Temetre

So your point is a) I shouldnt report the bug because youre afraid it takes away attention from other issues, and b) its not realistic to start in flight (as if a video game cold start is more realistic), and c) I should just buy an expensive hardware setup with all the switches to set my own defaults. Also d) its not always perfect. And those are reasons a buggy/incomplete feature should be ignored? Im sure ED can decide for themselves how to arrange the priority of issues, they dont need you to police what gets posted. Nor does it make oversight of bug reports better when posts get spammed like this. All of that under a pretty straightforward bug report. Jesus, is this forum always this toxic? Cant remember seeing reactions to bug reports like that anywhere else.

There is NO normal scenario where having master arm and ECM on, together with active landing lights is reasonable, not even the navigation lights should be on in such a situation. Nor is a fully loaded F-16 in CAT-1 following procedures. The backup radio interface is also a standard element in procedures, there is no reason to disable it in this setting. Other planes, eg the Heatblur F-14, manage this perfectly fine, everything is there where you'd expect it logically. Im sure ED just didnt get to it yet with recent updates. So as shown, these are very obvious point, its clearly not a fitting assumptoiin for a default setting. Its also irrelevant if you consider a cold start as "proper", thats your personal opinion and has no place in a bug report. Frankly, you did not engage with a single point I wrote (expect the backup radio, which was laughable), talked about your personal HOTAS setup workaround, and just shoved in your personal opinon about how to start and fly planes. At this point I can only assume you are trolling; so please stop that, I dont care about about arguments that dont affect the topic and these issues. If ED offers the option, then it should work as expected, no matter what you think about it. Im sure they would agree with that. This is exactly what the thread is about. Youre not helping anyone if you come into the thread telling me my point is irrelevant or can be avoided with an expensive HOTAS system.

That has nothing to do with the bug im reporting. I have not bound those controls to HOTAS functions. And what you suggest would just hide the bug, because it overrides incorrect default settings. If you dont understand what Im talking about: Depending on flight situation, be it cold start, hot ramp, runway or in flight, the plane is configured in different ways. Eg the RWR is off on a runway start, and on when starting in air. Same way a hot ramp start might have taxi lights on, or landing lights on runway start, and they should be off when starting a mission in the air. Some of those default settings are correctly set for the F-16, but others are incorrect.

Ive reported an in flight start, at 6k altitude. Its not a runway start. Ill clarify that point. But it seems to be standard procedure, especially during combat missions. I appreaciate that you want to help, but please mind this is a bug report. Talk about workarounds shouldnt really be here, the goal is to have ED lock into the problem, determine if its unintended, and fix if it is.

Bug: After being placed in the editor and launched with default in flight behaviour (6k feet, turning point), a player controlled F-16 is configured incorrectly for the stage of flight. Im not sure what exactly would be the intended configuration, but ill list things that I found seem wrong, and inconsistent with other modules: 1. Landing lights are enabled. 2. Backup radio on left console is off. 3. HCMS symbology is off. 4. Stores config is always CAT 1, even with heavy load. 5. ECM power is set to on and XMIT 3, even without ECM pod. 6. Master cover is set to Norm. Considering this profile starts MASTER ARM on and generally combat ready, it should probably enable a covert mode. Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/ description: 1. Create a mission in mission editor, place an F-16, set to 'CAP' mission, 'player' and 'in flight'. 2. All the settings above should be in effect, regardless of payload. There is a ~2 second track in description, if required. DCS Version: Both ST and MT preview, 2.8.4.39731 _F_16_wrongconfig.trk

Is that not possible? Thought you could do it already with other ships using CA, but havent tried that in a while.

Afaik the main reason people on youtube might recommend manual wing sweep isnt about maximum turning speed, but about hiding your energy state from the enemy. Generally only recommended for experienced pilots that wanna be more min-maxy tho, not a general rule. Ive recently tried pushing the aircraft, trying the alternate buffet, and my wings broke at 15-20G or so. And Ive actually found ways to get there. Imo seems to be part of the challenge, you got so much control authority in the Tomcat, and the plane does whatever you tell it to, but that can be quite scary. The plane becomes very sensitive to inputs at high speeds. IRL you probably got more feel for the forces and need more weigth to lean into controls to reach those G-forces tho. Funnily enough with the F-16 I sometimes have the opposite problem. When I get slow, the inputs become overly sensitive, and when I slow down in dogfights im suddenly sitting at 25 AoA at the edge of stalling, with the same inputs that seemed like a good turning speed at 420 knots xD

Tbh, the FPS difference doesnt look that bad between F-14/18? Biggest issue Ive noted was that theres some frame-drops, fps for the Tomcat being instable in some moments.

