meaning Hoser was well above 6.5g for several seconds as he initiated the pull at 600 knots. Hawk described the airplane becoming a vapor ball in the next-to-zero humidity of the TACTS range above Nellis, emphasizing how much "g" Hoser pulled to get away. The plane was X-rayed and not a single thing was out of place, other than Tomcat RIO "Hill Billy" Hill's vertebrae - he was down for 3 days after the yank. +12.5g by "Okie" Nance after an adjustment to the stick forces which he was apparently not briefed on [5] +10.2g by "Music" Muczynski to avoid Su-22 FITTER wreckage [6] +11g by "Jambo" Ray during a training event [7] +10g by "Snort" Snodgrass in a real-world SAM defense during ODS [8] +9.1g by "Faceshot" Consalvi in a real-world MANPADS SAM defense during OIF [9] >9g by "Paco" Chierici who also stated that the maintainers didn't really care until you put on more than 9.5g for the F-14, and stated he was routinely at 8g in the F-14. [9] 10.1g max g recordings on a VF-32 F-14 SparrowHawk HUD on cruise films [10] Repeated pulls to +8.5g by "Magic" Quist during training in the late 1970s [Tomcat-Sunset, source no longer available] Anecdotally, "g" stories always come up with F-14 pilots and RIOs, and invariably they seem to get into the 8 to over 10 region. Typically, if the pull is symmetrical, the plane comes out OK. That said, I believe Victory205 mentioned an 8g pull that jammed a slat by someone. There were a lot of discussions on Tomcat-Sunset back in the day on "g" and the F-14; at ACEVAL/AIMVAL, the going guidance was "whatever it takes;" over here: there is a statistical analysis of F-14 "g" pulls during ACEVAL/AIMVAL (only 31 hours of data were analyzed; the exercise comprised hundreds of sorties) going from -2.5 to +9.5; you will note that the plane exceeded 6.5g 91 times in those 31 hours (to include asymmetrically) and none exploded. Even Hoser's jet (F-14A Block 90 BuNo 159827) wasn't retired until more than 20 years after the 12.2g "yank." So, there you have it. The F-14 should not explode at 0.5g under its NATOPS limit. The examples you provided were not related to overstress. No F-14 ever ripped its wings off in real life, for that matter, let alone detonated because of an overstress. I hope you find this educational and useful. Cheers. Sources: [1] Ed. Lake, Jon, "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter" (London, Aerospace Publishing, 1998), 78; Stevenson J.P., "F-14 Tomcat" (PA: TAB Aero, 1975), 53, 68. [2] Lake "F-14 Tomcat: Shipborne Superfighter," 66-68; Stevenson, "F-14 Tomcat," 59; Mike Ciminera, F-14A Design Evolution, "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUCixAeZ0A" 19:10-19:25 [3] maxsin1972, "Top Gun pilot Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures At The Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 45:35-46:00 [4] Tomcat-Sunset discussion, source no longer available, & Auten, Donald E, "Roger Ball!" (New York: iUniverse Star, 2006), 352-353. [5] Keith Nance, Q&A with Keith "Okie" Nance, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKA3ITCZt9o [6] The Museum of Flight, "The American Fighter Aces Association's F-14 Tomcat Panel Discussion," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2f5pmrePuQw 45:39-46:10 [7] The Fighter Pilot Podcast, "TOPGUN Instructors React to 'Top Gun: Maverick'," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5tJA9pluxY 21:15-22:03 [8] maxsin1972, "Capt Dale "Snort" Snodgrass Lectures," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQZ0Q6anxbo 44:30-45:26 [9] Fight's On Military Aviation Enthusiasts, "Speed And Angels (Unofficial) Reunion - Jay, Megan, Peyton & Paco talk about the F-14 Tomcat," https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK4EP7Sbg1Q 1:05:50 - 1:06:45 [10] flysupertomcat1, "VF-32 Final Tomcat cruise video pt.1", https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rI73mzmfr2I 5:05-5:10

RAZBAM F-15E ground radar

Absolutely, once I'm done with the first iteration of the AH-64 guide.

I see no thread about this recent annoucement Also that Alpha Jet tease at the end......

