Machalot

Any screenshots of the kneeboard pages need to be updated to the new look of the kneeboard. There is one on page 380 in Appendix II. It would also be good to add the instructions on how to set Time on Target and ingress Mach number when setting up a custom cartridge on the F10 map, from @RagnarDa's post here:

Any place the manual says "dampen" or "dampener" or "dampening", it should be changed to damp, damper, and damping. To dampen means to make wet. To damp means to reduce the amplitude of motion.

I saw the effect with a runway hot start.

Reproduced and reported.

No effect at all, or couldn't get the setting you wanted?

Thanks for the report. This one is in the bug tracker already.

In this thread we have a comparison of acceleration (via the velocity curve at zero alpha) between the DCS Phoenix and a NASA simulation based on public data. They match very close. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/308085-dcs-f-14-development-update-aim-54-phoenix-improvements-overhaul/?do=findComment&comment=5044246 The burn times cited in the white paper are superseded by the recent changes to the rocket motor parameters based on new sources. That is also explained further up in the thread, I think. The burn times are not that important though, it's matching the total impulse, which seems to be very accurate now.

This is a new one. Are you setting up your cockpit switches correctly?

There are knobs to adjust brightness and contrast that can be bound to control inputs. I don't remember the exact names of the top of my head, but I think you will find them if you search for brightness and contrast.

I'll bump this.

Can you provide the general form of this equation? In my understanding the DCS aero model does not change the base drag when the rocket motor burns out, and the effect of ambient pressure at the nozzle exit is disabled for the AIM-54 because the nozzle area is set to 1e-6 sq m. Even with these limitations, you can go back in this thread and find a benchmark case posted by Klarsnow that shows a velocity match of the current DCS AIM-54(C? I think) within a few percent of the public NASA paper.

Confirmed. I will put in a bug report.

Last I checked, you can see the effect of this knob by setting it to the wrong value and then aligning with the runway and pressing the Reference button. The CI will slowly rotate until it shows the runway heading, offset by the magvar error. Not sure if this is correct behavior but it does have this effect.

@IronMikecan you pin this thread please?

Excellent summary. Also worth pointing out the NASA paper resilts are simulations with no classified input data, not actual test flights. The simulated shots in Figure 7 that reach Mach 3.7-3.8 were launched at M1.2, 45 kft, in a 30-45 deg climb, and the missile does no additional lofting. The level shot only hits M3.3 and doesn't loft even after launch. So the typical level shot at M1.2, 45 kft with lofting from the missile guidance would fall between those in performance.

The AI Draken is on their public roadmap. https://trello.com/c/9HMwCtwn/45-j-35j-draken-ai null

Thanks, turns out we already have it in the bug tracker.

This issue is already in the bug tracker. Thanks!

Do you know if this mod passes IC with the new texture IC checks?

Sorry, I'm referring to the HB dev+tester Discord. There was actually no sense in my mentioning it here, sorry for the confusion.

Let's bring it up on the Discord. I haven't heard why it's like this, uniquely among features as far as I know.

KURS CORR, for whatever reason, is set to a random value within about 1.5 deg of the correct value upon spawn.

I confirm the standby KURS indicator doesn't work for me, it is stuck at 180. I'll submit a bug report.

There is a statement on p. 324 that says, For information on how to set up the "on ground" seeker presets, please refer to the "I Mission Editor Settings" section of the Appendix. I think this refers to the left/right offset and target number selections for the RB04. In one of the recent open beta patches these settings can now be changed from the kneeboard as well, not just the mission editor. On p. 325 it defines a group as "two or more ships" and gives an example of "Ships A and B constitute a group on their own". However, in the game the RB04 only recognizes groups of three or more ships. This text is directly from RC2, but perhaps should be updated.

Fantastic, we all owe you a great debt for this. Do you happen to have a list of the "Hundreds of repairs of community bugs reported over the last 6 years by fellow pilots"? I would love to know what I should be looking for as I read through it. One thing I noticed right away is that the text seems to be more pixelated in RC2.1. I don't know if this is a local issue for me or something you did when converting the document to pdf. Apart from the pixelation I find the new font weight and pitch slightly less easy to read. See below. Hopefully this is not difficult to change. RC2.1 has also lost sharpness in the images. These are screenshots from viewing each version at Automatic Zoom (same apparent size for both) within Firefox 106.0.5 in Windows 10: RC2: RC2.1: