TobiasA

Gimme a second It is the same mission that I used for my previous tests (january if I am remembering it correctly), with the results being slightly better but still off. We talked about this back then, then the changelog came with that entry, I tried, it was different but still too far off to be useful, but as it was regarded as fixed, nobody talked about it and I was so fed up with JDAM that I stopped using them and didn't even bother. APC's work most of the time, but still the precision is far less than 3m. A T-55 has a length of 9m. I'd say this is about 10m CEP. It works for trucks, most of the time. If you consider it to be correct, then the JDAM should not be "advertised" with a 3m CEP because the system error on the whole thing is far larger than that. It's great for trucks and houses or your average insurgent, but the total system precision isn't suitable for vehicles. You can mark this as "correct as is" or see it as a bug. They have a natural tendency to go long, as the point in space is above ground, and if you miss it with the CEP in the "long" part of it (too high), you land several meters long. And it also depends on where you lase, and your luck, and also on if you drop uphill or downhill. Don't ever drop downhill. If you want to kill vehicles, forget JDAMs and use LJDAMs (not gonna happen on the 16 in DCS) or LGB. F-16_JDAM_2_9.trk

You are right, for soft targets. Any slightly armored vehicle will survive. Usually, JDAMs will land anywhere in a 10m radius when dropped from 25000ft, but it is very rare to score within 3m. I stopped using them quite a while ago... Might be able to get a track, I'll try.

We had this happen once, could never reproduce it, but that mission fails frequently with more than 20 pilots online...

This will never be a turning fight because your HMCS and 9X give you a pretty nice advantage. Once he ends up in your front hemisphere, he is dead. However... Since flares in DCS are some kind of magic versus 9X, I usually let him spend all the flares and then press pickle. Or let him evade the 9X and follow up with a 120. We don't have any MiG-21-93 in DCS. Long turning fights with 9G are a dogfight server thing, and not anything that would be a realistic scenario for a late 2000's missile equipped multirole fighter. Might happen, but it ends pretty fast. Any prolonged 9G turn will get you killed against an adversary with off boresight IR missiles.

JDAM have a very poor precision from 25k altitude. They can be handy in a pop-up attack but rarely ever hit anything smaller than a barn from high altitude. It is the sum of all errors. Ownship error, TGP error, ranging error... They never hit from altitude. Even if you lase.

Most of the tracks will be that size... But it should be possible to reproduce. Will see what I can do.

The track from #2 is 112Mb. Any place to upload it? Which one do you prefer?

I think I have a track from me as #3 but I spawned last so nothing is visible on that track. I will ask #1 and #2 if they can provide the track.

In multiplayer, the datalink STN team number from flight members spawning after you is missing when a flight of human pilots starts from cold. The first one to join has no team members after startup (apart from ownship). The second one to join has the first one as team member. The third one to join has #1 and #2's STN as team member. After manually adding the team members that joined after you spawned, everything works. But those who spawned after you will be missing.

Nope, only one flight plan.

With the amount of bugs we had and given the state of the F-16, this is understandable from the point of a mission maker imo. At the current point, some nice campaigns would be possible. One year ago... No. For SP content, we need to wait until we are close to the end of early access. Pretty sure a lot of SP content will come since the Viper is really popular.

Depends, they become a lottery when dropped at max range from 22000ft altitude. A truck is all they can do, they will often fail on even lightly armored vehicles. I wish we had the GBU-54 on the Viper. When going against vehicles, pick LGB or mavs.

Yes, we did but it is locked so this thread exists to discuss the change in pitch response. However, I am still wondering about the inertia values and I would appreciate it if some of the flight model devs could take a look...

Yes, but degrees in second are more or less G if airspeed doesn't change. I don't understand it either, but also do not know what is going on in the code. I have seen engineers misplacing the XYZ axis on a CNC mill. For unknown reasons. So... I don't want to judge but I am not really satisfied with how the whole thing gets solved. Drop a fix somehow that seems to fix stuff, not mentioning it in the patch notes either. I see some room for improvement there.

@FusRoPotato Continuing here and outside of bug reports. Original thread: When you pulled back the stick, there was a fast and rapid response. When you did let it go at like 6G, the FLCS corrected to 0.5G before settling on 1G. This seems to be fixed now. Your last picture shows the old "undershoot" (negative overshoot caused by a too high gain when the setvalue jumps to a lower value) in the red line while the blue line shows a nice clean reaction without overshooting the target setvalue.

It might as well be store related. However, I have not witnessed such a big overshoot when correcting to 1G coming from 5G +. I'd ask my squad buddies, but many of them have switched to other airframes for this and other reasons and do not intend to go back...

But this seems to be gone...

Just a question... Is this fixed? Feels like it isn't as unstable as it used to be.

The FLCS trims for 1G, so it has a tendency to rise the nose, the more AOA you have the more noticeable it becomes. This should be correct.

The FLCS overshoots the 1G mark when releasing the stick, for example.

The thing is that you get your gun cross where it should be, and instead of keeping it there, the FLCS corrects back to 0.5G before it comes back to 1 instead of easing up until it reaches 1G. It is is if you had to much gain on the pitch controller inside the FLCS. Or not enough. Or the wrong inertia.

Back to the original post regarding the inertia values... Any updates / comments on this from ED? It would indeed explain a lot, and people have been noticing the sloppy or delayed pitch for quite some time.

The deal is that there was a large discussion going on with initially, we had the HARM on 4/6 and then people cried about it being removed and so it stayed with the option to remove it via allowed loadouts. The HARM is the only smart weapon to be loaded on the inner station, and this limit does only exist in DCS. In real life, it is smart weapons yes or no. ED decided to go for no as this is the realistic option for the block and user to be modelled, but did not remove the HARM that was already there at the point of decision. There are block 50/52 that can carry smart weapons there, for example greek ones. As laser guided bombs do not require the bus, the can be loaded and dropped from the inner pylons.

You have a strong asymmetrical drag (not only weight) with a triple rack on one side and a single launcher on the other one. I don't recommend that... However, you can counter that to some degree. 1. Go to your desired attack speed. 2. Cancel out side slip by applying ridder trim (you can do this in autopilot if you want). Watch your slip indicator. 3. Now, cancel autopilot (or pull the paddle switch) and trim your wing. It is important to first trim rudder and then roll because rudder trim will introduce a roll component but roll trim won't induce a slip component. However, the large asymmetrical weight will make it difficult to maintain nice curves because trim doesn't change with G and the heavier wing will always have a tendency to drop down especially on higher AOA's. Best is to trim for about mach 0.8 and then stick to that speed as good as possible.

Wouldn't it be more logical if SP was available in GM/GMT/SEA no matter what but the whole GM/GMT/SEA mode was blocked in the visual modes because the radar is used for radar ranging, especially in CCIP?