This thread needs to be burned. Mssr Mistang can believe whatever he/she wishes to believe. The only thing that is blatantly obvious is that he/she gets off on lighting a match and watching the resulting conflagration. ”Stop feeding the fish”

Es würde reichen wenn alle Software- Nutzer einmal verstehen was Early Access bedeutet. Dann gäbe es wesentlich weniger negative Meinungen im Allgemeinen. Ich für meinen Teil freue mich sehr zB. den AH-64 pilotieren / gunnern zu dürfen, obwohl es noch eine Baustelle ist. In den Eurofighter würde ich auch ohne Lack und schnickschnack steigen. Early Acces ist auch wichtig um die Entwicklung schneller voranzutreiben, mit einer Nutzergemeinschaft die Fehler früher entdeckt und Meinungen abgibt, die für einen EA relevant sind. Das bezieht sich nicht nur auf DCS. Manch einer sollte mit seiner Einstellung einfach die Finger von EA's lassen, dann wäre allen geholfen.

New version 1.0.2022.0819 avaible - A-10C: added COMM 1&2 on radio panel in portrait mode - F-14: added AFCS panel - F-16C CMDS: FL switch fixed - Ka-50: added cautions panel - Ka-50: improved display data and the display of the ABRIS button options has been added - FC3: added ability to switch between panels - added protection against application crash in case data from DCS are already being sent to another application on this device - changed some graphics - added Android 13 support

You alternate between saying the Tomcat is a 6g plane and a 7.5g plane quickly enough to give yourself whiplash, get calculations wrong by more than a factor of two, ignore the copious evidence contrary to your assertions, ignore Grumman's calculations that structural failure is expected at 13g (which would lead to load factor limits of 8.67g with the normal 1.5x safety factor standard in the aviation industry), engage in wild hyperbole that aircraft that were either fine or had minimal damage (jammed slats, bent torque tubes) were "destroyed in seconds" - are you even attempting to argue in good faith here, or is this merely a trolling exercise?

No. I'm real busy IRL right now. I'm logging the issues and requests but I'll need to find some free time to actually work on them and publish an update.

From 2:46 to 3:11, this Demo Team F-14 turns in excess of 270 degrees in fifteen seconds- or, greater than 18 degrees per second. Consult your copy of that AAP-1.1 you shared to see what that works out to at 2:53- when he's doing 430 knots from a 380 knot entry with the burners lit and maintaining that turn rate. By your argument, the Tomcat should have exploded within seconds, yet, she persisted, at over 7.5G. Your argument, as my kids say, is sus. Thanks for playing.

So grateful guys for the replies. Don't know what I'd do without this Forum. Got plenty of info to mull over and decide what's best for my setup. I didn't know all this gear existed but very relieved I'll be able to make it all work at the end of the day! THANK YOU for all the replies!

Das ist leider von der Community selbst induziert. Ich würde es als Entwickler genau so machen, wenn ich so viel negatives Feedback im EA von den Usern bekäme. Da muss man sich bei den vielen Leuten bedanken, die unbedacht den Online Einkaufswagen zur Kasse schieben Ich denke die meisten wissen das sogar. Nur leiden viele von denen, die eigentlich mittlerweile wissen sollten, worauf sie sich bei EA Käufen einlassen unter massiver Beratungs- und Erfahrungsresistenz sowie unter der mangelnden Fähigkeit, sich einfach mal ein bisschen zusammen zu reißen und zu warten. Kann ja jedem mal passieren und ich würde mich selbst auch nicht davon ausschließen, aber es gibt halt immer wieder diesen gewissen Teil der Leute, die in dem Moment, wo sie merken wieder den selben Fehler begangen zu haben, nicht in der Lage sind, sich einfach mal über sich selbst zu ärgern, sondern dann dem Entwickler wiedermal den schwarzen Peter zu schieben. Tja, und dann geht das Spielchen wieder in Form eines <profanity>storms von vorn los. Für mich persönlich ist es so - Beispiel AH-64: ca 20 Jahre der Wunsch den in einer guten Sim zu haben. Dann die Ankündigung Ende 2020 und die Freude darauf. Im Herbst 2021 dann im Pre Order direkt gekauft, aber erst vor gut 5 Wochen installiert, weil mir vorher einfach die Zeit gefehlt hat, die ich mir für dieses Modul nehmen will. Bei der Strike Eagle wird es ähnlich werden. Solche Module will ich nicht zwischen Tür und Angel mal eben ein Stündchen ausprobieren. Sowas lege ich mir z.B. auf den ersten Urlaubstag - und wenn der noch ein halbes Jahr entfernt ist, dann warte ich so lange. Beim EF und bei der Phantom wird es genau so laufen. Direkt beim Beginn des PreOrder kaufen - klar, warum nicht? Ich bekomme einen Rabatt und die Entwickler werden dadurch unterstützt. Ausprobieren aber erst, wenn die Zeit dafür da ist. Lediglich Module, die mich nicht sonderlich interessieren, wie z.B. die Mirage F1 könnten es aus Langeweile mal während eines Sales ungeplant in den Warenkorb schaffen. Aber da ticken die Leute nunmal ganz unterschiedlich. Schade nur, dass es immer wieder so viele gibt, die dann ihre "Kritik" an die falsche Adresse schicken. Sorry - mega Text und nur OT. Ich hör jetzt auf damit (auch weil mein Puls bei diesem Thema fast immer ziemlich hoch geht )

