Clunk1001

Thanks for the info. I'll upload a track too. The advantage of the video is that I can put music to it which will significantly enhance the ice-skating style runway pirouettes. I was thinking Strauss.

As mentioned in my first post, NWS is OFF. I genuinely do have a very good understand of the forces acting on an aircraft on the landing roll. I have done it irl thousands of times. And I understand aircraft configuration requirements. And aircraft control inputs and the effects. For example, use of Aileron during ground roll was mentioned….yes, fine…but aileron on ground roll is used for crosswind control, not steering. But as the effects of crosswind on groundroll are not simulated in dcs it negates the need for aileron during ground roll which is a factor in real life operations (different discussion for a different day). Unless you have flown irl (to at least perhaps ppl or cpl level), you may not know about aileron use on ground roll at all, as pc games won’t simulate the effect. My point being, I know I’m not ending up on the grass here as a result of incorrect operation (brake axis mapping aside). My rudder axis input in the f14 is extremely curved, so the rudder input I’m carefully applying on the ground roll is perhaps 3%. That is not enough no make a noticeable difference when flying (except when tanking), it’s barely enough to keep centerline on ground roll. But it is enough to induce a 180 degree spin at below 50kts in the tomcat. Though it doesn’t need rudder input to spin on the runway, I believe this can be caused by a momentary brake application (100% brake due to key binding, below 50kts) with an asymmetric weapon loadout. But that is definitely going to need a video to prove. The first time it happened in the f14 (as I usually land on a carrier), I assumed it was a tyre blow-out, as I’d diverted to a land base due to damage. And I thought it was really cool that DCS/Heatblur simulated tyre damage (it was exactly like the video draco posted earlier)…..then it happened again, and again, and again. i usually land on carriers in dcs, so usually not an issue. Anyway, ill get a video uploaded at the weekend…

Thanks RustBelt, this makes a lot of sense, and would go some way to explaining why even the briefest application of braking (100% full brakes due to key/axis mapping) would start an irrecoverable loss of traction.

It does for me. It does for the OP. It clearly does for other people. No, I am not speeding down the runway and pulling the parking break...but that is indeed the exact effect I am experiencing. Your assumption that a reported issue with DCS cannot possibly be a real issue because you haven't seen it, suggests that maybe you've worked in IT Support too long My intention here is just to explore the reported issue, share my experience, and possibly find some explanation, and maybe a solution or work-around, for the OP, and myself, and others. I know I am not doing anything wrong as far as pilot input/aircraft operation goes....I know aircraft operated under normal conditions do not behave this way. And - no offence intended - unless you personally have real-world experience (outside that of PC based flight simulators) your views of real-world aircraft handling and operation on a 'realistic handling' issue, would largely come from a position of ignorance (happy to stand corrected on your background). I only say this as your intention on here seems to be to blindly refute any possible suggestion that DCS might be "unrealistic", and you adhere to the absolute position that everyone else must be doing it wrong. Anyway, to continue, (productively), I may have an axis mapping issue (e.g. brakes are ON or OFF, applying 0 or 100%, no in-between) which is exasperating a possible 'friction' issue previously mentioned. I'll post a video/track...

No. Following a normal landing, traveling under 50kt, aircraft do not perform a full 180 spin with minimum rudder input. No aircraft would, unless something else has gone very wrong. As mentioned, this may be a 100% brake application issue. But no aircraft, military or otherwise would be certified, if it exhibited ground characteristics like this. I'll retest adjusting my brake axis, see if that makes a difference....

This was an emergency landing following a hydraulic failure, I believe. that’s a bit like you logging a bug that causes the plane to blow up randomly while taxing….And then me posting a video of a plane blowing up while taxiing, and stating that it’s normal for planes to do this, here’s a video, and not a bug. I’ve 30 years of flying under my belt, I don’t need ED to tell me anything about technique, thanks

I'm just going to add to this, as the original poster has identified something which is unrealistic, and I'd also class as a bug (but maybe more DCS than Heatblur). Some replies on here suggest it's either 'normal' or 'something he is doing wrong'. And neither is the case here. So my post is really to tell OP it's not his fault. DCS F14 landing on a dry runway, when under 50kts, applying toe brakes, nosewheel steering not engaged, can send the F14 into a pirouette, like applying the handbrake in a car on an icy road. Any asymmetry (eg a tiny application of rudder) can spin the aircraft. I've often finished my roll out with a 180 spin, from traveling under 50 knots, to end up facing the wrong way back up the runway. All sense of "tire friction" is lost, and any sense of 'heavy aircraft' momentum is lost. The aircraft becomes 'light as a feather' and 'aquaplanes' through 180 degrees like a plastic toy in the wind. Ive been flying aircraft for 30 years (civilian)...and fortunately this only happens to me in the F14 in DCS So far at least. Aircraft just don't do this. I have identified that my brake axis is too sensitive, and it's applying near-instantaneous 100% braking, so this is one issue. But applying max breaking in an aircraft will still not have this type of effect. Yes, we pilots are careful with breaking, but this is primarily to prevent overheating the breaks, brake fires, and blowing tires (aircraft tires have plugs which melt at a specific temperature to deflate the tire in the event of over-heat). This is what we're avoiding...as well as a face full of instrument panel. It is not because tapping the brakes can turn several tons of travelling heavy metal into a lightweight slidey spinning top. I suspect this comes down to the attempted simulation of near-instantaneous 0 to 100% break application, which is unrealistic in itself, and not correctly simulating the friction of tires on asphalt held down by several tons of aircraft. Laws of physics aside, I know that this behavior is not realistic, because if the cool 180 degree handbrake turn at the end of the runway was physically/aerodynamically possible, Maverick would have done it..... (twice)!

