Machalot

Would the empty bomb hooks actuate? Or do they only actuate when actually releasing a bomb, and then remain locked open?

Yes, it's also affected.

Did you add the same note for RB15?

INS drift or TGP misalignment?

https://discord.com/channels/1071433028045377637/1071578053584638093/1355981689205293066

Is this actually a Viggen issue?

Take the altitude of the target above sea level in meters, mentally divide it by 10 (or 9.3 if you like accuracy), and subtract the result from the QNH value. I believe QNH is still shown correctly at the top of the kneeboard. QFE = QNH - (TargetAltMeters / 9.3) In most cases QNH will be about 1012 or 1013. https://discord.com/channels/1071433028045377637/1071578053584638093/1343635813925126255

The method to use the RB15 without waypoints is Quick mode. Just use NAV master mode, point at the target, open the trigger safety, and fire. It will fly straight ahead and search. Is that what you're doing, and it doesn't track? What kind of target?

Anyone heard of Neon Odin? The whole album is great, especially the second track, Wield the Hammer.

Look for a set of autopilot keybinds added last year the include the word "toggle".

I've noticed the clicks seem to be slightly out of sync with the engine model. I can sometimes get past the first click and stay at MIL if I'm careful.

Can you say specifically which keybinds this is? I don't have this issue afaik.

Fleet Defender!

But it's not consistent, the effect depends on what order you switch modes. For example I've seen different results by going from mode 1 to 4 than if I go from 1 to 7 to 4.

Same here. Kneeboard is not working at all for me.

Which of these mappings is the one that should be used? I have also had issues with wingmen ignoring me.

Sounds like INS drift. If you're flying an F-16 in 1950 you won't get many GPS position updates to correct for INS drift. In fact the INS had barely been invented by 1950.

HI @Sydy, I'm just getting into Kola. Do you know if there have been any updates to the map since you published this that would affect the info on the chart? Thanks!

Is this happening to you in MP? This is a known bug for dynamic slotting on MP servers that lack a "template" file for the Viggen. I don't know what that is, but the people who run servers probably do because they have fixed the servers I usually play on.

The RB04 explodes like 10m above the water, so maybe it's not great against subs. The RB75T is specifically for anti-shipping afaik. For the BK90s are you using the anti-armor version?

Similar to diagrams of instantaneous and sustained turn performance, climb performance, acceleration, etc., this diagram is not directly "implementable" per se because it doesn't represent a general model of the flight dynamics. Rather it is calculated from the combination of the underlying flight dynamics models (propulsion, mass, atmosphere, and aerodynamics), under a set of very narrow assumptions, e.g. trimmed steady level flight with a specific mass center. Each of those models accepts flight condition and aircraft state (e.g. fuel, payload, power setting) as inputs, and provides a set of outputs (e.g. angle of attack for steady level flight, drag, thrust, fuel flow rate, control deflections for trim, etc.) and those outputs are then combined in another set equations to produce a diagram like this. If those other models and assumptions are implemented accurately, any point on this diagram should be reproducible.

I read it the same way until I realized you can't just compare curves on the right plot, you have to start from the beginning. Mach 0.5 is not actually more efficient because you start much higher on the lefthand plot.

It has been pointed out a few times that the NASA simulation was produced by an optimization solver to maximize the peak Mach number. This overrides the usual missile guidance, and is not representative of how the AIM-54 would fly tactically nor in DCS, even if it were modeled perfectly.

This is not how I remember it. What I remember is that based on a new source, they adjusted the overperforming motor down to make it mortal, got the two motors to match total impulse, and gave them slightly different burn times. Then Klarsnow commented how well the DCS Phoenix matches that NASA study even though they never attempted to do so (I suspect they both used the same source). I don't know of any further changes. Was that discussed in this thread? I've tried to keep up but it's been going a very long time.

One last thing. In a Viggen you will lose dogfights against the F-15C. Just to set expectations. The Viggen is a low level attack jet, and the Eagle was the king of the sky for almost the entire service life of the Viggen. The Eagle is faster, can pull more instantaneous and sustained G's, climbs better, accelerates better, has better cockpit visibility, a better radar, and better missiles.