Torbernite

Should be right in theory. I realized that when I have trouble to control the A-10C with my G940 because I set the centering spring force ON(an option to simulate a virtual centering spring under your stick and force it to center, for application on those non-FFB-support games, if set to ON in FFB-support games, the simulated centering force would add up to FFB force together) and the stick was forced back to geometric center, which was a pulling stick position logically. But I think it might not be the actual problem after check the description again. If the stick is set in the geometric center before start, it will cause an oscillation. But if that's the problem, Jumper would notice the left/right position deviation(unless he has also set the centering spring force ON) and change X/Y position should work. However, the stick of A-10A and F-5E has hydraulic pressure before start and cold/hot start should make no difference.

I think you may try to have X/Y axis FFB setting exchanged. Why you have problem only on F-5E and A-10A/C might be that they have a special axis setting. Their Y axis actual center is set forward of geometric center and the forward limit is shorter than backward limit. In other words, when no control force added, the FFB joystick should be back to somewhere forward than physical center, let's say 25% forward for example. If X/Y axis FFB signal is mismatched, you will see the stick move to 25% left of the position. If the stick is set in the geometric center instead of actual center before start, it becomes an oscillator.

Number in the TD box should shows same thing with right bottom information. If it's TOF then both are TOF, TOA then both are TOA.

Not actually. PL-5EII is improved PL-5E, and the latter is export version of PL-5C. PL-5C is finished in 1998 when obviously no license of AIM-9 could be given to China. In fact PL-5B(A is an unused SARH version) is based on the AIM-9D from Vietnam, which was taken off from a crashed crusader. That's even before the volume production of PL-2 based on K-13, but the development of PL-5B costed too much time, finished in 1986. PL-5C is developed to provide a lighter choice than PL-8(Python 3) for light J-7. In fact the wing-tip mount on JF-17 block1/2 and JH-7 is for PL-5 only, for their pylon is originally based on sidewinder pylon of F-5. (China also got F-5A and F from Vietnam and ROCAF surrender.) Back to PL-5EII, the canard shape of 5E is nearly same as 9L/M, maybe slightly different but I can't distinguish, but the stabilizer is surely tuned and slightly moved forward. Besides, It doesn't have the same laser fuze window as 9L/M, indicating the fuze or even the interior design is different. So PL-5 could be regarded as another branch of sidewinder developed in China, but they are never licensed from the very first and could hardly have got any official help from US (the shape could be roughly copied from wreckage, model or photos and fine tuned by the Chinese developers themselves).

Sorry to hear that. I don't know that before. Do you have any staff in Ukraine, Russia or Belarus, or are you actually suffering from other affects of the war, sanction and confrontation? I hope you could have a safe and free condition for your work in the turmoil.

I have little experience on helicopters than fixed-wings. But I did feel something strange on the gazelle among all the choppers we have. The gazelle seems to lack some basic stability as a chopper. When cyclic moved away and back to trimmed center, the gazelle seems to show more tendency to just stay at new pitch and roll attitude instead of recover former stable attitude like others. Is it strange with improper weight or as it should be? Besides it never gets overspeed to damage itself when dive from extremely high altitude, and simply increasing collective would save you out of any vortex ring crisis. I think these qualitative anomalies are the true FM problem. As for the maneuverability after that, I totally believe it's correct as it should be, and even other helicopters we have could also do some loops and barrels.

They also work on MSFS modules. Are you sure that this is for DCS?

AND INS for SD-10

I'm here to show my sympathy at the risk of breaking rules, both to DIS for that their should be allowed to focus on their work, instead of answering these groundless accuse and slander, and to jianduankejiCN for his delusion that himself is representing all Chinese fans. I see absolutely no strong accuse on DIS with my eyes in Chinese fan group, except for some unreasonable allege like his words, just supposing JF could never be as powerful as it is at the very first, daydreaming for all the black box operation in their fantasy, ignoring any analyzing and living in their own anti-DIS world.

赞美汉化组

If you are NOT in need for another modern jet just in no time to fight back against those throwing AMRAAM at you in PvP server: I recommend to take M2000C first and wait for JF to get stable with its full function, which should be in just several months or even in next update. But if so, take JF please.

I love both of them but they are totally different things. M2000C first if you like original 1980s flavor. JF if you like a simplified low-cost modern multirole fighter. To me, M2000C is interesting with many features from the INS-only era. It's an early version and not so capable but the system limitation from earlier design is an important part of it. The radar modelling reflects the real features well. And the module is already in a relatively stable stage, which means less changes in the future (still many system reworked recently, but you don't have to re-learn it from the very first). JF is surely more capable than M2000C but not as capable as F-16 or 18. As its sensors and avionics is advanced and with a logic easy to learn, it could do many things in a comfortable way, but don't expect too much from a low-cost jet (although the module is not cheaper at all). Deka is a thoughtful developer, they introduced the only dynamic RCS model and true TVC FM in DCS (latter as Easter egg). And the sensor and system include lots of work by Deka's own, some of which before ED's work on it, and needs more support from DCS API, some of which is still changing by ED in every update. So JF is now suffering from several new bugs coming up with every update for the change of DCS itself, and Deka is positive on fixing them. Besides, it only has a quick guide and no official manual, Chuck's guide is needed, but this is not too serious problem as the system logic is easy to learn. Finally, it depends on yourself. I would suggest you to consider your preference first, and then your acceptability to an ever changing module.

