b101uk

why not tie it into selecting your pilot weight too, lol. as pilots with a mass of less than 135lb (if I recall) are prevented from wearing some types of helmet, due to the increase risk of neck injury especially during ejection.

1: you need to do more research. 2: there is no need for updates every frame. 3: the point clearly went clearly above your head. 4: it is conceptually not meaningless, unless again it goes above your head.

given aircraft that had the first iterations of the capability have already retired some 10 years ago and that the 120's have had the capability for more than 20 years, and even at the longest ranges of the 120's BVR engagement you are only talking 2 or 3 mid-course updates we are not talking about anything remotely complex, its not as if the mid-course updates have to be absurdly precise in 3d space either given a few hundred meters of error are hardly going to be putting an aircraft outside the 120's own seeker FOV by the time it switches to its own guidance. dose the F/A-18C have a data link - yes dose the F/A-18C provide mid course corrections - yes do the 120's accept mid course corrections - yes do the 120's accept mid course corrections from other than the launch platform - yes given the yes's above is it conceptually hard - no

dependent on the server setting its sometimes not posable for stable and beta to play together, and when stable and beta depart more from one another then its is just not posable at all irrespective of server settings.

and yet in the modern theatre of war for the past 30+ years weapon hand-off is nothing new, neither is integrating information from multiple sources to accurately depict in real-time the location of many things that would otherwise be unseen from your own point of view. if you can make a dumb Mk 8# bomb hit a precise set of coordinates with a $20k USD guidance kit using nothing more than a radio of me telling you some coordinates to program in and launch, imagen what a $1,000,000+ USD missile can do with a data link between aircraft costing $200,000,000+. you should see what we do in precision farming with data link and precision guidance ;)

that link has lots of airfields missing, especially when it comes to the huge number of satellite landing grounds, with some glaring omission even when it comes to major facilities, a good example would be RAF Burtonwood, which was one of the largest airfield facilities in Europe during WW2 for the USAAF, yet it is missing.

The AIM-7MH guidance update has "home-on-jam" (HOJ) mode capability IRL, so will home in on anything it perceives as jamming, which is obviously some active radio/radar source.

I do agree that the currant behaviour isn't correct, but I am not convinced it is the problem, otherwise that singular values would cause more problems in other aircraft, some of which are definitely not known for their lateral grip. something else that leads me to think the problem is elsewhere, is in your initial video, look at the wing tips, especially the right one and note the physics impulse as the right wheel touches the ground each time even in the second half of the video with your values, this leads me to think it is suspension values that show themselves when the FPM is a bit high and that there is a bit of a lack of flair, after all at the very minor FMP the RH wheel was touching the ground (after the initial touchdown) on the bounce you would not expect such an impulse.

the maximum weight for a flared field landing is 39,000LB if you go by the book (*) (34,000LB for restricted carrier landings, and 33,000LB for unrestricted carrier landings) so it would be fair to assume if your notably above this you would not be doing a standard pattern entry. I.e. you would be doing a much more sedate approach probably straight-in from much further out giving you time to get set up and calculate your landing speed. for an F/A-18D the full flaps landing speed is ~125kts for an aircraft without external stores and with 2000LB of internal fuel giving a mass of about ~27,000LB to 27,500LB, and for each additional 1,000LB of fuel or external stores you would add about ~2.5kts, which would make the landing speed for 39,000LB ~155kts, or in the case of landing drastically overweight at say 47,000LB it would be ~175kts. while a max weight carrier landing (34,000LB) would be ~143kts. (*) Sep 2008 NATOPS flight manual (A1-F18AC-NFM-000)

not all datalink are broadcast by omni-directional means, some datalink are highly directional for example AESA mounts have this capability, and well there is reasonable probability that if you detect a radar source and a highly directed datalink emanating from similar position, then it must be broadcasting to something if you are looking at a 1 on 1 situation. on the other hand in a 2 on 1 situation launching off one and handing off data link to the other that is laterally separated would put the datalink broadcast outside of the targets detection or at worst radar emanating from one place and some other broadcast from another place, given ultimately an extra 10mile hop in a datalink signal is inconsequential, especially if that hop is to another aircraft that could be tracking in a passive mode using the reflected radar signal from the first, thus providing an additional point of reference in 3d space.

very true, but the fact that it is clearly rounded and no one knows the rounding method employed dose cast ample doubt and an amount of deviation in conjunction with other things that produce cumulative error range. and well if we look at it objectively, the sea level 20000lb level flight acceleration times are operationally useless, when in reality if you found yourself at such an altitude and such a slow speed with so little fuel and no weapons you would do better gaining altitude and speed rapidly so you at least have glide range to play with and more chance of exiting the aircraft in a more relaxed manner of your choosing while picking an eventual crash area for the F-16 that will cause less or no notable damage on the ground, else conserving fuel at 200kts and riding it down if you knew there was a suitable place in reach, as you still have the option of ejection. talk about useless operational data, it can only have been rounded down, lol.

