Temetre

Yeah, that sounds like a logical conclusion. Its just interesting that they limit MK-82s to two, where youd think only weight and clearance matters. And then allow Durandals. Tbf maybe its perfectly possible to have 3x MK-82s (with Aim9s) but for some reason they never bothered to validate it officially for the US. True. M117s are also 700 pounds apparently.

With some of the pictures from before, I wonder if its technically possible to put 2xAim9+3xAGM65 (or MK-82). And that its just not done for some operative/weight reason or so? Like how the F-16 normally doesnt use 6x Maverick loadouts because the elevator gets a bit crispy. Which is an issue when you wanna fly that plane for a long time, but maybe less so at the eve of world war 3. Like see the picture from GJS: I think thats the french bombs, which are a bit bulkier than MK-82s? And they havent even installed the 3 inch spacer. To be fair, there might be a question with fin-clearance between Aim9s and Mavericks; in that case 1xAim9+2xAGM65 seems logical. But the fin-situatoin cant be that bad, considering they can carry AGM-45s with Aim9s. Or maybe its like with the F-16s inner pylon, that they dont have enough connectors for 5x active missiles? But they also limit MK-82, when they dont BDUs. And apparently they can carry the B-107s in tripple-packs. So many questoins lol^^

Thx, sounds quite logical. Yeh Ive seen that. Thought it had 3x, but its actually just one. Guess a lot of bombing missions will skip the sidewinders.

There is radial G-force, or centrifugal G-force, and the roll rate limiter is almost certainly there to protect wings, pylons and payload from that. Either way, calling it a "g-limiter" is an oversimplification, it does a bit more than that. Its more that the Viper is dangerously high. You can probably break the aircraft quite easily, if you put some 2000 lb bombs below it and do max rate rolls. In reality that is, because that damage model is missing ingame. edit: To be fair, if Im misunderstanding the FBW and the F-18 has no active limiting of the roll rate, then I would agree - that would seem pretty dodgy, how even minimal loads make the F-18 roll so much slower.

I was mostly interested in the older F-4 variants, but its pretty fun to learn for me how much weird cold war weaponry the DMAS version will likely be able to carry. Could be fun to have those F4s as 90s bomb trucks in campaigns, dropping LGBs or all those remote+TV-guided bombs in lack of GPS munitions. Help the 80-90s era with Mirage 2000 and F-14 thats a bit empty otherwise. Small question, especially considering the sidewinders+ter combo: Do the A2G payloads ever block the Aim7 missile slots from being usable? Its kinda unusual to think off, but with those slots, Aim7s might be a better backup "self-defense" weaponry than sidewinders, when you fly attack missions. Probably much lower drag than those pylon extensions for sidewinders. And at least the 79 manual doesnt seem to list anything but jammers carried below Aim-9s. edit: Hm, after reading it up, its actually a bit more complicated: The 79 manual basically says "dont put AGM-65 below shoulder mounted Aim9". But considering thats specifically pointed out, that implies you can put other bombloads below the Aim9s, even if its not specifically listed. Only the ALQ pods are specifically listed, not bombs.

I just love how they did the textures and surface, it actually looks like real metal plating. Those textures and modeling, combined how they use lighting, are amazing. Looks maybe even better than the F-14, and that thing was already a step ahead of the other DCS planes ive seen. Cant wait to see the cockpit.

Thank you. This one is kinda hard to tell, so im happy someone more knowledgeable can look at it^^

I think it might be because the F-18 g-limiter is dynamic, considering weight, stores, speed, etc. I think it even actively measures wing-bending. On that basis, g-limit, and evidently roll authority, are constantly adjusted. Otoh, the F-16 got an FBW, but it seems to be much more static limitations and capabilities; it treats the aircraft as if its always clean and light. Only the Stores CAT 1/3 switch has slightly stricter limits to roll-rate and AoA for heavy loads, but doesnt even touch the G-limit. Basically, the F-18 limiter protects the plane and payload, probably also limits long-term stress on the airframe. For the F-16, the pilot is supposed to make sure the plane and its payload doesnt break. Currently thats not much of an issue tho, because the game doesnt simulate that type of damage.

I mean, thats usually how it goes, when when company proceeds to own another, its becaues it got bought up.