Anything is ok for me now, even a Nanchang CJ-6 or Y-5.

In my opinion, maybe free for EE, free or update pack for BE, stand alone for M with discout for CE owner, is acceptable for me. Surely I would show my praise if all for free. I wish they can complete the ambitious project with all planned variants and I don't mind higher price for that.

Have Aerges ever said whether they would charge for later versions as stand-alone DLC or update pack? Surely the difference between those versions(at least the M) is much more significant than between F-14A and B, C-101CC and EB or any other DLC containing multiple variants now we have. I think they need to put more into the development and thus deserve more pay back for each version. If not, I worry whether they could run the project continuously and complete the F1 plan in reasonable time. Even with F-14A/B, HB also chose to stop developing later DLC in that way, showing the heavy load to develop several variants in one DLC.

As the ram powered meteor has many different character from present missiles in DCS, like slower initial acceleration but long thrust time and attitude and altitude related power from the ram engine, the strategy to engage an opponent with it or some other ram powered missiles in the future should be different and difficult. I can't imagine a reasonable method to fight them now. May anyone give some suggestions or hints?

I remembered the 33-36° position is introduced only on MLD level, and MLA only get original 16-45-72, which is 18°-47°40'-74°40' in fact.

I used to be interested, and also pre-purchased it, but now I'm getting a little displeased about this project for its too high priority delaying normal patch updating. I wonder what if apache were still not ready till 3.31? Would we have to wait for ever? And what about other modules which may be more complete and closely on their schedule? Should they be prolonged following the delay of apache, which is not their fault? Anyway we can do nothing and just pray for a long-waited update with apache instead of another delay.

I have been wondering this question for a long time. As the RB-05 knob is so special in appearance and I can only distinguish one possible yaw axis, I can't imagine how it's operated by pilot on the real plane. Is it moved in translational motion, by twist and turn, or just like a normal POV hat?

Considering ED is also doing this, we can suspect so do some other 3rd parties, especially thinking how deka could persuade PAF to help on resources for JF. However, ED could modify their A-10C to commercial level for public but they could never finish their full fidelity flanker dream (well, to me it's also my dream, even not precise on rivet level). The law for secrecy is different from type to type and country to country. In other country those project may be forbidden and no legal information resources even without some sensitive systems, or has to be kept as internal projects after development. So we'd better expect not too much before any official information.

Sorry but is it proper time to ask again for that?

Your expression and mood are so complacent and unpleasant. I remembered Deka set it as a blk1 with some updated blk2 features, it's a hybrid version and not that strange to set with number different from pak version. The problem now is the ref for the system is provided by AVIC but not the one used on Pak version, which is the ref for the texture, causing difference between system and appearance. Their ref is also real configuration so I won't regard it as an inaccuracy. @uboatsWhat Deka needs to do now is to clarify every feature as "possibly provided by AVIC" or "exact version from Pak", and keep it in correspondence between texture and system to stop others from find your fault on pixel level.

So now the problem is whether it's necessary to change the texture to match the 36/32 or to change the number to match the texture or neither of them?

That's what I realized later. JF should be able to use various customized version of equipment as a export product. So the flare dispensers are quite different from those on the in-game model based on real aircrafts in PAF? Do you regard it as an uncomfortable problem, or an insignificant issue as we can set our desired amount of flare? And could you explain those version differences more clearly in the future, and give us a clear definition of our JF, like what features from what ref sources if necessary?

So I said it's an example to show cartridges don't have to be the same scale to be loaded in same magazine, and nothing more. However, we truly need more reply from deka about what they do to research their aircraft, what details they know about it and what they (and we) can't get. Basic features like this are not clear for us, for example the forever unknown real position of the Rctrl+O manual lasing switch. One step more, the changelog hasn't been updated for months, the post "Deka we haven't heard from you much" is posted half a year ago, but nothing changed. A QA might be needed now. We know nothing about what feature they have access to and could be made, what bugs they know need to be fixed, what they are actually working on, and many other questions. Maybe one year ago JF was more completed even than hornet and viper. But now, although there were truly some important improvement with JF, with those two more and more completed, we have been used to the fact that JF has to fight with the reciprocating bugs to keep itself working instead of advancing, which may be not Deka's fault. But aren't we expecting less and less, even the manual… I believe in Deka's capability and enthusiasm and I'm willing to just wait for them to get the job done. But now I don't know what to do. Maybe they are indeed busy with their job in reality. But could we know more about Deka's work on this aircraft and what to expect in near future? The forum is deadly silent with sounds about future from team comparing with some others. Role of Uboats is becoming more and more like a after-sale customer service staff facing us with problem in the module, instead of a member of developing team.