Yeh, the Mig-21 in DCS also suffers from adverse yaw, though I think only at 30 AoA or so. Not that you wanna go there really. Slatted "Agile Eagle" F-4 should be a lot of fun then. Now its waiting for Heatblur... Yeh, thats pretty much what I heard. Flying in a straight line its good at, it can do some vertical stuff, anything else is pure misery. Doesnt even got a dynamic wing sweep like F-14, which seems kinda to kill the point of swing wings.

*heavy breathing* Hell yeah thats sounds great! Ive heard contradictory things with Mig-21Bis vs F-4E performance, but with that it seems to point in the Phantom being a better performing aircraft. Which sounds pretty good to me, considering the Mig-21 was already surprisingly agile for a 3rd gen aircraft apparently (certainly fun to fly!). Ding a trial on that thing was what made me really interested in DCS cold war, beside the Skyhawk. Ive read that the F-4E can direct Agm-65s both from the WIO and pilot seat, was apparently quite unique. Not sure if there was a stick for slewing on the throttle or so? The plane manual only seems to have info about stick, for some reason. Generally tho the controls sound like theyre gonna be very fun to learn. Yeah. I suppose what might give a false impression as well, compared to other fighters, is if you dont consider the scale. The real downside of the F-4 might have been the cost; being this big, with good agility, all the avionics, two pilots, that mustve been quite expensive. Most 3rd gen interceptors/fighters like F-104, Mirage 3/F-1, Mig-23/21 seem very lightweight, lighter than an F-16. And then the F-4E empty weight is heavier than an F-15. Seems to follow that "bigger is better logic", without being quite as extreme as an F-14.

USAF: "God damn we actually need guns" USAF: *proceeds to have 75% of their kills with missiles* Not that I mind having a gun with radar gun sight, its very nice as backup, for limited ground attack and dogfights

... the F-4 does kinda sound like the plane an Ork would make. Its just... brute force, big, almost primitive with power through size. But somehow its also high tech at the same time, with systems that just work, no matter how clunky. It looks really strange. And carries so many bombs.

Thank you, I love those little tidbits about the history. The zoot box is hilarious xD I was never too familiar with the F-4 Phantom, besides knowing of its general significance. But the more I hear of the F-4 and its system, the more impressed I am. Feels like the F-4E version isnt just a classic fighter bomber, but one of the first truly multirole aircraft, more like something along the lines of a Strike Eagle. Good range/speed, high altitude and BVR capability, high payload, guided weapons. Even some limited dogfight/ACM capability. Still gonna be fun to experience what the limits of the F-4 are, learning aircraft in DCS is always fun. It almost sounds too good for a 1975 upgrade of a 50s aircraft Also Im really looking forward to get to see and use all those analogue systems. I already liked that aspect of the F-14, but that plane was ofc inherently more limited, being mainly air-superiority. Not just pods, but the F4 with all those electro/optical weapons look really fun. Apparently USAF F-4s also got a control stick in the back, which sounds nice; not saying im gonna fly+bomb from the rear, I wanna use Jester. But its surely gonna help to learn and understand the systems that way.

I mean, if ground clearance was the factor and nobody else did the 2/3 load, then it would seem like a a pretty clear and cut thing to not allow it. I dont know how much documentation and IRL examples there are.^^ Interesting would be whats up if another airforce had the same gear and did such a loadout, showing it 'should' be possible for USAF birds as well. At that point its imo more complicated, since manuals dont tell everything. And if it was actually used that way by others, and ground-clearance becomes risky, then it wouldnt be hard to actually simulate that shortcoming. (this is pure theory tho) Though I dont think itll kills us to either skip the Aim9s or two MK-20s. After dropping such a bomb load, were prolly not gonna do too much full afterburner dogfighting. And otherwise we just gotta learn how to use Aim7s better! (im sure theres some Lau-88s in storage, I think A-10s actually use them?)

You mean "TO 1F-4E-1 1990 flight manual (REDUCED)"? I got that too, it indeed only offers limited Aim9+bomb configurations. Now to be fair, that doesnt mean that its the only configurations possible, or even allowed. Eg in the 1979 manual I have, it lists the Aim9s alone, and with ECM-pods, but has no mention towards Aim9+munition combinations. Except in the AGM-65 notes, it notes they are not allowed to be used with shoulder mounted Sidewinders. Which implies that you can put other bombs below the Sidewinders with an F-4E true to the 1979 manual, but its just not listed there. Theres also stuff like what Elf just mentioned: Rockets were carried on the F-4, but some of the missiles apparently caused plastic parts to get injected by the engine, so they stopped carrying them. Shows how loadouts can expand or shrink over time. Or, like with F-16, how the 6x AGM-65 is problematic, but validated and probably a realistic loadout in emergency situations. This stuff is always difficult to judge, as to what loadouts is viable, what you wanna allow, etc. Heatblur has to decide what on a philosophy for that. Personally I hope theyre gonna go with a more liberal approach, more about validated and possible loads. We got a lot of freedom to set up scenarios in DCS, which wouldve forced the USAF/USN to make tough decisions they might not have in conflicts like Vietnam, were there was no direct threat to America. Not to mention that those F-4s are for sure going to fly under Israel, German and other colors. But thats also why, even if its shown in a trailer, I wouldnt be totally shocked if Heatblur goes "no you can have shoulder-mounted Aim9s with tripple MK-80s". I hope not, if theres no technical reason, but it wouldnt be a big shocker.