LOL the answer was closer than expected, just above the cited QA thing: Call me crazy, but that does sounds a lot like TrueGrit is part of Heatblur now

No, just the langauge sounded that way? Like "merge" implies TrueGrit becomes part of Heatblur company. How HB talked about TrueGrit becoming part of their team. But maybe its just a temporary partnership, who knows. Yeah fair, A-6 stuff has been flying around for a while. With the F-14D, well see. At some point an F-18 seemed unthinkable. Then the in-service F-15E. I wouldnt get my hopes up for no reason, but never say never^^

Hm, i cant remember seeing a specific quote for the Aim-120, thats true. I know the 120D (and IIRC C-7/8) listed enhanced off boresight capabilities, which would imo imply that theres more than just radar-guidance. Its definitely employed elsewhere, tho. Missiles like the newest Aim-9X blocks are claimed to use datalink to be controlled by other planes, thats part of the stuff about them being able to attack super high off bore (or even rearwise) targets. I know the Meteor is supposed to have that as well, and the Iris-T too. But youre right, that doesnt mean the Aim-120D has datalink capability with other aircraft. And even if it was other aircraft, it does not specify if its the radar-datalink, or some Link 16 style system. And ofc then theres different 120D-blocks again. Thx I see, so its time limited, that makes sense. I suppose the missile+radar channels are tuned so DL data doesnt get confused? Gotta re-read some stuff about the R-27R with that context in mind. Kinda impressive for such an old missile, considering the Sparrow lagged behind; but I guess Americans focused on active missiles. According to Wikipedia, the R-27 supposedly can be controlled by other aircraft or even retargeted; wonder if thats about mid-course control, but probably not in DCS implemented anyway. As said tho, the Aim-7P Sparrow apparently got an antenna to receive datalink information as well. Thats the sparrows exception to the rule^^ Yeah thats basically my understanding of how those missiles worked. I suppose the pre-launch information already explains what confused me at first, thatll tell missiles how to initially manuever. Kinda like modern heatseekers. And I wasnt aware that theres missile like R-27R (and Sparrow in Aim7P) that can get mid course correction data, just like modern active missiles. Oh I see, so the HOJ in DCS is completely unrealistic? Because from what Ive seen, it makes SARH missiless act like heatseekers

Thx, I think I got it now. Yeah, that one was really confusing to me! Thought there was some bug, till I learned most of the semi active missiles ingame have HOJ.

Where did I get such info, have you seen how much conflicting information is out there? So much bad info, terms like "datalink" can be very inaccurate, and the features/variants get constantly mixed up. Even sites like Wikipedia, who might not be accurate, but generally collect a ton of info, often got massive blindspots in areas like that. Even basic details like how mid-course guidance is sent isnt explained. What you say/link helps a lot, thanks. So basically, the radar actually directly sends encoded control-signals to the missile, and if you lose a lock and the missile isnt tracking yet, then its just going by its own INS system? Then I suppose suppose the R77 and PL-12 (or so) work exactly the same as Aim-120C then, though maybe less sophisticated in hardware/software. Aim-120D seems to be the exception, as in it being a two way datalink that actually uses Link-16 (tho C-7 also has some of that ability apparently). One more thing, I assume when you lose and then reacquire the target signal, the Aim-120 gets updated again, and do you know if thats true for R-77/PL-12 as well? With semi-active missiles, I know the Sparrow can work on reacquired locks, but the R-27 ER is dead after a few seconds without guidance. edit: Ohhhh that means semi-active missiles also get information from the radar, and only go passive in terminal phase or as backup (eg using planes flood horn)? That would explain a lot, I wondered how "passive radar" missiles could know range to enemy. Or Im wrong and they do it by the strength of passive radar returns... see thats why this stuff is confusing, nothing is quite explained^^ edit2: Nvm, Wikipedia is useful for once: So the earlier Aim-7s either dont know range, or estimate it from radar returns.

Bit OT, but I find it interesting to hear the F-15 didnt have Datalink up to 2003. Since Link4 is only used by F-14 to show targets, that means our F-15 didnt have any of that wonderful radar datalink overlays? How does the earlier Aim-120 gets it mid-course updates? I thought the Aim-120 was from the beginning using datalink to get mid course updates, like our C-5 variant that can get updates from the entire network. But clearly thats a later addition then. Anyone know how the Aim-120A/B got their mid course updates, was it just by radio signals by the firing aircraft, like with Aim-54s? I heard the brits originally got an 120A without the optional mid course correction feature, but that obviously sucked hard. Also makes me wonder how R-77 and PL-12 do this, assumed they also got a 120C style datalink control.

Thx. I didnt remove any pylons. Is your clean F-16 without pylons?

Neat, so we probably found a potential inconsistency? edit: Also theres this weird bug I found, where sometimes the clean mil thrust top speed becomes 633 instead of 627 after dropping stores. But it only happens sometimes, and normaly (or clean starts) its 627. Independant of fuel. Maybe its limited to MT, not sure.

edit: Removed a section about a weird bug, went away with restart. I know how pylons work, and that the 2x AA pylons of the Hornet are very slow. Thats why im noting that I even see a big impact of just 2x fuel tanks, or body-slot missiles. No config im using has stock pylons removed btw.

Its just 1 knot difference, but I guess that alone could explain away the ~20pph difference. Its basically the same. But then you get: - >So at 400 knots, same speed, we got more fuel usage to overcome drag for F-16. But at full military, we got basically the same fuel usage for both loads. Doesnt that seem strange? Why is the additional missile drag at 626-627 knots suddenly not a problem anymore, when it is an issue at 400 knots?

