Dragon1-1

The enemy evasive maneuvers are causing the AIM-9X to run out of energy. Remember, you're both closing in rapidly, and the AIM-9X accelerates to the predicted intercept point. The enemy then turns around, still going fast, and suddenly, the intercept point is way off to the side. The missile has to turn and accelerate towards this new point, only, most of its motor burn time has been spent accelerating to the old one. The AMRAAM, having a much longer burning motor, will still be gaining speed at this point, and will easily make the intercept. To fix this issue, forget the DLZ and launch the AIM-9X at very short ranges in a head-on merge. This is pure physics, and not unrealistic in the slightest, just surprising, especially with how modern missiles are hyped. The "common wisdom" about what those missiles can do is based on ranges and Pk against nonmaneuvering targets (likely because advertising brochures use that). Against maneuvering targets, you need to adjust your launch parameters. Now, I'm not quite sure if the AI should be able to spot a head on launch at all. I personally find it difficult to see a tiny heater at 3nm, and the AIM-9X is smokeless, so unless it's leaving a contrail, perhaps the AI shouldn't be able to react. Of course, against missiles with a smoky motor, or with MWS, it's a different story.

None of those fly with an AESA radar, so you don't need a radar lock to know that there is an opponent, you'll see him on RWR. He needs to find you, too, and you'll know when he sees you. Most of the time, both sides will have an AWACS, rendering that part moot. If both sides have an AWACS and AIM-120D, they can both shoot at datalink tracks. The point is, the Rafale guy thinks it's challenging. Don't you figure that this implies the fight could have gone the other way, had he not had his WVR game up to 100%? That's what I'm saying. If this was a turkey shoot, he wouldn't have been saying that. Also, it's worth noting the difference between that and Eurofighter. It's possible he ran into a particularly bad pilot, of course, or the pilot had a bad day, but nobody gets to fly an Eurofighter without a lot of learning and training. All the pilots involved here are highly trained professionals. So you can see how much skill influences a dogfight. ...or, if you can get around that big circle faster than he can around his small one, you can try to force a two circle fight. In fact, going one circle against an F-5 is exactly how you end up on the wrong end of his guns. Anyway, in case of the F-5, he's not really capable of doing much in the vertical, it's actually a great way of dealing with it for fighters that can. The more advanced fighters can match the Viper up there, which is another thing that makes that fight more interesting than a race. The Viper's plan here is not to end up at less than 200kt. Which, should, TBH, always be part of the Viper's plan, because it hates being slow. What matters is how they perform at speed. Besides, we don't even know the fuel state of the Eurofighter at which it can do that. Full tanks, or half-empty? Incidentally, the Viper's thirsty engine means it'll lighten up rapidly, something that DCS pilots sometimes exploit in MP (of course, it is a gamble, you need to be able to at least get to tanker afterwards). Do you have the actual charts for how fast each of those airframes must go to generate 9G? Because this is quite specific info, and often not all that easy to come by. Also, it's worth noting that generating 9G is not necessarily the same as sustaining 9G (which, as per Mover and the charts, the Viper has no problem doing at a proper speed and altitude). So you either have some otherwise hard to get EM charts, or you're making claims solely based on ballpark TWR figures and guesswork.

I guess that's another thing that's on ED. It really should be possible to set up custom tanker tracks, including orbiting a point. I hope they change that for DC, this ability is quite critical in planning tanker ops IRL.

Can you ensure the aircraft is on the cat, or at least close to it, before the "launch" salute registers? I think it's safe to assume the first two will be on the parking spot.

At a comparable range? AMRAAM has a lot more energy, so if you fire it at a distance you would the AIM-9X, the same maneuver will not save the bandit. AIM-9X is more maneuverable than the AMRAAM, but it has a smaller, shorter burning motor. Case in a point, being able to hit a sub-1nm shot on a rapidly closing target is actually quite remarkable. That's what AIM-9X excels at, however keep in mind that making large turns scrubs off a lot of energy.

I've been wondering lately if it wouldn't have been easier if the tanker was put in a circular orbit instead of a racetrack. At least then, it'd have a consistent attitude. Right now, in M2 it constantly switches between flying straight and turning, which is annoying. Plus, it's probably an ED thing, but on rollout, it now seems to overshoot and put in opposite bank for a while. Very annoying to follow. If it just circled around in place, it'd probably be easier.

