Skysurfer

I really dont get the whole dynamic modex thing people want that much. The nose number isn't the only difference between each airframe. It's usually also the names below the canopy rails and smaller details, such as Buno numbers around the fuselage. Let alone that each squadron has an unique font.

Probably by the time the Tomcat gets the improved vape effects as well.

Honestly those bumps could also just be "uneveneness" in the fabric like seen on other areas of that image. The tail/vertical stab shape and angle look exactly like the Mig-21's. The seeming rise in canopy looks to be mostly the perspective, let alone that the pitot tube doe not stick/poke out of the fabric which would be the case for both the 21 and 17. To me it looks 99% like a Mig-21Bis under there, or obviously some other 21 variant if you want to stretch it that far. But LN having quite a busy catalogue with the F4U, its assets and the F-8J for the next few years makes it fairly unlikely that they would tease another aircraft like this during christmas. Why in this fashion and why in general, given beforementioned projects? I get that people really want a Su-17 but this is like not seeing the forest for the trees.

Just ran some tests. The spoiler brake logic is correct now, DLC seems to work on the ground too but only with flaps full and power not in idle. This might be correct if you look at some field and carrier landings. With the spoiler brk. active DLC will only be active with power not in idle.

I think the stores drag is less of a concern if you guys can find a good enough compromise within the realms of DCS. I dont think anyone expects to get to Mach 1.8 ot even 2 in a fully laden cat. The above tests were all done clean with 2 external tanks. At 29k feet I was able to get to M1.6 with the tanks still on, higher up however there seems to be even more drag for some reason and the plane struggles to get past 1.1, as well as the obvious TIT spike and subsequent problems with that. This shouldn't be happening from a pure physics perspective as with increasing alt. the air gets thinner and colder (normally). I really think this is somehow related to the new TF30 compressor stall code, mach lever etc. since this TIT spike is always accompanied by the stall lights and horn going off.

Said system will keep one engine in min burner until the other one lights as well.

I feel like down low the drag is pretty believable now but like you know around 32k feet the drag at 1.1 seems pretty excessive and almost like a wall. It also only happens when your TIT spikes as a result, if it doesnt occur you accelerate through that area normally.

Ok, I guess this is the best place to report this. Just did a few quick and dirty testflights and the TIT spiking causing the engines to catch fire is still not fixed as of this patch. The transsonic drag at lower altitudes is mostly where it was before, you can now reach around M1.2 on the deck up to 7k feet, clean, two external tanks and full fuel or less. However, during some tests higher up I did encounter the TIT spike bug/issue. Firstly, there seems to be fairly excessive drag approaching Mach 1.1 - as if the aircraft was at a lower altitude and struggling to break this barrier. Secondly, there seems to be an altitude band (between roughly 32000 to 40000 feet) where approaching Mach 1.1 will cause the TIT to spike way up to 1500C or higher and the stall lights to come on for both engines. Unless you get out of burner within 2 seconds your engines will catch fire. I was able to reproduce this fairly reliably, both in level flight or when accelerating to Mach 1.3+ at 20000 feet and then pitching up through 30000 feet, around M1.1 I would get said TIT spike, same goes with going down. Sometimes however I was able to accelerate through M1.1 at 32000 feet and two external tanks without a problem, reaching around M1.6 with no TIT spike. More often than not however you get this excessive drag around M1.1 and subsequent engine issues within the beforementioned altitude band. Below, I have saved and attached some track files (however those can be broken and unreliable since it's the DCS track system). Furthermore, I will attach various screenshots of the main instruments showing the flight paremeters which cause said TIT spikes as well as instances where I was able to reach fairly high speeds without problems in some cases. First instance, 29k feet, slight descent, Mach 1.6 with two external tanks, no missile racks/rails. TIT within limits. Second instance, climbing through 31k feet, zone 5 AB, same configuration and comparable fuel. Not the needle being seemingly stuck around M1.1. Same climb, 35k feet, just passing M1.1, TIT spiking past limits, STALL lights both on. Rapidly descending from 41k feet, zone 5, around 36k feet and just M1, same TIT spike can be observed. Another test, this time accelerating to M1.6 below 30k feet and steeply pitching up, climbing through 35k feet in zone 5 and M1.1. Rolling over from 30k feet and diving down to the deck in zone 5 AB. No TIT spike can be observed and the jet gains mach quite reasonably. Noteworthy as well. When you do an air-start upon loading in you get two L and R oil HOT caution lights on the caution and warning panel. These go away after just a few seconds. Conclusion: It seems like the new engine/compressor STALL model introduced this issue. It definitely does not happen below 30k feet on a standard day. I have not played with temps too much to see if that changes anything. This issue can be observed together with the fairly high drag around M1.1, the engines in zone 5 AB and beforementioned altitude or maybe temperature band between 32k and 41k feet. Some of my guesses would be that this might have something to do with the OIL/FUEL or AIR/FUEL heat exchangers having a bug at certain altitudes (if you guys model those), speeds and in max AB. This could be related to said drag-wall around M1.1 at those altitudes as well. There were instances where I got this TIT spike around Mach 0.8 and lower, with alpha on the jet around 36k feet as well. I also observed that once you have had this TIT spike happen 1-2 times within the same flight and having rolled back the engines in time to prevent damage, a subsequent attempt at repruducing it magically clears the M1.1 drag issue and you are able to reach Mach 1.6 and M2.3+ within the beforementioned altitude band with no spike in TIT. I have not touched the 14B since the A came out and don't know if it is affected by this as well. Regardless, something seems really bugged and this needs to be fixed as quickly as possible as me as well as many others dont see ourselves flying the 14A in any combat scenario until this is resolved. I think it's safe to say that this as well as the turnrate issue should be priority #1 going into the next year and all focus should be put into resolving this. I hope my quick and dirty tests will help you guys track this one down and if needed I am willing to assist with further data and tests. F14ENGINEISSUE.trk F14ENGINEISSUE2.trk F14ENGINEISSUE3.trk

