Temetre

Oh yeah Im excited for the F-4E more than any other coming plane! Maybe except the Eurofighter. Actually a big reason I checked out the F-14 to see how well jester AI works. Im sure all those planes will work greatly together, and Im looking forward to the early F-14A for some neat cold war missions! Tho I might have to set priorities what to buy, these modules are usually high quality, but very expensive!^^

Yeah of course, but it was down low in the cockpit, and Pilots couldnt be - and apparently werent - expected to constantly look at the indicator. Its clearly not a hard limit. Considering all the stories about F-14s putting lots of Gs on the aircraft, it seems like the 6.5g limit for maintenance was not nearly as strict of a rule as it might be for an F-18. DCS is a game, its kinda pointless to pretend anything else. Pretty much everyone is playing the game for fun and entertainment. Nobody treats it like a military simulator with no fun involved. Even the most hardcore simmers do it for fun. And some of those expectations are just not realistic: People here talk so much about the G-limit, but you know whats the funny bit? We push the limit of planes so much, because we dont "feel" the G-forces. We dont even have the massive stick-resistance and mechanics of real planes. We dont got that massive weight on our body and neck when doing a hard turn. Its actually impossible for us to fly with the same concern for forces as real pilots would, because we do not feel those forces. And if its really hard to accidentally over-G in real life, but really easy in a simulation, then its unrealistic to expect anyone to behave the same. In reality, there is no way how a plane is "ment to fly". Even in military use, with time, modifications, depending on scenario and airframe, the rules can change a lot. And no, you dont even get to decide if people fly a perfectly or badly maintained F-16 in their scenario. Its actually absurd when people do a staged 1v1 dogfight in DCS, and then someone complains that pulling the paddle isnt realistic. As if thats the point where this gladitorial plane fight to the death becomes unbelievable. If actually people cared about realism (while wanting to control others playtime), theyd just say "people should never fly combat for fun" in the first place. Meanwhile back to reality, Iran puts HAWK missiles on Tomcats and Ukraine puts HARMs on Mig-29s. Imagine someone just suggested such a feature in the forum without context, some people here would get an aneurysm. Because doing something not "by the book" is considered unrealistic, despite it constantly happening in reality. We dont even know what militaries are ready to do in emergency situations, and how capable the equipment is when pushed past the limit. I like flight sims, but sometimes people just obsess over numbers, and dont even know what they want. And often its just people trying to tell others how to play with their toys.

Yup, thats pretty much what I was asking. Is that really true, cant those things not be done? Idk why answers kept moving in the direction of military viability, efficiency and how things are done by the books. That wasnt the point. When you got enough power and aerodynamics in on area, then you can take a lot of capability for granted. Thats why I was originally confused, especially considering what an F16/F18 can do, being much smaller fliers.^^ I think Ive read about that a long time ago. It wasnt really about a lack of power or drag, and more that it was discovered that the airframe vibrated a lot when going supersonic at low altitude, and it got limited to subsonic because of that. Not sure if it was Hornet or Super Hornet tho. And if it was more of a peacetime maintenance thing, or actually a restriction with no exceptions.

Oh wow, Heatblur is gonna do an A-6? Thats great to hear! Maybe its a niche opinion, but flying the F-14 I actually liked how they implemented the AI co-pilot (or rather Rio/Wio/whatever, you know what I mean^^). Using him for spotting was quite interesting and intuitive. Sure I like my single seat planes and the UI could be a lot better, but it added an interesting dimension to the F-14. So if we get HBs improved AI to the A-6, then it instantly becomes a lot more interesting to me! Tho I supposed this A-7 will come a lot earlier. Might be quite intresting too, considering Ive gotten into DCS with the F-4E Mod.

I know people who have to fight the urge to flare on every single carrier landing xD

Oh btw, didnt even notice that bit. Thats not being a child, thats just critical thinking and curiosity. And theres probably a lot of thought behind the phrasing. Those are positive qualities, just not quite if youre 10 seconds shy of hitting the deck.^^ Makes me wonder if some pilots IRL flared their carrier landings. And if they got reprimanded for it. Probably hard to get rid of habits like that, considering many pilots probably didnt just start flying for the Navy and carriers.

Its probably about psychology. Landing an aircraft on a carrier is a highly stressful job, so some rules you really wanna beat those rules into pilots heads. If a pilot remembers "You dont have to flare" means he has to make a mental decision, when its "you never flare", then he doesnt even have to think about it and just does it. Seems to be a general logic behind military drills? Teach people certain actions to do under stress without thinking. Because under stress your ability to make decisions degrades, slows you down, and add to the stress. Also goes into the "train how you fight" thing. If you trained to flare on a runway, and dont on a carrier, its hard to make the switch. But no, there is no technical reason, and keeping airframes in good shape is indeed an important part of the job of a pilots job. The US navy is actually very concerned about airframe-lifetime, which is likely why the F-14 got its G-limit reduced to 6.5 (though they were allowed to over-g in combat), despite being an incredibly tough aircraft by most accounts, moreso than F-15s. And why the F-18 has a more aggressive and universal G-limiter than many other planes. Probably part of why the F-35 B+C is lower G than the A, besides weight reasons. Compared, Yet when it comes to carrier landings, the Navy didnt compromise and has its pilots never flare. Its just too risky to do otherwise, I suppose. Just imagine landing an aircraft while the carrier is engaged in combat scenarios, maybe even with minor battle damage, that must be insanely stressfull!