And I'm answering that question. There's no doubt that the Viper is no longer the top dog in air combat. However, you're trying to imply it's useless and has no chance whatsoever against other, newer 4th gens. Which is a ridiculous position, because it isn't. It's going to have to get creative in BVR (which is less skill-dependent), and it's at a disadvantage in WVR, but hardly the overwhelming inferiority that you claim. All the aircraft you listed can pull up to 9G outside brief (and highly energy-depleting) excursions. So no, they're not actually more maneuverable if they all stay at corner. Sure, if the fight gets slow the newer fighters have massive advantages, but an F-5 can kill the Viper if it can get it slow, good Viper drivers know better than to let that happen. Radar and IRST don't really matter in WVR (if you don't suck at keeping tally, that is). They're all most likely to be using the same AIM-9X with their respective HMCS. Yes, all those fighters have tricks to use that the Viper can't quite follow, have more gas, and a little more TWR to play with. None of that will enable the Viper to be beaten with 95% success rate, even if the pilots are all professionals with a more or less equally good BFM game. Your comparison between a 1995 rally car and a 2015 track car is BS. It's more like 1995 Escort RS Cosworth vs. a 2005 Lancer Evo VIII RS, and put them on a rallycross track, two laps, full contact. Dunno about you, I'm not making bets on that one, I'd bet on the Lancer if I had to, it's got some 50hp on the Ford, but I'd make my peace with potentially losing my wager if it driver messes up a single corner more than the Ford. Seriously, just read what an actual Rafale pilot says about the matter. Viper is a difficult opponent.

Lucky you to have buttons to press and switches to flip. Well, most others are stuck pushing keys on a keyboard, in VR audible feedback is often the only way to know your keystroke was registered without looking down. Like it or not, most people don't have nearly enough bindings to cover the important stuff. Also, 3-position switches sometimes don't register properly if you move the real switch too quickly, the audio feedback is a lifesaver in those situations. Until DCS fixes problems of this sort, this will remain useful for, apparently, everyone who but you. In fact, for those without a full 3D audio system, bass shakers and proper headphones, the sound will always be "fake", since it's difficult to replicate a real aircraft's audio environment using just a pair of headphones. All in all, HB's standard on audio quality is still rather high. RAZBAM, for instance, seems to barely care what their modules sound like.

OK, found the issue. You have to salute twice for the taxi directors, and you have to use the button. Once to signal that you're ready, and then, once they get ready (without helpers on it's not obvious when they are), salute again to get going. This didn't cause issues in Speed and Angels, but in Fear The Bones the second salute causes the hand signals for launch to show. Might be worth it to guard against this.

Yes, because both F-14 and F-4 are in EA. Other devs don't provide options - you have clicky switches and audible speedbrakes in ED modules, for example. You don't even get the option to adjust AB detent in most of them. Those sound effects are a replacement for tactile feedback, not for the sake of sounding cool. On the kind of rig described in your signature, as opposed to a full cockpit motion platform you obviously use now, not having those sounds would be fake difficulty. We want to be able to operate the jet the way it's supposed to be operated, not constantly look at switches to make sure they engaged. If you think flying with what amounts to a full body loss of a sense of pressure is in any way realistic... well, I have bad news for you, pilots are generally expected to have all their senses in working order. Most people don't have a haptic suit (not that DCS supports one).

I say, if those are the biggest problems with the module, then HB's standards are high indeed. Also, worth noting that those compensations let as fly in a more realistic way. We're still at a disadvantage, most notably with the ability to sense the G-load. Very easy IRL (you know whether it's 4 or 5G squishing you into the seat), but very hard to reproduce in the sim with any kind of precision. Hardware solutions exist, but they're quite complex, and still not perfect. HB did a remarkable job reproducing the way the real jet would "talk" to you, but hardware is always going to be a brick wall against which such efforts will eventually crash.

Most of those are either things that are unfinished (anything with Jester) or compensating for the inherent unrealism of flying the jet while actually sitting in the chair. In fact, the lack of sound on the throttle light switch often leaves me wondering whether it actually toggled, as DCS is sometimes unreliable with physical switches. There's obviously no such issues in the real jet, where you feel the click. Likewise, AB and DLC coming on are easily felt through the seat in the real jet. While a toggle for those would probably be appreciated by those few who can feel their motion platform kick when they put the DLC on, I would expect this to be low priority. You've listed a bunch of trivialities (and one rather silly bug), most of which are firmly in the "making the module usable with normal hardware" category. None of that involves making up a system out of wholecloth, which they'd have to do for the APG-71. The only thing that comes remotely close is the AIM-54C issue, and that's on ED's missile API. Yes, it would be nice if they didn't launch you at night if you didn't turn on at least one set of lights, but does it actually affect anything?

