bkthunder

Love how they changed the title to "how do I use Mk-20?". Lol, I know perfectly well how to use them, the problem is they are bugged/not working as intended/missing features. @Rubberduck85 thanks for the info!

Just dropped 4 (one by one) Mk-20s from a Hornet on 4 different BTRs. All bombs bursted and hit precisely on target, but none of them dealt ANY damage (verified by checking the health bar of the units). Burst height of 300 or 500 made no difference. Where's the catch?

But it happens exclusively with the F-15, every other module is ok...

I guess this was not supposed to be moved to the "resolved bugs" section, since it obviously isn't resolved (along with a number of other bug reports...), hence the comments :music_whistling:

When spawning in the F-15 the stick is pulled aft, resulting in a pitch up. Moving the stick recenters it.

as per the title, the axis is red-out in the controls panel, and it doesn't work. The MiG-29 A and G works as intended

the tailplanes used to move up/down with the cyclic fwd/aft movement. Now they don't move at all.

When the throttle is advanced past the idle stop, it's not possible to reduce it again even with the IDLE STOP BUTTON pressed in, making it impossible to stop the engine.

Well, same thing for me just now. Played yesterday (literally 8-10 hours ago), worked flawlessly. Today I turn it on and bam, frozen for a while. No windows update was installed AFAIK...

Yes

There was a thread, years ago, where discussion about TIT temperature and engine thrust went deep. Documents were posted, a RL crew chief was banned, thread deleted I believe. I can sum it up to this: ED used the values of an uninstalled engine. When the engine is installed in the aircraft, parameters change a bit, in this case the max TIT of the installed TF-34 are higher. How that reflects on total thrust was estimated to be a difference of a few single digit %. Anyhow, all those who have RL A-10 experience have reported some discrepancies regarding engine thrust. About maneuverability, IMO this has a lot to do with us having short sticks that are not very precise. I can hold the A-10 in the chop-tone and keep turning if I am *very* precise with the stick, but it's hard. A stick extention might help.

Apparently Pylons in DCS are totally not taken into account as far as drag and weight...:music_whistling: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=247552

Thanks for the insight on the RPM thing, it's interesting / nice to know how things work on a sim level.

Understand this is an -albeit non-optimal - solution to carrier sliding, but the problem exists on ground based moduels as well: F-15, Mirage, F-5, F-86 etc. Really, the only one that behaves correctly is the MiG-29.

Not talkign abotu pitching and rolling deck, I am talking about an empty airplane on a flat ramp. Fully aware that you need to throttle up to start moving (although there are many airplanes that happily start moving at idle). This is all very intersting and useful info, can you please report it in a separate thread? It's a big thing if we're getting values from a different engine than what is installed... Also there are many posts about the fast deceleration solenoid, that have gone completely ignored.

Guys, can we continue here in the general DCS forum? This seems more of a general issue https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4021499#post4021499

Following up on the discussion started in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=248457, I believe this is a more general DCS discussion so here it goes: Why do we need "sticky tires" in DCS? Most airplanes need unrealistically high amounts of thrust to start rolling (and keep rolling) on the ground in DCS, unlike what happens in real life where little thrust is needed to start rolling, and then the airplane will keep going at idle. Many airplanes such as the F-16, F-14 and Harrier IRL start rolling forward on their own at idle, F-14s would even shut down one engine when lightly loaded, in order not to gain too much speed during taxi! And then again, the DCS MiG-29 doesn't have these problems, you can start moving with very little thrust and it will just keep rolling at idle for a very long time, as expected. It doesn't slide around with wind, the landing roll is perfectly reasonable. It's realistic! So my question is, why don't we see the same (IMO excellent) ground interaction modelled in the MiG-29, on all other modules? Was some new tech developed for the MiG-29 that is being implemented/tested only there? Will these improvements become available for other modules? Thanks