Okay, said, done. Test at 400 knots: -> F16, 10k alt example from before, 400 knots: - Clean: 2.1 AOA, 4550 PPH fuel usage - 6x Aim-120: 2.2 AOA, 4760 PPH fuel usage -> F18, 10k alt example from before, 400 knots: - Clean: 1.7 AOA, 40.5/40.5 FF*100 fuel usage - 2x2 clean missiles: 1.8 AOA, 41/41 FF*100 fuel usage And a look back at full military, this time with AoA, the F-16 with fuel usage: F-16 clean military: 1.5 AOA, 627 knots, 12.880 PPH -> Aim120: 1.6 AOA, 626 knots, 12.860 PPH F-18 clean military: 1.1 AOA, 626 knots -> Aim120: 1.1 AOA, 620 knots ------------- So, thats kinda interesting. The F-16 sees a not insubstantial increase in fuel consumptions at 400 knots when carrying 6 missiles. Yet it uses a tiny bit less fuel when at full military speed with the missiles. Meanwhile the Hornet only sees a tiny change of fuel consumption at 400 knots, with the four missile attached. AoA changes by 0.1 degree for F16 in both scenarios. Maybe one explanation would be that the F-16s intake works better at the higher AoA, so producing more power during 400 knots? But thats just 0.1 degree of AoA, and a notable increase in fuel burn. And why the full military thrust is actually a tiny bit more efficient, I cant tell. AoA changes can affect intake performance, wings and engine, but Im just confused at this point. This seems weird.

Oooh, is that why its so difficult to stow the wings? I usually just clicked around on the thing until I somehow could stow it. The manual was a bit confusing to me^^

Theres been some talk about potential issue with the altimeter; one thing mentioned was that how the text on the "rolling number display" for altitude appears to be scaled too small. Ive noticed a different potential issue with the altimeter; this is a difficult one, but it seems to be evidenced by images: Problem: The altimeter gauges "labels" (pretty much anything printed on the gauge) appears to be scaled smaller than it would be in real life. I noticed this when comparing the size of numbers on the gauge to the vertical height of the gauge. On the HB gauge, the numbers appeared to be ~10-20% smaller in relation to total gauge height. I think the issues might lie in the Heatblur F-14s altimeter having a "border" around the print on the gauges edges, which cant be found on the real altimeter. Possible the real altimeter is more recessed than HBs altimeter, and that gave the impression of a border rather than a recess. Images I found for the IRL F-14: Theses are the kind of images I just found of F-14A/B cockpits and their altimeter; people have made better collections, but I hope this helps: Im not sure what F-14 Heatblur has used as reference, so even if my idea is right, it might be the wrong plane. Ive heard people say this F-14 was used for reference, among others, it seems to fit the issue: https://pacificcoastairmuseum.org/aircraft/f-14a-tomcat/f14_d/ Images to show the difference to the Heatblur F-14: Long talk short, here is the ingame altimeter on the left, besides some higher res images of real F-14 altimeters: What makes the issue harder to grasp is how the IRL F-14 altimeter appears to be a bit more recessed; the upper right image shows that quite well. This recess seems to be in every F-14 image I found, across its slightly different altimeters. If you ignore the black border created by the side walls, then the label of the altimeter is going up to the edge of the altimeter. You see that especially with the line above the zero, or the lines on on the left and right. All of those lines go right to the edge. On the HB altimeter, there is a border, an empty area around the edge of the altimeter to where the labeling (outer lines) start. Ive marked the distance with three yellow lines. This is also highlighted how the indicator needle in the HB F14 is as long as the outer edge of the labeling; yet on the real F-14, the labeling goes beyond the needle. The needle itself seems to be scaled correctly, from all I can tell. Personal comment: This isnt too big of a deal, but considering the level of quality of HBs F-14, I think differences like this are notable, in what is probably the most important gauge after the speed indicator. It would also make the use of the altimeter a bit easier and faster, considering bigger scaling might increase size of numbers by 10-20%. In fact, I noticed this (potential) issue because the numbers appeared to be smaller in the HB F14.

Uh, a Tomcat in Tornado colors? Thats sick!

Yeah thats what I mean. Maybe im ignorant, but north african mediteranean doesnt seem that varied whenm you already got Syria, Sinai (with egypt+nile region) and the gulf map. South of Sahara, otoh? Thats where terrain (and political history) get really interesting.

So no comment an A2G radar, or even terrain avoidance functions? That makes me a bit concerned. Both Hornet and Viper are missing a bunch of really basic features, and theres no mention anywhere. I made a post asking about stuff like stores-damage through g-forces elsewhere, which is a pretty elementary thing for the F-16, besides the general damage model.