bkthunder

I personally PMd Yo-Yo, Kate and Wags about this. Yo-yo replied so I am sure they are aware. Important to note that this is not just about one particular modules, but it's sim-wise. Thinking about all the EM charts, analyses and comparisons the community has ran on these modules...jeez, those are all based on the wrong numbers! Hopefully 3rd party devs didn't trust the in-game speed readings when testing their FMs :doh:

Found out this is a general DCS bug. Posted here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=276368

IMPORTANT: KEAS instead of KCAS! Ok, we might have stumbled on something big. Kudos to the original poster on reddit Summary: It is very likely that ALL AIRCRAFT IN DCS DISPLAY KEAS INSTEAD OF KCAS on their digital insturments (i.e. HUD, MFDs etc) This could lead to FM issues if devs used those numbers thinking it was KCAS. Test: I just tested F-18, F-15, F-16. Mirage-2000, Su-27. Test parameters: Standard atmosphere No wind 35000ft Mach 0.9 or ~290 kts Equivalent Air Speed Pay attention: it turns out the speed displayed as "IAS" in the F2 inforbar is the Equivalent Air Speed. So, given 290kts EAS (from the infobar), we should have: KCAS: 310 kts KTAS: 518.5 kts GS: 518.5 kts (there's no wind) All parameters match, except KCAS displayed on the HUD of the different airplanes is 291 kts instead of 310 kts. That's 20kts difference, going to increase as speed and / or altitude increase. All calculations are based on this page http://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/scripts/atmosphere/ The very worrying part: Not sure if it's just a displayed speed issue, but if FMs are being made and tweaked based on what devs think is KCAS, but turns out it is actually KEAS, it could mean all FMs in the game are off. Example: I have personally tested and reported that the F-16's level acceleration at 10k feet and above is severly slower than IRL. The reports have been acknowledged. In some cases the timings were off by as much as 40%, so while there is still a high chance that the DCS F-16 is indeed undeperfroming, it might not be as bad as 40%, and if the speed displayed on the hud is taken as a measurment, the FM would result in a grossly over-powered F-16. I hope you get what I mean. @ED please check!

According to this post, the F-16s HUD in DCS is displaying KEAS rather than KCAS. I've done a test myself and can confirm. This obviously leads to pretty big discrepancies in speed readings, with all associated consequences.

Added, thanks.

Well, if that's the case, I passed on the SC just as I will pass on ANY other product from ED or 3rd parties until they fix their s**** and deliver finished products with the promised features in good working order. I am part of a niche minority, I know.

I can't have more than 30FPS on servers that have the SC in the mission. Note: I don't own the SC. I just did a test: joined a server with 3 players without SC: 60FPS (locked at 60 via gfx card software) joined a server with 3 players and SC: 25-30 FPS. Same settings, same theater (caucasus), same airplane. Not only that, but it doesn't matter where you are on the map, if you are in internal/external view, looking at the sky, nor which type of airplane are you flying (tested with several). You always get capped low FPS as long as the SC is in the mission. One more thing, I get crappy FPS regardless of the amount of users on the server. At first I thought the low FPS was due to the amounnt of players, but now with 3 players I shoudl definitelty be getting numbers in the 60s as per the comparison test. Anybody else seeing this? This literally is the last nail in the coffin for MP :mad:

The FM Is so completely nonsense at this point I wouldn’t be surprised about anything. I mean the poor thing cannot be called a sim when it’s all based off the wrong data. The engines are bugged as hell, not only in relation to the wind bug, but the other bug about throttle position is also completely weird. Look, I own most of the other modules (with some regret), but I would definitely pass on ALL of the updates for EA stuff when one of the few COMPLETE modules is so broken I can’t even fly it. They should fix the release stuff that breaks before they add features to EA modules. Now the SC will get all the attention, and here we are sitting with an F-5 that is collecting dust. They even put it on the front page of one of the latest newsletters... I’m tired of this, really.

Hi Shrike, your report was already in, at line 57 ;) 642 days since reported (as of today).

No word on these critical bugs since months. Can ED please give us F-5 owners some clear information on when these will be fixed? Please make a committment to fix broken products. I am not asking for new features, I am asking that if you break something while releasing a myriad of new things, you at least fix it in a reasonable time frame. Bugs have been repoted and akcnowledged, what's next? Wind: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214854 Wind affecting engine: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=266215 Inconsistent engine / throttle response and values: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260974 Thanks.

Ah great, so basically the whole track system is completely uselss. Nicely done.

