Hawkeye91

This missiles don't get shot down every time. Depending on how heavily the missions designer defended the site with SA15s/19s. The goal of saturation is to either get lucky and sneak a missile through these defenses with is basically a dice roll and having 2 harms is 2 less chance rolls to make this happen, which when solo is a big difference, or to burn through their ammo which is limited.

Maybe we should removed the F18 Lightening pod while we're at at it. How about the entire Black Shark 3? Or you could, you know, not care what other people do and watch your own bobber, and mind your own business? Maybe its good to let people experiment with loud outs and learn things that loading up on 6 mavericks will make the F16 a real pig, just like how you can overload the A10C and make it a pig by taking too much. Maybe we should remove all forms of fun experimentation from the game and only allow strict "approved" load outs and limit everyone's experience to what you think is the proper way of doing things? Sounds like a real healthy change for the community. Great insight. Well done. ViFF hit the nail on the head that this mentality is basically wanting DCS to be a doctrine simulator.

What sucks was probably never an operational need to use 4 HARMs IRL because IRL you could have an entire squadron of 12 to 24 F16s doing SEAD if it was against a real SA10 level SAM threat with defenses. When we're playing SP, we're saddled with dumb AI, and you're lucky to get them to work properly. In dynamic MP servers, well good luck getting more than 1 person to join you because a lot people just want to do their own thing in the MP servers, and finally the only real option is to join a squadron which can be a large time commitment, which a lot of us don't get with our work/life schedules and need to be able to play on our own time. So as of right now, SEAD is basically dead (no pun intended) with the F16 for me if I don't have the ability to self saturate an SA10 site to try to get through the defenses. I'm not longer even excited for the HTS or jammer pod now because the lethality of only using 2 HARMs solo is basically null. This has really killed my enthusiasm for the F16.

Currently, when you are navigating to the FAF, the hud shows only the direct heading to the FAF while the HSD course line has you intersecting the arc(circle) to the FAF. This doesn’t make sense to me to not have the HUD heading guidance not correlate with the HSD. Is this correct as is or is navigation still a WIP?

So I've been doing a bunch of testing, and it feels like its the emergency take off auto rotation engaging even though I'm trying to rotate the aircraft. Combining the two inputs might give it that feeling of instability because you aren't anticipating the extra pitch up tendency. I attached a track file to my original post, so hopefully @uboatssee it I believe its also happening on landing when you land at heavy weight because the nose just pitches it self up into the air if you land fast. More weight = faster approach speed = pitch up on landing from the emergency take off auto rotation.

For some reason, when I'm rotating the aircraft for take off or trying to hold the nose off for landing aerobraking the pitch instability gets wild often times leading to a tail strike. I did a landing today where I touched down and the nose started to drop, so I raised it to 10 degrees and neutralized the stick and the pitch kept rotating until the tail scraped. Currently it feels unwieldly with its current implementation. I'm using a 7.5 mm extension, no curves, and some deadzones so I don't have any unintended inputs. Is this working as intended? is the FCS modelling incomplete or am I just a bad pilot? Edit: After some testing it seems that if you rotate a little above 10 by a degree or two is where the pitch stability is the the problem and at heavy weights. Often times I feel like at heavy weight I have to rotate back hard on take off to get the aircraft to start pitching up then push forward to counter act the pitch up instability that happens afterward to prevent a tail strike. I always use TEF on heavy weight Take offs. Edit 2: After further testing at heavy weight, it almost feels like the emergency take off auto rotation is pitching up the the aircraft on touch down. I'll attach a track file. JF17 Rotation.trk

Thanks BN for all the work you and the rest of ED do.

Currently in most MP maps, loading troops/cargo doesn't impose any weight on the aircraft. Dynamic severs use these logistics scripts for support helicopters. While I enjoy the logistic shlepping across the map in a slow mower, I'd like the added realism of the weight on the aircraft of what ever it is I'm hauling. Thanks everyone at ED.

Perhaps I'm doing something wrong, but I was launching the AIM120C in TWS, I used the NWS/Target Undesignate button switch between the tracks and fire on both of them. Only one of them managed to track the target which is missed anyway getting spoofed by chaff...... Is this a known issue? Track File https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fbqowO3pmj7MQ2ysSv_fSVT8l5Y0HyUk/view?usp=sharing Tacview https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ymdb-tes663OIUNNfH5SHrpFWJQO_3MG/view?usp=sharing

Ok, I looked at VKBs adapter again. It appears that the adapter is to adapt the TM grips to the VKB bases. I thought it was to adapt the VKB grips to the thrust master bases. Thanks for the ino!

The website says it’s compatible with the warthog grip, but what about other ones like Virpil or vkb with their adapter? Anyone know?

Still doesn’t hurt to throw my hat in the ring. The more interest the better.

According to this wiki article about the Mi-24: "Extra rounds of rocket ammunition were often carried internally so that the crew could land and self-reload in the field." How cool and novel would that be for something unique the Mi-24 could do? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24

yup, only takes a handful of jerks to ruin it for everyone else. Gotta love toxic community members.

I think the only zoomed in map they’ve implemented is the Caucus map.

Exactly, it feels like your fighting the Yaw AP while it’s trying to hold a specific heading (kinda like the Ka-50)as opposed to just dampening movements. I’ve been just turning it off lately.

Well I had a great track file example of this, but the file upload size it capped at 5mb.... Anyway, I made an approach to a runway and the same thing happened where transitioned to a hover, ran out of anti torque pedal authority until I hit the trimmer reset switch, then when I air taxied over and set down the yaw AP started getting to left and right oscillations while sittng on the ground. It would constantly swing the nose back and forth with weight on wheels. Seems really funky. Maybe you need to have yaw AP off for landing or something.

The Map system on the hind is really cool. Any chance we could get authentic russian maps (translated too if possible) instead of the FAA style sectional charts? Takes me out of the immersion just a little.

+1 much needed for MP.

Wags said in the Hind post that they increased shockwave damage to make up for the lack of fragmentation modeling. Maybe they haven’t made a pass at the grenade launchers yet.

The issue I have isn't that its even being trimmed a certain way, its that the trim limits the max pedal deflection I can input. For instance, if I'm on an approach with low collective position to slow and descend, I need less anti torque input, but as I slow into a hover and increase collective I run out of rudder input to where I can no longer maintain directional control and end up in a spin until I reset the trim. I run out of directional control because the AP trimmed the rudder like 50% right pedal so when put in max left pedal, its only deflecting the pedals in game like 25%.

I get this too, but he ends up locking only other helicopters in the AO.

If you watch in tacview it shows the cluster bomblets released as a singular bomb, and with how poorly splash damage is currently modeled, it makes think it has something to do with that.

This isn't working as intended is it? Surely these glide bombs without any propulsion can't accelerate through Mach 1.0 just from gravity alone. Is this a known issue? I tried doing a forum search and couldn't find anything else on the topic. I can't upload tacview because the file size limit is 5mb. Edit: Here are some screen shots of a release in tacview. As you can see in the images below the bomb accelerates through mach 1.05 with no propulsion. This can't be accurate, can it?

For me the lighting seems off for a bunch of things in the plane. For instance the Phoenix Launch button in the backseat. As RIO I cannot tell at all if the light is on or off unless I actually stare at it while it changes. Really wish ED would leave lighting alone for awhile or at the very least, forward the lighting changes to the 3rd party devs early enough that they can adapt their modules to the changes before the update is out on public beta.