bkthunder

So ED believes that an F-16 is limited to -2.0 g? This is simply not true.

Sorry but that’s a bit hypocritical IMO. Have you questioned why there is harsh criticism and negative feedback in the first place? Why does the community become “toxic” against a particular product / developer? I think there is enough diversity in age, nationality and background of those being “toxic” to at least safely assume there is not a particular demographic that just so happens to hate Razbam for whatever pre-conceptual reason, other that being genuinely dissatisfied by the product they have bought. I repeat it: the PRODUCT that they BOUGHT. Razbam is a business, not a charity. We are customers, not donors, even though we are being treated as such. I mean, I get it that this is all a niche and we have to be good to each other etc. but let’s be honest, if you went out and bought a washing machine that doesn’t work properly, you’d call up the shop and complain. And if said shop came back with “constructive criticism” excuses you’d start to be a little bit mad. Why the common business-to-consumer logics should not apply to DCS quite frankly baffles me. And yes, I know, it’s EA etc etc etc. but that’s getting pretty tired as I am sure you can tell (even though you can’t admit it within these premises).

They have been working hard to fix all the bugs and add all missing features. They will release it all at once. Yeah right...:megalol:

Can you ask your F-5N friend to shoot this video and put it to rest? Or at least give his comments (I doubt a RL pilot/operator comments would serve any purpose seeing how they have been routinely dismissed in the past...but worth a shot).

My mind is blown. What I learnt from this thread: 1. First and foremost I have to complain to the manufacturer of the aircraft I fly, because all performance tables and reference speeds are given in IAS/CAS. 2. I must definitely sue the flight schools and all the instructors that have given me wrong information on how to fly an aircraft. They even wrote pilot manuals that are all wrong! Bastards! 3. I realize how truly blessed I am, I have been flying with headwinds, tailwinds and crosswinds and I never realized until now that I was probably stalling or going above VNE. I am still alive, must be a miracle. Damn, I remember once I had a 60kts tailwind and I was definitely above VNE, surprised the wings didn’t break in two!

Any news?

I truly admire your tenacity guys, but there is no worse blind man than the one who doesn't want to see. @The Falcon, just go out and READ about this stuff instead of asking us to prove the obvious. No one has to prove anything to you. Go and read about how airplanes fly, read about air masses, read about air navigation. If you don't believe what even RL pilots are telling you what can we say?

Objection overruled! :D What happens is this: nothing. I keep flying perfectly safe at 100kts IAS. My ground speed will be 100kts IAS + 50Kts GS = 150 kts ground speed as opposed to 50Kts GS when I was flying with a headwind. That's it. P.S. the onyl reason why I would stall is I made that turn *so* quick that I pulled too many Gs and dropped my speed below stall speed, or my AoA was so high that I stalled. But all of this has nothing to do with wind, so...

Lol, this whole thread has gone nuts! Are we really living in a time-space where several people argue about SIMPLE FACTS OF LIFE on a forum, rather than going on ANY website or ANY book and read about wind and airplanes? Jeez. Unless you are trolling, you are pretty pathetic really. :doh: So much for being "well versed in aerodynamics" lol. Let me get my pilot's license and burn it, obviously I've been risking my life for the past 16 years flying into headwinds and tailwinds without knowing the high risk of stalling or overspeeding :megalol:

Guys really, please, read up on it. It's pretty basic knowledge for aviation enthusiasts and wannabe pilots. There really is nothing to disccus here, it's simple physics. Here is a good explanation https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/airplane/move3.html

Sorry, this is not true. Wind only affects ground track and ground speed, nothing else. That's why you use *air speed* rather than ground speed for anything that concerns flight performance. A Cessna would be perfectly at ease flying at 120 kts indicated airspeed in a 300kt jet stream, wouldn't make a difference if not for groundspeed. Furthermore, we could say there is actually no such thing as wind, rather, there are masses of air that move across the globe. You only feel the wind if you are fixed on the ground and such airmass is passing, but if you were floating inside the airmass itself the relative speed would be 0, because you are being carried by it. It's as if you were walking inside a train. The train is the airmass, your walking speed is the indicated airspeed. That's exactly the relationship there is between any aircraft and wind.

