Temetre

Yup, Im aware of all those things, thats why im formulating my posts like that. Interesting topic imo, just hard to grasp. Is there actually performance charts detailing this behaviour? Tbh I dont know how to get charts like that, or how to read them.

Bug: If at least one of the AFCS switches (pitch/roll/yaw) isnt engaged, while "autopilot on" is enabled, then the "autopilot toggle" hotkey will not set it to off anymore. Reenabling the AFCS switch does not fix this issue. The button can always toggle the autopilot to on, only its ability to disable it is affected. The switch still works if moved by another measure, eg with mouse click Here a guess, the autopilot shouldnt work if an AFCS switch is disabled, even if the engage switch is set to on. Maybe the autopilot being nonfunctional in that way, is connected to the toggle hotkey not working? Can I reproduce it 100%: Yes How to reproduce/ description: 1. Create an empty mission in the editor; place an F14 set to player and start the mission. 2. Disable at least one of the AFCS switches, while "autopilot engage" is enabled. Altenatively, enable the autopilot while one of the AFCS switches is disabled. 3. Now the "autopilot toggle" button will not set the switch to off anymore, and it has to be done another way (eg via mouse click). DCS Version: Multithread preview, 2.8.4.39731 edit: Found the same behaviour in Singlethreaded.

Damn, thats a crazy price. Guess it depends where you live. In Europe you get AMD 6950 XTs for 650€ (or in USA for 650 dollar), and 6800 XT for 540€. Meanwhile 4070TI with 12GB is 830€, what a joke.

Thx, thats a neat video. You rarely see that stuff. Tbf its hard to tell what a good chance means here. An advantage? Or just that both are competitive? I find it interesting that hes talking about "low speeds", and that F-16 seems to perform pretty well at 200 knots. Wonder if thats a super light early F-16AM, or an upgraded one. Feels like in DCS, the F16C is pretty mediocre at that speed, and even struggles to compete with an F-15. IIRC people in DCS found by testing recently, that our F-16C Block 50 actually gets outrated by an F18 to a tiny degree. And Mirage 2000 seems to outrate anything else. Interesting stuff.

Im not gonna fanboy for a company; its just that Nvidia created a pretty big problem for gaming with their low memory cards and huge market share. AMDs 16gb cards are relatively affordable though.

Ah, then you got it already Defo a thing to look out for when you buy new GPUs. 16 gigs of VRAM should be minimum when you buy a mid to high end GPU these days. Especially for DCS and VR. Nvidia especially is a bit scummy how theyre trying to save cents with cutting down memory size and bus speed whereever they can. The result is that their 4060TI is actually slower than a 3060TI in a bunch of games. 3060 had more and still faster memory than a 4060TI, its silly.

Hey, I dont mind being proven wrong by aviation nerds, im writing from the position of relative ignorance. In fact I like hearing from people who know their stuf.^^ Scrutiny als helps me to improve my thought process and communication. I made a mistake in my original post; it said "stores drag", but didnt specify what performance penalty I was talking about. My post wasnt supposed to be about fuel economy with stores; I have clearly not tested that, and I dont think thats a problem for the Hornet. I was specifically concerned about top speed. Especially in A2A situations and BVR, the Hornet seems to suffer from its low top speed compared to the F-16, moreso than anything else (like a weak afterburner and lower acceleration). And considering how fast a fully clean Hornet is, the planes problems seems to come how stores create massive amounts of drag. And its really weird. I mean, from the post before, compare these datapoints: -> 2xMK-84: 617 TAS -> 2xAim120+2xAim9 (clean): 620 TAS Two 2xAim120 in body-slots, as well as 2xAim9 in wing tips, almost have the same slowdown effect as a 2000 lb bomb? I know MK84s are well optimized for drag, but doesnt that seem strange? Ofc its a very different plane, but it still strikes me that the F-16 can have 6x Aim-120, two at wingtip, two at (normally more draggy) underwing slots, and loses almost no speed. Even for top speed I should probably check how the addons affect AOA. Although I dont think those A2A missiles should have a meaningful effect on CoM, and technically I dont think clean slots shouldnt affect CoD/CoL much. Youre definitely making a good point how Hornet wings create more drag at high speed. I guess the big question would be how stores affect that lift/drag, compared to an F-16. Thats where aerodynamics become insanely complated xD

Mig-25 seems more like a "bomber" style design, rather than a true fighter aircraft. Slapped together in a hurry to counter developing american supersonic bombers, to lob heavy A2A missiles at them. Apparently a super heavy stainless steel hull, the high power radar didnt work well, the engines were adopted from cruise missiles... the upgraded versions seem less like improvements, and more like an attempt to make it somehow work. And mind, directly before the Soviets made the Mig-23 as a BVR fighter, and even that had a powerful engine but poor maneuvrability; the Mig-25 would be even worse in terms of agility. Honestly, the plane sounds kinda bad, but Im sure it would be very interesting to actually fly one in DCS. Maybe frustrating as well, but its interesting to take what you got and try to make it work.

