fausete

Hi! We are investigating. In the meantime, we recommend you run a repair in your install if you haven't done so.

Hi brems, It will be available soon. You will get some more news and probably be able to take a look at it very soon!

Hi, this is up to ED. We have asked for the new ammo types and they are in the process of implementing them.

Confirmed it was not working correctly, fixed internally now. The maintenance manual we used for reference seemed to have an error regarding this, which confused us. Thanks for reporting it!

Thanks! We'll try to run some tests.

Hi @Cahoot, It's not up to us to modify them. If you could provide the source for the armor penetration stat or a comparison with other similar rockets in-game, it would help us to get things moving regarding any needed tweaks.

Hi! Will take a look at it, yes.

Basically confirming what @gnomechild says. The M will have both CCIP and CCRP.

Hi @ppokit. We would need to know what data is being extracted now. If it's just the cockpit shake, then compressor stalls are already included there. However, I imagine it's a customised profile taking different variables. In any case, some guidance from @f4l0 regarding where to pass the variables would be great.

@gulredrel good catch, thanks! The switch should be set to auto, however, in the EE, the 3D model is reversed so arret (off) is actually auto and auto is actually off. We will try to correct this ASAP. We will also correct the manual.

No, problem! The flight manual is a bit vague about the purpose of TEST OXY.

Yes, unfortunately that tends to happen in multiplayer. So, wing deformation has a chance to jam flaps/slats. That's probably the reason for the light. Might be a bug, I'll investigate. If it happens again, you can always try to force the retraction of the high lift devices and see if the light goes off.

Hi, ground power should be used for the test. Alternatively, you can press the Test Oxy button (besides the oxygen instrument) while performing the test. This will temporarily energise the system with the battery bus.

Hi @HawkEXO, Yes, permanent wing deformation with excessive G is a thing in the module since it was released. Eventually the wing can snap too. But from what we can tell it is indeed repaired on the ground. Stores can also be lost from overG so check if the aircraft still has a symmetrical payload after repair. Otherwise we would appreciate if you could attach a track, in the Caucasus map if possible. Btw, thanks for noticing this little detail!

Hi, How long did you fly it for afterwards? It very much sounds like you triggered a compressor stall during the maneuver.

Hi, Weapons are mostly handled by ED now. We plan on asking for training missiles but they are low priority compared with other weapons.

Hi @Bestandskraft, So, cx_pil is only used by the AI, the drag coefficient of the stores that the flyable aircraft uses is calculated internally. The real effect of a store on drag coefficient will depend on the interference drag too, so it will vary on each aircraft and even on the specific configuration. Using our own values allows us to reflect the specific data we have and to take Mach number into account, which would not be possible just by taking the value from the lua. For example, we use values based on the performance data that we have available. That being said, I believe you have noticed a bug in the Belouga and maybe GBU-12 bombs. Thanks for the thorough report, we will try to correct the Belouga bug for the next update.

@RatMan bingo, refactor to prepare for the BE release. We reckon that not many more rebindings will be needed after this one.

Hi guys, We've corrected the problem that made the aircraft have a tendency to go left when braking on take-off (there was an initialization issue in the rudder trim, and it was left the majority of the time but it also went to the right at times). The braking instability still remains, we are investigating what adjustments might be needed. Keep in mind work with the BE might take priority, so bugs/problems/features might take a bit longer than usual to be resolved.

Hello, As far as we can tell, the LOC deviation is correct. The glideslope had a unit error that we've corrected internally. It won't make it to the next OB, but will be present in the August one. Thanks for the thorough report.

Hi guys, I was on holiday so didn't have access to the documentation which I needed to answer this properly. But basically, everyone answering that using wikipedia data to back your claims is a bad idea is right. That data is either suppositions or specific fuel/speed/altitude situations that cannot be blindly applied to all cases. For example the landing speed. Our F1 module is capable of landing at 140 kt, but only when very very lightly loaded (almost empty of fuel). If you are trying to land it full, it won't be possible to do so at such low speeds. It is the same for the real aircraft, according to the performance data we have. This is what wikipedia is refering to when it says the landing speed is 140 kt. It means the minimum landing speed is about 140 kt, not that the aircraft can land at that speed always. Regarding maximum Mach: the limiting factor is the maximum impact temperature of 135 ºC (as others have stated), this corresponds to about Mach 2.1 for the altitudes with the coldest temperatures (so above 35000-40000 ft). Obviously for altitudes below that, it's impossible to reach such high Mach numbers. This matches the performance data we have. About the operational ceiling: I don't know where wikipedia gets its numbers from but what we know is at what altitudes the aircraft is capable of maintaining a climbrate of 500 ft/min and our module complies with them with a high degree of precission, and that corresponds to altitudes much lower than those 66k ft. @IvanK is a Mirage III pilot and has provided some interesting insight. Again, as has been mentioned before, endurance can reach 2:15 hours with the described payload easily as long as the aircraft is flown with the right profile: Mach of around 0.6-0.65 and altitude of 20-25k ft. Obviously the value stated in wikipedia corresponds to the aircraft being flown in maximum endurance conditions, it doesn't mean that no matter what you do, you'll have 2:15 hours of flight time with that payload. In general, we appreciate the feedback of our customers and it has been crucial for the development of the module (both bug fixing and feature addition) over the past year but I think this thread is not serving that purpose anymore. At this point, it has taken away many hours of module development in testing claims and checking documentation. You are free to continue discussing but we won't intervene anymore unless evidence from reliable sources (or contact info to said sources) is provided.

Hi, will be reviewed. The INS is undergoing an overhaul right now but work is proceding in parallel with the BE, so you might have to wait a bit before seeing the second phase of the INS overhaul.

Hi, we're going to look into it. Development of the BE is now at full speed so we will focus more on bugs again afterwards. Out of curiosity, do you experience any difference between CE and EE?

Hi, @FlankerKiller, isn't that more in the case of engine start than when the engine is already started?

Just to clarify what @chichowalker has pointed out. The E/M diagram and the general performance matches our model for the whole envelope according to our evaluation, so unless any issue is found, the performance is not going to change. What we plan on reviewing medium/long term is the behaviour of the aircraft with asymmetric payloads and the roll stability at very high AoA. Another thing we might consider is adding an option to allow non-FFB users to tweak the emulation of the effects of the force retribution system. So, all in all, it's going to stay similar to how it is now. At the end of the day, as Chicho says, it's an interceptor that can dogfight when flown to its strengths, but it will never be mopping the floor with other 3rd gens. I'm mainly saying this to avoid creating any hype about big performance increases or big FM changes, because those are not what we will be working on.