primus_TR

When I turn it on, it gives the same result: sometimes works, other times not. I'll record a track later today to better describe my issue. Am I the only one who has this problem with interrogating friendlies?

I can't seem to have a reliable positive response when I interrogate a friendly aircraft. On the the upfront panel, I have the IFF on (indicating XP), I bring the radar cursor over the track, SCS depress followed by SCS right. on the AZ/AL format, I can see that the interrogation is executed (vertical green lines appear around the track). Sometimes the friendly aircraft responds correctly, but sometimes it does not. The only way it seems to reliably perform a friend/foe interrogation is to STT the target. Only then I can get a reliable friend response. Hornet should be able to perform IFF interrogation without an STT (like in the F16, and even the F4E), so what am I doing wrong? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Edit: Here is a track file depicting the problem I'm having. F18 IFF issue.trk

I think, one way for server owners to make room for the FF 29 could be to allow EWR reports without AWACS/EWR datalink. Anyhow, we'll find out soon enuf (hopefully).

When there are multiple carriers, they all have the same name (Essex class carrier) on the comms menu, ordered by distance to the player. So, contacting the intended carrier in the group for reporting inbound is a bit problematic. This may be relevant to the problem you're describing.

No. If you've read the thread title, it should be obvious that the thread is about the issue of taxiing with diff breaking. Relevance of wind to taxiing and how it inaccurately aggravates the issue, as discussed at length above, is clear. Feel free to disagree, but unauthorized thread policing is not appreciated. Edit: For further clarity, crosswind is raised as a contributing factor to the problem, not as the sole cause of the issue. Just in case it is not crystal clear.

It is too strong against gen 3, but too weak against gen 4. It is a gen 3.5 oddball; and with no datalink, no ARH missiles, and a crazy amount of pilot workload compared to the FC3 version, I don't think it will be a fan favorite in online servers. Personally, I'll be flying it exclusively in SP, just for appreciation.

Yes, there is something wrong with the Corsair's ability to taxi, a problem which becomes more pronounced in the presence of wind; at risk of repeating the same point: when there is no wind, the aircraft is able at least to point its nose where the pilot directs it to (which entails use of excessive power and differential braking, which is unrealistic). Not sure what you are disagreeing with what I and many others have pointed out, but crosswind is relevant to the issue at hand, regardless of your point not being specifically about taxiing in crosswind.

I do (as there is no other option due to this bug) but that is irrelevant. The aircraft should be able to taxi in a crosswind. That's the whole point of this thread.

I keep oil radiator flaps a crack open and the cowl flaps as needed, depending on speed. Only time I get engine seizure is when I forget to check the two gauges, and let oil and/or cylinder head overheat. This is particularly important during landing where you have high power and low airspeed. So, make sure to scan those two gauges frequently and you'll be fine.

While taxiing under no wind conditions is obviously very problematic, it is still possible (by applying excessive power and wheel brake); but with a headwind, it is not at all possible to turn past 90 degrees, in either direction and regardless of the amount of power applied, which is due to the aircraft's exaggerated tendency to turn into the wind. This is particularly noticeable on a carrier deck. You just can't taxi back for taking off again after landing.

The issue with faulty wind vaning may be not so easy to solve, as it is directly related to the module's flight model, which may explain why this issue has not been receiving much attention from the devs. I remember how a very similar wind vaning problem with the MiG 19 was completely disregarded by the developer and never fixed. An aircraft that cannot properly taxi is basically unplayable. Shame.

Hello folks, Currently, I have a i5 10600K, RTX 3070 with 32 GB RAM, which gives me a solid 60FPS on my pancake setup. I was quite content with it until I have made the switch and I purchased a Quest 3 a few months back and I can see that my rig is not sufficient for VR; I can get about 40 FPS at VR graphic preset with 1.1 PD. So, I intend to get a new rig, and I am aiming for a safe 72 FPS to match my headset refresh rate, with DCS graphic settings at High and a PD of 1.5. I am not after getting a top-of-the-line rig; I just need something good enough to meet my 72FPS@High@PD1.5 goal. I've been an Intel/Nvidia fan always, and I wish to stick with the Intel/Nvidia pair. Cost is not a top concern. What do you you guys recommend?

That's what I thought also. In that case, it should not matter for Shrike where the tracking radar is directed at: me or some other target.

It is strange than how the shrike has zero difficulty hitting a rotating search radar; if it is indeed following the beam, it should be swayed by the rotating beam. That is not the case right now. I can hit a p19 without fail every time, but not the tracking radar. Based on what is described above, a split S would push the tracking beam down, and a lofted shrike, which would be way above the beam, would have zero chance acquiring.

I wasn't aware that shrike was a beam rider. Looks like this connects with the side lobe discussion above. Thank you.