tweet

My experience from 38 years of flying more than a dozen types from the lowly T-37 to the 747-400 has been that the sense of height feels about right in VR or on a flat screen monitor. The monitor provides less peripheral sense. Even with trackIR the feel is artificial while in VR it is real enough that I still on occasion find myself reaching for a switch if I'm concentrating on what I'm doing. Even the sense of speed isn't too far off. A wrap around VR headset would cure that though. I honestly don't know why but I think the sides of the cockpit, canopy rails, and the structure all around offer a more secure feel than when exposed on a ladder, a horse, or a bridge. We don't feel like we're any higher than the cockpit floor. My wife still gets a kick out of me not liking heights, especially bridges with steel mesh decks high above a mountain gorge. Yet, I've never felt insecure in an airplane. Although I didn't like the few times I had to clean a spot on the windscreen hanging out the #2 sliding window of even a 727. Leaning out of the DC-10 was really uncomfortable. When flying we get used to the picture through the canopy or windscreen using it to orient ourselves in space. The thought of being high or low and fast just doesn't intrude into our thoughts once we've become experienced. It's amazing what the mind gets used to. The best example I can think of is during my time as a flight examiner in the Tweet. I was a spin demo pilot. We took trainee IPs out for a well orchestrated 11 spin ride to show them the characteristics of the jet in a spin when the standard recovery procedure, Single Spin Recover, was altered/botched. The idea was for the trainee, and then again as a new IP with 6 months experience with students, to see how the jet reacted and what it looked and felt like in a controlled, safe environment before Stanley the Stud did it to them for real. One demo required a slow (10 second minimum) positioning of the stick from full aft to full forward with neutral rudder. That demo could result in the maximum spin rotation rate of 540 degrees/second if done properly. It's pretty eye watering the first time you see it. After being qualified to do the demos and doing a few I could pick out things on the ground like a car on the road or cows. I could look up at the canopy bow and see its slow movement below the horizon that indicated the nose was still going down. The pitch attitude increasing towards the vertical was the one true indication the recovery was still working.Spun up like a top didn't feel so strange like the first time I did it. I think the same goes with the sense of height. We just get used to it.

One of the choices that ED made a long time ago was to offer a bare minimum in the way of profiles for controllers. There is a dizzying number of potential combinations and a greater number of individual preferences. That makes creating profiles one of the costs of preparing a new module for use. The only module I know that has a great Warthog profile is the A-10C. It is the same profile as the real jet. (My preference for every aircraft.) You can use it or not but I do. It's really nice having one aircraft that only requires a check box in the options to go flying straight away. It is a decent starting point for all of the US jets and can be modified for the others quite well. The forums for controllers may offer profiles and the downloads section has some. Personally, the best I've seen for either is no more than a decent starting point. I always begin my control setup by clearing out all of the default selections that don't suit my preferred way to set up controls. I do my best to use the primary button assignments similarly in every module. For example: the stick trim switch is a trim switch, period, and ALL of the views, internal and external, get deleted. Having trackIR or VR and not having to deal with snap views is a big plus. It's not always possible but I can usually limit the number of differences to where the difference is memorable. I understand setting up controls is a PITA. Do it a few dozen times and you'll get the hang of it as well as develop personal preferences that best suit your style. You'll probably come to prefer it once you figure out that you don't have to like the drill, you just have to go through it.

An awesome old technique for doing reciprocals is the +2/-2 or -2/+2 method. This refers to using simple addition and subtraction on the first two digits of the radial to get a course TO the station or a course TO the station to radial/bearing. The marshal stack is given as a radial but to use it you need the course to the boat. This method is simple and fast. Lets try some examples. Flying radial 360 TO the carrier is what course? Since the first digit is 3 the -2/+2 is probably easiest: 3-2=1 and 6+2=8 The final digit is whatever was given. The result is 1,8, 0 or 180, due south. 090 is best solved with +2/-2: 0+2=2 and 9-2=7 => 270 Try some on your own. You'll find some aren't clear which easier like 110. Simply adding 180 is easy so try that first: 110+180=290. If you don't happen to think about adding or subtracting 180 or get confused the method still works but you'll need to think a little. 110 is easiest is you do +2/-2: 1+2=3 but 1-2 gets confusing. Put the 3 (we're really taking 20 from 300) in front for 31-2=29 => 290. It takes a little practice but after awhile doing reciprocals is like breathing. There's a nice little shortcut for adding minutes and seconds times too. I'd give it to you but I don't want to cause any helmet fires.