I think RAZBAM deserves some criticism, because they encouraged hype and preorders long before release, and then got many delays. They are seeling more copies from hype, after all, its not without profit. But HB with the Phantom seem pretty reasonable? Theyre telling us plane is coming, but theyre not talking too much or make big announcements. I would like to have more info, but cant say they are misleading from anything Ive seen. Thats a solid way to do things, more calm and upfront. The whole idea that the F-15E deeply affects the F4 launch seems madeup anyway. I doubt thats a thing; at most its probably like "at least have 1 month between releases" or so. Thats all just too emotional, imo its best to just not get hyped. Sure, look forward to the plane, but dont get emotionally attached to the idea of getting the plane in a certain timeframe. Dont let future stuff keep you from having enjoyment now. And if HB doesnt specifically promise anything, dont take it like a betrayal if expectations are broken.

Sounds a bit funny, a beautiful place to drop bombs at xD But yeah a big map set in central or south Africa would be amazing. North africa is already a bit on the Sinai map.

You can also open the task manager on your desktop, and take down headset to look. In SteamVR you can use the "show desktop" function as well.

Oh my bad then! If you have a pre-designated target, then guided bombs should always be better, assuming they arent faulty, got correctly aligned and dont get spoofed (eg "fake GPS" signals). The INS/GPS guided JDAMs lose accuracy on greater ranges, but AFAIK it should be much less than dumb bombs at any range. Was that ever a thing? CCRP should be more accurate, because the computer finds the perfect time to release bombs, while CCIP relies on human reaction time and hand/eye coordination. Now, the computer can be off, but both systems rely on the computer to make a targeting solution anyway. So CCRP is better because it limits the human factor.

Okay, Ive actually done a test of straight line flying speeds. Now, I can definitely say the differences are less pronounced than I expected. Maybe its because a lot of my experience with the Hornet is from before the last aero update, which IIRC helped it a bunch. But I did find a big difference in missiles and fuel bags: See bottom of my post for scenario and more numbers, but heres what stood out to me, at 10k altitude, 30% of empty weight in fuel (+full bags if listed) and full mil thrust in straight flight: F16, clean: 627 TAS -> 2xMK-84: 615 TAS -> 6xAim-120: 626 TAS -> 3x Fuel Pod (2x330,1x300 gallon), 6xAim-120: 607 TAS F18, clean: 625 TAS -> 2xMK-84: 617 TAS -> 2xAim120+2xAim9 (clean): 620 TAS -> 2xFuel Pod (330 gallon): 609 TAS -> 2x2 Aim120 (inner wing station): 605 TAS So the clean air speed of F-16 and F-18 is almost the same, im sure thats an improvement after the last update. But heres what stands out to me: 1. MK-84s cause more slowdown on F-16 than F-18, making the Hornet just a bit faster. This is what I would expect, a smaller low drag plane suffers more from the same amount of drag in bombs. 2. Putting 6x Aim-120s on the F16s pylons, slowed it down much less than the clean 2xAim120+2xSidewinder of the F-18. Here the opposite happens, a less draggy loadout had more impact on the F-18. 3. The F-16, with 3x pods, giving it more fuel than the F-18, and 6x missiles, was faster than the F-18 with 2x 330 pods. Again, the F-18 loses from a smaller fuel+bag load, where the F-16 has an easier time handling a bigger increase in weight+drag. Like, does that make clear what confuses me so much? Similar clean speed, and with MK-84s, the Hornet even is faster. Makes sense, same drag, bigger plane is less affected. Yet then any missile or fuel bag issuch a big deal. A clean Hornet with 4x missiles in low drag slots, loses 5 nots, where an F-16 with 6x missile in more draggy slots loses 1 knot. And the fully loaded F-16 with three bags and six missiles is just 20 knots slower, just like a Hornet with its 2x smaller underwing bags. Surely this heavy F-16 loadout here is more drag than two bags on an F-18? Suddenly it is reverted; where the MK84 benefits the Hornet, missiles and bags penalize the F-18 to a much greater degree. That is even ignoring the dragg Hornets underwing stations. Can someone explain me, or at least make a guess why that happens? To me that seems so counter-intuitive. There either must be something big happen (or maybe something is inaccurate, I have no clue). -------------------------------------- Here the more specific numbers I checked. Mind the internal fuel is 30% of empty weight, not of capacity:

I recommend checking your VRAM, its in the GPU driver (AMD is good with monitoring tools) or task manager>performance>GPU memory. That will make it easier to nail down the issue and to minimize it. DCS is very bad about memory usage, and seems to have a bunch of memory leaks. Syria is also much rougher for me than Caucasus, thats for sure. I really hope the further multicore improvements and Vulkan can help with that annoying microstutter and weird CPU usage.

