claysanger

Hi gang, Seems like some of the more complex airfields on Sinai are causing some minor ATC / AI aircraft taxi/routing bugs. AI ATC directing player and AI flights to tailwind takeoff and landing more often than I’m used to seeing on other maps. And/or directing taxi to only 1 runway / heading irrespective of wind conditions. AI Aircraft definitely seem to be prone to taking very long scenic routes to the active runways. (( Not a problem really other than from a mission designer perspective )). This is not a serious issue. Just noticed when trying to match up the spawn locations of player flights with AI flights and found ATC sending everyone to Narnia. It happens sometimes on other maps too, but seems abnormally prevalent on Sinai right. But in related news: I LOVE THE SINAI MAP Cheers and happy hunting!

Yeah IIRC the control binding is named HUD COLOR in the jets it’s available for.

Oddly enough, the multi color HUD ladder appears to have survived all the way through LOCK ON and FLAMING CLIFFS to present day DCS — the FC3 F-15C will let you change the color of the pitch ladder. Or at least it would last time I flew it. Been a while.

Since I didn’t see anyone who was reporting pitch / takeoff problems mention it in this thread — are you STILL having pitch problems AFTER you rotate and counter your T/O trim? My first Strike Eagle takeoff including a noisy tail strike and some chuckling. Then I eased up on the aft stick and sequenced countering my T/O trim in as my gear and flaps come up and all is well Very gentle back pressure at rotate speed and she floats into the air like a feather. Then you have to trim nose down to counter the T/O trim as the gear and flaps come up. Whether that is “normal/realistic” Strike Eagle behavior I can’t say - but it does apply to the current state of the FM.

It did! Wonder if those of us who played Janes F-15 are rare in the DCS Community? There’s a certain age element there for most of us former Janes F-15 fans.

I definitely think people are going to have to play some otherwise procedural / by the numbers aspects of the jet by feel as it goes through its EA growing pains. Performance characteristics are apt to fluctuate from patch to patch. But it's hard to go wrong with a little old fashioned landing as light and slow as conditions will permit, gentle-on-everything, speed brakes through the fluffy ground effect, aerobraking until aerodynamics insists you just have to set your nose gear down, and don’t be afraid once that nose settled down to pull aft stick back to your belt buckle and use those huge horizontal stabs as extra braking power. At that point I can stomp on the brakes if I want to and come to a stop like a Viggen with the reverse lever thrown She is a big, heavy girl but I’ve had pretty good luck by just treating her like the big girl she is on landing. She DOES have very beefy brakes at the moment and if you bleed her speed off every other way first those brakes will bring you from 100 knots to gently exiting the active mighty fast. I’m loving it. She feels like a big jet.

Yeah looks that way for now. Mk20’s seem to be behaving about the same — but I didn’t do as much testing with them. I could be mistaken. CBU-97s however seem to be mostly performing as expected. So. There is that for now

Yeah, I tried the SPIN parameters as well -- running those up or down on the 87's doesn't seem to change their burst effect any at the moment. PS: And after forgetting to hit ENTER about 50% of the time to save those settings in the A/G Load sub-page, I also started remembering to do that as well. If your selected parameters don't transfer to the A/G PACS page for your CBU stations, then that's a tell-tale sign you've forgotten to save the setting in the A/G Load sub-menu. Both result in the same thing --- no change to the terminal performance of the CBU-87s

Huh. This brings up a “shower thought” type question. The HEIGHT parameter on a CBU-87/97 or Mk20….. Anybody know what sensor mechanism that is determined by? 1) Baro Altimeter in the bomb? 2) Radio/Radar Altimeter in the bomb? (Seems unlikely in that era of CBUs but not impossible) 3) Baro/Radar Altimeter data passed from the aircraft to the bomb? And the bomb does some math / trigonometry to calculate a burst height? (Sounds more advanced than it would be if that’s the case, well within the capability of weapon programming and guidance electronics of the 20th Century). 4) Magic Video Game Math? 5) Other? I guess I’ve never thought about HOW CBU burst height fuzing works based on sensors before.

Me too. At least with the CBU-87. Can’t seem to get any result other than minimum burst height no matter what fuzing/programming options I set.

I’m having similar problems — no combination of fuzing / programming options seems to yield anything for me with the CBU-87 but a low altitude, high density burst of bomblets. I’ll keep experimenting but I’m gonna wager the 87s are buggy enough at the moment that any Konami Code like programming button presses that so make it behave itself are a lucky workaround and not intended design. I think the only suggestion above I haven’t tried yet is to cycle the TIME parameter in the A/G Load fuse page all the way through before setting your burst HEIGHT and proceeding to A/G programming. If it works I’ll be a happy camper though.