Sorry, I haven't been able to watch the video yet. The answer to this question might be in the video. Are you sure the belly tank wasn't napalm? The first use of napalm was mixed and delivered in standard belly tanks with a phosphorus igniter. Nape is essentially gasoline and moth balls mixed together. My two freshman chemistry (tailored course for engineering students) professors were the inventors of napalm who worked for Dupont (IIRC-it's been a lot of years!) in the 1940s.

The normal position of the switch is AUTO. Think of half and full as an override of the FCS automatic control of the flaps. Half is used for takeoff and full is used for landing. I suspect half is also the position for a single engine approach. I haven't checked the manual but that is definitely what I would use. Going from half to full is almost all drag that you really don't want in a performance critical situation like an engine out.

Hippo, there is some really good advice people have been offering to you. Some not so much but everyone is trying to help. May I offer you some advice and maybe help you find a way forward? My profile is a very short snapshot of my life flying, 38 years. One of the most rewarding things I've ever done is instructing at USAF UPT and PIT. PIT is the school where UPT IPs are trained. We taught those who would be teachers. I was a flight commander and a flight examiner in that world for six years and have something short of 3000 hours in the Tweet, T-37, most of it instructing. There's little I haven't done to teach pilots. Let's see if I can help you. Human babies learn to roll around on the floor then to sit up then to crawl then to pull themselves up to a standing position and only then do the begin to walk and finally run and jump. Flight training works on exactly that same model - a building block process of the simple leading to the more complex. There is very little that is more complex than flying an AOA overhead traffic pattern and approach to a freaking moving boat. A pilot uses every single type of maneuver that is possible in a fixed wing airplane in the traffic pattern. The best way to learn is by breaking the complex down into small pieces and practice each until you have the pieces down cold. Only then can you put all of them together to learn the entire evolution. This is going to be really basic. I'm doing it like this because missing an early part and not having it mastered causes problems in more complex maneuvers. Trying to make corrections on the fly is a later skill that you will learn if you are persistent and practice, practice, and practice until you do these things in your sleep. Straight and level unaccelerated flight - Practice constant altitude, constant heading, constant airspeed flight. Let's pick 350 KCAS at 800' AGL over the water on a fixed heading. Do this until you can stay within about 20-30' of 800', +/- 5 knots, +/- 2 degrees of heading for several minutes. This is basic and the hardest maneuver a pilot does. Nothing is supposed to change but it does and if you aren't constantly checking all three repeatedly one will wonder. This builds your scan and muscle memory. This is also important because getting to the break at altitude, on airspeed, and on the proper track for initial is the beginning of everything else. Errors here affect the rest of the pattern and approach and you ability to fly them. Steep turns - Start with 60 degree level turns, 2 G, at a constant airspeed. You need to be able to maintain +/- 50' and +/- 5 knots for two 360 degree turns consistently. Then do the same for 3 G. You figure out the bank angle. Then 4 G. Move on when you get these two items sorted out. During the two previous steps you should be remembering the power settings for each maneuver. Those settings are your starting point when trying to stabilize your airspeed. Later you'll get some ball park figures for different weights and drag indexes/weapon loads. Remember baby steps. You should also get lots of practice trimming for zero stick force and figuring out how much is needed when changing airspeed. Benchmark pitch attitudes and power settings are the basis for the precise flying you'll need for everything but especially to land on the boat. One great technique for discovering starting power settings is to engage ATC and watch what the machine does. Do steps 1 and 2 but practice airspeed changes. Do steps 1 and 2 but practice constant airspeed and constant rate descents and climbs. Note how much power change it takes to establish then stabilize 200, 500, and 1000 FPM descents and climbs. Do the same for returning to level flight. I'm sorry if you read this far expecting to have solved the issue that caused you to make your post. This is the beginning. You will have everything you need to begin working to solve your problems in the pattern if you work on these diligently and demand precision of yourself. Yes, it's boring if you choose to think that way. Otherwise, you will flail around and may finally find something that more or less works. The choice is yours. Learn to fly well or just accept what you manage to figure out. Last point, walking the throttles. Yes, it is an awesome technique. It's something I taught and used my entire career. I use it in DCS to good effect for AR and around the boat. Over controlling power is a serious challenge to precision flying. It's most common in the traffic pattern, close formation flying, and AR (Air Refueling). Small movements are difficult when you use big arm muscles but using your hand and fingers is much easier. Needing big power changes is a symptom of a poor crosscheck. A pilot cannot ever afford to concentrate on just one parameter like heading, airspeed, or altitude. When you concentrate on one another will always, not may but always, get out of whack. You have to constantly move your eyes from attitude to heading to altitude to airspeed and toss in a peek at the power every few cycles. You need to know what pitch, bank, and power setting will give you the performance you're looking for. Then you have to figure out which control or combination is needed. Fix one, keeping the scan going, then work on another one. The faster you can make the process the easier flying well will come. Contact me when you can do these exercises within the parameters I suggested. I'll tear down the rest of the pattern for you then. It may take a few hours or a few weeks. You'll get out what you put into it. Good luck.