Here is another airshow where the Tomcat clearly pulls more than 6G in a turn: Disclaimer: Conspiracy theorists, and people who suffer from the Dunning-Kruger effect, will probably not believe any video, or other evidence presented.

As the Emperor of Norway, I approve of the F16 Block 10.

Skip ahead in my video to the 20:00 mark and it’s the part where I talk to an actual pilot of the F-4 on what it was like to fly. Lt. Colonel "Bluto" flew both the F-4 and F-16 during his time in the Air Force.

Man, this is a great trolling effort! I don't think you understand what the word "refute" means, nor the context to which I responded. You claimed that the F-14 can't go above 6g without disintegrating, in spite of its NATOPS limit (6.5g), Grumman's ultimate "g" of +13g, Grumman's safe operating envelope of +9g/-5.5g (or +8g with a 6-2 loadout with tanks), Grumman's design target (7.5g), or any of the real-world examples I provided where the plane was brought to beyond +12g symmetrical with no ill effect to the airplane, or the ACEVAL/AIMVAL data which showed that during a sliver of that exercise, the plane averaged beyond 7g about 3 times per hour of flight. Therefore, your claim is refuted. I myself never made any claims apart from a response to your 6g claim. The fact that you are now using 7.5g is itself an acceptance that your original claim was refuted. The fact that a TF-30 stalled in an asymmetrical 9-10g barrel roll is irrelevant to your initial argument. The plane was fine, Snort got the engine restarted. Also, I provided rough amounts of time, but just to amplify in Hoser's case, he brought the jet from 600 to under 200 and by the time Hawk reacquired him, Hoser already had the landing flaps down (Hoser used landing flaps consistently in a slow-speed fight in the F-14), so he was above your supposed 6g max for several seconds. This is covered in Hawk's biography which I cited. All of the other things which you bring up do nothing to help your original argument. Your claim is refuted, good Sir, and there is no reason to waste any more time with a troll. This actually reminds me of that scene from "Kung Pow: Enter the Fist" - "I'm bleeding more, that means I win!"

You've been making the argument in this thread for two days, and a week in your previously deleted thread, that the Tomcat blows up in excess of 6G. Now you move the goal posts when disproven by your inability to perform basic math. You're trolling, and you're not even competent at it. Closing time, everybody. Last one out, turn off the lights.

thanks a lot for the kind words, but it's unlikely that I will return to the Jeff anytime soon, I flew it exclusively for 6 months straight, but then moved on to other aircrafts. I'm currently learning the Mirage F1 and fly it exclusively, as my brain gets confused when trying to fly two or more aircrafts concurrently. At the moment, I'm having fun editing a few training missions for the F1, because I found the built-in missions lacking ... here is a glimpse: will share them once I have a full set ready.

Attention everybody - in mission 11 "Intercept easy", the briefing image overlay will not disappear when pressing spacebar (it will eventually after 120 seconds though). This is fixed now. I uploaded both a hotfix and updated campaign to the file library. Please download this file and simply copy it into your Fighter Weapons School campaign folder. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jz85Q9Emd2YSqG14Zbdjfgl7JSzoS4en/view?usp=sharing Enjoy! @Morskoul

I just had to deal with this on my computer after buying this P.O.S. Unit. Do NOT Buy this. It burnt up my Internal Card after plugging it into it and turning on the ports I wanted to use. null YOU need to buy this https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0838XY4D2?psc=1&ref=ppx_yo2ov_dt_b_product_details You will need the Type C and the Internal Card that is POWERED If your VR has a Type C plug like the HP G2 has. I just put this card in to replace the one the HUB screwed up. around $38.00 better that then a Motherboard this plugs into the PCIe x1 slot on the Motherboard.

Hi Flappie, I tested it and can confirm, the issue is gone. No more black flickering spots in the cockpit with SSAO = On. (But I leave it OFF now, because I didn't miss anything without it in the last months and with it ON I have some light performance hits). Thanks to you and the ED team.