So i had saved a few tracks of a demo routine, and after the update the tracks are all wrong, the aircraft is crashing soon after takeoff. How do I restore the track to play correctly?

TOViper, been flying for about 20 years here too, sorry to say but you are simply wrong. I'm shocked to hear you believe that and I honestly hope you lied about flying IRL, or else pick-up the PPL ground training level 1 and read it again. I've had a student once that wanted to stall the aircraft after turning downwind because he was caught off-guard by the higher groundspeed, as well as somebody who had a tendency (this is much more common) to overspeed the aircraft when on a windy final, all becuase they get "impressed" by the ground references moving too fast / too slow compared to what they got used to when flying in no wind. I understand you might get the feelign that your airspeed changes, but that's just your eyes and ground references messign with your senses. Look at your instruments, there's only 1 thing that matters: AIR SPEED. I have yet to see any aircraft where the stall speed and VNE are given in GS ;)

In the A-10 engine igniters are turned on when pulling the trigger to avoid a possible shutdown. Hot gas ingestion is a thing.

Sorry but...did you guys wake up now? It's been like this for YEARS. Those of us who have bought the MiG-21 when it first came out know this well. FYI, at one point the plane coudl sustain 46 degrees of AoA, and that verison stayed for months! All along, including the prevoius version, you fly levelled with a negative AoA. The stall is g-loaded, which is against he laws of physics. M3 can't code an FM, they are trying to figure out how to do it based on what was probably developed by the part of LN that became Heatblur. I applaud the recent changes to the FM as a sign of life which was missing for some years, but yeah, that's not to say the FM is more realistic or anything. It's just yet another variation that's probably very wrong, just in different areas than before. We will never know if and when the FM will be ok, because it changed too many times. Sorry, but it is what it is. Either LN hires some real FM coders, or someone rescues the MiG-21 by buying the rights.

Any news? This and the engine bug are serious stuff, why aren't they fixing them?

Any news on this? It's been a while...

Doesn't happen with any other sim/game I have.

I have very bad flickering since 2.5.6 especially on the carrier!

IIRC it's meant to be like that when firing the gun, as a measure to cope with gun smoke ingestion

Honestly, I want ED to stop all development of new modules, and focus on the "world", "combat" and on the "simulation" part of DCS:W. I'm not buying more modules, I have more than enough and they are mostly incomplete for years to come. Focus on the world, this is starting to feel like star citizen where you have a gazzilion ships and nothing to do.

It's not fixed, it's been reported soon after they tried to patch it. Please comment here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264523

Nothing to do with adverse yaw, the VVI and pitch ladder just move on the wrong plane-direction. Easier to see it for yourself tbh. Grab the F-18 and set a strong wind, then bank. Compare with the Harrier. F-18 is the correct one. The other reports, I can set them as solved, but then I'd have to put a random date. The point is, if Razbam can't be ar*ed to clean up their own bug section, I can't simply chase them around. I'm more than willing to mark whatever is fixed as fixed (I'm actually hoping to mark everything as fixed sooner rather than later...), but without a date, an official changelog etc. It's hard. Razbam has this forum with not one but 2 bugs sections. One for open bugs, one for solved. Do they follow the common practice of acknowledging reports and mark them as [FIXED] or [REPORTED]? Nope. Do they at least place the threads in the proper forum section? Nope, they are all mixed. I've set a general rule based on this principle: - The ED forum is the official comms channel for this product - I add to the bug tracker what is reported here, in the bugs section. I don't want to blindly enforce that and deny bugs that are obviously fixed, what I'm saying is, please come to me with what is fixed and a date (or a rough date at least). Thanks ;)

I'm just sorry it's a C-101 and not a Hawk...lol. Or a Harrier,or a MiG-21! These legendary planes would deserve such quality. Anyways this proves a point for me: I'd much rather have a simple aircraft that's simulated into detail, with passion, rather than some awesome jet developed like it's Ace Combat. If you did a Cessna with this level of detail, I'd buy it. I enjoy the little touches, like the ADI wobbling to life. This is a high fidelity sim, and doing even simple IFR, knowing that stuff is accurately simulated, is more satisfying than dropping bombs from a half-assed module with dubious avionics and FM. I'm looking forward to your Mirage F-1 if it's at this level. And more.

168 is not solved, the error persists. They tried to fix it, it behaves a bit differently now, but still goes off to the side at steep angles. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264523 (already in the community bug tracker) 120, 121 do you know when they were fixed? Nothing about it in the posts, and they are in the bugs forum :doh: Thanks!