Smokin Hole

Honestly, it might be correct in the text. I was slightly rushed thinking I might miss a trigger if I don’t get the frequency on time. It is possible that I just miss understood. When I reviewed the mission in the editor I noticed the 133.3 and was surprised. But as I was a bit rushed yesterday, a quick search did not allow me to find the text or the ogg file. But I do agree. Its a mission breaker and after 4 years, you should have heard something if it was truly a mismatch.

Probably a known bug. (Sorry, no time to search). Mission 6 (The first ground attack mission). At some point the player is asked to switch to green radio 133.0. In the mission the frequency is actually 133.3. Mission cannot be completed without getting it right.

I am aware that the Hornet is a multirole mount. As a jet-powered-bus-driver I am also aware that planes go faster higher. My question was more one of relativity. On the deck with a middling loadout, the Hornet gets chased down like a wounded wildebeest by other multirole fighters on the deck. All of that may well be as it is (or rather as it was, I honestly did not know that the F-18C was a museum piece...) as it was in real life. But as this is the "wishlist" thread, I "wish" that the hornet was faster. Thanks for the education all. o7

On the deck. I’m not making any claim that the DCS model is wrong. It’s probably nuts on. But if so then the USN needs to drop the F-18 (yesterday if not sooner) and get something that can outrun its own shadow. Or maybe speed isn’t an issue in the real world. But in the world of DCS and Blue Flag, I’ve switched to the Tomcat. The Hornet gets run down by F-16s and Jeffs like it’s an old wounded dog among a pack of cheetahs.

Seriously! Is the Bug really this slow? It looks pretty clean with 4 slammers, 2 heaters and no tank. Yet those two motors only manage to push her along at a leisurely M1.02.

I get it. But I also got it. Every purchase and every update comes with a bit of hope. In my multiple decades as an ED customer the initial reality has sometimes fallen short of the hope. But after some time they always pull it off. The EA thing torques almost everyone. It happens to be the business model we as customers a forced to exist in. ED probably isn’t thrilled with it either. But how else do you fund the years of development needed to make something great. I made the exact same calculus with the F-16 that you have made here. It wasn’t important enough to me to pay for the risk of early frustration. The carrier is. For me it was easy money just for the more accurate Case 2 and 3 approach integration.

True enough that this isn't really a bug report. But the issue, whether or not you believe it to be one, is easily checked with Tacview. You can launch every missile in the DCS inventory and see their initial speed and acceleration plus, and most importantly, what happens when the rocket motor quits. What happens when the rocket is rockin' may well be accurate--it's a big missile after all. But when the rocket quits it is maintaining an unbelievable (to me) velocity. Someone posted a video somewhere where he and some friends launched various missiles at the same moment under identical conditions. I've lost the link but it tells the story much better than I can. Anyway, it seems to be an amazing jet and a great addition to DCS. I just know now to keep my distance.

I don't own the Jeff. But I have been on the receiving end of its greatness. "Great" is, well, great. But normal rules of aerodynamic should still apply. Is the SD-10 really that good? It has almost no drag, even when maneuvering. If this is accurate then western forces should ditch the aim-120 and start buying Chinese.

True. It does. You've called me out. It's been years since I have flown anything RU. I just have a vague recollection of a similar discussion when BS first came out (before DCS, even).

"Lasing" is mentioned in the title. As was explained to me when I begged for this (10 YEARS AGO!), the Ka50's laser is more like a rangefinder. The beam is sufficient to be "ridden" by a pair of Vikhrs but not to mark targets for or precisely guide off-beam weapons.

Sorry, I don't. I do all my flying in VR and rarely bother with tracks. But get back to me if it is not reproduceable and I will record a track. While I have your attention :D: I totally dig the changes to the Mirage. Thanks!

Can confirm this still occurs in beta v.xx.384. My way to crash: BATT on Fuel Pumps on APU on NAV to IFA EHSI "DATA" LSK Waypoint Up Arrow LSK I should add that no waypoints provided when test mission was created (ie, empty flight plan)

I am doing the same for even less frequent players like me. And thanks!

Thanks! They've reached out to me and quite a few other pilots with experience in the CE or similar types.

Look around other threads and you'll find plenty of insight on what's real and what's not at this early stage of development.

