Thinder

First of all Merry Christmass! I am now the happy owner of the F-86F and started to train on it but have been unable to finish the landing mission. The "Follow me" car contact me when I get close but only honk twice before turning its lights off, then doesn't move anywhere. From then on, because the light is too dim in VR, I find it impossible to locate the right parking area, if I knew where it was it could work but I am not sure I can finish the mission like the other ones, for the time being, I park next to the first Sabre I find and turn the power out. Anyone experienced the same issue and does anyone have a solution? Thanks in Advance!

Already done multiple times... The last were a video from Ate (Ex-MN Rafale pilot) interviewing a Mirage F1 pilot, some explanation on how a F1 couldn't out turn most contemporary aircraft on the basis of its wing loading with those of the Mig-21 BIS, F-4 and F-105 to compare, what is needed for good turn rates, and so on, as I said DONE, only to get the same reply... It's not with me they should discuss those issues, I'm using my right to complain as a paying customer here, but apparently it is too difficult to get in touch with an AdlA Squadron, Dassault-Aviation or simply get in touch with the pilots Ate have interviewed??? As for my sources, I have explained clearly that I was unable to disclose them, their role with AdlA are not of public relation but active Squadron and as such, I wasn't given any details and if I had I wouldn't disclose them, as I said I served with AdlA and I know the drill, for demo pilots and those interviewed by Ate it's a different matter. >>>> Great. now wee have players who take their fantasy for reality, sorry, if a French Mirage F1 pilot says it's NOT a dogfighter, if the laws of physics and aerodynamics proves it, then I know which video to take seriously, and I also know that this module flight envelop is certainly not that of the real aircraft. Now we know why we learn aerodynamics in flying schools, along with flight dynamics, flight mechanics, MTO, Nav etc, when you know the minimum you can tell the difference between blah blah and reality (or performance charts and flight envelop).

Perhaps if you weren't so prompt to dismiss what people are saying you wouldn't have this problem, I was the first to congratulate your team for the excellence of the work done (modellism, mapping, as a 3D CGI techie I can appreciate that) but I highlighted those issues only to see the very same reply than today. Your post about the aircraft turn rates just highlight what your collective problem is, you have no clue what its aerodynamics are about, if you based the flight envelop of this module on the assumption you made about how it can out-turn contemporary aircraft and/or other DCS modules, no wonder you got it plain wrong first time. So let me help you with some basics: For a good turn rate at equal temperature (air density) you need 1) low wing loading. 2) high lift coefficient. 3) high maximum structural limit (G). Using common sense being a good start, does the Mirage F1 check on with 1) 2) or 3)? Answer for 1) AND 2) is NO. And that's valid for 2) despite the flaps and slats. That's for instantaneous turn rate, if you want to compute sustained turn rate you add Drag Coefficient vs Thrust. Now I don't know if you even bothered studying the aircraft history, visited the Dassault-Aviation Website but it is pretty obvious that the aircraft was conceived as an interceptor not a dogfighter, and that they figured early enough that to meet their goals for lower landing speed they also had to increase AoA and needed to fit those ventral fins to it. So when one flies this module and find oneself unable to prevent an oscillation in Yaw at AoA where they shouldn't happen, it looks like you assumed that Dassault didn't know what they were doing and that the aerodynamic damping provided by the ventral fins doesn't work, and I forgot to mention the fact that they fitted a trim so unresponsive it leads to trim hunting at every change of speed. I passed on all those information to you and your team long ago, how you manage to complain that a paying customer is not reacting positively to your commercial rhetoric on how it have been validated is striking, I know perfectly how difficult it is to get a flight envelop close to the real thing but before you start to sell it as "validated" you might want to inform yourself properly. Now, you guys have the module, IF it have been modeled properly, you can find every tool FREE online to check on its aerodynamics, just visit the student section of Dassault-Systems, they have free modeling and fluid dynamic tools I used long ago for a dimension accurate wing of the F-100, including wing profile courtesy of DRYDEN, except I used CATIA and FLUENT, my tip make your model water tight. That's clarification, for you... Assumption is the mother of all you know what, good to know you ignore my posts I'll do without groupies. Cheers. >>> Other seems to assume that I don't know that the aircraft needs to be flown with the rudder at high AoA, and that's not 40°, that's the first thing you learn in a flight school (1975), with stall, to prepare you for flaring the aircraft for landing. What I am saying and always have said is that the adverse Yaw coming from the use of the spoilers at approach AoA is greatly exaggerated with this module and we won't mention trim hunting... I rest my case, they're going to ignore my info and complain again... Good practice.

