bkthunder

So this was reported already many times and according to NATOPS and video evidence posted here, the spool times are too slow. And it makes sense that the Hornet can't really be the only airplane of the era that has spool times 3x longer than any other (e.g. F-16 ~3 seconds, F-15 ~3 seconds, Mirage etc.). F-18 currently takes 10 to 12 seconds from Idle to full A/B. @NineLine has this been raised with the team? Thanks

@NineLine do you think this will be fixed in a timely fashion or is it going to take years like for the wind bug? I can't wait to go back to the F-5...

Do you know that you can place any number of animated crew in Mission Editor and create a life on the carrier yourself? Yes, however I don't consider a few stationary figures hand-placed here and there to be a "life"

Thanks for the info!

Thanks to the free week (which is GREAT!) I had a chance to try the SC module, as I have been eyeing it for a while now. I just want to share some thoughts and this isn't, by all means, intended as bashing. What I enjoyed: - the correct size carrier. Although we shouldn't have to pay extra to have a correct size carrier at all, and the free Stennis should be fixed!! - the catapult crew that helps lining up - The carrier 3d model and details - The catapult views, even though I wish they were stabilized on the deck, so you don't see the pitching. What disappointed me: - the ATC is didn't seem very consistent. The text-to-speech voice of your pilot is breaking the immersion and AI aircraft didn't seem to respond in the proper way (e.g. the wingman forms up and then drops back in a sort of trail formation before the overhead break...). - In general, I expected the deck crew to provide a huge immersion boost, but in reality it very quickly became a pretty simple, scripted animation, that overall felt quite sterile. Animations need polishing and are a bit funny at times, like when all of the men spring into action at exactly the same time, but the truth is, there just isn't any life or anything happening except at the catapult. Overall, at this stage I just didn't see a reason to spend 30-40$ for a glorified 3d model and some animated crew. Yes, it's all nice to have, but when you compare it with an aircraft / helo module, the SC is basically the wallpaper while the aircraft is the party. The ATC should really be part of the core sim and it doesn't show any outstanding features that warrant paying extra for it (i.e. it isn't even nearly on par with the ATC from that other old sim). The unclear roadmap also doesn't help to understand what will be implemented in the future, but hopefully once all the bells and whistles are there, this will truly provide a new sense of immersion. EDIT: let me add, it is no easy task to really convey in a game all the noise, adrenaline and controlled chaos that a real carrier deck is, and probably the SC in DCS is the best attempt so far on PC, but I feel it's not there yet.

How can I avoid it? It just starts to spin around and literally f**** up every shot

Might seems like a small thing, but if you are flying realistically while your opponent pulls the paddle and turns at 9G, you have no chance whatever you try. So agree on the rules, if he/she uses the paddle, then you will have to use it too or find someone less arcadey. Also, due to the unrealistically slow engine response in the Hornet, if you don't use the paddle you have a big risk of going too fast: e.g. you are turning at 370 kts in full A/B, as soon as you drop the nose a bit it'll start to speed up, and by the time you pull back on the throttles and the engines react, you'll be well after 400. Now, if you use the paddle, you can easily increase the g and actually use the extra speed for more g and turn rate, but if you don't use it, your turn rate and radius become much bigger and the only thing you can to is to slow down (you are already pulling max g of about 7.5). Unfortunately, again due to long spool-up times, when you throttle back you risk bleeding all your energy and finding yourself near idle with speed brake out at 200kts, and it'll be about 10 seconds before you're in full A/B again. This bug makes it extra-tricky.

I reported this "8. Up aileron travel is incorrectly reduced when the flaps are set to HALF or FULL. The ailerons retain their full range of motion even when the flaps are extended and the ailerons droop to match. »" long, long ago. First the thread was locked, then i provided pictures, then I wasn't believed anyway, and finally it was deemed low priority. Lol.

I have a **very** strong suspect that ED misread the chart at page I-2-2 of the NATOPS and forgot to subtract FLT-IDLE and MIL to obtain the result.

Thanks for adding the track!

Long standing bug, (already reported with track, but missing link due to new forum). I thought it was going to get fixed with the wind bug, but it's still here. Very easy to reproduce and check. Going from IDLE to e.g. 90% RPM, the values for fuel flow, EGT and nozzle position are completely different than if you go MIL and then back to 90%. In other words, if you throttle BACK from MIL to xxRPM, you get higher thrust (and higher EGT, Fuel flow etc), than if you were IDLE and throttle UP to xxRPM This is consistent at any altitude/speed/temperature. The practical result is I can be flying at 90% RPM and my wingman will fly 200kts fatser or much slower at the same 90% RPM. Pretty bizzare bug.

No snarkyness intended. I'm just very puzzled by how you look at the problem. "Why should you"? Well, for instance because you're coming off the target and you have a bandit on your ass, full throttle and, oh look, M 1.6! It doesn't take some "special skills" or a crazy maneuver to do this. But the real question you should be asking is, why does the FM allow you to reach M 1.6? And besides, apart from this specific bomb-drop related bug, the FM regularly allows you to reach M 1.06 in level flight, which is also unrealistic as far as the available references suggest. By your logic, the FM could let us reach Mach 5, or you could load 300 bombs on the pylons, 'cause "why should you"? I totally understand the issue: the Harrier has a very high T/W ratio and beats an F-15 in the initial climb, under certain conditions. However it is also very draggy and not supersonic AT ALL. Making the FM is probably a balance between giving it enough thrust and enough drag kicking in at the right speed, and that balance is a bit off. Totally understandable, but it should be fixed and not met with a "why should you". That's all I was saying.