I had the same issue until I went back to the old standby fix. I deleted the fxo and metashaders2 folders from the savedgames folder then launched the sim. That fixed my problem. Some do it every update. I think the update and an nVidia driver update occurring and installed on the same day may have caused my issue.

I have had exactly zero problems with gear, gear doors, or flaps. The only time I've encountered problems is when I've missed the G key and failed to confirm that the gear is coming up. The other day I got a phone call and paused before raising the flaps after a cat shot. I couldn't figure out why I couldn't exceed .90 mach in an A2A config with a center line tank. No damage despite a 450 KCAS burner climb. I'll experiment with complying with the 250 KCAS limits and see if there is a difference but apparently it's not necessary with the current damage modeling.

Zyll has it spot on. I drop the gear as the jet drops below 300 KCAS in the break and start to trim off stick forces as the airspeed approaches 220-200. That is about the time I usually begin to roll out on downwind. Airspeed is still decreasing but I stop trimming until I'm more or less wings level. By then, in the descent from 800' to 600' I have a better feel for what my AOA is. Power needs to be coming up to arrest the descent and if I over trim I'll find I'm on AOA but way out of trim and need to hold lots of forward stick force to counter the nose coming up with the power. Holding excess stick force, getting level at 600', and picking the right point for the 180 is just too much going on to ensure a good start at the 180. The rest of your turn to final will suffer if you're fighting the jet and not stable on speed and AOA at 600'. Still making corrections in the final turn isn't conducive to a solid pass. The technique of dropping gear and flaps together at 300 KCAS was the key to improving my traps at the boat.

The Oculus runtime service continues to function when you close the Oculus software. You can use Task Manger, "Processes" tab, to "end task" manually or use OTT. OTT has settings that will automatically start and end the runtime service/Oculus software as well as change speakers when you launch/shutdown OTT. The resource overhead of OTT is low and it's easy to use. Skatezilla's DCS Updater/Launcher GUI Utility is another utility with very useful features as dburne said. Neither utility is difficult to figure out.

Nice illustrations Panther and good explanation Frederf. That about covers most ways of doing it. The best answer is to do whatever lead briefs.

There are multiple issues that cause engine flameouts with missile/rocket smoke or gun gas ingestion IRL. The composition of air entering inlets does have decreased oxygen content but the greater problem is the effect gasses have on airflow through the engine. Turbulent air with a high particulate content (greater density) can cause compressor blades to stall. The particulates and gases are also corrosive and can stick to the compressor and turbine blades changing their aerodynamic properties. Both types of blades are after all airfoils with a designed operating range. Even small buildups will disrupt airflow, particularly in the high pressure stages. The combination of all of these can cause compressor stalls and sufficient build up on the one or both sets of blades can reduce the operating margins to a level where the engine won't run or will only run at reduced power and/or can't be restarted if it flames out. Modeled in DCS? I don't have the foggiest but I doubt it. Hard to say what happened in the game. Wasn't your day I guess. IIRC the first loss of an A-10A was during early gun firing trials. Gun gases caused a build up of residue on compressor and turbine blades that prevented adequate airflow through the engines to keep them running or to be able to be restarted. A controlled ejection followed failed restart attempts. I'm pretty sure the video is on YouTube. The diverter vanes on the guns of the F-5E in DCS serve the same function. F-5 and T-38 engines have notoriously narrow operating margins. The T-38 flight manual prohibition against flight in known icing conditions is partially one result. (The bigger problem is an inlet that quickly accumulates ice. Chunks through their engines of drone heritage do nasty stuff. That's why NASA T-38s have "hot lips" for engine anti-ice.)

Thanks fellas.

I'm sure someone else has a better idea than mine but I have a shortcut that starts DCS without doing an update check. It speeds launch and login somewhat. It is my normal start for VR. I have a second icon that runs the update that I use to start when I want to disable VR in setup. I'll disable VR in setup before shutting down DCS if I know I'm going to want to play with it on my monitor. It's not quick but it's the best I have thought of. There might be a way to have a shortcut to start in VR with another to start without VR but I don't know what it is. I'd like to know it if it exists.

shaHeen, are you sure what you notice is the FPM (Flight Path Marker) rising while the cross, indicating nose position, is fixed? Only when you are established in a climb with the pitch set, as seen by a steady cross, will the FPM remain steady. Even then it will change over time because both your climb rate and airspeed must change during a constant speed climb. A constant rate climb creates different relationships. Both types use a fixed power setting, MIL in this case. A great demonstration of this effect can be seen during a takeoff. Start with a heavy aircraft, close to max GW, and use full burner. Rotate to 10 degrees on the cross at about 140 KCAS. The aircraft will fly off the ground when it's ready. Maintain that attitude but watch what the FPM does. Once airborne raise the gear and the pitch, cross, to 12 degrees and stay in burner. Approaching 350 KCAS reduce power to MIL, place the FPM to about 7-8 degrees, and then maintain 350 KCAS with pitch. The FPM will slowly drop as you adjust pitch to maintain airspeed. The difference between them will change too. (This is my standard takeoff and climb profile. I maintain 350 KCAS until M .80 then maintain it. Of course, when departing at MGW you won't get very high or that fast without burning a lot of gas or dropping iron. I need to try 400 KCAS to M .80 for a climb profile when I want to use higher altitudes. One of these days I do some testing.) You will be in a constant speed climb. Continuously adjust pitch to maintain 350 KIAS and watch the relationship of the cross and FPM. You may gain some insight into what is happening between the cross and FPM as you climb. I also think you may find you should stay off the pitch trim. I can honestly say that I have never had to use the pitch trim in the Jeff. Aileron trim and a bit of rudder is necessary to compensate for asymmetric loading after dropping a single bomb but that's all. the aircraft should trim itself to 1G and remain at 1G. It doesn't happen instantly but even after heavy maneuvering it will quickly catch up. It is far, far better than the F/A-18. The F-16 should be the same as I think the Hornet should be but not so much in my experience. This is one of the really nice features of digital FCSs.

Tiger I have no issue with the way the F-5 flies. I haven't flown it in several months so maybe they've tweaked something. I'll have to give it a go. I flew the T-38 many, many laps around the suns ago. The F-5 feels and performs like a heavy T-38 as I remember the Talon. It was a clean sports car where the F-5 needs lots of heavy, drag producing externals to go anywhere outside the traffic pattern or to do it's mission. Friends and acquaintances flew it and that was their unanimous general description. It's a hot ride clean but underpowered hauling externals. That alone would suggest it will bleed energy rather quickly when you load it up. Auto-flaps will only increase the energy bleed when they deploy. Flaps and leading edge slats/flaps do give a wing a slightly higher alpha capability but always at the expense of increased drag. The drag increase is never proportionate to the amount of flap/slat deployment. You always get more drag than lift. I would expect an experienced F-5 jock to fight it with the flaps in manual and only use them to assure a kill or to try to dig himself out of a really bad place. I could be wrong on that but I'd personally not want to have to keep track of auto-flaps or have them deploy when I had other ideas. A jet with three axis FCS uses all of the primary and secondary flight control surfaces to keep the jet under control and to do what the pilot asks it to do. The first thing I learned from flying these types of systems is that I could know in general what the system was doing with each control surface but it is impossible in every situation and mode. I also learned that I didn't need to know. The jet either gives you what you want or it doesn't. When it doesn't there's a reason and I need a plan B. A very good piece of advice to keep in mind is that not everything the systems do is intuitive or will seem to make sense from a conventional perspective. The more extreme and unstable the airframe's natural aerodynamics the more this phenomenon will be. The F-16, F-18, F-35, F-117, and F-22, among others, need a very good FCS to even be controllable. As far as people whining about a module meeting preconceived notions is concerned: welcome to DCS. It's always been that way and always will be. Most who fly here only know what they read, hear, or imagine. I've often had folks get really pissed insisting on some nonsense that flat ain't so. I usually let them stew if they're resistant to learning. If I don't know something, I'll admit it and try to find what I need. I'll quickly admit when I'm wrong. It happens.

Thanks Aeria. I was concerned I'd over done it. I know we're off topic from the thread but why not. At this moment it really doesn't matter. I may have personal perspective worthy of consideration on the LES/auto-flaps and FCS. There is a FCS and then there is a FCS. The one in the JF-17 is the bare bones lightweight fighter version. It's even simpler, but probably more capable, than the F-16A. It's not even three axis. The aerodynamics of the JF are decades ahead of what was possible in the A model Viper. It also has a mature engine unlike the A. It isn't encumbered by the weight of integrated advanced systems and doesn't carry a huge payload. It's a day fighter with far more capability. In every way it seems to be a better F-16A than the Viper was new. It even has a radar missile and precision guided weapons that weren't available to the Viper for a long time. That's where a lot of Jeff's performance comes from. I remember the very first time I got a chance to crawl all over a Viper. I was at Andrews for a static display in the Tweet. It was the final open house for the Thud, F-105, in 1980. A young major IP from McDill had come up single ship in a clean A with the grand total of 4.5 hours on the airframe. He was parked next to me. He gave us the grand tour. (I had a young 1LT along for this boondoggle. He was a new IP in my flight who had one last training event so he could get released from the Buddy IP program. That was our wild card to get this plum. John was later to be with me as a flight examiner at PIT and went on to fly the F-15 in Germany before being killed in an avalanche in Austria. This was a memorable cross country.) It had flown from McDill to DC on internal fuel, ~5000#+, and still smelled new. The dzus fasteners on maintenace panel weren't even scratched. The paint was perfect and the major was loving life. It was that era's light weight fighter which reminds me a lot of Jeff. It was an IR missile slinging, iron bomb hauling sports car when it actually had an engine stuffed in it instead of in the engine shop waiting for parts. Forty years later the base model has a few more gadgets. Back to the FCS and LES/auto-flaps. Jeff doesn't need them like the F/A-18 does. The JF airframe is far more conventional than it might appear. The Hornet isn't it needs auto-LES/flaps controlled by the FCS to have conventional handling qualities. Watch videos of a Hornet coming aboard the boat. The slab is flapping around like a hummingbird's wings. That isn't the stick actuator stirring the stick. It's the FCS keeping the thing blue side up and in the groove. Wait until later blocks of the JF when they start adding goodies and growing the airframe and stuff a big engine in it so it can haul around another 10-15,000#. Then it may need a fully capable three axis FCS and LES/auto-flaps to get close to the performance it has now. The Block 50 Viper today may be Jeff's future tomorrow.

