Skysurfer

Known issue, will be fixed next patch. Some drag values got corrupted.

And this is where you are wrong.

Speak for yourself.

Well, that is a whole other rabbit hole to go down. The fact that we still have mostly FC3 planes on red mixed together with the rest and missiles using different API's is another aspect. I also think it's up to the developer to make the module as realistic as they desire - especially when it comes to airframe overstress or internal system damage Heatblur are at the top of the game. Like how about the JF-17 outsustaining the 16 on release, having unnotchable radar and the Viper having an AESA currently that is seeing farther than the Tomcat. And if you really knew what you were doing you'd beat an F-16 with it's 9G's adhering to 6.5 G's in the Tomcat. G's aren't everything, turn rates arent everything. I see most people yanking sticks like crazy and pulling insane alpha to get those high aspect snapshots all the time instead of getting into the control zone and into a good guns track and shooting position. DCS development can be very frustrating at times as essential things tend to be broken or not working quite a lot so you can't simply enjoy and play the game in a PvP scenario all the time but I am sure once it's all done and polished it'll be well worth the struggle.

Yeah like, the NATOPS CLEARLY!!! states various limits for AUX flaps, one being 2G's, symmetric. Period and no discussion, exceed that and you're now a test pilot.

Ok thanks, thought this wasn't a thing at slow speeds. Kinda works like a rudimentary stall protection.

Just did some slow flight stuff and noticed that the TF30's spool up to roughly MIL power with the physical throttles at idle and airspeed around 100kts. Is this intended and normal?

Ok I just did some tests and manual-digging regarding my previous issues and it looks like our A/B Tomcat does not include the AFC744 change and is modelled prior to BuNo 158612. In this case the operating engine needs to be spooled up to 87% RPM to achieve the desired bleed system pressure. This is mostly modelled in our DCS Tomcat, by spooling up the oposite engine to about 90% I was able to roughly achieve 10% starting RPM on the #1 engine and successfully start it. However, the required minimum RPM for a start is stated as 18% in the manual, and this can currently not be achieved in our Tomcat. So there is this descrepancy in starting RPM's and bleed supply. Regarding the PTU logic - even with ground power disconnected and the aircraft being self-sustained the right hand engine with its respective FLT HYD system does not power the PTU pump to pressurize the opposite side system. Only once you crank the #1 engine does the system pressurize. Having the proper PTU logic is obviously "nice to have" for immersion but I'd see it as less critical when compared to the cross-bleed stuff. On another note, it would be highly appreciated if the AUX and ACCU Hydraulic system was modelled and the gauge behind the stick went into the green area - even be it via a simple script so it's not stuck in the red zone all the time (see attached image).

Thank you.

I guess the maneuver flaps are what we are talking about.

As stated by others before, with weight on wheels, idle power, wings full forward and maneuver flaps either up or manually "thumbed" forward, the inboards should deploy (as seen in the videos posted here). I am very sure it worked like that on release up until it broke.

Well, the performance charts with Ps-0 lines and max TRT's at given alts are all public for both the A and B and it can hold its own with the 15, 18 and 16. Of course it always comes down the the pilot and the fact that the more modern FBW aircraft are easier to control and maneuver at those regimes. But ideally yes, having this powerful radar, the Phoenix and the speed you shouldn't ever merge or go past the MAR. It is also fairly silly to compare modern 4th gen and up aircraft using guns-only BFM - for instance a Flanker or Hornet with JHMCS etc. would eat a Tomcat alive at or past the merge. Obviously the JHMCS and 9X weren't really a common thing up until the 14D was around, the Archer however was. All the stories from aircrews are usually pretty subjective and I think most of them will agree that the better pilot that day will usually come out on top (obviously even if it means cheating or doing silly, frowned upon stuff). Sure, in DCS most people want the merge, use guns and heaters because it's the most thrilling and fun but from a purely "how do I always have the advantage and can fly back home" kind of metality you stay at range, lob missiles and treat your AIM-9's and Sparrow's like they almost exclusively exist for an "oh shit" kind of scenario when someone jumps you.

Yes, except Heatblur themselves have answered this several times with a clear NO. Period and end of discussion. If you want a D Tomcat in a game go play Ace-Combat 7 or something. A D model cat or F-22 is not possible to the same level of detail and accuracy as the A and B Tomcat or most other DCS modules we have. The F-22 mod is just a mod and has absolutely nothing to do with a real F-22. You can bring up these discussions as many times as you like but it's not going to change the fact that the answer will be "NO" every single time. Not trying to be disrespectful here but this is just the reality of things, whether you like it or not.

P-STT sends it active off the rail, looking at the target.

And Heatblur's answer doesn't hold much credit when you actually look at various videos online and use common sense. Why are the instrument lights and AOA indexer lights perfectly visible in all other modules, using the exact same graphics and gamma settings then? It was very visible and absolutely fine before the lighting rework.

Get to 20NM and get a PAL Pulse-STT lock.

I'm actually a big supported of HB and think they are one of the best devs in DCS. However, if almost everything that you reported still isn't fixed or addressed after 1,5 years it does raise some questions. It's not like the bugs are getting fewer and fewer at this point. Like, why add a yaw string or removable HUD camera when there are missing bomb-clamps, untextured rails and TCS internals, as well as major flaws or lack of base systems? As a long term customer I can voice my opinion and at least expect that my and others' bug reports dont just get forgotten or are never addressed. I fully understand how development and project management works and that timeframes and deadlines can get pushed back easily but seing the issues just pile up over time and overall quality decrease does raise several questions with me.

Still waiting for a simple texture fix one and a half years in...does HB even have a bug-tracker system? Lits of minor stuff like that reported since it came out.

Is this going to be addressed soon? Seems like a simple logic fix for when the flaps are either up or in maneuver. It worked fine on release up until when it broke.

Because ED and apparently HB like to push new code up until the last moment. So much for the week of testing a release build... Feels like a massive step back in FM considering the last build was performing pretty much according to all the available perf. charts.

I second that the transsonic drag issue is probably the most annoying one with this release and should be hotfixed ASAP. Really putting me off from flying the cat if I'm gonna be honest. Especially after so much praise and comments from the SME's and devs.

Sure, then why not have a F-22 module on the same "assumptions"? See where this is going.

Where can we get the current paintkit for the -A?

Do you have a Snodgrass shrine at home too? Jesus christ....

They should all be CFD'd and use the same guidence API and abide by the same physics. Like the fact that the Sparrow has been broken for longer than it worked on the Tomcat and the 54C goes for a single small bundle of chaff is just annoying at this point. Same applies to all other missiles.