Do you know what the Mirage F1 wing surface is? That of a Mirage III? That of a Mirage 2000? I was at the Bourget Airshow when the F1-M53 got spanked by the YF-16, and I know for a FACT that it is a rocket, flying very fast and accelerating very well too but certainly not a turning fight aircraft. I'm curious to know at which point of its flight envelop the F1 will beat the laws of Aerodynamics with 25m2 of wing surface, that's 20m2 less than the Mirage III, the top gunner I knew well who I mentioned earlier flew the Mig-21 at Reims in 1973 (Yep, Normandie-Niemen privilege) just a couple of years before I started training with him. He was rather complementary about the Mig, the only thing he did not like was the limited G allowance for the HUD gunshight which prevented the pilot to fire passed a given AOA, to make matter worse, the ballistics of the 23mm were also inferior to that of the DEFA 30mm. Now of course the engine thrust plays a role in the final equation but the Mirage III had the reputation of a Mig Killer for some very good reasons, especially in the hands of IAF pilots. So putting Mig-21 and Mirage III side to side with similar performances, including turning rates, I wonder where you'll fit the F1 in to that? To give you a clue: Clean with fuel and pilot, it has 448kg/m2 wing loading and if you doubt it, ask this gentleman. "448kg/m2 is really enormous!", "NOT a dogfight aircraft". Computed on their gross weight: Mig-21 Bis = 380kg/m2. On 50% internal fuel, your Mirage F1 barely reaches this value at 380.8kg/m2. F-4 = 382.60kg/m2 F-105 = 451.53kg/m2

Hilarious to mention vague statements when we're served with those on a regular basis in the form of " has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft" to justify unfinished flight envelops of this module. If a proper flight envelop had been done first time it wouldn't have need revision after revision. Then there is one public source for AdlA Squadrons even if I contacted one particular Squadron, the reply comes from a pool, and pilots are protected by anonymity, I served in AdlA at BA-102 Dijon and know the drill, if I knew them personally I wouldn't disclose their identity, I have my sources and they are reliable. Then asking for specifics angle of attacks? Are you kidding? Which "multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft" have validated a range of AoA used for landing and unresponsive trim for this module I wonder... I mentioned those issues from the first time I flew it and the answer haven't changed yet. I understand "pointu, qui se pilote au palonnier" because I flew light aircraft when the vast majority of you weren't even born and guess what, I had the head of the flight test center of Bretigny as instructor, I think I picked up a few things from him and other advanced pilots, I don't need pseudo-lectures from anyone here... No need to be so specific, the module behavior is not on par with that of the real aircraft in this region of its flight envelop, despite what we're told repeatedly, if you want specifics, there is no damping in the YAW axis which is not how the aircraft behave, it is sensitive but controllable. Have you ever saw a Mirage F1 pointing its nose from one side to the other at those AoA in thousand of video hours or eared of trim issues? Me neither, as if Dassault-Aviation didn't do their home work, for that matter before the release of the first serie aircraft they sorted them by adding ventral fins precisely to make sure it wouldn't happen at high AoA, and we all know what this range is, it is marked in the indicator. So unless Devs accept that they still have some work to do wont be taking the usual explanation seriously and Aerges better take the matter seriously if they want to retain some credibility, it cost little to say "it's not perfect but we're making progresses" and keep working at it, a proper research work would be a good start. And something else Dustband, 1) You're not "everybody", 2) you're projecting by talking about waste of time, 3) People asking question are right to do so and if you don't like it, change career and do politics.. Don't bother replying. You can play the victim all you want and keep taking the mickey with your usual reply, if I want to know something about the aircraft, I know where to ask which is what I did and it's evidence enough for me. My tip: Follow RAZBAM example and get in touch with Dassault-Aviation or AdlA, or even better, do some home work and contact one of the F1 test pilots, I'm sure some of them are still alive and can be find in Facebook or elsewhere. LOL! Now I'm sure one genius is gonna imply that I fly this module out of its flight envelop... We never know.

