Torbernite

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.

I see photo proof for the modeling, both in Paris, Dubai, Zhuhai and Islamabad. JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan - Air Force | Aviation Photo #4601845 | Airliners.net JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan - Air Force | Aviation Photo #4724009 | Airliners.net But also photos with the lower dispenser opening covered by a white plate (Dubai 2011\2013 and Zhuhai 2010, JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan - Air Force | Aviation Photo #2016657 | Airliners.net) and photos with upper dispenser no opening (JF-17 Thunder - Pakistan - Air Force | Aviation Photo #6714413 | Airliners.net , there are actual version with no opening but an unbroken skin there, but this one with smoke trace around it, suggesting former launching of chaff/flares). So I think the different dispensers could be installed/uninstalled so maybe even exchanged integrally, and there may be more complex corresponding types of chaff and flare cartridges which might be interchanged. Even F-14 use two different types of chaff in internal and rack dispensers. If not, you can't explain this unless you judge it as faked: Technically, Pakistan CMF-1/2 (MJU-7 scale) flare cartridge could be launched from ALE-47 and Chinese GT-1. And Pakistan Mohafiz dispenser launches different flare and chaff cartridges in similar magazines. The flare cartridge is 1*2 inch and chaff 1*1, so chaff magazine set a separating wall in one hole and load two chaff in it. This is just an example as the one on JF is definitely not this type of scene, but it shows a possibility to load different scale cartridges in a given dispenser magazine. Finally, I remembered last time I saw you counting pixels for fault was in the RCS supposition. I have to say, set your opinion aside and I admire your patience.

Earlier when AIM-120 just got the INS, I remembered to ask Deka somewhere else if we would get the same thing on SD-10. They said yes but not immediately because they are not satisfied with present INS on AIM-120 to directly shift it to SD-10 and need time for a more suitable one.

Anyway, an update doesn't contain all the latest internal work before the release moment. I think it may takes some time to check all the change from ED or 3rd parties, so submitting from 3rd parties might be cut off quite early before the update release, and newest internal changes after that may be delayed to next version. At least for some times I heard from Deka that their latest changes or fixes missed the submitting, and have to wait until next update to release them.

In fact I found two updates downloaded in steam but only one changelog. I thought these might be a hotfix and a normal update, but this bug is not fixed yet. It seems that we have to wait for next BIG update.

It seems that a hotfix is launched today. Has anyone checked it yet?

Inlet cover and ladder were added in last update and now they come with a cold JF by default. Now you need to ask ground crew to remove the inlet cover first, or the engine can't start. Besides, after an ignition failure, a cold crank is needed before retry now.

I think it's a bit strange. I don't know why the cold crank is needed, maybe to blow away those accumulated unburned fuel in the chamber to avoid a hot start? If so it makes no sense in air restart for the air flow doesn't stop and no fuel should stay in the chamber. Maybe more details about the engine start and ignition are needed. @uboats could we bother you once again? update: I tried air restart and find it normal as expected. Start pump off and on or throttle to off, to shut down the engine, then turn on the air start switch(cover protected) and the RPM rises back. Or wait till the RPM drops to ~15%, then turn on air start switch and dive to see RPM increase and stay at 40.7%, no re-ignition, but then turn off the air start switch off and then on, restart succeeds and no cold crank needed. And in ground start, cold crank is only needed after an failed or interrupted start, but not needed after a normal shutdown. Maybe the inlet covers are just added to let us forget to remove them and experience the cold crank feature. Could you confirm if you have too low RPM or air speed to do the air restart, or using the ground start button? And then another question for uboats, what's the "start pump" and why it is needed for not only the start procedure but also normal powering? Maybe it's actually equal to a main fuel shutdown valve?

Maybe we need to @uboats for some explanation to the cold crank procedure and why it's required, and to underline the NEED for the official manual again.

Also wonder why we still don't have a manual now. When others ask I just hear "WIP", sometime even in a self-deprecating or joking tone as like that's something you should be proud of.

JF-17 is tested but not and roughly never would be equipped by PLAAF. This plane is totally an export version. They got the information from both AVIC and Pak. It seems that they could get information they need about most system exclusively for export, but they also have difficulties in collecting information about those system which is more similar to the PLA version.