Of course. Just flying the F-16 and F-18, its seems way more relevant with the Viper than many other modules. Its got those aggressive flight charachteristics, reacting so fast to your stick movement, and no dynamic limiter. So it makes a huge difference if you have to observe the rules or not. Though its always hard to say what the g-limit actually means. Theres a big difference between "we got this limit because otherwise maintenance gets expensive over the design life", and "this thing breaks if you go over the limit". Playing BMS recently the stores just insta-broke because I pulled 6-G with underwing fuel tanks for a second or two, thats probably wrong. And its not even consistent in reality. Eg the F-14 doesnt got a G-indicator or limiter, and it seems like some aircraft just broken in over-G, while others flew on just fine even after 10G or more. Frankly, thinking about it I now kinda feel like g-damage to stores is probably best done very conservatively, so it shouldnt make too much of a difference. More aggressive store and g damage models would have to be optional, by setting or some "logistics/maintenance" scenario mechanic. Oh 100% on those parts, the quick 9G blackout onset is so annoying, and DTC will make things so much more comfortable and consistent...

AGM-45 actually :^) Yeh im just saying that an AI F-4E could probably do the Gs role with the same performance. Only difference would be displayed name, and maybe very minor difference in stats and visuals. If Heatblur wanted to make an AI F-4G, it would likely be much more involved.

The radar elevation is still very difficult to control. On digital buttons its extremely sensitive, even on a (VKB Gladiator) digital decoder wheel its inconsistent how much a single step changes. And the "steps", even on the wheel, are so big that theyre sometimes skipping areas between min/max angle. Ive tried putting it on the VKBs throttle just for testing (not really useful in closer range combat), and even that hardly works because it doesnt have enough moving space. Curves dont really help, So for suggestions, I think these things could help improve antenna control: 1. Digital sensitivity needs to be way lower. Preferably adjustable, or with seperate low/high sense keys. But even high sensitivity keys needs to be way lower than the current rate. 2. Digital sensitivity needs to be more consistent, or work more in steps. Currently it controls so fine (or maybe inconsistent) that even a digital decoder wheel doesnt work consistently. For humans its just impossible to work it accurately. 3. For axises, there needs to be a slew option to be usable with spring loaded axis controls. 4. We need a 'recenter key' almost regardlessy, since digital controls and slew make it finnicky to recenter the switch. Currently, the antena is hardly possible to operate with anything that doesnt perfectly replicate the F-16 antenna control disc. Which is almost nothing does.

I mean, the F-4E gets AGM-65 Shrikes. If we get the B variant, then itll even be usable at 40+ km range. No HARM though, thats just a G thing. Makes me wonder, would the aircraft make a difference for AI? Eg does the F-16 actually use the HTS pod in any way in SEAD?

I think thats pretty close to the F-15C altitude record ^^

Thank you for the tips! Im currently working trying to learn F-16 dogfighting, again, and Ill try to put that band to good use. Currently im just going over basic dogfighting theory. Ive played a bunch of flight sims, mostly WW2 before DCS, but usually flew by feel. Can beat the AI with F-16, but im working into the how and wanna try multiplayer later. Btw, the behaviour ive been talking about? I think that was more like a semi-stall that i was experiencing. Actually had a double check looking at the AoA indicator, but I was like >20 degrees off. Weird thing is, the FBW system made it feel like im still in control of the aircraft, that threw me off. Doesnt happen like that in the F-18, and the Hornet has a pretty useful alpha-indicator on the hud. Just a weirdly unintuitive thing I havent experienced in this way in any other aircraft. Definitely gotta work harder to keep my F-16 at a the right angle.

To be frank, that feels a bit like a kneejerk reaction. If that capability exist, then its there, even if you think its not (or dont know if its) ever used. And im fairly sure some of those capabilities are literally in the requirements of the aircraft and weapons. In fact, even F-18 weapons like the JSOW arent released at supersonic speeds, but specifically rated to be carried during supersonic flight. Also rated up to IMN 0.95 and down to 200 feet from what ive found, tho who knows if the military tested them at supersonic speeds. Im sure the F-111 or Tornado got more than 5 minutes of low alt supersonic endurance, and would only use it for temporary dashs through dangerous space anyway, just like most aircraft handle afterburners and supersonic speed. That doesnt mean the weaponry has to be released at supersonic speeds. And that part is just obviously wrong. Especially considering how fast some of those aircraft get with below military dry thrust. Which is irrelevant to the point im making. And im not sure what you mean with "most payloads", considering stuff like MK80 GP bombs isnt exactly niche munitions, and im pretty sure they can be carried and released in supersonic flight. Theres a question if a particular aircraft and mounting hardware is able to handle it, but its not magic. The record for a 1000lb JDAM drop is 30k feet and mach 1.5, from an F22s internal bay. I dont think an F-16 in DCS can even do that, IIRC it struggled to go supersonic when I tested longer range JDAM lobbing recently.

