Dudikoff

Yeah, sorry, I reckoned that since there's no fuel level meter there, that the lamp indication is an estimate, but I guess the fuel pumps can tell when there's no more fuel being pumped in and shut down automatically and this can be used as a signal for the indication. Hmm, I stand corrected, they actually did implement them to drop sequentially in the game (like the weapons). First press, the wing tanks are dropped and then the center tank (second press). It might have been like this before, didn't really test this ever as the drop tanks are probably a pretty limited commodity. Though, now with a more realistic flight model and no air brake function with the CL tank on, I'd expect a sudden surge in demand from the simulated factory that makes them.

What do you mean how HB will address this? I'm pretty sure they won't add the Iowa class ship to the game just to add a bit more immersion to one fictional campaign. It'd be a pretty big undertaking and modeling the Forrestal class and the A-6 is already more than generous enough from their side.

True, but I only ever saw a very slight deflection, especially at higher speed. I guess most of the negative pitch handling for the amount I was pulling was done by wing slats, hence why the horizontal surfaces didn't deflect much. I guess the limits I was experiencing were mainly caused by the somewhat insensitive FSSB stick which I'm afraid to push too much as it's not mounted, plus the TM grips have a weak point there at the base. When I tried it with the keyboard, I could achieve noticeably higher deflection by somewhat longer presses of the pitch down key. But, I haven't experienced the same complete lack of negative pitch control as yesterday yet, so have no screenshots to post.

Ah, that's interesting. I guess that's logical if they're presumably directly linked to the internal wing tanks (and those go after the CL tank) and as you've said, there's no indication of when they're actually empty, just a rough assumption and there's probably no way for the fuel management system to cut them off anyway. If they were integrated in a smarter way, it would make sense to have them go first as I presume they impose bigger restrictions than the CL tank. I meant in the game, I just presumed all three get dumped at the same time (once you press CTRL-W), but I'll have to try it out.

The wing tanks will get used first presumably, so once the CL tank is indicated empty, it will mean the others are as well, right? The jettison fuel tanks command probably dumps all three anyway so if they added the extra light for the wing tanks, they should also separate their jettison procedure.

Yeah, hence why I said if the TID screen was really used for the initial LTS pod test, they most probably needed some D/A video converter or what not. The other option might have been to use a PTID screen in a non-integrated mode (i.e. not integrated with the digital bus and updated software), but just by connecting the LTS pod to it directly. In that case, the tactical display output would need some conversion as well (which I presume outputs an analogue video signal to TID), but for those tests it might have not been necessary as only the LTS functionality might have needed testing.

I'll play with the trim settings and compare how it influences the deflection, but if I had that much of deflection as your pictures show, I probably wouldn't be writing any of this. I was landing so the speed was relatively low and still when I checked from the side view, it would barely budge a bit over it's nominal position (which matches the hull extension for the stabilators) while I'm pushing the stick hard forward. At some points during the landing, it was basically impossible to bring the nose down at all. I'll try to get a screenshot next time I encounter this problem to compare. It appeared exactly the same as the deflection I had at higher speeds, but at lower speeds it felt a bit more responsive.

And the Su-25/27/33 that we also have in the game are not Soviet planes? Nonsense.

I'm no expert, but I don't see a direct explanation on why the plane gives only a few degrees of negative pitch deflection on the horizontal stabilators. There's this line: IAS and altitude dependant gear ratio from the stick to stabilator;, but I've experienced the same limits at different speed and altitudes.

Well, it's moving perhaps 1-2 degrees, certainly not 15 as it should, if I understood correctly.

Oh, so it should go into the user files, rather than the main game folder? My mistake then, but I didn't see any installation instructions. Edit: Yeah, it works now. I can see some items on the left of the MiG in the first training mission. Sorry for the false alarm.

Hmm, I downloaded the VPC mod from your link, but can't seem to get it to run (installed with OvGME). I see the following error in the log file: 2018-10-14 13:25:07.470 INFO Scripting: plugin: SKIPPED 'VPC Object by voc & virpil.com': not authorized Not sure if it's related to this error some lines above it: 2018-10-14 13:25:05.965 ERROR SECURITYCONTROL: Failed to parse manifest: mods/tech/main/dcs_manifest.x86_64 as there's no manifest file in that folder, but it is the folder where the VPC mod copies its files.

