fausete

Honestly, I feel like you are just going for a mix of ad-hominem and strawman now. Multiple team members are aerospace engineers, we understand aerodynamics and the module is not based on any assumption about the F1 being a dogfighter or an interceptor, it's based on real performance data used to validate its FM, which, again, it does match within a very small margin of error. That is how I assume any full fidelity module in DCS is made. And for the last time and to clarify: I've never said the F1 is designed to be a dogfighter, you've put those words in my mouth. The F1 has a big fuel capacity compared to other contemporary modules in DCS, when the aircraft is not flown full, but at half fuel, it still has a good amount of fuel to sustain a dogfight and its turn performance is comparable to other aircraft such as the MiG-21 (at least if the info on the MiG-21 I can see on the internet is reliable). Obviously when turning with full fuel, the performance is way worse, because the F1 is heavier and can hold much more fuel. If you read all that I've written carefully, you will see that I always say 'in certain flight regimes and fuel configurations'. And regarding the yaw, there have been changes to the yaw damper in the past 2 months, it may be the issues you are describing have been fixed and you've not flown the module recently.

Thanks a lot for the investigation, it really helps to narrow down the problem. I imagine this happens irregardless of what map?

@Phantom_Mark good to know! I hope you find it works well with the new stick too and can report back your impressions. @Thinder I reply to you just to clarify a couple of things but I don't get the impression that your criticism is intended to be constructive. Developing a module for DCS is a massive undertaking, teams are generally rather small and sometimes some things have to be prioritised over others, so sometimes things have to be adjusted after release, that is what EA is for. For us, release was a point in which the module was ready enough for it to be an enjoyable experience for the users and for them to provide valuable insight into bugs, useful features... We have used the time since release to continue working with our SMEs feedback and with the customer's feedback to solve any possible problems, bugs, things that didn't work, or that we had missed or had been broken during development (also happens). Regarding the anonimity of your sources. It's understandable that you want to protect their identities but again, not useful for us if we don't get more precise feedback, if we can't contrast their feedback to that of our current SMEs... If any of them wants to contact us instead of you giving their details, we're also happy doing it in this way. Finally regarding the wing loading discussion. I just don't get your point... I said in certain regimes and fuel configurations, not everywhere all the time. I included the disclaimer that my knowledge of the performance of the other aircraft is incomplete. And the MiG 21 has 23 m^2 of wing surface and comparable thrust so I don't know why the wing surface of the Mirage III or the Mirage 2000 would matter.

In that case you have access to what we believe is the closest we can get to implementation of the real stick feelings of the aircraft. As I think we have discussed before, you can still control the ARTHUR relations and minimum and maximum forces in the stick to fit your stick well. From our last interaction I got the impression that you were happy with what we had implemented. As you know, it requires a bit of tweaking on the user's side to get everything perfectly set up but considering the variability in FFB models forces, we think it's best for the user to be able to adjust the behaviour of the FFB as much as possible, in the same way that users of non-FFB sticks have access to the curves to adapt their input behaviour to their set up and preferences.

@Thinder again, please stop with the aggressiveness and implying I'm lying unless you have specific evidence to prove that. As @Tango3B has reafirmed, the performance of the module closely matches the performance data of the aircraft. Regarding stick feeling, it's highly dependant on setup, the F1 has a complex force retribution system that could only be reproduced with an amazing FFB setup that I don't think exists commercially. As a consequence, we have developed a sort of emulation that limits the stick displacement in situations in which the real aircraft would increase the resistance on the stick, which can be toggled in the Special Options menu. Again, you say at high AoA the aircraft had to be flown by rudder, which is how the module has to be flown at high AoA. Have these AdA pilots actually flown the module? Are they happy for you to send their contact info so they can provide feedback directly, or test the module if they have a DCS setup? And in general, just saying the aircraft flies badly (or some other less polite adjective) or underperforms is too general (as @Dustband says), in what altitudes/speeds, what weight, what AoAs, in pitch, in roll, in yaw? Otherwise, with the vast amount of variables involved, there's nothing we can do, it's just destructive criticism. And if you expect something that can match a 4th gen fighter or that allows you to easily defeat any 3rd gen in any situation, it's just not going to happen, the performance is already what the data says it should be within a very low error margin. In general, the tips given by @Tango3B are really useful and on point. @Snappy, I mean in some regimes and fuel set ups the F1 generates a higher turn rate than other contemporary modules. Obviously, I don't have the numbers or data for other modules but this is based on the performance analysis I've seen for other DCS aircraft (which I know are not necessarily 100% accurate) and performance data that can be found on the internet (which again, might not correspond exactly to the same aircraft version, be 100% accurate...).

