PhantomHans

Plus one for this. Would help with cold war scenarios too.

What did you do here?

Should it revert back to that? Also I should start tracking how many Gs I'm actually pulling. I probably rarely get close to 20 if ever.

I think I saw video of an older guy talking about this but dont recall his name, but iirc he was a Grumman test pilot. It makes me think that our HB F-14 may actually have too LOW of a symmetrical G limit before breaking!

Whats the source for those diagrams? Very interesting post BTW

Reminds me of the joy of model building...No matter what color you paint it someone will be certain that you're wrong!

I think that yes, you are basically correct, if you had a responsive engine you don't need the brakes...But the question is, HOW responsive is responsive enough? IIRC even with the F-14B brakes out was the standard.

Several years later I still have this problem with spikes.

Anyone else find that the A model can frequently takeoff without burners? I know it was SOP for the As to use burner for every launch but when lightly loaded (4x AIM-9, 4x AIM-7, full fuel, and tanks) they seem, in DCS, quite capable of doing without it and I'm a little surprised by that.

The DLC really is "lift on demand". The drag isn't a problem at all. In fact I think you're even supposed to have the speed brake extended during landing to get more drag! It really helps keep the throttles much more responsive. Speaking of DLC, I have a question. Was that a feature from the start or added later?

I'd be all on board with this, or doing an F-4G that was 'front seat only'. I accept that at some point we're going to have to abstract or guess at things that simply can't be known. Just be honest that you're doing it and don't lie and pretend you arent.

Not sure if anyone from Heatblur is actively reading up on this thread or checking into it, but I have a few requests for some Jester commands that I would like implemented... 1. An option to tell Jester that it's OK to automatically switch to PSTT, but to NOT do it if the radar is guiding a missile. 2. A key command to tell Jester "STT Lock Nearest Enemy Contact Ahead, Otherwise, STT Lock Nearest Unknown Ahead". Sadly, Jester seems to be reluctant, sometimes, to go STT on enemy contacts ahead if they aren't IFFed as hostile, so in a situation where I'm closing but don't really want to use PAL or VSL, I'd like a smarter option to get him to lock a bandit without having to worry if he's got IFF on them or not. 3. A toggle and a separate pair of keys for the Jammer. Jammer Toggle On/Off, Jammer On, Jammer Off.

The setup is four aircraft on the catapults, and a two-ship of F-14s on deck starting from the ramp. When I salute to indicate that I am ready to taxi, I am directed forward for a few seconds, but before the engines spool up so I can move I am told to stop. I stop as ordered, having not moved from my starting location. My wingman, who starts to my left, is then directed to taxi into me, and hits my aircraft. The aircraft are now stuck together and the mission is over. Can we please roll back to the older supercarrier without the directors it actually worked better.

I am not, and don't think I ever have. Point remains however that this is a great example of one of many compromises towards realism ED is eagerly making for certain things in certain areas, while they turn the blindest eye they possibly can to other areas, apparently to avoid offending the real fighter pilot gods who walk among us.

Just curious here, is it possible to force aircraft to take on missions that they normally wouldn't do? For example, to have SU-17s take on an air to air role which, although they usually would not do, they have been known to attempt?

Since I have been royally roasted by all of the real fighter pilots here for wanting AAR difficulty options, yhea, quite "UNSAT AF" to see things like this added and forced on us. The flares are a FINE gameplay option thay should be selectable when building the mission or otherwise set server side.

I really like these suggestions. When building missions I often wish I could organize the deck behavior, for example to have certain jets sent to cats 1 and 2 after startup and others sent back to 3 and 4. Seems like I always get sent back to 3 and 4. There are currently so many problems I usually just spawn on the cats.

Report it to him? Maybe he'll do an update?

Unfortunate. I was going to have a neutral nation defend airspace against any violators from either side.

Beats me man. Reflected made it, he usually does good work.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3319496/ Like this?

A month later and nobody has ideas on this? Is this possible in DCS?

I'm having an issue with flights going dumb and making up their own missions or deciding to simply not attack enemy units. I'm looking for a way to put a CAP flight in that will orbit an area and attack enemy aircraft that enter that area, without deciding to fly to the far ends of the map to chase something. Is this possible in DCS?

Has anyone here tried using the MiG-21 cold war pack mod? It's my understanding that the current MiG-21Bis handles a bit better than it really should when it's in the hands of AI pilots. So I am curious about this mod and what changes it makes to the 21Bis, and if the other jets (SM and MF) are accurate in any way at all? https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3340820/

I would like to see the uncompleted bases that are visible on the map fleshed out to the current level of the map. For example, IIRC NAS Fallon exists only as a texture on the ground in the correct place. IMHO in order to complete the map, that should be built up to match the remainder of the map into a functional airbase. If we start talking about expanding the maps borders to cover larger areas, or doing large area facelifts, then I think we would need to start talking about a Remaster type thing.