Like what? HB making their module usable with hardware people actually have? Besides, you can set a realistic throw in option if you do have such a throttle. The F-14 is unfinished in a few areas (still waiting for the EMER GEN and OBC checks, for instance), but that's different from things being made up.

Yeah, except for all those pages upon pages of detailed technical documentation the teams always collect. I'm sure it's all just to look fancy on the shelves... HB doesn't do JMSU. ED might have possibly given in to it for the F-35, but HB has its own standards.

Yeah, "students" with hundreds of flight hours already under their belt. Really, just check out Bio's recollections of how real TOPGUN training usually went. I can't point you to a single source about USAF, but Bio has great stories on how things were in USN. The Tomcat is a superior aircraft to the F-5, so by your logic, it should always win. Well, already elite USN pilots routinely got their backsides whooped by TOPGUN instructors flying F-5s. The trainees would indeed start winning eventually, as they learned and applied the lessons from TOPGUN, as well as from the previous experiences. My point is, skill matters more than the aircraft. In that case, it certainly did. No it won't, unless the F-15 driver flies a perfect game 95% of the time. Which most of them won't, either in DCS or IRL. No two pilots are perfectly equal, and in the end, it always comes down to who makes the fewer mistakes. The F-15 can afford to make more mistakes, or bigger mistakes than the F-5, so it's undoubtedly more likely to win, but there's always room for pilot error in a dogfight, including ones that will put the F-15 right in the F-5's sights. They're a good place to start, though. They showcase concepts than anything else, but learning concepts is good, because you can then apply them in an actual competitive environment. That's what flying a fighter is all about. Learning and adapting to threats. Seeing what worked for GS can give you a leg up in figuring out what works for you. From there, you can figure what kind of mistakes are the most important to avoid, and what kind of mistakes you can potentially goad him into making. In particular, those videos are very instructive on how both of those look from the cockpit, which I found very helpful. Oh, you mean those edge of envelope tweaks that happen from time to time? Exact performance specifics are not where those fights are won. Tactics are. As long as the essential relationships between aircraft performance remains correct, the results will be more or less correct. Would you fly the real Eurofighter exactly like you would a DCS module? Probably not. Could you learn what works with DCS version and then adjust for differences and apply it to the real jet? Probably yes (at least if you're any good as a pilot). You seem to be under impression that there's some "modern jet secret sauce" that will magically let newer technology completely dominate older one. There's no such thing IRL. Rafale, Gripen and Eurofighter will not, and do not, beat the Vipers 95% of the time. They have an advantage, but in a dogfight, a single mistake can throw all that advantage away, if it's big enough. Eurofighter is not an automatic "I win" button IRL, it won't be so in DCS. So, constrained 1 vs. 1 gun/heater fights don't count, because they're too scripted, full package ops during Red Flag don't count because they're too realistic? Sounds like No True Scotsman fallacy to me. As a reminder, Vipers have trounced the newer jets in both. A Rafale driver even mentioned the Viper as the most challenging opponent he's faced. So far, only fights against the F-35 and the F-22 had been declared to be as one-sided as you'd like them to be.

Ty putting them on the boat and you'll buy it soon enough. It's not total size, but rather folded wingspan. The Tomcat is huge and takes up a lot of deck. The Hornet is shorter and folds up way better. As for wiring, data busses reduce its length and simplify it by a lot. Especially combined with more advanced computers, the Hornet is simply much less manpower intensive.

This is one of the worst immersion-breaking "features" I've seen in DCS. It might work for some MP scenarios, but it ruins carrier ops in SP. Please, just let us get just rid of it. All of it. If there's a parking spot free, you can just stop short, but if there aren't any, it'll instantly teleport you to the hangar. This should never have been added. Taxi directors are very useful, but this basically makes them unusable.

It seems that when all parking spots are taken, chocks appear instantly when the aircraft is stopped, blocking the landing area. They need to be removed in order to taxi out of that area, which wastes time. I suspect it's related to the magic teleport "feature". So far I found it useless and highly disruptive.