Oh wow, that sounds way more complicated than in the A-4E. Tbf no clue how realistic the Skyhawk mod is in this regard, possible they had limitations to work with. There, you just set the radar to A/G and theres no boresighting, at most you just check if the radar has a stable return. Theres also a lot of flexibility in terms of maneuvering, no hints from the ADI and not really needed. Now, will it be worse than bomb tables in the F4? I hope not xD

Aim9+Shrike is even listed as a legal loadout on the inner pylons.

Neat, im happy to see+hear that the 2xAim9+Tripple bombs is more of a legit configuration Yeah, Im just kinda joking that people that people would be disappointed if its in their trailer and then they decide thats not a legal loadout^^

Well, Heatblur, you cant walk away from this one

Imo why companies serious about VR should start where the biggest audience is. And thats the PC/quest/console audience. The chance of jsut untapping a completely new audience is unlikely. Especially because you cant really do "casual" VR. It takes money and time investment, and tech understanding for PCVR.

Its probably the biggest niche in VR tho, after maybe onboard-quest stuff. But Facebook has screwed up hard trying to monopolize an ecosystem, without a plan of what they actually wanted. VR just has the problem of being very niche by design, its clunky, expensive, needs a lot of processing power. The devices are complex, its like strapping an entire gaming PC including peripherie to your head. Sure its mobile hardware, but even PCVR requires super low latency processing of screens, controls and positioining systems at the same time. Lots of software to make it work together as well. You really gotta try to broaden the appeal with this stuff.

Yeh, I definitely feel ground attack stuff requires some complex functionality, with how the F-4E has so many early laser/EO/IR capabilities. Imo also got huge potential of making good use of AI for the F-4E module. Being able to make Jester handle that stuff could be very powerful, that stuff is a challenge even in an F16/18. I wonder about the bombing computer. Does Jester actually move the Radar in divetoss? With the A-4 the radar just locks at the center of the reticule when you hit+hold the trigger, and release is calculated by the computer. Im not sure if the radar even gets slaved to the point, or just takes a single distance measurement. The bombing computer is integrated with the flight computer and a bunch of sensors, its quite impressive. Maybe we can preemptively tell Jester what to look for, and then have a Q-eyeballs/frontal search hotkey to mark are for him to auto check and engage? That could be quite powerful already. Btw, Im not sure if its applicable to a ~1985s DMAS phantom, but I found this strangely exciting image on wikipedia :^) https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AGM-65D_Infrared_Maverick_operational_flight_with_Pave_Tack_pod_sequences.png Mavericks are so powerful, but also incredibly finnicky to use. Imagine having that capability, but you can make Jester do all the finnicky boresighting and targeting

If I had to make a wild guess myself, then its the ability of plane systems to use MT-features. Lke, eg if the radar simulation is very complex, it might be seperated into threads that can run on seperate cores. Potentially the same with aerodynamics, being able to seperate it into more threads; that might require a lot of finetuning, because splitting up physics into more threads can be very difficult. Integrated systems that rely on each other, might need some modification to be able to seperate into different threads, too. Maybe something with MT-optimized rendering as well, not sure about that tho. Those things probably shouldnt limit ST functionality, just improve the modules ability to use MT features. Especially considering itll be the future standard, with ST being depreciated. Either way thats just my speculation what it could mean, though. DCS ST already offers some degree of multi-threading obviously, and multithreading seems to be a very difficult and complicated topic for games. The multi-threaded rendering stuff might also change yet again when Vulkan comes.

Jup, thought it was a Matra, but its an even bigger rock! Fun fact, apparently that bombs warhead carries almost two times as much explosive filler as an MK-82s, at a weight of ~700lb, and the F-4 can carry up to 17 of those. Similar weight (but surely more drag) to maximum of 13xMK-83s, but more explosive. Slightly higher than maximum F-14 bomb load. Gonna be fun with splash damage mod.

Just dont get hyped or set up personal expectations without evidence. Generally a good way to go with this stuff imo. Game-Sims are there to have fun, not to get annoyed.