I own and compete (as a gross, hamfisted amateur) with a Pitts S-1S. I have flown most of the 2-hole Pitts models (S-2A, -B, and -C). Of the three, the S-2C is the most docile and probably most closely matches the Christen—except in performance where the -C far exceeds the Eagle. I too believe that the DCS Eagle is much too forgiving on the ground and too “un-Newtonian” in the air. Hard pull looping figures flown at full power require left rudder, approaching full travel as speed slows to below stall. Conversely, hard push figures require right rudder. My Pitts has a LOCKING TAILWHEEL yet I still groundloop it at low speed either because I wasn’t paying her the proper attention she deserved or I misjudged the wind. (Talking walking speeds here so no damage done except to my ego). The S-1 is shorter coupled and a little “squirrellier” than the Christen so the comparison isn’t perfect. The steerable tailwheel is less forgiving than a locking Haigh-type tailwheel. It certainly is no crutch. Yes, it will dampen outside forces like wind and airplane forces like torque and p-factor. But only to the tune of a few pounds of lateral force. After that she will trend towards where those forces are leading her and require correction by the pilot. The CofG is behind the mains. So once that trend is allowed to start, it will accelerate. Unless you are taxiing in a dead calm with the engine off, these changing forces are almost constant. The “easy”/“hard” arguments are not unique to this forum. Pitts owners have been discussing this since the 50’s. It is difficult. The Pitts probably ranks as one of the most difficult planes to land consistently well of any plane produced in quantity. I’ve talked “Pitts” with many pilots with experience in the type plus time in Mustangs, Spits,109s etc. The Pitts gets total respect in that company as a plane that requires solid and attentive (yet nuanced) footwork. The Eagle is not a Pitts but it is close enough to participate in the discussion. They are difficult but they are also easy. “Easy” because they react instantly to any input be it proper or not. There is zero lag and total control harmony. As long as you are attentive, it is a piece of cake. But overcontrol and you’re done for. After years of flying I still get it wrong about 10% of the time and am forced to save the situation with a fistful of throttle and another spin in the pattern. When Magnitue 3 gets it down to near perfection (and I don’t doubt they will) those of you have haven’t flown one in real life will not believe what an almost religious experince flying an aerobatic sequence in a light biplane can be. No airplane is easier in the box. It's not easy because it was designed to be. It wasn’t. It’s easy because it talks to you like no other aerobatic mount. Spins, snaps, hammers are all predictable if you are open enough to hear and feel what she is trying to tell you. Once you learn the proper inputs it is like an on-off switch. Do a pull-push-pull humpty with full forward stick and a bunch of right rudder over the top, pivoting at zero indicated airspeed followed by a 3/4 snap on the downline, level, half roll and push to vertical again for a perfect hammer—the smile will last you the rest of the day. You will never look at a P-51 with envy again.

Right. Once you understand the limitations of your input method, you adapt and move on. A proper evaluation is valid once you do.

Fine looking passenger you’ve got there EcoDragon! Mine in a single-hole so no such opportunities. EDIT: Single-hole—as in the plane, not the girl.

Are your comments a result of flying the DCS model or from seeing screenshots and videos? (Not being critical or snarky...sincere question). I have only seen the YouTube promo video and to me it looks very good. My plane is a single-seat Pitts, so there are a few differences. But other than dirt, scratches there isn't any texture to my panel and it looks nearly identical. I never touch the panel other than to set the altimeter and reset the g-meter. So unlike combat workhorses, there is not a lot of signs of use in the cockpit.

I do want to respond to a criticism about DCS props (eg, P-51, Bf-109). I too complained stridently years ago. Way to difficult to keep straight on the ground was my biggest complaint. My issues were fixed over several updates quite awhile back. I’d suggest to critical players who were like me that they give the models another go. You might be surprised at how much has changed for the better.

I have flown the Eagle (many moons ago). It only served to grow my lifelong dream of owning a single hole Pitts one day. Eventually I did and life will never be the same. Aerobatics, competition aerobatics especially, is a world of noise, great machines, even better friends and (hopefully) constant improvement. I was going to give the Eagle a pass. Every sim in which I have attempted aerobatics has gotten not just wrong, but Mario Kart wrong. DCS, X-Plane, professional airline sims costing millions—all fail to manage the hard math that comes with high AOA and reverse airflow. This model just might be the one to change that. With that hope in mind, I will buy for sure. Many aerobatic competitors all over the world are on an email list called the “exploder”. Yesterday, the subject of using flight simulators for practice started a good discussion. The general consensus was just what I said above, sims are hopless once surfaces begin to stall. But to my surprise, someone mentioned DCS and the Eagle as, just possibly, the solution after all these years. So the pressure is on! Many of us are hoping that you guys may have managed what nobody else has. Here’s hoping!

Not addressing the Gazelle specifically because I no longer fly it. But regarding flight controls. Recently I started flying several helicopter models in X-Plane using the VR controllers only. Basically sitting in the middle of the room waiving my right hand in little circles. Believe it or not, this is by far the best input method I have ever used to fly helicopters. It is such a joy to be freed from the constraints of the small throw of a center sprung joystick. I have owned just about everything, including a pretty decent FFB stick (G940). None come close to the precision of moving your hands in free space. This information is useless for DCS. But who knows...maybe someday.

Anyone getting kicked from Blue Flag regularly? It’s happened 3 times in a row with me. Always just after gear-up in the Baguette. 2.5.2 Persian Gulf. My pings are good and, although I don’t do a lot of multiplayer outside of DCS, my connection is pretty stable in other apps. I know these questions are irritating. I guess what I am really asking is if I am being kicked for pings or for other reasons.

Concur. Good decision. Also demonstrates respect for the community to test so well prior to the event. Good luck with the fix.

SmokinHole Su33 NJ, USA