There are some TCS shots on the TID in this video and though the video is of poor quality, the screen does seem quite capable as you said. Then I guess the main problem would be converting the digital bus output from the LTS pod into the analogue video signal compatible with the TID screen. The question is whether this was done in 1995 or they used the PTID screens straight up?

Was there any conclusion on the very limited negative-g pitch level available? The horizontal control surfaces seem to have only a slightest deflection possible in that direction. I find that and the throttle behavior (with that huge dead-zone) rather frustrating.

The IRST scan zone in the Su-27/33 is also adjustable vertically, while the one in the MiG-29 is fixed.

Well, yes and no. When the LTS pod was introduced operationally, it was used with the PTID display, but HB are simulating some supposed test variant where the LTS pod picture was shown on the TID screen (the bowl). These tests were done in 1995. I say supposed, because I don't remember seeing any unambiguous proof that the TID display was used there or even being capable of this.

Garbage, I guess. Where it belonged to in the first place apparently.

Since MCG Pro and TM Warthog grips differ in the number of available buttons, hats, etc. I doubt changing the profile only would be enough.

Only on the F-14D. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=175840

I've checked my Hornet user added keyboard assignments (so I can map e.g. MFD OSB buttons to my MFD's in Target) and they're defined in lua diff files in the user section and it seems they're still there and visible in the game.

Speaking of missions, does this line from the weekend news post mean that a new campaign will be added? "Includes instant action, single missions, and a campaign."

You don't have it if you didn't buy or force install the module.

I've checked the provided quickstart.lua yesterday, but it didn't contain the files that were shared so I had to add them manually.

Well, there are some Cold Start/Free Flight A/G/S instant missions that come as part of the MiG-29 module and there are some combat instant missions provided by NineLine in the OP (which I presume were accidentally left out from the module). If either are copied to the FC3 Missions/Quickstart folder, the quickstart.lua file in the same folder also needs to be updated to include them and then they will show up. I guess they'll sort this up in the next update, at least for the MiG-29.

Well, you could write some key points, I'm sure no-one would mind. IMHO, the carrier has a limited range, limited stores and aircraft complement and without the catapult, it can't launch its aircraft with full payload, nor can it provide tanker and proper AWACS support (unless you want to consider those Kh-31's which never entered service as such). It's advanced radar system (which I guess was meant to offset the AWACS limitation) also doesn't work IIRC. Well, they call them cruisers, but not necessarily because they truly consider them as such. The actual reasons could be of ideological (being offensive weapons) and also of practical nature (being forbidden to cross the Turkish straits otherwise which is kind of a problem when the shipyard capable of making them was there in the Black Sea). Sure, they added a sonar suite to them and a small complement of powerful anti-ship missiles, but those missiles only take valuable hangar space, while the limited number makes them more like a self-defense weapon against NATO ships, rather than an offensive weapon. I guess they had to install them not because they needed cruisers, but because their air complements lacked both range and anti-ship missile capabilities, which kind of defeats the purpose of having a proper aircraft carrier in the first place. That's why I mentioned that it's relatively realistic primary mission was to provide air cover (and of course the anti-submarine cover against NATO HK subs as you said which I didn't mention as we were discussing Su-33's) to their ballistic subs in the Barents Sea, certainly not duking it out with a US carrier group (I guess Backfires were in charge of keeping those away from the Barents Sea). Well, you can spin that differently - if it was a priority to have something, they wouldn't have put it in the serial production without one. And Pastel would presumably require a different display (e.g. an MFD?), which the Su-33 doesn't have. There could be other reasons like extra weight for a perhaps unnecessary or even somewhat outdated system at the time (mid 80's). Also, the original Su-27 SPO-15 installation couldn't have been simply reused because they had to mount the canards there. And I guess installing such things in new locations requires a lot of testing and adjustments to avoid interference, etc. which costs time and money, hence why I assumed it might not have been a priority. The parallel with the F-14 was that both services kind of had to fight the budgets so they often had to make do with what they had. E.g. the TF-30 engines were supposed to be interim, but they got stuck with them for almost 20 years. Same with the RWR upgrades (a capable RWR suite only became necessary when the Bombcat role became a thing and they would have to fly over land strike missions) and later weapon upgrades (e.g. had to scrap the AMRAAM integration to use the funds for LANTIRN, Harpoon and HARM missiles weren't integrated, though they were tested successfully, etc.). Of course it's not really fair to compare them as US Navy had a defined role and much more funds at its disposal, but I presumed that there could be some doctrinal similarities with their interceptors over sea not having the RWR suite as a priority.