bkthunder

Respectful suggestion: why don't you use the stock FC-3 afterburner effect? The A/B flame effect you had didn't look all that great, especially for the GE engine which has shock diamonds. Yours looked more like a J-79 afterburner. Would work well for the TF-30 probably, but IMO not a good representation of the GE.

Did they say it's correct? No, they didn't. Nineline said he is "sure they would have had a look at this during development. With all due respect, and in the face of copious and clear video evidence, I am equally sure they didn't. In any case, it's pointless to argue about this, just pass it to the devs and actually verify with the SMEs. If it is correct the way it is now, then it means our Lot-20 FCS is different than any other F-18 that has ever appeared on camera or known to RL pilots on here, and as an aviation nerd, it would be great to know why, from the people that know these details.

According to the RL pilot, "ailerons retain their full range of motion even with flaps down". Not sure what you did with photoshop, but according to the FCS page, there is a huge difference: Aileron up travel with flaps up: 25 degrees up Aileron up travel with flaps Half: 8 degrees up That's a difference of 17 degrees, which is pretty substantial.

What I'm wondering is why do you (and other modules also) have to use this "dirty trick" of sticky wheels in order to have a normal landing distance? Shouldn't aerodynamic drag take care of this?

Definitely not a WOW only problem, ailerons are limited also while airborne with flaps down...

Here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214849&highlight=aileron+travel I agree this may not clearly prove how the aileron movement should be modeled, and I am not saying that ED should model it based only on these videos. However, these are clear videos showing the RL behavior, so this is at least a very valid proof that something is different, and it should be investigated. Again, not asking ED to change based on this proof, but asking ED to investigate based on this proof. As Nineline said, they have SMEs. However Nineline is only supposing that SMEs had a look at this during development. Given the videos etc, I respectfully suppose that they didn't, so I am only asking that Nineline and Wags pass along this reasonable concern to the developers, in order to verify it and correct it as may be needed. We all want the highest fidelity right? Thanks P.S. the aileron displacement is taken into consideration by the FCS and presumably in the FM as well, so potentially there are performance differences.

I'd say you don't get *any* RA readout above the RA limit :lol:

First off, thanks for re-opening the thread :thumbup: The videos I posted are not showing the FCS BIT test, the pilot is cycling the control surfaces through their full range as part of before take-off checks. You can see at the beginning of this video the aircraft is already taxiing and coming to a stop at a hold-short spot before takeoff, presumably all BIT checks have already been performed by then (they are part of the before taxi checklist). Two more reasons why this is not a BIT check: 1. The sequence is clearly not that of a FCS bit check, which takes quite a bit longer and moves surfaces in a different sequence. 2. Notice also how T/O trim is already set, something that would only be done after the FCS BIT, according to the checklists and confirmed by videos available on youtube (so no reason to think they would have followed an abnormal procedure in this particular video) In this other video (the quality isn't great but watch carefully), the aircraft is about to be launched, again, not a place/moment for an FCS BIT check, the pilot is doing the controls wipeout and the aileron is moving upwards to the full extent. While the current behavior may indeed be correct, it is undeniable that we are seeing something different in these videos, something that DCS doesn't replicate for whatever reason. On top of that, it was first reported by someone who claims to be a RL F-18 pilot, so IMO this is something to look into a bit deeper / question for your SMEs.

The contrails are already showing the correct behavior. We are not asking to have the smoke follow the airflow / jetwash dynamically (that would require fluid dynamic calculations), but simply make the black jet smoke behave in the same way as white contrails ;)

More evidence of this. I honestly don't know why this is not being acknowledged. It's been reported by a number of people including real F-18 pilots. There is clear video evidence of it. I even PMd Wags about it. Total silence. There are other discrepancies with the HYD system reported here (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244490&highlight=aileron+travel), again no acknowledgment. ED asks for community support in spotting bugs, I think this is a pretty big one as it involves one or more major systems of the aircraft (hydraulics, FBW and control surfaces).

On the other hand blast damage is simulated so poorly (if at all) that you could miss a tank by 1 inch and cause no damage. It kinda evens out, however I fully agree that they should fix both the blast damage bug and make the bombs accuracy realistically a bit less accurate.

This is a general DCS problem. You should post it on the main DCS forum, however, I did post it many years ago (maybe still Flaming Cliffs times) and it hasn't been taken into consideration to this day. On the other hand, they did correct the contrails, which were affected by the same issue until maybe a couple of years ago, so I think this should be fairly easy to fix.

BUMP!

In light of yet another request for this feature (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=245815), BUMP!

The "power down" sound is not just a sound, but it the engine spooling down very quickly due to the "fast deceleration solenoid" on the real aircraft. THIS IS NOT MODELED CORRECTLY so far. I have posted about this before here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220911&highlight=solenoid and another thread about it here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=242790&highlight=solenoid As expected, no word from Razbam about it, not even sure they know this exists (it's in the NATOPS....) :(

It took many years, but finally, this quality of life improvement arrived with the last OB patch. Not going deaf anymore when dying or switching to external view is fantastic:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Probably to verify that an emergency device is in working order in case it is actually needed in an emergency?

Yeah, that's what I'm talking about.

There's a 4000+ Lbs of difference between the weight indicated by the MFCD page, and that in the rearm window, with 61% fuel. With 100% fuel, the difference is reduced to about 500 Lbs. With 0% fuel, again a discrepancy of about 4000 Lbs. EDIT: upon further investigation, it seems by adding / removing stores, the weight calculation is always off, from a few hundred pounds up to thousands of pounds. The MFCD page updates the A/C weight as stores are loaded, however, it never closely matches the weight given in the loadout window.

As part of the startup checks you "pop" open the AV cool emergency air inlet. This is modeled in game and if you check the F2 view, you can see it is open, however, there is no option for the ground crew to stow it back, so you have to fly with it open. Am I missing something or there is actually no way to put it back in, after the check? If not, this should be implemented via ground crew menu at least.

Same here, I was about to report this. Tried reparing / cleaning the install but the bug remains.

Thanks, I was afraid this thread would turn into the ususal 50 pages of opinions with no facts, but you have made a perfect post clearly stating what the situation is, you are true professionals and I hope you keep up this kind of open interaction with your customers :thumbup: Fully agree with this and other posts above, I feel uneasy about 3rd parties and the 3rd party modules I have invested in, knowing how deeply dependent you are from a notoriously unreliable "partner" such as ED (when it comes to effective communication, fixing bugs and sticking to timelines). You guys have out-done anyone else on all levels when it comes to the F-14: graphics, FM, sense of immerison, attention to detail etc. Including ED themselves. This module is a work of true passion and I think we can all feel it. I am looking forward to the day you will launch your own flight simulator, and in the mean time I hope ED has the ability and vision to proactively work with you (and other 3rd parties) to solve the issues they generate.

Just reading the forums and watching the changelogs, I can't really get a clear picture. On release it was widespread opinion (confirmed by SMEs etc) that the FM was basically spot on. Now it seems a lot of patches / changes have been made. So, as of this post, is it more realistic / imporved compared to release day or is it in a state of flux? WHy have so many changes become necessary if the FM was so good upon release? I don't fly constantly enough to notice all the minor changes when playing... Thanks.

Has the bug with FF being too high been solved?

Welcome and Buon Lavoro! I hope things start to improve :thumbup: