yngvef

Wouldn't make much sense to pay extra for a bug fix. Replays aka. track files don't currently work for F-14, but it does work perfectly on every other plane I've tested (F-15, F-16, F/A-18, Viggen, M2000C, MiG-21bis). I'm pretty sure it's an issue with the F-14 and not from ED's side.

I fully agree with this.

Well, at the very least make the pilot average. Currently I feel our DCS dude would fail centrifuge training.

How much of a turn can you sustain in 9g? I can only do maybe 70-90 degrees and I have to stop turning or I'll black out completely

I am loving the F-16 so far, even with all it's current bugs and shortcomings. However, I find it strange that you can pretty much never pull more than 7.5-8 gs without blacking out, even full G-LOC. I have G effects in game set to "simulation", as I want extreme maneuvering to be punished, but it feels way too restrictive in the Viper. I read in an old book called "Combat Aircraft: F-16" by Doug Richardson the following: "In conventional cockpits, pilots often experience tunnel vision - commonly known as grey-out - at levels of around 6 or 7g, but the semi-reclining seat of the F-16 seems to extend this limit by up to 2g. Aviation Week's Robert Ropelewski noted no vision problems at manoeuvres of 8g or more, despite having had grey-out at around 7g in other aircraft" I haven't been able to really reach the design limit of 9g, as the pilot will fall asleep before you even reach it. What do you think? PS: I know you can turn off g effects in game, but that feels too unrealistic in the other direction. Also, most multiplayer servers have g-effects enabled in my experience.

I would really like a bindable button that has to be held down to enter afterburner. And a toggle in the specials menu for those that don't want it. This is to compensate for the fact that most (maybe all) don't have a physical barrier between full military and afterburner on most of our joysticks. This would really help with making sure you can run up to full military thrust on takeoff not accidentally run at less than max or at AB. So, +1 for this

Well, you did spike over 10g and lost a lot of speed on your maneuvers. And judging from the low stability, I'd say you were pretty much pulling far beyond the envelope of the aircraft. If Heatblur hadn't nerfed the stress damage for some reason, you would probably have lost your wings at some point during that. So, not exactly a good test. Even a Cessna 172 can pull 10gs ... once.

I thought you had posted in the wrong forum, but then I understood the joke :D

Did some tests, and F-18, F-16 and Viggen works perfectly in replay. F-14 does not at the moment. It seems like things are happening too late. Like I did a normal takeoff from an airfield and did a short airshow before landing. In the replay, the F-14 rotated much too late, and after takeoff, it flew for just a few hundred meters before crashing back down into terrain. So, to me at least, there seems to be some lag with when the control data is logged to the track file (or however it works). The other tests went perfectly. Even did some very close passes to the control tower to see the accuracy of the replay, and none of the others crashed in the replay or did anything that hadn't happened when I flew for real. So, this is at least an F-14 problem. Haven't tested all other modules, but the ones I have tested are working fine.

I posted this in the bug report forum. Hopefully it will be added to the "known bugs" list, so we won't report it over and over like you and me just did. :)

Thanks for the link. Didn't find it, as it wasn't in the bug forum, nor the "known bugs" list.

Oh, do you remember where it was posted? If Wags has given any more information about the F-16 post-release, I would really like to see it.

Oh, then I've missed it. I just tried searching in the bug report forum and looking at the list of known bugs, and it wasn't listed. They should list it, or more people will keep reporting it.

Follow-up test: Did the exact same flight with the F-14B, which also uses the F110 engine. After just under 7 minutes in full afterburner at sea level (500-1000 feet), it had burned through all its 16200 pounds of fuel. (at about 6 minutes, the afterburners started flickering, as the feed tanks were running dry, but it's close enough) This corresponds to a total fuel flow of about 139k pounds of fuel per hour, or 69.5k per engine per hour. Based on what I've read, this is much closer to reality.

