bkthunder

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.

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.

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

I did, but the post was deleted.

So, I used the Throttle Warthog Calibration (V1.07), I followed the instructions and now the axis of bot throttles are completely screwed up. Only the last 2cm of travel are recongized. I tried to re-calibrate multiple times but nothing. Also this f***** calibration program is impossible to find, I had it on my disk but maybe it's not the lastest version Please help me, I tried everythign and looked everywhere, I can't find a way. Thanks P.S. it doesn't help at all that all links to posts and calibration files are now broken due to the new forum system!

Default instant action Free flight mission Caucasus. Unable to attain 9 g at 450-480 kts. Max is 8.8 Unable to attain more than -1.9g (should be -3.5) Onset rate is way too slow I can achieve 9 g at around 600 Kts I have a track but it exceeds the max file size of 5mb. You can easily replicate it and I believe the issues with onset rate and max positive and negative g are pretty clear Track: https://fil.email/R6ybCKmH

After a few hours of messing around with it, it seems to boil down to: - imporoved / fixed the stall and "riding the tone" behavior - HMCS and updated HOTAS functions - APKWS Most of the old bugs are still there untouched: - engine ITT being off - windmilling - divert page freqs. - possibly too high drag from stores - Hud barely visible on a light background It is what it is: a 10$ upgrade. ED knows most of us already had the A-10C 1, so apart from a few newcomers, they probably didn't and won't spend more time on this than what those $10 are worth. I doubt we'll see further fixes, if they wanted to they would have fixed those long standing bugs already. The reason they fixed the AoA issue is because of the massive community outcry before release. Had there been similar attention for the other bugs, we might have seen a few more fixes.

I was just playing a mission on TTI server, I noticed the Carriers and also all other ships don't react to sea conditions anymore (there were heavy wind and swells). Is it a bug or they removed it 'cause of the deck sliding problem?

Facts: - The HUD in the A-10 is remarkably less visible than in ANY other DCS module. - The A10C Hud uses the same principle as the F-18, F-15, su-27, Mirage 2000, F-16 etc. hud. It's a reflector. If they use a terribly dim "light bulb" in the real airplane I don't know. Logic suggests the real plane has a hud that's visible enough to be usable in most conditions, which is not the case in DCS.

The 3D model has no changes except the removal of the pave penny and addition of an antenna. The pilot's helmet has changed. Some textures now have bump-mapping (nosejob and rivets on the tails).

The hydraulic pressure with windmilling engines is a well-known bug reported and acknowledged multiple times since 2010. Here's the last one.. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=287686

Germany retired the F-104 in 1987, Italy in 2004. 17 years and 3 indigenous versions later. 1 million flight hours in total. Canada had the biggest accident rate of nearly 50%, followed by Belgium (>40%).

Sorry to bring this up again, but new version and FM fixes had me hopeful that we would finally be able to fly by the numbers also when it comes engine parameters. ITT values are still too low according to RL procedures and manuals. At full throttle the engines barely reach 800 degress ITT, while IRL the green arc on the gauge is up to 865 degrees (and for limited periods the temperature can be as high as 900). Also, according to the TEMS fault monitoring system: ITT of 890 is considered not critical for the safety of flight (though out of the norm). ITT of 945 or more is considered critical. Radar trail departure procedures call for a power reduction after take -off to a setting of 800 degrees during the climb (for the lead), this is not full throttle. So IRL 800 degrees is less than full thottle. A climb setting that allows wingman and element to catch up and maintain correct spacing. In DCS 800 degress (actually a bit less) = full thottle. It had been discussed years ago as the A-10C 1 had the exact same issue. There are manuals, crew chiefs and pilots confirming this is not correct, even though most of their posts were removed, sometimes due to bans, sometimes due to 1.16. However, I hope ED doesn't keep hiding their head in the sand here, and update this as they have done with the critical AoA.