I can only imagine, thanks for the response. I'm just looking at it from the point of a "consumer", if you will, and having to deal with something that broke but worked before for several months. No accusations or ill will meant here obviously, you guys are doing a phenomenal job as always, I just think issues and concerns should always be openly addressed and the devs made fully aware of them. Speeds things up in the long run.

Makes one wonder what went wrong along the line since it was mostly spot on and within 5% of charted numbers for the longest time? I guess the saying if it ain't broke, don't try to fix it applies here too. Glad it's being fixed though.

The Vigges does not have automatic TFR. It will plot you the terrain sure but you still gotta fly manually.

Nice job guys! This is really interesting and surely a first in DCS.

The spoiler brk logic was mostly fixed now as far as I can tell but the DLC still doesnt operate on the ground. It's pretty minor and no one really "checks" that but it used to work in the past. Guess someway down the road HB received some false/confusing information which made them change the whole spoiler/DLC operation logic on the ground.

Sure, but how many people actually want that? This doesn't add anything to core functionality. Most people want a proper working and visible IFLOLS, longer more visible wake as well as working ACLS, just to name a few thing.

I think people are reading too much into that "covered" aircraft. It is 100% a Mig-21 under there and it's most likely not some secret teaser. The F4U and F8 should keep the team busy for at least two years. I could be wrong though.

Day one purchase for sure! You guys rock. Can't wait for the Crusader down the road either with the USS Forrestal coming to DCS as well. Will be a perfect fit. Merry christmas to everyone at Leatherneck/M3!

Agreed, excited for both the F4U as well as the F-8J. The F8 even more so since those vietnam era duels with the 21Bis will be simply amazing.

Correct. They do not auto-override on touchdown. Don't know where the OP has his false information from.

No idea, all I know is that AOA indexers work perfectly fine in the Viper and Hornet and can be adjusted in brightness fairly easily. Why not in the Tomcat?

Yep, has been a thing since release. Sadly they seem to have forgotten about it among various other smaller things like that. Hopefully this will get fixed eventually.

Yep, it seems to go into some weird lag-pursuit/stern convergence type of deal as if the missile was trying to get a gun solution on the target.

Stay below 225kts and dont exceed 2G's both in pitch and roll.

Really nicely done! Great late -A Tomcat.

Correction, VF-41.

Hate to ask but any news?