Torbernite

Good idea and maybe it shouldn't be so difficult to see. With the cockpit modeled now all the switches are hard to distinguish even with flashlight. The cockpit might need some more visual tuning.

Do you have more chapter of the manual or more information about the armament control panel? I have been looking for the NWS manual of C subtype and found nothing. Do you know the function of FORE/AFT switch and AUTO/MANUAL FIRING SELECTOR switch? Thanks.

According to the manual, the IDN narrow needle shows relative bearing of radar antenna. But now the needle seems to show the antenna relative bearing with the north as center position, instead of the aircraft heading, which is strange and makes the white sector meaningless. For example, when I'm heading 112 and tracking target 20deg left, the needle shows 340 out of the white sector, instead "20deg left of 112".

Nice work and a little reminder, the depress unit is not degree but mrad.

nullWhen dropping bomb from too low altitude and damage the aircraft(2000ft for 250kg for example), the right inner pylon always disappears with loads floating. Problem on right inner pylon only and other pylons stay there. Steadily reproducible. update: left tip pylon shows same behavior.

I see the switch in "Left wall" commands but I can't find it in cockpit or manual. Although it seems impossible to click the switch with mouse in combat, I wonder where it is in real aircraft?

I mean somehow like the SLAM, turn camera while missile keeps its way, designate, and the missile would turn to the designation then.

I see the special option added now, one mode as before and the new mode permits the guide camera turns without turning the missile. So which one is closer to the real system?

地形上再往东做一点应该也挺精彩的，我在右上角超平坦地形上打了半天练习，然后一看tacview发现其实自己在里海

In fact it's ok to use basket as reference but only if you are skilled enough in formation flight. I see some skilled virtual aerobatic guys also doing this way. The "correct" way is to stay in formation several meters behind the basket in correct alignment and push a little to contact during which only do minimal or no correction, and try to reach correct alignment before pushing instead. Don't force to contact if the offset is beyond your skill to correct, step back and align again. The difficulty is that too close reference often causes frequent over-correction and it seems to be the problem hedlund met. In this situation a farther reference on pod, tanker wing, engine or somewhere else should be used instead until you can recognize and correct slight offsets. The most important moment in my AAR practice is the day when I "realized" what's the point of correct alignment. That's difficult on a 2D screen without direct sense of distance but one day you may find a special reference point of your own, or even no clear point but just a "sense". Usually I would use rough sense or basket reference on most receiver aircrafts, and wing, pod or engine reference on JF-17 and AV-8B, for their probe position is hard to see and harder to recognize the lateral offset when contact on 2D screen.

Totally agree. Let me apologize if I caused any misunderstanding. The radar difference is already there before the detection probability update of JF. I haven't tried the new radar simulation yet because several bugs in that update(already fixed in latest update). So I just focus on the old version and forget that. And about the ARMRAAM actually I want to say the violent maneuver logic. I'm sorry if I didn't focus on that point. It used to have some problem in autopilot logic and often performs sudden violent maneuver during lofting trajectory, causing energy bleeding and a shorter range. I remembered it's fixed to a certain degree in an earlier version, along with some guidance fix, but when tracking target it seems ED missiles still does that way. Or is that performance just caused by the lack of target memory?

It's now moved back. It's still strange why it used to appear in JF's bug forum. Is there some automatic system or moved by some manager? I don't think they would. It's unimaginable that "that opinion" is not only among normal players but also in forum managers. I wonder if "F-16 vs. Typhoon" or "ARMRAAM vs. meteor" would also be moved to Typhoon's bug forum in the future.

I don't know how is 120 earlier before the new API. But I wonder if so why it's same as those old red missiles with no API update. I think it's more likely an old problem ignored in API update.

As for the detect range, the smaller size and lower head RCS of JF might make a difference. However I also tends to regard APG-68+ARMRAAM combination is underperforming instead of KLJ-7+SD-10 is overperforming. If you check the track you can find the SD-10 has a more optimized maneuvering strategy than ARMRAAM. When ARMRAAM faces an off-and-on radar lock you can find the missile suddenly turning back to some "default" attitude(I guess it might be doing dead-reckoning on target while considering only heading and speed but no overload at the point of losing track) and start to track later again, losing much more energy. This is also found on many other missiles like R-77, but not SD-10. I think this might be the reason why SD-10 often shows better terminal energy than ARMRAAM, although it's heavier and bulky in diameter. And SD-10 has no INS now and if you shoot and lose track, the missile would be wasted. You can also take advantage of this.