This thread has really become a dog's breakfast. There's so many apples to oranges comparisons used for conclusions and total lack of understanding of complex subjects and interactions that I really don't know where to start. Let's begin with the GR video that was trying to test "ferry range". Just like in real life it is a meaningless term unless clearly defined and the method of determining it fully explained. Like I said earlier, Cap's methodology and vague sense of how to test it make anything he comes up with a fairy tale. In his defense he was onto one really messy way of testing but didn't build a test that could have developed the two pieces of information he needed for a valid test: optimum altitude for each specific weight and maximum range mach for each specific weight. We require a busload of data and testing to obtain them. Any decent FMS (Flight Management System) or the flight manual performance charts would give us everything but we don't have either one. There are some generalities that will help us to develop a testing method to find the numbers we need. Unfortunately they will only reduce the range of altitude, mach, and weight combinations we would need to test. The aircraft configuration has to be uniformly defined across aircraft in order for the test to be valid. I'd suggest maximum internal fuel, maximum external fuel, with/without additional pylons, and with/without wingtip stores. Pick one or test all of them but be consistent. The test mission must be built for no wind. The standard unit for comparing fuel efficiency by range is NAM/# fuel burned. Nautical Air Miles per pound of fuel burned. NAM eliminates wind effects that are a separate calculation and change everything. We can probably get by starting in the air at 26,000' and mach .75 and 2000# below max fuel for the heavy/twin engine fighters and 1000# below max fuel for single engine jets. Unfreeze the sim and burn 1000# while maintaining mach and altitude and keeping track of distance flown. Using autopilot and autothrust in the ones that have it will help. Distance traveled/1000 will give the number needed. Plot it and move up 2000' and do it again. Put the NAM/# in a spreadsheet. The following points will start at 26,000' and .75 but 2000# lighter and do the data runs until you're out of gas or see obvious changes in the wrong direction (increasing NAM/#). Then you do both sets all over again for each mach .76 up through about .90. That's a lot of data but then you'll know which altitude and mach combination gives the best range for a specific weight. You then build best range profile by flying the lowest NAM/# data points in the ferry range test. Careful looks at the data will probably give you a good idea what data points can be skipped. For instance, forget high altitudes when the jet is heavy. You can also probably start at high machs when the jet is heavy and work backwards until you see a deterioration in the numbers. You can skip the low altitudes for a light weight jet and maybe the higher machs. More will become obvious as testing goes on. The maximum range test itself will have a profile, altitude and mach, to follow based on weight. Climbing every 1000# burned and adjusting mach if necessary is how to fly the test. To take the guess work out of how to fly the descent profile it's probably safe if we pick a fuel remaining figure, say 1500-1000# (heavy/twin fighter - single engine fighter), to begin a descent to 1000' MSL at the final mach until reaching 350 KIAS then maintain 350 to 1000' MSL. The departure and climb profile is more problematic. Military power will be best if the jet can do it but I expect some will need burner. There will be enough variation in an optimal climb schedule that one will not work for every jet. It will introduce inaccuracy but something like 350 KIAS until initial cruise mach then fly that mach to the initial altitude would be at least consistent but will help or hurt some. That will settle the ferry range question but it will not: tell us if there is a FM error in Jeff or any other aircraft. How did I pick these methods for developing data for use in the test? This ferry range question is one very narrow investigation of one performance factor - maximum range. In general maximum range is: not going to be supersonic or transonic eliminating every mach above about .92, maybe lower. going to be obtained at a lower altitude for an aircraft when it is heavy than when it is light after burning fuel. Max range mach will slowly decrease with fuel burn. faster than L/D max which is essentially the speed for maximum endurance, minimum clean, best glide range, and best angle of climb. associated with an aircraft specific AOA just like L/D max. going to be higher for an aircraft with external stores/pylons than a clean jet. That roughly puts us in the .73 - .90 mach range. Testing might show the need to get outside that range or go to lower altitudes for some jets (especially the Hawg). There's a lot of nonsense and just poor thinking in this thread. Shall we? There is no valid comparison between a straight wing jet (A-10C), a swing wing jet (F-14), a pure delta jet (M-2000), or modern blended fuselage/wing jet (JF-17, F-16, F-18, SU-33, etc) that can lead one to reasonable say that one FM is flawed. Even within the category it's not valid. Not liking the results, not believing, not feeling, not understanding is not objective or valid. Period. The same engine in a different airframe will have different characteristics with respect to performance. That this has to be said is mind boggling. It's such a silly claim that I'm not even going to embarrass anyone by explaining why. Using performance data from a similar type has no validity. This should be obvious. L/D max is the point at which it takes more power to maintain a slower speed. Simply because the fuel burn keeps going down, less power required, at a data point means that aircraft was not operating below endurance speed. No, it is not because drag is wrong, AOA something, something, or the FM is necessarily broken. Guys, you're trying to imagine something by looking a several disconnected, and most of the time unassociated, bits. Max range is obtained at a very specific speed or mach and altitude for every aircraft that is associated with a weight and atmospheric conditions (temperature and wind). This range of speeds nonsense is only confusing you. So are the graphs for different aircraft and engines as well as GR's video.

