Hawkeye91

if you knew what I meant then you'd realize that in warbird aircraft is all but impossible to wheel land the warbirds without bouncing, as I've said, I've touched down with near zero sink rate. Like <10FPM and it still bounces. It should not bounce that easily on a wheel landing and as I've said, you didn't read my post because you'd realize that I've done these landings in real life (I have a tail dragger endorsement and you have to learn both landing techniques to get it) and in other sims and Warbirds are the only ones that are this impossible to not bounce, so something seems off, which the missing toque effect of deceleration when rubber meets ground would cancel out that little tail down tendency on touchdown. Its not as simple as "too fast, too hard = bounce" because I wasn't either of them in my testing of various warbirds.

I'm not talking about landing, I'm talking about WHEEL landings, please read the post before commenting. If you don't know, a wheel landing is a landing on the front main wheels only of a conventional gear aircraft. Wheel landings inherently carry a little more speed and power on landing to keep the tail off the ground on touch down, because if you come in slow, you'll 3 point land it which is fine, but no the goal of what I'm trying to achieve. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages, and is often a topic of religion among tail dragger pilots which is better, but I like to be able to do both.

I've flown tail draggers IRL and flown many tail dragger aircraft in other simulators and DCS warbirds are the only ones I can't wheel land without getting a bounce. I find even if I touch down with the tiniest amount of sink rate to get the wheels on the ground, I still get a bounce, albeit a small one, but it shouldn't be the case. Bounces occur during wheel landings when you touch down with too high of a sink rate. The high sink rate causes the tail to drop due to momentum which in turn increases in the AoA of the aircraft and it starts flying again. What appears to be missing is the torque effect of wheel friction drag of coming in contact with the ground. The deceleration torque affect would cancel out the tendency for the tail to drop on a wheel landing as long as sink rate isn't excessive. Currently, it feels like this balance doesn't exist and touching down at all, always results in a bounce, even if only slightly. 3 point landings on the other hand feel accurate and very nice. I'd just like for the ability to do wheel landings as I prefer them for crosswind landings, you tend to have more rudder effectiveness with a wheel landing and reduce the chances of a ground loop with a crosswind landing. (Yes I know this is a topic of religion among tail dragger pilots) Here's a video I made in a different simulator flying a Beaver (Yes I know I screwed up the thumbnail and put DHC-3) for comparison. I'd like to be able to do that with Warbirds, I've yet to get a wheel landing to work like this in DCS though.

I'd attach the track but I forgot to save it. I have the tacview file. Tacview-20210922-210340-DCS-Mossie - Caucasus Map - Takeoff Practice.zip.acmi

Does the fact that the super carrier module treats the F14A as a Hornet give the wrong IFLOS eye to hook height?

Was hoping may fall under that category. Thanks, I remember reading that before, but couldn't for the life of me remember term.

Certainly hope it does. Hope the patch includes the visual fixes for the F110 nozzle where the interior of the nozzle is supposed to create a choke point. I forget the technical term for the shape, but essentially believe it’s supposed to look the same as the F16.

On the contrary, I usually try to use a 2/2/2 load out and use Phoenixes >30 miles, and sparrows >10 if anything is left! Though my success rate has to be less than half with the sparrows

Well yes, I understand it’s more nuanced than a wall of all or nothing, it’s just a figure of speech. Glad to hear it’s not just me being crazy.

Seems like the F14A really struggles to get past Mach 1.0 at all altitudes with, with a 2 Phoenix, 2 sparrow, 2 sidewinder load out. I understand that the A’s engines are less powerful, but even I unload the aircraft at 0.5s to accelerate to Mach 1.2 I eventually slow back down to Mach 1.0. To me this doesn’t make sense because what I understand of aerodynamics is that when you are near Mach 1, you are in the transonic region which should have an extreme amount of drag, but once you punch through the the transonic region, drag is actually reduced, plus you’ll have increased ram air for the engines giving you higher thrust. So to me it seems like once you punch through the transonic wall you should at least be able to maintain speed instead of slowing back down. My knowledge is rather basic, so I’d like to know why what I know doesn’t match up with what’s happening in the aircraft. This article explains what I mean. https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Transonic_Flight

I must be going crazy, I thought this happened over a ago!

was talking about what heatblur's manual references on this page: but doesn't have any references as to what the differences between them are.

ok, thank you much! I couldn't find the text anywhere what to name the waypoint. While we're on this topic, what are the various F10 waypoints you can add like MP1, MB1, MBP1, BP1, ect?

What I'm specifically referring to is this: What do I name the map marker to generate this type of Data Cartridge? I've looked in both chuck's guide and the manual provided by heatblur and neither mention what is needed to get this to work.

https://trello.com/b/HsMiJggJ/heatblur-public-roadmap Exterior sounded set overhaul planned per the roadmap.