Regardless of what you think about W11 (or windows in general), W11 is pretty much W10 with a "new" (more like overhauled) GUI and some new features nobody really needs. It runs DCS just fine with absolutely no penalty in FPS or stability (I did a direct A/B-test on my ryzen system). Every possibility of setting it up is still the same as it was in W10, just sometimes a little hidden. I installed it out of curiosity (and boredom), absolutely ready to revert to my backup in a blink - but it turned out, that it worked just fine and every annoyance (why tf did they feel the need to move "that" item to "that" place") could eventuelly be overcome by some little tweaks or mods (looking at you, context menu). It will mature over the next patches as W10 did in the beginning and be just fine in the end. For now I occasionally role my eyes but am mostly fine with it.

Just wanted to thank Jonsky7 for the configuration guide. I first read through the entire guide to see if this was a tweak I could actually do without risk. After that, the guide was so effective that it took me all of 15 minutes to get the two MFDs appearing on my second (right-side) monitor. While I'm certain reading all the instructions first before doing anything helped, that's a tribute to a very well written and complete document. Thanks again!

Yes, Block 10 is my vote.

Being in Army Aviation for 20 years, I laugh at this comment.

Doing some experiments in TacView with the custom version of the F22.lua. I hit a max of 23 degrees/second with an instantaneous of 30 degrees per second. Max AoA 30 degrees. Not quite what the real thing can do, but considering we don't have actual thrust vectoring, it's not bad. nullnull null

Dear all, he is trying to post in a more relaxed manner, please do the same, and do resort to name calling and other such tactics, if his information is not correct feel free to correct him, and vise versa, but please do it in a respectful manner. Thanks!

D4n is not interested in being reasoned on these topics... he is obsessed with "exploits" and people having any sort of advantage (as evidenced in his thread asking to be able to see whethere a user uses TIR or VR so he can judge if they have an "advantage") so he can blame the supposed "advantages" on him loosing PvP fights. This thread is going to go exactly nowhere and its probably best just to not feed the troll.

Here's a video where an F-14 doesn't explode while pulling 16Gs https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

Yeah i have heard that HB have one or two employees living in Ukraine so that certainly puts a dent in the schedule. Hopefully they are safe and sound. If the release happens to be delayed into Q1 2023 I am fine with it. A fu**ing war is a valid excuse. Regardless I still have full confidence in HB's abilities and and drive to deliver this year

Hey! Yes, the download link will be down for a while. I kindly ask for your patience.

Australia, cool! Kola,cool! Sinai, cool! Bring them on! Why bash a team making maps for us to enjoy different experiences around the world. This coming from a casual, I could care less about recreating real-world scenarios, on realistic timelines. For those that like that stuff, great! Everyone likes what they like and there’s nothing wrong with that. Don’t like it, don’t buy it. Pretty simple. I’ll buy it on day one, because I like having the variety of different terrains regardless of where they are, what actual timeframe/ conflict they’re associated with, and whether or not there’s a realistic selection of aircraft for the particular area/ time. I like the a-10, harrier and f-16 the most. I have the 18, f-5, the fc3 planes, a few helis, and couple of warbirds. 99% of the time I use one of my top 3 Personally I have no interest in some of the modules coming out besides the f-15e at the moment. Guess I’m the odd man out that plays DCS for pure enjoyment Vietnam is a map that I would buy to support DCS’ future, but would probably hardly play if its created as dense as its real life counterpart. It’s not going to be fun if all of the enemies are under a thick canopy of trees and shrubs and you cant see where they are to actually destroy them. Also since, currently, a tree leaf will detonate any munitions you launch, that makes dense maps pretty much useless. Marianas takes my 80-100 fps average down to 35-60 (alt dependent) and thats just a few small islands. I don’t think a dense Korea/Vietnam map would even be playable at this point in time unless it was significantly underpopulated Point being, am I excited about Australia or the others? No, I’m 100% indifferent. Will I buy it/them, absolutely! If it adds to the freedom to do what you want, where you want, and help expand DCS as a whole, Its a win for everyone in my book

Here is what I'm using. Definitely went overkill for this one but I can't say no to new projects and the huey is still my favorite thing to fly in dcs. Cyclic and collective are the real thing from the aircraft. Buttons are all wired up and working as well as the axis for everything including the twist throttle. Had to edit the default.lua file to make some of the switches behave correctly and now I can go from cold start to flying without touching the keyboard (except for closing the doors) There is also a custom radio box and systems control box. the smaller one needs labels but the radio box is soon gettin replaced with some custom panels to include a real UHF control head that I hope to make work in the sim. The whole set up makes flying the huey a dream! Probably the closest I'll get to flying the real thing.