Who said it has to be 12 missions long? Make as many as you think would be fun, it'll sell whether it's 10, 8 or whatever number you can do. Yeah, it'll be one-sided, but remember that a time-displaced CVN would have to pace itself in regards to its expendables. You'd have superior tech, but the Japanese would have the numbers, and remember you can also have air to ground. Flak remains a valid threat even in modern day, and when you've only got dumb bombs, strikes would be far from one sided (even against crappy Japanese flak). Also, there's another thing: most of your campaigns are hard. I believe that one that is something of a turkey shoot by comparison would have more appeal, not less. In addition, a good story can make even a fairly straightforward mission far from boring. It is a balance to be struck, since the novelty will wear out after a few sorties, but I think there would be enough of possible scenarios to call it a full campaign, even if it's shorter than your usual fare.

Yeah, especially since we'll have two versions, and WWII one will look rather different. I can imagine the Tomcats coming over the islands and going "hey, where did all the jungle go?". There's literally no better map for this scenario. Plus, it's a nice map for carrier ops, and you'll be fighting the Japanese just like in the movie.

Not yet, didn't know it was a thing. Will check it out, though. Our WWII assets are rather thin, but I guess shooting the nazis works just was well, I'm not prejudiced (except against lawyers, but nobody's perfect).

Have you ever played a Red Flag campaign? Or perhaps Reflected Zone 5? Check out the reading material for them (which includes background on the real thing), those exercises are designed to be as close to reality as possible, that's the very point of them. Also check out Bio's videos about Top Gun, though being vintage USN, it was F-15 vs. F-16 and F-5. Yes, some engagements will be regulated, starting from a level merge, in order to practice certain forms of ACM. Others will be a full fighter mission, particularly during Red Flag. It's far from a turkey shoot either way. You might have missed the fact the Viper is a common aggressor aircraft in the US squadrons. Those squadrons pretty much embody "train how you fight" philosophy, and are meant to provide a realistic, challenging threat presentation during exercises. They're also really good at their job. Food for thought: F-15 sometimes lost to aggressor F-5s. Both during predetermined ACM, and during realistic intercepts. Just wait till they release the Eurofighter and I'll make you eat your words. In fact, I expect there'll be GS videos showcasing a few engagements. No doubt the Eurofighter will be a difficult opponent, but hardly an impossible one. As for the F-15, Col. Pete Bonanni (you might have heard of him) cited an trying to BFM an F-16 in an F-15 as a prime example of a stupid thing to do. Now, he was also a Viper jock, but overall in the Viper folklore, whooping F-15s in the tailpipe is often boasted about. I'm quite sure they wouldn't be boasting of it if they didn't actually manage to do it once in a while. Guns, Sidewinders, you name it. If Dos Gringos songs are to be believed, the tradition continued into the AMRAAM era (then again, F-16 jocks there too, make of that what you will).

I just started Fear the Bones, and therein, you mention two notable Tomcat movies: one of, of course, Top Gun, and the other is Final Countdown. When you mentioned the latter, my thoughts immediately (well, almost) went to the PTO assets that are supposed to come sometime this year. The idea is, quite frankly, completely nuts. But if anyone could pull that off, it's Reflected Simulations. You've got a lot of both F-14 and WWII experience under your belt, and your campaigns rock. It would be, no doubt, the most unique experience in all of DCS. Also, you could claim the title of the man who put the Turkey in the Great Marianas Turkey Shoot. There's something to be said for that, too.

ACLS Mode I is definitely a full autoland, from entry to touchdown on deck. That's exactly the definition of Mode I. I don't know what the Superbug got recently, but it's been capable of Mode I operations from the start. That said, it's not perfectly reliable, and it wasn't IRL, either. If you spot it misbehaving, you should be prepared to fall back to Mode II (manual control with needles) or Mode III (manual control with LSO talkdown).

There's plenty skill can do for you before that happens, though. Seriously, those fights happened, and it's not "19 out of 20 times". Modern Vipers like Block 70 can do a lot of things those newer aircraft can do, I think this includes launching at datalink targets. You can cite the numbers all day, but there's only on that matters, and that's the one on the scoreboard. So far, the only ones that can totally dominate in this scenario are 5th gen fighters, and their record isn't spotless, either. A well flown Viper is a challenging opponent, and has options even against the more advanced fighters. Vipers have killed F-15s in BVR, Eaglejet has an advantage, but the Viper can try to push through to the merge, which is possible to counter, but far from easy. As for ACM, well, "two turns in this fight, and I've got the Eaglejet in my sights". Lt. Col. Dick Jonas, recalling his experience in the F-16A fighting F-15s of the time. So yeah, marginal.