Thanks Aeria. It's always interesting when firm believe backed with complete confidence in being right meets actual data and knowledge/understanding. I keep hoping to educate but well.... It's just good to be back playing with well done modules. And VR, let's not forget VR.

OK guys the basic problem here is that some of us think, feel, imagine, can't imagine why, and/or don't believe Jeff can fly this well. There must be something wrong with the flight model....QED. So, lets look for evidence that supports our basic premise that something is wrong with Jeff. Do any of you see why this approach doesn't ever work? Why is this a faulty process? Forgive me if you feel picked on but I'm going to take you one at a time. I'm trying to unscramble your critical thinking skills and maybe educate at the same time. shaHeen: Do you realize there is no fixed relationship between pitch attitude/nose position, "boresight", AOA, and FPM (Flight Path Marker)? Depending on what you're doing in the jet they will have different relationships to each other. In that list one of the things isn't displayed visually. Which one? Here's a hint: you're blaming it as the problem. You leave out G loading which may have a part in explaining what you're seeing. MagicD: Read my previous comment please. Ferry range is a fairy tale. It depends on so many variables that without stating those variables it is meaningless and untestable. It's validity is only in your mind. Pick one. GR: I enjoy Cap's videos. He really tries and he provides value in most of them as a first look into the subject. However, they're often imprecise in explanation and show a lack or misunderstanding of several things in aviation. I cringe at some of the (mis)statements of fact but at the same time get something out of them when digging into a new module. The ferry range test is one of those that miss the mark badly. It does a nice job of comparing the various DCS jets to each other. But it only compares how they perform relative to each other under one specific set of conditions in DCS. There is no connection to the actual jet's performance. That those conditions will favor one over another isn't even imagined. He comes close by recognizing the A-10C won't cruise at 32,500' so he makes a separate category. He has the answer in his hands but doesn't quite take it all the way to a logical conclusion. The reality is that each of these aircraft will have their own specific takeoff, climb, cruise, and descent profiles that maximize range which is the ferry mission objective. Of course determining if the performance is realistic is unsolvable without knowing what each profile is. The only way to fix the flawed methodology is to have the performance data of the actual flight tests on each jet and compare them to what is possible in the sim. That isn't what is being done. Based on a premise, an article of faith, that something has to be wrong people toss out their own pet theories. Drag is wrong, fuel burn is wrong, AOA is something something, and on and on while demanding Deka/ED fixes it. Each of the items that are supposedly wrong with Jeff are victim of confirmation bias, faulty thinking, lack of understanding of a very complex subject, and over zealous confidence. That's not how to test things in the real world. We see a phenomenon that doesn't make sense to us and ask why is it different from what we expect. Then you look for possible reasons and test each. Here we begin with the conclusion and charge off in search of a reason. I've explained how each of these three people come to flawed conclusions but they're not the only ones we see on these forums. A little knowledge, minimal understanding, and a lot of confidence go a long way when headed off in the wrong direction. How to solve the mystery of whether Jeff's FM is FUBAR? We need the performance data and we need the actual procedures and profiles flown to develop the data. I don't see us getting any of that. The manufacturers and their governments are unlikely to release the data although some may be out there in the public domain. We can certainly ask the module developers to give us the profiles and planning data that their FM is supposed to produce so we can test it. That only would confirm that their FM performs as intended. That would be a good start but I don't see it soothing hurt feelings and expectations. Why not go fly and just enjoy what is while Deka continues developing the module? I don't have the foggiest if the FM is off in the Jeff. If so, I doubt it's much. It seems to get better fuel burn in the descent than it should but drag does seem to track with expected performance at apparent drag indexes for the externals being carried. It may be a bit too good clean but then it can't do much clean. Based on 38 years of flying jets I think it's believable. It's roughly 40 years newer than the Viper. A lot has been learned about materials, engines, aerodynamics, aircraft structures, avionics, digital FCSs, computer, hell everything, and China has come a long way to being a modern country capable of building a Viper-like jet. It's not a surprise Jeff contends favorably with the Viper. Its overall visibility out of the 'pit sucks in the rear hemisphere compared to gawd-like vis out of the F-16 but most things feel reasonable for the most part. Still, the FM could be wrong. I could be wrong. I just don't think either is any more wrong than most of the other modules. It's a child of the newest with a dedicated developer who is dedicated to a good product. I'm confident they'll give us something that fits in with the other modules in DCS. None of it is worth getting worked up over.