Intersting, makes me wanna look up the Vietnam stuff more. But that doesnt strike me as special. Even the MAR for an Aim-120C is like 10-15 miles for many planes, if I remember correctly? DCS was a big surprise to me with how short ranged missiles are against close targets. The F-16s radar is also kinda poor, but basically always sees a lot further than it can shoot. Probably gonna be the same for Phantom. Even a 10 mile hit with a sparrow would seem pretty darn good. Im sure the radar is up to that in STT, outside of lockdown issue, false contacts, etc. Wonder how much that stuff is gonna be simulated, havent checked HBs F14 RIO radar yet. M2000 is pretty cool about that. Btw, that 12 mile launch, 4.7ft miss sounds like a problem with the radar fuze? Thats extremely close, wouldve been a kill for sure. Also mustve been a pretty darn good shot, considering it was likely fired at some small interceptor. That one actually makes the Sparrow look good in my book. You say that, but I also found the A-4 or Mig-21 to be way easier to handle than the F-14 xD And heck, any of those early to mid cold war jets? Just half-laptop planes, with assists, stability-noobmentation-modes and enough thrust to make up for every mistake. Warbirds, thats where the real pilots are. What real pilot even needs trimming? :^)

Again, I was quoting your comment because your references were extremely crude as well.

Probably limited supply of guided weapons? Desert Storm was the first war they used guided weapons on a large scale, but even then there was like 90% dumb bombs IIRC.

Fact is that targets were engaged that were under no threat of S-300 systems. Despite high claims of this system. If you wanna be more critical, then you should apply the same level of scrutiny to your Saudi example.

Sadly didnt save the track for this one. Training gun dogfights with an F-14 against a veteran AI SU-27, I managed two fights in a row to get hits. Each time I destroyed one of the two elevators, it was completely gone. One time was left elevator, not sure about the other one. But each time, the SU-27 just kept fighting, without any apparent loss of performance. When in reality, im pretty sure that plane cant fly with just one elevator left? And even if there was some way, it certainly should not keep dogfighting as if nothing happened.

Considering how Patriot compares with S-300 in Ukraine service, thats a pretty laughable claim. 2 Su-34s and two helicopters (including EW variants) shot down in a single day, well behind frontlines. Referencing the Israel and Saudi example is a staple of propaganda, but it doesnt actually tell that much about the system. Very substantial data is, as usual, impossible to come by. But those silly high russian brochure numbers for S-300/400 clearly arent believable anymore. Nor is the myth of Patriot underperformance. I suppose mods dont want us to discuss the topic with IRL examples, however.

Uh, I would like that a lot. Making jester point the radar in the right direction, or lock an obvious kinda-WVR target without ACM can be a bit annoying^^

Yeah, the mode of your weapon changes how radar and pods work. Its very confusing.

I dont get at all how you got there. I was using those numbers to show the idea how differences in proportion work. In the most basic way, an F14 is less affected by an Mk-84s drag than an F-16 is by the same bomb. You get it? Because one is bigger. Ive actually read the opposite, that the intake of the F-18 works better at high altitude? And the plane is totally fine when clean. That doesnt explain why the Hornet is affected so much more by stores than a Viper.

edit: My bad, my post was unclear. Im specifically talking how the addition of stores affects the top speed of the F-18. Im not talking about fuel economy, which I have not compared. -------- Not saying anything is wrong or unrealistic, I would just like to understand why this is. I know the F-18 is more draggy than an F-16, and has somewhat weak engines. But the way stores add drag to the plane seems counterintuitive to me, and I wonder if someone can explain it. Below im triyng to explain my train of thought: So you put stores on an F-18, even a single fuel tanks, and it already lowers top speed by a good chunk. Put 4x Aim-120 with the double rack, and youre down even further. At this point it already can be tricky to even get supersonic, maybe impossible to get past the transonic region. Similar story with bombs and other kinds of addons. Yet with any other plane I tried, F14, FC3-planes, Mirage-2000, Mig-21, Ive never seen such a heavy effect of drag. For example, the F-16 handles a lot worse with three fuel tanks and 6x missiles, but its top speed isnt really affected much. Acceleration is slower, but you can go close to mach 1.8 or so at ~30-40k feet, last time I tried it. Even if you dont use full afterburner (which ofc is very high capacity), the speed seems to remain higher. And consider the difference in drag: An F-16 by itself is a lower drag plane than an F-18, but logically I would then assume that the same drag+weight bomb load would have a more adverse affect on the F-16 then, compared to the F-18. Because percentage wise (Im making up numbers), the F16 drag might go up by 20%, but the F18 drag only goes up by 10%. Similar story with weight. Yet the F18s speed seems to go down so much more than the F16s speed. Can someone explain why the Hornet is slowed down this much more by stores? Or do I have more fundamental misconceptions here?

Id be curious as well. After seeing the F-15Es radar from RAZBAM, I really hope they gonna do a work-over of the A2G radar, which is very barebones currently and seems to lacks important functionality. From what I understand, the Hornet radar should have very similar capabilities to the Strike Eagle. Maybe not quite the same resolution and range, but enough to identify vehicle types by radar. Seen anecdotes from Desert Storm of Hornets doing that.