Cut the BS. I spoke with AdlA Squadron members which were flying the Mirage F1, if the aircraft is said to be "pointu" at high AoA and demands to be flown with the rudder which is counter-intuitive when trying to counter excessive yaw instability, it's nowhere near as unstable in Yaw and its trim is responsive, no trim hunting there. So this "validated" argument is dumb, and if anyone wants to know what this module should really fly like, they can ask for themselves.

When can we expect to see it introduced in DCS?

PSU no longer available, my apologies to those who contacted me for nothing, the taker agreed to my terms but I received his email way before I checked it. Fly safe.

I have two; trim not responsive enough (time lag) and excessive instability in the yaw axis, to make sure, I contacted some French Squadron which flew the F1, the Web Master, to inquire about those issues and they came back to me: The F1 is a tricky airplane to fly at high AoA but nothing like constant Yaw movements and there is no issues with the trim. No argument there, they flew it from the moment it was available.

It's easy to install and use, you need a one life time license, a few quids. I can map every single button except wheel slider on my throttle (!?!), there are 4 different emulation functions per key plus Special Key Codes, Keyboard Multi, Mouse and Mouse advanced, lots of ways to map your combo, then you can save your profiles. I tried Thrusmaster own package but reverted to this one, I find it to be better except for the TWCS throttle wheel, also calibration is easy (basically the same than Windows) and stable.

I use this: Joytokey Once calibrated it's rather stable but I have had Trim issues mainly due to DCS settings, and it depends on the module itself. With the Mirage F1 it's basically fcuked up, you spend more time chasing the trim than flying the aircraft at every little speed change and developers try to tell us that it's the same with the real aircraft, I exchanged emails with French AdlA members, this is not the case. I use my Warthog in Elite Dangerous as well, never had any issues, the only little problems I find with it is that it is stiff as hell and I'm pleased to have it mounted on a clamp which keeps my fore harm level, not standing on my desk, and once screwed tight on its basis, there still is some degree of rotation play, it's not what one could expect from a product of this quality... What you describe sounds like a bug or a broken lua line, you should try contacting support and send them your log files...

I did already: The 3200MHz can easily be O.Ced but my personal choice was not to O.C my RAM, the 3600MHz kit was available, I had the budget to change kit (again, 32GB 3200MHz, 64GB 3600MHz, 32GB 3600MHz all tested back to back). I have to specify one thing, the loss one can experience with using the wrong combination of RAM with a Ryzen, is different between the X3D and non X3D CPUs, due to the way cache uses low latency that other "standard" Ryzen doesn't, it was explained clearly by AMD at the launch of the 5800X 3D, the goal of adding a cache was lower latency. What it does, it shortens the time the CPU needs to access data, add to that the lower latency provided by a Cl14 BDie kit and the difference is showing, so if you call the recovery of data loss a gain, the gain of using a Cl14 kit will be lower for a non X3D CPU although it is already important overall it translates differently. From Crucial Cl16 to GSkill Cl14 3200MHz both 32GB. CPU is a 5600X From 5600X to 5800X 3D. As you can see for yourself, tests after tests have demonstrated gains but the most important step was achieved with the addition of the cache with the 5800X 3D, a gain of 18.91% in graphic score shows how the CPU keeping the GPU channel open helps with those scores. ALL at 4K 2 X MSAA. In short, best bounding possible for this particular CPU affecting the GPU performances as well, in the case of simply going from a Cl16 to a Cl14 with a non 3D CPU gain is only 1.33% in Graphic Score but the CPU gains 6.04% (Physics Score). I recommend it in the frame of your remark on cost, if you have the budget and dont want to OC your 3200MHz, go for the 3600MHz kit, but be aware, 3600MHz is the limit of what a Ryzen will take. For the gains see Slide 1 to which you can add the recovery of losses due to the number of ranks if you swap from a 64GB kit. I deleted the last slide (third) which is irrelevant to the topic... Depending on your Motherboard BIOS, it can ID it and you won't have to even set the frequencies up or you will have to go to BIOS and set them manually, I had both cases since I changed Motherboard twice since the B450/5600X combo. If you follow tutorials and user guide instructions it is pretty easy to do, those are standard RAM and timings, make sure your Motherboard and BIOS supports them.