When I set full filled external tanks in mission editor payload and burn out all the external fuel in them, the tanks could be refueled in air(see JFAAR1.trk). However, if initially empty external tanks are selected in ME payload, those tanks could not be fueled in aerial refueling. The fuel transfer stops at 5126 lbs (full internal fuel) and the tube doesn't disconnect automatically(see JFAAR2.trk). After a manual break away, DATA-FUEL page shows no fuel in external tanks and fuel is consumed from internal tanks.(not shown in trk) (Sorry for my poor AAR skill and long time to connect.) JFAAR2.trk JFAAR1.trk

Just found fuel can't be transferred into empty drop tanks today, neither with AAR switch in ALL or INT position. Fuel transfer stopped at 5126 pds and EXT fuel tanks stays 0. Is it a bug or I forgot anything?

Great mod for me. Thanks for all the efforts of the team. Also feel strange trim from my G940. When release the trim button, stick center joggles more fiercely than other helis and can't stay stable in this way. At present I choose to use the trim hat instead of the button. And wish to see myself from outside the aircraft.

Seems the discord invitation link is expired. Could we have a new one?

I found in cannon practice that HUD symbols (CCIP pipe, indicator of DMT or TPOD designation) may have a little lower offset from where they should be. As shown in the track, when designation was at the runway number "0" of RWY07 of Kobuleti, HUD indicator was even out of the runway entry from a long distance. Bomb lands a little forward of the CCIP pipe(roughly equal to the diameter of the pipe central dot, same with the offset of designation indicator symbol) and this could be reproduced(so maybe not a random bombing error). This may not lead to serious problem with bomb or rocket, but may be severe to a gun attack. However the cannon hits much farther or higher than the CCIP pipe, which may indicating an unmatched CCIP calculation besides the offset pipe. 8Bbug.trk

Thanks for all the efforts from ED team. I think it's ok in the newsletter with just a periodical summary (without estimated schedule) of what's being worked on, what's planned in near future, what could be considered later, what's not in smooth but not given up, what have to be suspended or what's finally cancelled. I understand that ED needs to perform in a reliable and professional image as a developer. While at least for me, even some bad or "not-so-exciting" news(like something is not going to be delivered on schedule but we are still working on it, or some idea used to be considered but suspended at least for now) is needed to confirm that ED would really tell us if something actually goes wrong and we could expect a steady progress when they don't.

I would also get crazy for a J-10CE if possible. AESA, PL-10/15 pack, would be a nice counter part to the typhoon, especially when typhoon is pushing too much on the technical era of the game. But I wouldn't be too disappointed if not. J-10CE shares many characteristics with the original J-10C which makes some legal problem. And its avionics design or logic is quite similar to the JF-17 so not that much new user experience with it(especially if we get an earlier one).

Could we have a valid CCIP or AUTO release for the similar type200? As even MiG-29A can precisely drop those BetAB-500ShP with drag chute and rocket motor through CCIP or CCRP with FC3 class avonic. Present CCIP and AUTO always release too early and the bomb hit short ahead of the aiming point. Seems the characteristic of drag chute and rocket is not considered.

C-802AK randomly pitches up after release and climb to 30k-40k ft. these conditions add up to the probability of the bug (but not necessary) : second missile on the same target DIR target designated with SEA1 or SEA2 HIGH or MED cruise altitude released below selected cruise altitude The problem may happen under other conditions, and no other regularity found. Usually this cause a miss and short range, or a strange and comical terminal trajectory like a ballistic missile if not. 17BM.trk 17BM2.trk 17BM3.trk

I know nothing more than you, I haven't even seen the recent interview. I think if it's from HB we may expect one with plural subtypes like the two tomcats, but hard if from someone else.

Heard from a 3rd party member/tester/localizer's leaking that an F-4 with unconfirmed subtype is already being worked on by a 3rd party and might be announced soon. By now Deka has a unknown project but obviously they are not likely to make a phantom and most probably haven't start their own project yet. Razbam has a mysterious project in their QA at the beginning of the year, but maybe referring to the BO-105 or some helicopter else (I might have seen some word or model about this but can't recall it). The last one is HB. I can't remember, are they said to have another unannounced project besides A-6 and typhoon? If so, that's almost it. Anyway, we should be hearing that soon.

Thanks for the resource, Frederf! It would help a lot!

I have seen a lot of detailed description about the operation principle and signal system of VOR/DME and TACAN systems. As RSBN provides similar function, I'm quite interested in this Russian equivalent. How is the azimuth angle measured through RSBN? More like the VOR or the azimuth component of TACAN?