This is all we needed to hear. Thank you Cofcorpse for confirming and great news! :thumbup:

I have this too! Anyone had a look at this?

Suggest you read up on the matter, it seems that this is a very hard concept to grasp for a lot of people here, but wind does not affect an airplane (or helicopter, or baloon or else) in ANY way except when in contact with the ground. So in fact the problem we are having is the wind does affect the FM while in flight, which is a massive, massive bug, the proportions of which can hardly be explained being this a high fidelity flight sim.

This.

Exactly this, well explained. Not sure why it does that, but thsi happens a lot and is very random.

From one of the points in the latest mini-update: - Wind is better accounted for in the flight model and displayed air speeds. What does it mean exactly? The problem with the F-16 and F-5, as reported here https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260650 is that the wind *is* accounted for, which it totally shouldn't! I hope it means that you are actually fixing the FM and making sure that no matter how much wind there is, this has 0 effect on the flight model except during take-off and landing.

So, given the right price-point (pre-order+horent discount), I'd like to jump in, however there is one point that holds me back, and that is the accuracy of the IFOLS modeling (hook to eye etc). The free stennis is off. the Size is not correct and myabe for this reason (or maybe for another reason) flying a centered ball does not result in a 3 wire in either F-18 or F-14. So I kindly ask 2 questions to ED, and I hope this will be clarified once and for all since it's a pretty fundamental thing in a carrier simulation: 1. Will the IFOLS be correct for the F-18, resulting in a proper 3-wire descent path? 2. Will the IFOLS angle correct for the F-14 (meanign it needs to be adjusted for said aircraft), resulting in a 3-wire descent path? I think at this point of develpment ED should be well able to answer and clarify this, especially since people can start to buy the thing. Thanks.

Yep, pretty bad. Wish they tweaked that. I believe it became much more apparent with the new gfx and lighting in 2.5.

I sent a PM to Nineline about this, maybe they didn't see it.

This has plagued the F-5 since forever, and the mustang too. Why the thread is set as [NEED TRACK FILE] I don't know, since it was provided a few posts back.

Wizard, in general, I think you are misunderstanding some basic stuff. There is no such thing as "unloading". Unloading is a temporay "push" to clean up the airflow over the wings before you pull for a split S or something. The only other way to truly unload is to fly a parabolic trajectory in which you are actually unloaded (0 g) for a period of time, like this In level flight, whether you fly straight up or inverted, there is always 1g pulling you towards the earth. If you fly level, upside down, there is still 1g except you, as the pilot, will be hanging upside down and that become -1.0g for you. You are not magically avoiding the force of gravity, the plane still has the same weight and the wings still have to lift that weight. Also, what is AoA relative to "zero"? AoA is the angle between relative wind and the wing. The wing is shaped to produce optimal lift with minimum drag while flying straight up and level at cruise speed. If you flip the wing upside down you need a lot more AoA to keep that same wing flying, because it is not optimally shaped to fly upside down. Take an Extra 300 on the other hand, it has a symmetrical airfoil, so for that airplane it doesn't make any difference if you fly upside down or not, that wing will behave in the same way straight or inverted. But this is not the case with most airplanes, including the Harrier.

There's also no better Su-25 simulation for PC than the basic FC3 Su-25, but that's not labeled as "DCS quality" and sold at 70 bucks a pop. Weak argument IMO. Razbam keeps adding bits and pieces of unfinished and bugged content instead of fixing basic issues that have been there since launch. They added JDAMs, do they work properly? THey now implement the CAS page, will it be fully implemented? What hppened to JDAMS in the meantime? - Sitting there, unifinished. What about the other BASIC bugs and wrong system modeling? Come on...

This is a sure bug. One thing is "unloading", which means you push a little to reduce the AoA which in turn reduces drag, another thing is flying level while inverted. If anything, this causes more drag! To keep level while inverted you need to push the nose higher up in order to reach an AoA at which the upside-down wing can produce enough lift. Your cross section relative to the incoming air is bigger (like flying slow with high AoA), on top of that your elevators are also deflected, increasing drag further.

Wow, I'm surprised how flawed this moduel actually is!! What the hell?? :mad: I was able to fully reproduce the bug. Track attached. @Coltrogue: nice catch! F-5 engines oddities.trk