bkthunder

Same as with the A-10C (1), there has been no improvement to this long-standing bug, which makes manual reversion mode completely unnecessary. Positive control can be maintained as low as stall speed and even beyond, just by the engines windmilling at <8% RPM. This is not realistic at all, as reported and documented multiple times. Most of all, it makes handling emergencies in the A-10 something that is far removed from reality. reported here also (among other places): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=223970

Just had a CTD too. I sent the crash report through the dialog that comes up. I had just shot an APKWS and was lasing the target when it CTD'd

:huh:Wait, I thought they fixed this for the new version? There have been many discussions about this problem and one of the points for the A10 II was that the finally put the head in the right position and made the hud visible

Fairly priced. I applaude ED for this!

Those of us with a custom Warthog profile can't use the 3-way flap switch because now there are onyl flaps up and flaps down assignments. Nothing for a middle position of the switch. Can you add it please?

According to the real A-10C manual (T.O.1A10C-1), fuel override provides up to 15% additional thrust.

EAS vs CAS bug The bug was reported here (which isn't just an F-16 bug but affects all modules) https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276363 I see it has been marked as [NO BUG] even though it was acknowledged officially. I just checked in game and it is [sTILL A BUG].

Having no wake turbulence is equally unrealistic as having too much of it.

To me it's alwasy funny when it seems that customers have to provide evidence, when in fact it is who sells a product that should provide evidence of its quality/realism/authenticity. The community raised a concern, it would be good to say "according to our SME, the wake turbulence is realistic". As it is, it looks like ED has no evidence either, yet is asking the community for evidence. There are RL pilot accounts here, plus common logic that points to the fact it is over modelled (e.g. thunderbirds formations). It's fair to say the concern is legit and should be looked at, but I think this will take the route of the A-10C flight model discussion that lasted 10 years or so...all along having ED in full denial, and finally resulting in a change when justified by a new influx of cash.

This, considering all the shenanigans of EA, product sustainement etc. would be a real added value and make it a definite buy. I hope you guys stay out of the vicious cycle and deliver finished products. It would be a breath of fresh air around here.

You know, some things are based on the norm, what is usual or average. The virtual pilot in the Su-27 is white? Well, guess what, probably there aren't nearly as many black pilots in the Russian air force, as there are white pilots. Probably the same goes for the USAF/USN, though I'd expect there to be more black and asian pilots than in Russia. I would however expect the Saudi pilots to look more tanned. In the same way, most F-16s are grey, they don't have a tigermeet livery. In fact, some private modder made a tiger livery, and not ED. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be fantastic if ED included all possible ages,body types, genders, hair styles, skin tones, sunglasses, names under the canopy, colors of airplanes etc. to suit absolutely every single person in the world. However I'd prefer if they spent that time working on FMs, weapons etc. You can make your own skin exactly as you like, or you can take it for what it is: a small texture that becomes invisible as soon as your mask is on and the visor is lowered.

So guys, let's address the elephant in the room ;) You are a talented dev team made up of (mostly, or only) italians. Italy has been the country that operated the F-104 with the most success and for the longest time, and even developed 2 new variants (F-104S, F-104 ASA and ASA/M). 2+2.... :joystick:

make it a CD to have even more fun :thumbup:

Just check the OP...

It was 2 weeks IIRC, and if they focused on fixing the Harrier rather than spending time on other modules, I think it's possible. Check any of the HB changelogs from when the OB patch was happening weekly, and you'll find they are even longer than this one. That said, I really don't care if they did this before, during or after. As long as they fix stuff and add stuff and make it a "study-level" sim as advertised so prominently, I'm happy.

Already did. I might buy the A-10 beacause it's fairly priced for owners of the original A-10, and it probably is relatively finished on release. Other than that, I haven't bought and will not buy anything until all the EA stuff I already own is done. As recently highlighted by the Harrier debacle, feature complete, product sustainement etc. don't have any precise meaning, which in turn means if "EA is not for everyone", so is a "finished" product. So from now on, make sure to spend a few hours reading forums, bug reports etc to get an idea what you're buying, even if it's a "finished" product.

After the A10C II....dude, sorry to break it to you but after that they have the Mi-24, while also in theory having to work on the SC and all the other WIP stuff. The thing is, the F-5 doesn't bring any money therefore it will never take priority over the latest EA module, and there is always something EA being launched. The point here is they have to seriously stop for a minute and take a look at the massively erroneous FM of the F-5 before they can even call it a simulator.

Since a very long time, with the exception of a few months during which a patch had resolved the issue (years ago), the MiG-21 can be steered on the ground at very low speed, using only the rudder (without differential brakes). I have reported it a few times but nobody took a look. It's very strange and unrealistic that the rudder has so much force to induce a turn at speeds as slow as 5-6 knots (without any wind). One more thing, again unique to this module, is the aircraft tends to turn left/right even when standing still! E.g. you line up on the runway, stop with the nose wheel centered, hold the brakes, and slowly but surely, the nose starts to drift left or right and, in F2 view, you can se the nose wheel starting to turn. Seeing how you have re-started to work on the FM a bit, after so long (and I thank you for that, finally!), can you please have a look at this strange ground behavior? Thanks!

Another patch and still no fixes to the F-5 :(

I just tried it. It's a marginal improvement compared to before, but still light years away from what even a below average fighter pilot would be able to sustain. If our DCS fighter pilot went to the IRL centrifuge qualification run, he would immediately be reassigned to fly C-130s :)

Yeah that is known, well at least to the community, not sure Razbam knows... But don't worry, that will be fixed in "product sustainment", lol.

Thanks for clarifying about the randomness point, really interesting! And fully agree with you on the SATAL part by the way. P.S. what was that plane flying at mach 2 a 50k feet? I have a feeling it was a Mirage, lol.

Even with the "g-warmup" (which has nothing to do with increased g-tolerance IRL) the tolerance is that of a 95 years old granny.

Let me add my 2 cents here. Regardless of what the actual g/speed/gw limits should component X break at (in this case flaps), I think pretty much everyone can agree that different airframes would have failures at different moments, depending on age, maintenance, stress etc. How about adding some randomness, to simulate the above? When you spawn, mayeb your F-14 is brand new and you can pull 15g without bending a thing, but maybe it's 25 years old and is an ex top-gun bird that pulled high g most of its life, so guess what, you'll lose a flap at 260 kts rather than at 300 (or whatever are the correct numbers). I think something like this would go a long way in making people a bit more careful with their virtual plane. If it's true that they can simply respawn at the end of each dogfight, it won't be true that they get brand new jet every time.