Fully agree. I find many of the points made by Nineline understandable, and really happy to see that he responded openly. However when he says that DCS has no competitors because they are doing "things that no one else is doing', well... sorry but you are not doing things that no one else has done. In fact, if you allowed comparison with other sims, you'd see you are doing far less in many respects, than what other sims are doing and have been doing for the past 20 years (while also doing more in other areas!). I am the first one to (silently) appreciate what we have today, but let's not be blind, there are vast areas of the core game that are lacking (A.I., ATC, not even talking about a dynamic campaign yet..),this is my personal gripe with DCS and I believe this is what causes the most discontent. I'd rather see you stop module developments altogether and fix weapons and AI, improve performance etc. Another point that always confuses me is when they say ED needs "cold hard facts", and yet many things (e.g. missiles) are very far from any cold hard facts as well as from some common sense. So we have a mix of: fully developed features, missing features because there are not enough "cold hard facts", and over-simplified or outright wrong representations of systems/features. How so, if you only model things after cold hard facts? In my opinion, the more sensible approach would be to either not model what you don't know, or to model it in a way that is believable according to common sense and available information, rather than choosing to have a nerfed system that is neither accurate nor playable. And by the way, this is what you are already doing e.g. with the Harpoon, Harm, TGP etc. Why not do the same "incremental implementation" with ATC, missiles etc? What is the advantage of having e.g. an A-A missile that is poorly simulated and behaves differently than what is commonly seen in other simulators and thought-of by the vast majority of your customers, as opposed to having it modelled - albeit not accurately - in a way that is in line with what most people think it should be? In either case, you have an unrealistic reproduction, but one of them meets popular belief and logic, the other goes against it and causes discontent. While you look for the perfect info, why not have something that pleases your customers and enhances gameplay? Anyways, you know we love DCS and that's why we spend so much time writing and complaining about it.

The options are: 1. They don't read the forums 2. They read and choose to do nothing about it 3. The internal communication is really that bad, that Decoy thinks many unresolved bugs are actually resolved. I'm betting on number 1 and 2.

The MiG-29 doesn't have such problem at all, so I think the tools to model it properly are there. The matter with sliding on the deck could be the real issue here (i.e. the MiG-29 is not carrier capable so who cares if it slides...). ED better do something about it, considering they are advertising the carrier dlc as the be-all, end-all of carrier simulations. Anyway few patches ago the Harrier was behaving better in this regard, before Razbam changed the thrust tables for the engine.

No loadout, 100% fuel, nozzles straight back (not at 10º as prescribed by Natops). The Harrier won't start moving forward until ~65% RPM. This is for an aircraft that, according to Natops, shouldn't even be started up unless it has chocks or is tied down, because it could roll forward at idle. Natops also suggests deflecting the nozzles 10º to reduce forward thrust at idle, and that rotating the nozzles back and forth should be enough to taxi on the ground. I understand the issue with "sticky tires" in DCS, but the Harrier case is really extreme.

Bumping this thread (and reporting Harrier bugs in general) is a bit like playing the lottery, because why not? Once in a while, you put 5$ in and who knows, maybe this time you get lucky! On that note, BUMP! This is a bug and it is not solved.

FM should always be the number 1 priority IMO, glad to see you are focusing on it :thumbup:

Yeah but I'm not talking about stores drag, but pylon drag. On the F-18 for example, you can remove the pylons to have clean wings (like the Blue Angels), but having them on or not doesn't currently make a difference in weight or drag. Different weapons are carried on pylons that are sometimes quite draggy, so jettisoning the whole rack as opposed to jettisoning just the weapons should result in a lighter and slicker airplane. Conversely, some pylons like the ones used by the F-14 in the tunnel, can actually reduce drag (e.g. 2 AIM-54 mounted on the wings have a higher drag than if they were mounted in the tunnel). So pylon drag/weight is kind of important, hence the thread and my initial question.

"Two beeps of increasing pitch" sounds like the RWR (although he said the volumes were all muted)