From what MSI are saying (and they don't talk about GSkill or Corsair but BDie kits), there are no 16GB sticks possessing 1 rank, I had one such a kit, G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 64GB (4 x 16GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14Q-64GTZRA tested back to back with the one I have now, G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3600 (PC4 28800) Desktop Memory Model F4-3600C14Q-32GTZRA it loses <> 31% at 4K 2 X MSAA in 3DMark Pro Firestrike. With a Ryzen designed for low latency, especially the 5800X 3D with its cache, there is no advantage whatsoever in bounding a 64GB kit to those CPUs. About the price, just to say "Do what I say not what I do"... The 3200MHz kit will OC to 3600MHz no problem, this will help cut cost, I tested all 3 kits, the 3200MHz was excellent but I elected not to O.C my RAM, it is just a matter of personal choice. G.SKILL TridentZ RGB Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) 288-Pin PC RAM DDR4 3200 (PC4 25600) Desktop Memory Model F4-3200C14Q-32GTZR

For a start, you're losing in performances with a RAM kit working out of your CPU Controller limits, it throttle down under load, tested back to back the difference with mine was <> 31% at 4K, you don't notice that when not under load. With BDie. only the 8GB sticks posses 1 rank, your Controller is limited to 4 x 1 ranks, so the result is a loss of about 30%+ under load, meaning higher latency, lower bus bandwidth for both RAM and GPU. No matter what you do as settings this bottleneck is there to stay until you limit the number of ranks and bring it back to a value your CPU Controller can manage. The values you see and call overhead are the maximum your gear could reach in best conditions probably not what your CPU Controller delivers. The Specs of your CPU are: System Memory SpecificationUp to 3200MHz AMD assume that you will not use a BDie kit and give the lowest frequency value, valid for example with a Cl16 kit For 3600MHz, that's with a BDie Kit working at Cl14 4 X 1 rank maximum, I even wonder how you managed to have your BIOS taking the 3600MHz setting but it depends on Motherboard manufacturers, some will let you set it at 3600MHz with 8 ranks some won't, in any case the result will be the same, your settings will show the maxi, the Controller decide if yes or no it delivers and when it can. The DDR4 Ryzen have the same controller in common, your 5900X works the same way than mine, the only difference is a higher clocking and no cache, but it is designed for lower latency like all recent DDR4 Ryzen, their controller limits ARE 3200MHz with "high street" RAM (non BDie/Cl14), 3600MHz with Cl14 kits, maximum of 4 ranks either 2 X 2 or 4 X 1. The ultimate configuration for them is a 4 X 1 Cl14 kit providing your CPU with interleaving, meaning your Controller can manage data between all 4 sticks. My opinion, I would swap this kit for a 32GB, you won't lose but gain in performances because for the same frequency, your kit will recycle data way faster than a 64GB kit can ever do, it's a case of more means less. Then again, Lower FPS doesn't have to mean unplayable, it all depends on your frame time, so latency matters a lot and you don't get the best out of your combo with this RAM bounding, I run tests at high DCS settings, tree tops in the Caucasus map, the FPS doesn't look fabulous but I have no or very little flickering, it's smooth. Low FPS can be normal under load, what is not is lower image quality, flickering, ghosting etc, VRAM and RAM plays a major role here, VRAM frequency helps with frame time, RAM helps your CPU to keep your channels open and your GPU to work under the best conditions possible. Now I'm gone to the point where the limits are that of my headset, not my combo, ghosting and flickering showing in the Pico but not in the replays, so I'm not bothered with mid-40 FPS for as long as the game stays smooth and I still have some margin with VRAM frequency...