I have been wondering that but after seeing the disaster of June 7th update, I choose to wish they could finish JF to a relative stable state first.

I bought the I-16 module in summer sale. When launching I keep seeing steam authorization failed error and authorization will last for 2 days, 23hrs, 59mins, the newly bought I-16 module is not authorized and would be disabled. When re-downloading I saw "downloaded file lost" error. Update: Solved after pausing antivirus defending (I'm using ESET), repairing steam library folder, and re-download the module. Sorry for bothering. Besides, when checking antivirus log, I found that after moving DCS from my default D:/program files(x86)/steam/steamapp folder to my new E:/steamlibrary/steamapp folder, the downloading still involves earlier folder(D:/program files(x86)/steam/steamapp/downloading). This information may helps anyone with other problems later.

I remember I have already seen some model viewer style screenshots. Maybe in WWII or WWII Pacific asset pack sooner than we think?

I would tell everyone that I want more advanced red aircrafts and missiles, as well as telling everyone who also want those, that it's impossible. I know the legal and confidential problem maybe more than most guys opposing the thought, but I have to say, having these desire is nothing strange. That's not originated from unrealistic greed but natural thought. Balance is not always necessary but there's no need to oppose it. Realistic first, but we still want something to fight against when flying in the more and more blue aircrafts, or to fly against the blue guys, especially with the supersonic cruising toys with ram-jet missiles coming in years. Surely you can admit the unbalanced situation and just fight with it, or set homotype combats, or just ban it to make PvP possible. But it would be better to have a double-pulse missile as its counterpart, to make the tactical experience more spectacular and practical. The realistic tactics is also realistic, while not having the red counterparts would transfer more difficulties to the mission makers. And I would never agree that if we can't get a module we should be happy with mods and AI. We can't command ourselves to be happy when we are actually not. If we should be happy with anything we have when we want something more, then we can stop the updates right now. What we have should always be thought as enough, right? In my missions I would still try to make best use of what we have, and I would try to use what I have to fight against any strong opponents, but that doesn't prevent me to hope for more and better. We know it's hard but we still hope something better. Again I'm sure it's impossible in any near future and it may not be suitable to appear in the practical wishlist. But I'm still wishing a way to lawfully change the situation.

Well... Seems we have to wait for more updates. Thank you for your respond and test and wish a better simulation to our tomcat.

Have you test ACLS? I can't make it work with a G940. Every time it connects and CMD control lights up, the aircraft comes into a dive and crash.

Does it work now with FFB sticks? I noticed the fix of AFCS with FFB and checked, but the ACLS seems still not working with FFB.

The figure you post shows even no double-thrust for LD-10 and not only drag. So I suspect that the present LD-10 simulation is limited by some other factors, for example, maybe some DCS limits to anything classified as AG missiles.

It may not be normal play zone here. I found it in a valley flight. N37°20", E34°54"27'. In Google map the highway stops north of it and a lane continues to wind into the forest.

I don't know that their radars are same. I thought at least a larger antenna should be put into a Flanker's nose before.

Check this. It seems the range of detection ability and the range to trigger RWR are set individually. The RWR response range of JF used to be much more bugged with wrong unit used in lua (while its detection ability is never so ridiculous) and might has been reset similar to J-11A later. But with your report some more issue seems still exist. Mike_Romeo has already put this post under that old bug report. Besides, the spike range vs. human piloted hot F-16 in my game with friends is around 40-50 n miles, and the tracking is hard to get until less than 40 n miles (if farther than this you can push the button but the radar will lock according to its mood), several miles longer than F-16 to F-16 but not ridiculous, while farther vs. AI F-16 and I don't know whether should there be difference here. So to be polite temporarily I won't call any tune to the performance "corrected" until we find strong evidence rather than emotional intuition. And Deka even uses a variable target RCS model and weather influence to produce a better simulation to their radar. Maybe we could try to change the attitude and direction to cope with a human piloted JF. And more features about JF's radar including unstable detecting and TWS tracking at range limit is planned in next update. You may check it later and it should be a better radar simulation then.