@Harley Davidson do you have any hard evidence to support your claims? The FM has been validated against performance data and tested by multiple F1 pilots with thousands of hours on the real aircraft. That being said, the aircraft can outturn any of its contemporary counterparts in-game when flown to its strengths. It can carry a lot of fuel for its size but going into a dogfight with the tanks full is probably not the best idea. Its strengths are good energy retention and good acceleration at high speeds, so it likes to stay fast. Nevertheless, if you find yourself going slow, it's imperative to use combat flaps, otherwise the performance loss is very significant. Pitch sensitivity can also be an issue. The aircraft works better at lower AoA and when the pilot is gentle on the stick. Make sure you have the 'Emulation of effects of stick forces on aircraft behaviour' option selected in the special menu and tweak the sliders below it in case you use FFB. Otherwise also play with curves if needed. Also, all this applies to flying against a human in MP, the performance of the SFM of AI aircraft is always far better than the PFM of the one you are flying. Hopefully this will be fixed by the implementation by ED of what they call the GFM (check the most recent newsletter). Again, the module is in EA and the FM has been tweaked multiple times after the release but we're happy with how realistic it is now and we'd need more specific evidence than just saying 'it flies like a wet fart when you pull the stick', like a specific performance issue at a certain regime...

In that case, especially what you explained before in the first post is very strange behaviour. We'll investigate and debug the TRK.

Hi @grim_reaper68. I've not had time to look at the track but are you perhaps overspeeding the aircraft? When a certain IAS is exceeded, you have control surface authority reversal due to aeroelasticity. The best part? Depending on ambient temperature and altitude the impact temperature will be lower than the 135 °C required to trigger the LIM warning light.

Hi again, after discussing with SMEs, the effect should be tweaked so the density of the air plays a role in it. So when it's corrected, it won't probably happen on the ground anymore.

A lot of these reports are related to loading weapons during the alignment process but we have identified a problem unrelated to that at least in the Sinai map in MP. My current theory is some sort of MP desync triggering the acceleration detector but we'll have to keep investigating.

@HawkEXO thank you very much, we appreciate the positive feedback a lot. We keep working to bring more features and improve the module even more.

Hi @Proper Charlie, It's not a bug, with an excessive tail wind, the engine RPMs have to be kept high (above 7000-7500) to avoid the engine shutting down. Same if you're performing a hammerhead.

Hi, responsibility for the BRs was handed over to ED over the last month. What has probably happened is that there's been some sort of version mismatch in which either our changes have been pushed without our knowledge or their changes have been pushed without our changes. It will probably be fixed in the next patch.

That's very thorough of you! I think from now on, things will start settling in regards to the input commands list.

Hi, no stealth fix. I think the update yesterday only included fixes for ED modules.

Okay, we'll investigate. What are your graphic levels set to?

@Rudel_chw I'm glad you found the solution! It's related to the command rearrengement that was made in order to prepare the BE development. @jojo and @MAXsenna can you please investigate if that's the source of your issue?

@dresoccer4 the main difference of the AI airplanes is the payloads they can carry.

Can you attach a track?

Okay, thanks!

Another question, does the error only occur in the Sinai map? Can you reproduce it in the Caucasus (in which case, attacha TRK, please)?

Thanks, I'll see if I can reproduce the track.

Perfect, thanks!

Hello, I'm sorry but I'm unable to reproduce either of your bugs. Can you please attach a TRK? Only comment I can make with the info I have that might be useful is that starting the INS in ALCM in an online server is risky: ALCM means alignment from memorised heading, if that memorised heading is wrong then the alignment is going to be wrong. There is an option in the mission editor to always have the right heading at mission start, if the server owner has turned that option to NO, then there is a high chance ALCM will give a wrong alignment. For online servers, I would always use ALR (fast alignment). In this case, the gyro warning light (CAP) has to be off before the alignment starts, as the initial heading of the INS alignment in ALR and ALN modes is slaved to the gyros. Also, @LotusDragon, is your issue occuring in SP or MP?

Hi @LotusDragon, Are you perhaps moving the aircraft during the alignment? The aircraft should be kept still until the alignment is complete and the INS mode is changed to NAV.