"At some point" in ED time is within the next millennium

Все же хотелось бы уже подобное увидеть от ED на не кликабельных машинах. Пускай не полную там симуляцию запуска двигателя, но последовательную. Сначала первый, потом второй. Что бы понемногу усложнять имеющиеся самолеты.

Ron also tweeted 4 images showing the AG Radar and TGP WIP. If you want to discus any of these posts please go to the discussion thread here:

not true

Which is exactly the problem the US had to solve in the Vietnam War. There are many ways of dealing with that, like FACs, ground troops marking things with smoke, or outright removing trees via agent orange. For many of us, blowing stuff up in the middle of the open field is no challenge at all. Bring in the jungle, the Trail, and the bridges.

Take it up with physics. All those noted circumstances, and yet, the one in your contention has never taken place. The maintenance documentation was discussed in the accident report. You're not showing a possibility, you're stating it as fact, and expecting everyone else to disprove your nonsensical contention that you support with a ridiculously poor grasp of the concepts and math involved. This is quite literally devolving into flat earthism on your part. For clarity, which claims? The math confirms one set of claims. Footage reinforces said arguments.

Yes, like every User Mod that goes into the DCS main program folder. I use a Mod Manager, that way I can disable all User Mods with a single command prior to updating DCS, and then easily re-enable them with another single command:

I'm not a party to this, but I'll dispute it. 100 m/s is 194 knots. 430 knots is 221 m/s, 380 knots is 195 m/s.

Да, такой баг есть, он известен и записан..

Our trial system allows you evaluate all participating modules (aircraft and maps) for 14 days. You can play each module sequentially for 14 days or any number of them at a time. Once you have ‘consumed’ the 14 days, you will be given another 14 day free trial period for all modules six months later. Enjoy the offer and please tell your friends! access the free trial here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/licensing/trial/ Not available for steam sorry, you will need to use the stand alone version for this free trial Link your steam account here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/personal/profile/ Download standalone here https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/downloads/world/

Then please translate for us, because he came in halfway through some conversation nobody was having.

@Aerges Devs Do you have available the real aircraft's EM charts to tune kinematic aspects of the FM with, or are you forced to extrapolate/estimate here? Just curious

I tried Win 11 for a few months, but it had several small annoyances until I just couldn’t stand it anymore … this week I reinstalled Windows 10, and it just works better, no annoyances so far.

Hello after quite a long break. I've recently made some adjustments to some of the textures in the Caucasus map. Not sure if the project will evolve to a full package mod one day but if it will, I will surely let you guys know. For now, I'm just playing and testing different solutions using Taz's "Better Trees for Caucasus". Boy, they are better, indeed!

Evidently you've been reading different material than me (we can start with the aircraft's own real-world flight manual and performance charts). If you're expecting Su-27 performance out of the jet then I don't know what to tell you, you're not going to get it and you never will. Wait until the Phantom or F-8 or an F-100 or any other fighter from its own era comes out and compare to that - or hell, compare it to the F-5, which is a near perfect match for it (as evidenced by the fact the US has long used the F-5 to simulate the 21 in DACT) or the F1 (which in my experience so far, it eats alive without much difficulty). The 21 can catch sleeping Hornets unaware but if you expect to beat them in a low speed 1 circle fight or in sustained turns then you're really, really barking up the wrong tree. Funnily enough, the biggest issues the module has are all its systems. The ASP has capabilities it shouldn't (CCIP for bombs, instead of just rockets and guns, and the pipper's ability to lock to things), the radar overperforms and shouldn't be able to lock/stabilise on ground with the locked beam mode (though really the bis shouldn't even be able to carry the Grom in the first place), the navigation system is painfully lacking compared to its real-world capabilties, and the autopilot doesn't even begin to reach what the one in the real aircraft does. Stabilise mode right now just applies an absolutely horrific damper/lag on all your control inputs, when what it should actually do is provide the ability for the jet to essentially auto-trim and let the pilot just fly it by pointing the nose with the stick and then letting the autopilot do the work. "Nerfing" is a funny term to use in a game that markets itself as a simulator. To me it just sounds like maybe you should spend less time deluding yourself about the capabilities of a nearly 70 year old airframe (or at least, a 50 year old upgrade of it) and more time getting a feel for the aircraft, because once you do it absolutely will live up to what it's supposed to do in terms of handling. In fact, it probably does a little too much at low speed and high angles of attack. Don't carry too many missiles, don't go into a fight with more than 2000-2200 litres of fuel, never carry external tanks into a fight, and don't just monkey the stick around like you're in a Hornet. Less is more.