Check your stick bindings for something like this. I had the reverse issue. My antenna was spawning at the full up elevation position. It didn't used to so I knew there was something not right. I found that I had the Warthog throttle friction axis assigned to antenna elevation as well as the vertical positions of a four way hat. The throttle friction had been moved all the way forward so the elevation was full up when the aircraft spawned. I recentered the throttle friction and the problem was solved.

I'll give it to Cap for doing a lot of work. However, the methodology of these tests is deeply flawed if his purpose is to validate either the flight model or maximum ferry range of any of the aircraft. At best they compare the aircraft to each other under arbitrary conditions and not those based on the flight tested performance of the actual jet. It has some entertainment value but is rubbish for the stated purpose. That means it has zero validity for flight model testing. First off, ferry range is a press release number. Few details about how the number is chosen are specified. Things like: max fuel load or max weight at departure, wingtip missiles or clean, empty pylons installed or removed, burner or mil power takeoff, climb schedule used, cruise mach - variable or fixed, cruise altitude - max range cruise climb or constant altitude or step climb, descent profile used, and the criteria for terminating the test (fuel remaining, altitude, etc). Every last one of these will affect a number that is at best a WAG. The takeoff, climb, cruise, and descent criteria are of maximum importance. The difference between doing a cruise climb vs a step profile is going to be significant but huge compared to a constant altitude. Yet, these tests are a random TLAR climb profile at a fixed altitude that is proclaimed as gospel. Nope, sorry, that simply doesn't float except to compare those specifics to a different type of jet flown to the same profile. I'm with AeriaGloria. I don't want to start anything either but this is not even a measure it with a micrometer, mark it with a grease pencil, and cut it with an axe situation. It's simply random/TLAR methodology dressed up as supplying useful data. It has entertainment value.

Nice post Bear. You've hit on the major issues we've "enjoyed" in desktop flight sims since the late '80s when I first flew wire frame WW2 "fighters" on a 1200 baud dialup modem. There have been some major advances but some still remain to be improved. 38 years of USAF and airline flying provide a good perspective on the current state of DCS. With VR and the HOTAS gear we have it's better than ever. But. I find the Warthog decent but I have yet to fly the Viper with it. I've yet to fly the Viper period. I'd think that flying the Viper with a gimbaled stick after the real deal would mess with your head too much. I'm holding off for more refinement in the flight model. I also don't want to be bothered with changing over to my early model Cougar with the FSSB mod. I think that once the flight model is closer to finished it will be worth the time to swap out the Warthog and revert to the FSSB. Until then Jeff and the Hornet will keep me busy. There are a few too many early access modules for an old guy to keep up with when they change frequently.

It's only my preference but closing the Oculus Runtime Service is far easier than messing with the controllers every time. With Oculus running I find they appear to be in a low power state until I move one. They also aren't enabled in DCS. No dangly hands. Either way, I don't have any battery gobbling problems any more.

Controller batteries dying is why I started closing the Oculus Runtime Service. As Lange said up thread the headset remains powered (at some level) but I no longer have controller batteries dying frequently.