@Deano87 its perfectly posable in a simulation to perturb a singular value of static friction to account for speed a yaw and produce a curve between the static value and a maximum angle and speed that will encompass most situations, and those numbers need not be user facing, they could be in other files or the .exe because they are universally applied to the plane specific values because they are constants. To me you are only treating a symptom and not the cause, because there is definitely something else afoot that is the cause, because comparable values e.g. in the F/A-18 don't cause it to become unstable even when landing at much greater crab angles even if they are held to touchdown and part of the rollout, now granted the F/A-18 has a wider stance in the main gear and a longer travel and different damping, but IRL over-damping, too high an effective spring rate or to fast rebound or lack of rebound damping in combination can cause similar problem. over damping can limit suspension compression under sudden loads but allows slower loads to use greater compression. to fast rebound or no rebound damping allows the suspension to extend too fast after being compressed which can cause additional bounce as the waveform the wheel describes through relative vertical and forward travel when viewed from the side is a shorter frequency than that of the body it is ultimately attached via the suspension - think of some of the effects of a pogo stick. And well spring rate along with overall travel have their own problems in conjunction with the above if they are to short, to high, not high enough or to long. likewise physics in a 3D engine bring their own set of problems, in that the tick rate and the FPS can be largely divergent from one another, meaning you seldom visually see what happened in some short duration events that happened between frames, to you the observer a wheel at the moment of touchdown could look like it has moved slowly and naturally across a couple of frames but in physics it could have bounced once and already extending past the visual aspect, else one frame everything is normal and the next frame your doing 2000mph 5 miles away backwards because some force exceeded some computational limit thus produced a large value applied to the main body. As for the NASA data, it is old and out of date both with respect to tyre construction and composition, not to mention the fact it was conducted not on actual runways but specially laid surface, the problem with which it hasn't had "traffic" on it and well anyone who has been around laying concrete and asphalt roads etc will tell you it takes a busy main road about a month for the surface to start providing maximum grip, because it takes time for the surface texture to develop and the stone chip to be properly exposed and profiled by the repeated action of tyres. tyres themselves have come a long way since the 70's, it to the point today that the ply rating for a tyre is no longer indicative of the actual number of ply's in the construction but simply that of the load rating potential, tyres today themselves are lighter, suffer less centrifugal growth and stand up better to lateral forces as they deform less and are less susceptible to pressure change from heat changing the contact area, not to mention the fact that modern tyres have a far lower scrub-in period due to modern complex synthetic blends of rubber requiring less release agents from the moulds for the vulcanising process and don't require the preservative lacquer that natural rubber tyres do for storage, nor do they require as many in-service cycles before they reach their optimal chemical state of producing grip, not to mention the fact that the tyre carcass have more lives to be remoulded/re-treading which is common in aviation by the tyre's OM.

he said that was the limit, I was just taking him at his word, and yes there will be a margin, but the fact it is a 25kts limit to start with dose tell its own story, as dose the 15kts gust limit. because not every F-16 operating air force dose what the USAF dose, and for that matter not every USAF former F-16 pilots did what the USAF may require today, but the USAF can afford tyres and increased maintenance cost even though there is plenty of anecdotal evidence from former F-16 pilots that either will work but crabbing up to the flair then straightening out is smoother and less fuss. if modern asphalt has a higher friction coefficient than 70's era asphalt, then it will be across the board, the same with modern tyre construction and composition.

you do know that many runways now (as opposed to in 1977) use significantly better asphalt compositions that result in notably higher friction coefficients in all conditions which can be as high as 0.75 in the dry with modern tyres. this has been driven too by advances in tyre construction and composition and road safety and the fact that machines for testing skid resistance are much much more common now as are standards set in law for the minimum friction coefficients of roads dependent on if they are straight, a curve, leading into a braking zone or are on a gradient. also a 25 knot crosswind limit on the aircraft dose dictate its is not that good in such cases, and I have to question why you are not taking out half of the crab just before touchdown.

the data-link is an additional emission, the presence of which in conjunction with radar emanating from the same place would itself signify a launch, given the data link doesn't have to be decoded or understood, just the fact it is there at a specific frequency range with a fast enough data rate for corrections. that is why some missiles it can be beneficial to hand-off so the radar track and data link track appear from two different places.