Why would a Harrier accelerate to mach 1.6? I'm also confused. A clean F-18 in full afterburner takes several minutes to reach mach 1.6, at high altitude, not at 12k feet! And yet you seem to think it's normal that a Harrier gets to mach 1.6 at full throttle, and somehow this is user / pilot error. The massively draggy air intakes of the Harrier won't make it past mach 1 because they have no way to slow down the incoming air. The engine would seize. Good that you passed it to the devs, 'cause it's definitely a bug

Nobody mentioned it but the FLCS rules are still based on the NASA test paper which IS NOT how the FLCS works in the operational F-16. The g-onset rate is too low and can't even reach 9g at the correct speed. The negative g is also limited, the real a/c has a limit of -3.5g. But they said this is all WIP. The engine is also pretty weird, RPM values are specially off. Not sure if this translates into reduced thrust in game.

Sorry but, are you an F-16CM block 50 (circa 2007) pilot? ED have SMEs and DCS, while not perfect, is by far the best and most accurate flight simulator on the market. The bug section exists for users to report bugs, but as you see this bug has been labelled as "Need Reference", which means it's definitely not enough for anyone to just come here and say "logic says that rubber chocks that are 4 inches high will not stop a 131Kn engine from pushing the aircraft past them". It also doesn't help to post articles related to different aircraft such as the block 40, in different condtions etc. ED coders need to have precise data to make a change, this has been said a million times. I am sure that if you could provide data about the specific F-16 model we have in game (again I asked for the a/c serial number for a reason!), in the very same conditions, then ED would act on it.

Thanks.. pretty disappointed about the IFLOLS and ICLS, I'll pass for now

Hi all, and Happy New Year! I don’t own the SC but I might be getting it depending on a few things. I watched videos, read the forums etc and I have a general understanding, but some very key points for me are not clear, so I ask you: - do you get correct IFLOLS indications for the F-14? That means, the IFLOLS is adjusted to the specific aircraft to allow a correct glide slope and a 3 wire with a centered ball. - does the ICLS match the IFLOLS? I.e. centered needles = centered ball - is the catapult end-speed correct for different GW and different aircraft? How do you communicate / verify the GW before the cat launch? - Does the carrier pitch and bank in heavy seas? - is the deck sliding issue (with pitching deck) fixed? Thanks!

The wind and engine bugs have been reported, over and over again. Don't hold your breath, this module's FM is as broken as it could possibly be, and nobody has done a thing about it for the past 2 or 3 years.

Just because you can in DCS, doesn't mean the real Harrier can. The real question is "does the real Harrier reach Mach 1.06?" If not, then it's a bug. I highly doubt the real aircraft goes supersonic in level flight, and I could find no sources that say it can. Maybe this should be checked and/or explained a bit better, with some arguments and references to prove your point.

I think the wind bug is still present, so wind will impact the performance of the F-5 depending on which direction you're pointing at... ridiculous but it is what it is. Make sure you have 0 wind in the mission.

BUMP, the track is provided on the first post. You have to download it because the link is only available for one week (sorry, I'm not gonna pay a monthly subscription just for it).

I don't doubt the report of the Block 40 in Alaska jumping the chocks, but this is not nearly the same aircraft nor the same conditions that we have in DCS. The question is, would and F-16CM Block 50 (again the specific airframe number would help) jump the chocks in the conditions depicted in DCS i.e. one of the Caucaus map airports for example? There are so many variables, off the top of my head: - the friction of the ground, we know that soviet airports are much more rugged and they have those tiles that certainly provide more grip to a chock placed on the ground! - the slope of the ramp - the humidity and temperature that cause the engine to produce more or less thrust - the fact that a pilot in full gear weighs more than a ground technician, giving a slightly lower T/W ratio that could indeed prevent the F-16 from jumping the chocks. As a matter of fact, do you know the weight of the technician that was in the cockpit when that F-16 jumped the chocks? It might have been a very skinny 18 y/o or something... As you said, ED has their SMEs so if they modelled it the way it is, they probably have a good reason, so yes, the burden of the proof is on your side.

I think that's the key here, how can we know if the specific F-16 modeled by ED jumps the chocks or not? I mean, the one in your picutre is a block 40 from Aviano AB, in Italy, so maybe they have to tie it down due to local regulations. I think if ED could share the exact airframe number they are simulating, it would then be easier for you to find a picutre or video of that specific aircraft jumping the chocks while in afterburner.

Thanks, that didn't work. However I solved the problem by downloading the calibration tool from a different source, and it worked... I'm puzzled as to why TM doesn't have the calibration tool download on their website..

Bignewy the track replay was added to the first post 1 hour before your comment above. I did not discuss moderation in public, unless you are confusing me with some other post/thread/user. You sent me a PM to which I replied privately asking where did I reference BMS in my post, but didn't get a reply. Thanks