Oh you mean the rolling indicator numbers. Absolutely right with those. But I think the normal 0-9 numbers are also a bit too small. Hm, maybe part of the normal 0-9 issue is scaling? Theres a lot of empty black space around the edge of the indicator, which isnt really there on real pictures: The only alternative I can think off is that there is yet another (and worse) altitude indicator model we have no pictures of.

I think the Navy does it to keep the training consistent? Better to learn one way of doing things than two, espeically if the fliers are rarely ever land-based. If your Iranian and got no carriers, theres no reason to train harder landings. Doubly so with limited replacement parts and maintenance capability.

I agree about the dimness. That might not be a mistake, but purely a result of how the game is rendered. Like the black being too reflective in light and the white not being reflective enough, especially in the dark. But especially then Id hope HB can take a look if they can improve readiability, considering how much easier to read it is IRL, or even in those blurry tiny IRL pictures. About the scales, mind that theres at least two different scales in your picture. Noticeable by the 3 being low in one, and high in the other. Doing some primitive pixel measuring in pics with similar angle, there is a difference, but I dont think they used the 8/7 for scale. Measuring pixels, the 8 in the real picture (with low 3) is ~8% of the guages height, while the zero is 12%. In our image the gauge is 10%. So if my estimation is right, the letter should be 20-25% larger (in height)? Assuming HB didnt have a cockpit with an even smaller gauge, in which case Id prefer if we just switch to the more readable one. Gauges being this hard to read isnt really a realistic experience, even if its partially a technical problem. Has someone from Heatblur talked about this?

A month ago or so, when I did the trial for the first time. Was the most modern Phoenix, I think MK60-C? Maybe I should clarify that it wasnt a hit at 50 miles, but release at 50 miles. Those AI Mig-29s are quit speedy. Point being that both release and destruction of enemy aircraft happened at bigger distance between me and the target than wouldve been with an Aim-120. Ofc with some cranking, but not to an extreme degree.

Tbh yeah im a bit confused by that statement. In DCS, Viggen pilots do that stuff reguarly, and im pretty sure the F16 and even F18 can carry light payloads and go supersonic at 200 feet. And after all, dedicated bomber planes/variants like the Viggen, Tornado and F-111 were rated for supersonic low level flight. I imagine that wouldve been a waste without carrying a payload? I think only the F-111 has an internal bay of those planes.

When I was trying the F-14s Phoenix first, I set up a scenario in the mission editor. Me against two-ships of Mig-29s, both me and enemy were usually at ~35k feet flying towards each other, standard AI behaviour. I managed to get somewhat reliable kills starting at 50-55 nm. That is in TWS and often double kill. Less range and the kill was assured, but even at worst it would force the Mig-29 into very defensive behaviour. I didnt test many more scenarios, but in that one the Phoenix seemed extremely effective. Aim-120 probably wouldve been at max range ~30 miles and less for a reliably hit against a Mig-29? Even on a 10-20 mile shot I probably wouldve prefered the Phoenix to the Aim-7 in many scenarios. The Sparrow is just a bit slow and unreliable, and the Phoenix going quickly active is very nice. Of course the Aim-120 is king in that regime.

Oh, please explain? What about the altitude gauge is bugged?

Fells like flaring would make it a lot more difficult to land precisele? Normal carrier aproach is almost gliding in a straight line and hit the deck at an acceptable speed. If you try to flare, you make curve out of the line, and its gonna be way more complicated to judge. Probably better to have a bit more wear on airframe and landing gear, than to have more risky and less predictable carrier landings. Even with the US Navy, that usually is very concerned about maintenance effort and cost. Btw reminds me of a funny clip from an air show, where the air force pilots makes a super smooth landing inclusive flairing, while the Navy pilot just precisely slams down his F-35 xD

My vision is good and it still a bit rough^^ Weird that its at least a bit easier in the A4-Skyhawk.

Yeah they probably cause a lot more disturbance than wing pylons, with the air flowing around the fuselage.

Oh yeah, thats part of what I ment with the "extreme" feature set. Tbh the Foxbat partially holds records because its not really a particularly useful plane design, from what I gather? I mean that thing originally had engines from cruise missiles with 150 hour lifespan. Im sure that produced a lot of power, but its not really smart design. Also never used outside of home territory IIRC. Im not familiar with the Mig-31 though, heard that one made reason of the rushed Mig-25 development. But im a bit skeptical of rumors about soviet/russian superweapons^^