Hawkeye91

So after watching redkites video, it appears there are more bomb depression tables but all of the Mk80s series bombs, the beluga, and the GBU bombs are missing depression tables. If you watch redkites video it appears there's the Mk80s series bomb depression tables in the exact same format and coloring as the ones in the F1 manuals that come with the module. Have these tables not made it into our manuals yet? If not, can we have them? Where are these tables redkite got ahold of? See here:null

Huzza! I can finally aerobrake! Thank you Heatblur for the suspension update!

There seems to be a new thing occurring with the FBW that didn't seem to occur prior to the flight model update where the F16 keeps want to pitch the nose down if your AoA goes above 11 degrees. This makes it difficult to do short field style approaches where its recommended to hold 13 degrees AoA on final for a minimum distance landing. I managed to do a decent job in this trackfile holding the 13 AoA but I felt like I was fighting the tendency of the nose to drop to 11 degrees the whole time making the approach feel very unstable from a control standpoint. From what I understand from reading the public manuals, in landing gains, above 10 degrees AoA the FBW pitch system goes into a combined AoA Command and Pitch Rate Mode, I'm not sure how exactly this should translate to how our control inputs should feel, but right now it feels like unless you hold a constant backpressure against the FBW it wants to pitch the nose down to lower the AoA. I'm using realsim's FSSB and I have the force settings set at 13 lbs of force for max pitch deflection allowing me to make really fine grain adjustments on final and right now the FBW feels really unstable with the pitch down tendency. Should the FBW above 10 degrees AoA require you to hold against the nose down tendency to maintain a 13 degree AoA? F16 Approach Pitch Occilationstrk.trk

Wow, that’s a real…implementation…

Also fun fact. I watched a Viper pilot do his air show spiel and one of their common modern loudouts is 5 amraams with only one Aim9x.

Yeah I’d love to see Heatblur go back and revamp the Viggen like RAZBAM did with the M2000C

My guess would be there’s only a certain amount of control authority the FBW is allowed to use to maintain the current aircraft attitude.

This. Generally speaking. Metallic objects are hotter than the surrounding environment when baking in this sun.

What I've noticed is that the FBW pitches up or pitches down in relation to horizontal acceleration as well. I don't think this should be the case. I don't know why you would want the FBW to be this way, but if you pull the throttle to idle, the nose will continue to drop a little and if you increase speed the nose will climb. I have no idea why the FBW wouldn't compensate for accelerations/decelerations, but DCS's doesn't. This is the most anger inducing when trying to make small speed adjustments for A2A refueling and any throttle change results in a pitch change.

Yeah, need something, because currently when playing MP many severs “force on” Wake Turbulence so the work around doesn’t work on those.

Interesting. I did not know the TF30s were derated in our version in DCS. Do you know by how much exactly?

Currently the burble effect is compounded between ED's burble and Heatblur's burble. So it probably can't handle the double wammy.

The lines are MUCH more clearly seen in the external view when not looking through the washed out green HUD.

This is a difference of opinion on the design philosophy HB has chosen. Visual fidelity has been chosen over our ability to use information given to us in the sim to be able to fly in a similar manner as the real pilots could IRL. In my opinion, things like the forestal deck lines should make up for the disparity between the limitations of the sim's lightning engine and what pilots could make out in real life. I would rather be able to fly like the real pilots could by getting the same visual indications they could. So yeah the lines don't have to look perfectly new, but a good compromise between wear and tear and usability to make up for the limitations of the simulators lighting engine and just the fact that we're looking through a small window with limited resolution. A compromise if you will. Currently its all or nothing with the deck lines right now. I don't care much for the texture addons as they look too clean. I'm a happy medium kinda guy. I think another part of the problem is the green filter effect on the F14 HUD washes out a lot of detail when looking through it so that could be part of the problem we're seeing as well.

nullCloser still and zoomed in you still can't make out the landing area.

I would be pretty surprised if the navy was so cavalier they'd just let the deck remain in a state that was detrimental to the safety of the pilots that had to perform the landings. It would have to have some level of acceptable safety margin. Its pretty much unusable in DCS. Edit: look here, this is pretty unusable for alignment. Without the ACLS needs it would pretty much impossible to line up. If pilots had the same visibility IRL as we did IRL there's no way this would be same state. null null

According to this new video, the F14s flew at Mach 2.4 to intercept the SU22s. Now, This is a struggle to this this speed in DCS. Details missing from this are what altitude did the start at, what was there fuel state, stores, ect? They had at least 2 sidewinders each and I'm guessing they had drop tanks because I'm fairly certain they navy would ALWAYS equip drop tanks on carrier launches because you always want extra gas over the water. So my question is, how where they able to hit Mach 2.4 to intercept these guys?

I think part of the problem is usability IRL vs usability in DCS. IRL it might not have been as big of an issue for pilots to not have as visible lines because, everything will be larger and basically infinite resolution with your real eyeballs vs us in 2D/VR have a limited about of resolution/smaller screen space making details like the lines MUCH more difficult to pick out. So yeah, while it may match more realistically to real life appearances, its definitely not as realistic to real life in usability. Its the same issue I have with all of the lights in the cockpit in DCS. They may have looked as rough as they do in real life, but real life pilots probably didn't have nearly as big of a problem for readability IRL as its much easier to pick out the details IRL so from a user standpoint we're sacrificing simulation usability for eye candy unfortunately.

Yeah this bug has existed since launch and ED has yet to address it. It happens every flight exactly as you described.

Makes me wonder if they aren't maybe understanding the sources correctly. Perhaps there's a difference between the absolute max detection range and maximum RWS range to produce a trackfile. By the time you have a trackfile brick, as others have said, maybe its within that max lock range as the radar return has been processed and filtered by the FCR, and therefore, a lockable return. Maybe the devs are misunderstanding the source thinking that max detection range and max RWS range are the same distance. I don't know, I'm no expert, but I believe there should be some more research done as to why there's the discrepancy we are all seeing and they aren't. Also isn't EDs source manual a Spanish F18A with the APG-65 and not the APG-73 like our mid 2000s Hornet would have?

This problem right here is the single most aggravating thing for me in the F18. It makes me not even want to fly the Hornet because of how bad it makes the radar feel. The fact that I can't reliably STT lock a bandit I'm picking in RWS until I'm some arbitrary 83% of max range just feels terrible. Who would make such a bad desgin in an aircraft? Not that bad designs don't exist, but you would think this would be worked around and updated to not be such a bad limitation. If its realistic, so be it, but man does it make the F18 radar feel absolutely garbage to use and makes not want to fly it anymore. ED, if you can't make it realistic due to some too classified information, at least make it not so terribly anti-user friendly.

Actually, I have a bad performance hit and I play exclusively 2D. I can run almost a steady 144FPS but when I run SimAppPro, my performance tanks to an unstable 60-80 FPS. That's a 55% FPS hit. That is unacceptable and I'm extremely disappointed with Winwings software. I spent literally thousands of dollars on the Super Taurus, Super Libra, and Take Off and Start Up panels.

Yes! Thank you! I swore I used to be able to aero brake properly but it felt like something changed, but I wasn’t sure if I was remembering correctly. @IronMike Is this something you guys at Heatblur could look into?

Is ground handling and take and landing FM something on HB’s radar to fix/improve?