The short story: Fuel consumption on full afterburner is too low. On full afterburner at sea level, it only shows about 23k pounds per hour. Multiple available, non-classified, sources say that the F-16C with the F110 engine consumes more than 60k pounds per hour in full afterburner at sea level. Couldn't see this in the known issues, so I post it here. I hope that is ok. The long story, with testing: I wondered if it might just be an issue with the fuel flow gauge showing wrong number, so I did a test: Clean F-16, with full internal load of 7163 pounds of fuel. I engaged afterburner and kept it on continously, flying at 600 feet above the sea until I ran out of fuel. Verified with the RCtrl-Enter panel to see that the throttle was in fact at 100%, which it was the whole trip. It took me 18 minutes and 20 seconds to run out, which corresponds to a fuel consumption of a little over 23k pounds per hour, meaning the fuel flow gauge is working correctly. Conclusion: the fuel flow is too low. PS: I tried including track file (as I know this is very often asked for), but the file is 7.45 mb and the forum has a limit of 5 mb. PPS: Confirmed by two different buddies on different PCs as well, that the fuel flow is 23k at sea level in full afterburner, so it's not a local issue.

Can confirm. Just had the same CTD immediately as I pressed the button for auto-throttle. Latest patch (the one with the F-16)

I highly support this idea. Here are 8 reasons why: 1. You get 4 countries in a fairly small area: Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia. Lots of potential scenarios. 2. It has a lot of ocean for blue water carrier operations, in a very important strategic area, both historically and currently. 3. It is one of the borders between the NATO and the old Warsaw Pact. Endless ideas for Cold War scenarios or Cold War gone hot. 4. You have operators (current or historical) of planes that we have (or almost have) in DCS now: F-16 and UH-1 (Norway), F/A-18 (Finland), Viggen (Sweden), and ofcourse a bunch of russian planes and helicopters of different eras. 5. The airfields in Northern Norway, like Bodø and Bardufoss has been (and still are) host to a LOT of different NATO countries during exercises, so you can easily add most NATO plane types to the area in a scenario. 6. Harsh landscapes with mountains, valleys, fjords and lots of ice and snow in the winter. This makes it very interesting and challenging to fly in. 7. Midnight sun and polar night giving some tactical issues when fighting in the middle of summer or the middle of winter. 8. Size seems possible, compared to other DCS maps: There is about 790 km from Bodø to Murmansk. Compared to the Caucasus map, there is about 720 km from Anapa to Tblisi. I hope this will happen one day. It would be a perfect map in my opinion. :pilotfly:

Can confirm. Also using the Warthog and radiator mapped to axis doesn't work. Buttons do work, though.

Yep, bought it. Now if only they would include more WW2 AI planes so we can shoot at more stuff :)

Thanks for responding. Good to see I'm not the only one who've experienced this. Hope they fix it.

Since one of the latest patches on open beta (not exactly sure as there were multiple hotfixes over a few days), it is no longer possible to launch from carrier when you are the server host. The other clients can land, hook up and launch as usual, or spawn directly on carrier and launch. But as host of the server, it doesn't work anymore. I throttle up the F-18 and it just sits there. Same with the F-14, I throttle up, salute like always, and nothing happens. Other people on server report my plane seems to be glitching back and forth when attached to the catapult. It is no problem in single player, so it's not an issue with my setup. And it's the same multiplayer mission as I have used for several weeks without problems, so it shouldn't be the mission. Has anyone seen the same? PS: Not using dedicated server because I have no clue how to use it, so I use the normal multiplayer (host server) thingie in the multiplayer menu.

It will probably be considered EA, at least as long as it's only in the open beta. Once it's available in stable release (and Steam), and all minor bugs are ironed out, I assume it will be called "released". Just guesses though.

No issues for me. Bought it, started game and it was available to install. Installed it. Flying.

Extra video showing when you fire the rockets. Seems they weigh about 180 pounds each, which is about 10-15 times too much compared to reality:

I tried searching if this has been reported, but couldn't find anything. If you load an F/A-18C with 2.75" rockets, the "Checklist" page shows way too much mass of the plane when the rockets are loaded. Considering the plane still flies, it must simply be the reporting page that is wrong (as in, the weapons aren't actually that heavy in the simulation) This is on current open beta patch, but this bug has existed for a *long* time, maybe since the start. Video showing what happens when you load 8 packs of 2.75" rockets on a Hornet: The rearm screen shows it should be about 42700 pounds, but it goes to over 61000 pounds on the checklist screen. When you fire the rockets the plane mass decreases rapidly back to normal, so it think someone put a zero too many, somewhere.