gnomechild

From my understanding of how the TH-CSF 196 sight should operate, the target reticle that appears when radar lock is achieved should always be visible on the sight glass. Even when the locked target is outside of it, the reticle should move towards the target to show the relative direction but then stop within the limits of travel. My source for this is a manual for the Libyan Mirage F1ED which uses the same sight as our F1CE. The manual is not classified or restricted, so I will post a couple of screenshots that I think indicate this behavior.

Sorry if this is obvious, but it wasn't clear to me from the newsletter. Is Normandy 2 going to be backwards compatible with the Channel and Normandy 1? Would someone getting into DCS: WW2 still need to purchase the channel to play missions/campaigns and multiplayer servers that are currently using the Channel map? Or will buying Normandy 2 give you access to everything?

Yes I think it's a CT as well but I don't know enough about them to be 100% so I left some wiggle room lol

This isn't a picture of an F1M lol. You can tell it's an F1CT or CR because it just has one cannon and it's painted in a scheme that was never used by Spain. And as others have mentioned your article source is talking about a lot of different variants and confusing their abilities. That's a pretty common thing sadly and you have to take most articles with a huge grain of salt unless they're written with firsthand knowledge.

AFAIK the F1M won't really have any differences in loadout compared to the F1CE and EE. I don't know of any other bomb racks. But information on the F1M is kinda hard to come by

F1M never used any of those weapons. Though of course would be compatible with the Super 530F the same as all the other F1s. It does not have a tpod and was never outfitted to use one. Cannot guide AS-30Ls. The F1M also never received the ability to use Exocets, though that's commonly repeated due to the radar sea search mode, and Spain obviously never purchased any because they had harpoons. What are you basing this off of?

Just gonna say it. Your first impression sucks and this thread is pointless lol

It has to be the F-105 and it has to have this livery included

Yes please! Would be a huge benefit for all DCS players. Being able to speak rather than fumble through radio menus would be so great

Thud!!

What data do you need that isn't provided in the original post? The UH-1 main rotor shaft is mounted parallel to the z-axis of the airframe. He posted a photo of a Huey in a stable hover (0kts TS) with no bank (0 degree in F2 view and skids are level with horizon) That's all the proof that is needed. It should not be possible for the helicopter to be stable in this position unless the translating force of the tail rotor is incorrectly modelled. The AI Huey also hovers the exact same way BTW. With 0 degrees of bank. Track file attached. UH1H hover.trk

Regardless of the configuration of the 3rd lots, lots of other countries (the majority) operating variants of the F1C didn't use integrated CMs. Would be kinda cool IMO to have the option to remove it. Especially since the external model is already using some other removable elements like the RWR antenna and refueling probe

Ah I see. I misunderstood what it was about. That makes sense thanks!

Is the limitation only present for the C model? Just curious about the particulars of that

After several tries I was able to "thread the needle" and get down to the deck in overspeed without getting too much mach. It appears to be unsustainable. I tried three times and every time you eventually drop below the overspeed threshold and slow down to ~870kts. Was fun though. I'm glad it's going to be adjusted in the next patch to be at some realistic level. Will be interesting to see where we end up.

This, also assuming that these changes were merged intentionally. Which we've seen several times over with how DCS releases go that sometimes the wrong branch gets merged. Just like with any software development. I know I've merged the wrong branches / tags before on a number of occasions. Always a fun day

I think this conversation is somewhat pointless until Aerges weighs in with what their long term plan is for these changes. It seems pretty clear to me that these changes were merged unintentionally considering there are several very significant differences completely absent from the patch notes. I personally don't think a stock F1 should be able to set an IAS speed record. But, I'll wait to argue about it until Aerges says it's intentional. They very well could be in the middle of re-working failure conditions and whatnot

Yeah the plane definitely feels much different. Would be nice to know what has changed and what is still WIP, etc.

I didn't think to check the manual. I was assuming the previous behavior + RedKite's tutorial from Aerges info was correct but it looks like this was an intentional change that didn't make it into the patch notes. Your information is correct

The "LIM" warning light should illuminate above 700kts under 20,000ft and above 750kts above 20,000ft. That no longer happens. Additionally, prior to this patch the engine would flame out when you exceeded the limit speeds after some variable amount of time. That also no longer happens

It seems that the only engine limit that currently affects the F1 is the mach limit. The 'LIM' light does not come on for the F1 over 700kts at sea level, and the engine never dies.

Hmm now that you've mentioned it, the takeoff run does seem to be longer than it should. The plane is kind of "stuck" to the runway and even though you can rotate at 120 in a clean + magics loadout, it doesn't come off the tarmac for another 20-30 kts. It's quite difficult to get the gear up on time following the schedule in the manual. I almost always get a couple of warning tones before they're finished. I initially just figured it's a "skill issue". But my last few take offs I've nailed the 12⁰ rotation pretty damn close and still am not getting positive rate on "schedule" for the aircraft weight

@Vibora tagging you since this bug report is somewhat buried and is a significant issue that wasn't mentioned in the update today. Sorry for the tag if you're already aware of it

The touchdown AoA is for flare out isn't it? Are you testing it with that in mind? So far I've not had any discrepancies between speed and AoA for a given weight in terms of all green. Gear down + flaps down at the same weight I can hold 10 degrees of incidence at nearly exactly 150kts. Seems odd if it would diverge by that large of an amount right at the end. You may be accounting for this in your test, or maybe it doesn't matter and I'm thinking of it wrong. Just wondering if that might be part of the issue that the AoA/speed maybe is not meant to be sustained but rather just a guide for flaring out?