@Callsign JoNay, you meant Aircraft gross weight, right?

Acceleration, Mach, and endurance should have a marginal increase, without the weight of the pilot.

I’m the opposite. I love the authenticity of the worn cockpit. You know what the button does by its shape/colour/position, any factory text wore off years ago, and the Dymo label stuck next to it by maintenance is now barely readable. I spent some time flying a brand new aircraft, I was literally like the 6th person in the cockpit. It was like a new BMW fresh out of the showroom. Within 6 months it was a complete mess; Knobs and dials had been bent and broken by pilots clumsily climbing in and out, canopy was scratched from items/headgear placed in places they shouldn’t be, unidentifiable stains on the switches, the floor, the seats. Come to think about it, Pilots are disgusting . This is just how planes are (at least in my experience).

Okay, here's the same thing in the F/A18, Caucasus. I'm not so good in the F/A18, but it still only takes about 80 seconds from the merge before the F5E-3 decides to take a bath. Trackfile and Tacview file attached. (I see that Trackfiles work with the F/A18 but not with the F-14 - didn't realize that). And here's a clip.... Swim.mp4 Tacview-20230401-122003-DCS-test3.zip.acmi 1.miz.trk

I changed the loadout slightly: F14A has no missiles, no guns. With no weapons I can consistently (5 out of 5) kill ("dunk" might be a better word )the Ace AI F5E-3. The F5E-3 load was as follows: Whilst I've seen this with other aircraft, I can only replicate it consistently against the F5E-3. Mig29, Mig23, and Mig21, all seem to have better ground-collision awareness.

You just need to get behind the AI, and stay there; It will eventually just turn itself into the ground (seems to be triggered if you sit behind it and then start a high yo-yo, it’ll turn low with no regard to its height agl so collides with the ground). (The track files are useless and neither aircraft perform in the same way as the actual encounter)

This topic is currently marked as "Cant Reproduce", so I thought I'd chip in because in around 8 out of 10 of my engagements today the Ace AI crashed themselves into the sea and died. To replicate, in mission editor, I just dropped an F-14A (player) and an Ace F-5, 10 miles apart (default altitude, default payload). In one flight, it takes just 70 seconds for the Ace AI pilot to smash himself (or herself) face-first into the sea. Mission attached, 4 TacViews attached. I'm finding dogfights in DCS are more a game of "Shoot him before he kills himself". What my RIO sees is coming: What's actually coming: And how I'm scoring my sorties now.... Note: this is just meant to be a bit of light-hearted satire, before anyone get's too upset, I think the team at ED are doing an amazing job. Thanks Tacview-20230331-161729-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-162056-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-161933-DCS-test2.zip.acmi Tacview-20230331-163334-DCS-test2.zip.acmi test2.miz

I’ve been getting the same issue for a few months. “Forrestal Damaged 1%” message on cat launch.

Just wanted to feedback on this item from older update: Potential fix for mission freeze including F-14 AI. Before patch 1 in 3 flights would freeze about 45 minutes in. I’d never fly more than a 40 minute sortie in case of losing results (I fly DCS Liberation campaigns) Since that patch, the last few months, not had one single freeze, flying sorties of several hours with no issues at all. That fix was a game changer. Just wanted to say well done, and thanks, for finding and fixing that issue!

That’s really useful info. That explains a lot. Is ED dealing with that?

No, I’m talking about the hundred or so tests I’ve carried out, including other tacviews I’ve posted here where the migs don’t even flinch and 4 Phoenix missiles sail right past them. Katsu has asked if there is something wrong with the missile. The replies on here will be : it must be you, or it must be the mission maker, you’re not high enough, wrong model, not fast enough….. Rather than - “yes there’s something wrong, it was working really well about a month ago, HB are no doubt on the case.” There’s no doubt all these things play a factor, i just think people should answer the guys (or gals) question. yes, Katsu, there’s something wrong. HB/ED will no doubt resolve it in time. or you can get a replacement in Bolton:

Having done similar tests with the C against 60s aggressor, I found it makes little difference. All versions seem unreliable.

I agree with you Katsu. But sshhh in case they hear us …. …oh too late

It’s called “primary source”. if you had any form of education you may understand that. Edit…..I think I’m just gonna leave you guys to you computer games …

I’m highlighting the importance of eye witness accounts regarding the real-world effectiveness of munitions and the disparity between official numbers and reality. That is not a poor argument. In this 30 page discussion (by mainly non-aviation/non-aerodynamics experts) the complete disregard of viable information is disappointing to say the least.

To you maybe. statistics from Vietnam (eyewitness accounts like this one) gave the sparrow a 13% hit rate Vs the official “tests” which gave it 90% hit rate. Pilots would ripple all 4 at once in the hope one would hit. And despite being designed for BVR they were generally only used after positive identification because they were too unreliable. You won’t find that information anywhere in the official “tests”. as for the Aim54, in this 30 page discussion on how well the aim54 kills migs (or doesn’t kill migs), you are free to consider the only account (that I could find at least) of actual kills using this missile as “useless”.

I stand corrected, there is eyewitness accounts from Iran pilot taking out Migs: It suggests that the Phoenix worked very well in a variety of altitudes, ranges and situations. Unlike what we have.

Well, the amount of data available from Vietnam about the Sparrow missile is vast. Mission statistics, Eyewitness accounts - from both sides of the conflict, official hit rates etc. enough to give an indication of how the missile actually performed vs all the “test” data. And enough to provide evidence to contradict a simulation based on numbers alone. So in my opinion that kind of information is important, especially given the disparity that can exist between the official test numbers and the reality (lots of information on that available too). Poor parameters at the moment means the bandit jinks, or perhaps farts too loudly throwing off the missile guidance.