Just wanted to say the adjustments to the take off/landing behavior feel great!

So I've noticed on takeoffs that when I rotate the aircraft once the timer bar touches the markers and I pull back slightly to rotate, the airplane rips off the ground and I get the stall warning. It seems that as I pitch the aircraft back, it continues to rotate up even if I relax the back pressure on the stick to try to prevent over rotating. This instability seems rather dubious. Perhaps it is accurate, but when I watch videos of Viggens doing take offs at airshows, they all seem to have a nice gentle consistent rotation, not the drastic pitch up craziness I see. Now I know that these aircraft at the airshows are probably sitting on like 50% fuel with no stores, but I would think that more weight would have the opposite and make the aircraft more stable as you would need greater control deflections to achieve the same rotation rate on take off. Maybe this is accurate to the real aircraft, but it feels very unstable to me, regardless of how gentle I try to rotate. Also if I wait a little longer to get a good rotation, I end up overspeed the tires and blowing them. Any suggestions? Also I do have a modest curve of 10 set with a 10mm extension on my stick.

Fantastic! Thank you for looking into it!

Yeah I’ve definitely noticed with the A it struggles pushing through the transitional range. Will be interesting to see how that range is affected

Curious as to how much they will increase the performance of the Tomcat. The drag index changes from the forum post about them seem to be quite significantly reduced. We have gotten them yet have we?

You are exactly being an authoritarian, you just lack any awareness of it. Stop white knighting for ED and let them defend themselves instead of trying do it for them. You’re literally in trying to undermine our argument. Mind you’re own business.

You’re actions say more than words, if you didn’t care how we want to spend our time with our module, you wouldn’t be so zealous in your defense of ED in this situation, and let us argue our point without trying to undermine us. Mind you’re own business. We’ve had many more crew chiefs/SMEs argue that it’s realistic to have 4 HARMs than either you or ED had made statements to the contrary or provided evidence for. Yours and EDs argument has boiled down to “nuh uh”. Great argument, very convincing.

You're so far off the mark with your argument. The point is we disagree with what should be considered realistic, not that we don't want realism, and we're making the point that it doesn't have to be down to the nitty gritty pedantic rivet counting details to be realistic like you, and ED recently with the Viper, want. The reason the Hornet is brought up is we're pointing out the hypocrisy between ED's design philosophy between the aircraft. They cherry pick what is allowed and what isn't based on arbitrary accuracy reasons. Hence the the Spanish Lightening pod on the Hornet. Why is the Hornet afforded that level of "forgiveness" for an arguably much more unrealistic option as being able to put a cheek mounted Spanish pod on the Hornet which would need the entire wiring system, yet the F16 can't have HARMs on 4/6 because of a stupid dongle. What you're doing is belittling our argument down to the fact that we don't want realism when in fact we are arguing what is realistic in terms of what should be allowed (which you don't have a good argument for) and to us its not unrealistic to put HARMs on 4/6, and if its such a massive problem for people like you that want to play doctrine simulator, DONT USE IT. And the reason that we bring it up to mind your business isn't that you don't want the on 4/6 because its unrealistic to you, because we both know you just won't use it. You don't want us to use it or see us using it. Which is something you should learn to get over and stop caring how people play with their airplanes and stop advocating for something that already has zero impact on your enjoyment of a module. Also think about this. With this level of pedantism, where will it stop? When I bought this module and started using HARMs, I was under the impression I would be able to use 4, now due to little niggling details, we get 2. In what world would anyone be able to predict this, except for SMEs. What's next on the chopping block for some obscure detail? "Sorry guys, we're taking away Mavericks because no USAF/ANG squadron owned the racks to be able to mount them."(this is just a hypothetical, don't get your jimmy's in a twist about it) When does it end? How many features are we going to have axed for tiny details that we cannot forsee?

A cool jester feature I feel would be the ability to have him punch in the IP with the F10 map like you can, then put another waypoint on the map that's the offset, or even name the point as what the offset is eg 120degree, 10nm, 50ft or something to that affect. I always want to be able to do this kind of bomb run online but I'm always solo. Would love to see. Thanks Heatblur for the amazing plane!

Strawman eh? Pot meet kettle. None of us have a problem with realism. We just think that realism doesn't have to mean pedantic rivet counting details as a stupid umbilical is enough reason to limit capabilities. We can put the Lightening pod on the cheek station of our F18 which in the USMC doesn't have the wiring for, why doesn't ED remove that and why aren't there forums screeching for that removal too? I certainly don't care its there. If people want to use it there, fine more power to them, it literally has zero impact on my experience? Know why? Because it ain't my damn business how people want to enjoy their time nor do I care. Just like you shouldn't try to enforce what YOU think your standards of realism should be on anyone else. You do you, I'll do me. You should leave it at that, and stop trying to advocate for changes that objectively make other's experiences worse for such petty rivet counting.