bkthunder

it's abandoned and this is proven by facts. Nothing has been added nor fixed since ever.

The "owl head" should be connected to g-load. It's not an issue (although requires some effort) to look almost 180 degrees back at 1g. It's a totally different thing to do it while pulling 7g, and that's where I would also appreciate more realism. This has ramifications that change the way people fly and fight, especially in a dogfight. IRL if you have somebody on your 6, you don't fly all the time looking back and pulling off amazing high-g evasive maneuvers, as most people do in DCS. If looking back was somewhat restricted I believe we'd see more realistic engagements. About zoom, well, it's just needed unless you have a replica cockpit and a massive dome projection.

Great!

This is AWESOME! Only thing I am worried about is the laughable g-tolerance "simulation" DCS has, which makes e.g. F-16 a handicapped airframe. Can HB model their own, proper, g-tolerance for the EF-2000, so we can properly use it's energy fighting abilities?

Probably known already, been there since the beginning. Should be an easy fix.

They do not have proof that the rings stay yellow, but to make them turn red it required more work which ED are not easily willing to put in, unless basically being put to shame by "clear evidence" which, basically, doesn't exist by the standards required by ED. As I've asked before in similar disputes with ED, can ED please provide clear evidence that the yellow rings indeed do not turn red? If you guys are so sure, then surely you have the documents to prove this no? It would be simple enough to show us where you got this from and put this whole thing to rest. Thanks

So I'm using the free trial period with the SC and the F-14 (that I own). Noticed the exact same issues, couldn't figure out why the hell I was getting bolters and 1-wires. Then I noticed you have to fly the ball higher. I feel sorry for the people that paid for it, it's still very raw and I'm happy I held back. The IFLOLS being calibrated for only one aircraft type is ridiculous for a standalone module of a carrier. This is not "Super Carrier F-18"... The Forrestal from HB can't come soon enough!

Every time i try the cat view, the game CTDs. F-14A or F-14B, quick start CASE1 missions. Happens in both caucasus and PG. No track since the game crashes. i sent the log via the reporting tool.

It affect thrust as you retreat the throttle, because the nozzle stays closed instead of re-opening. Once you hit IDLE it "resets" and resumes normal scheduling. Once you hit MIL again, the nozzles close up, and stay wrongly closed until you throttle all the way back. Have a look at the diagram posted before.

Guys can I suggest that we keep the conversation to the point, which has been clearly demonstrated and explained in a multitude of ways, and is clear to ED as well. You can discuss what are the parameters, the speed, the mach, the pressure etc. but all of this has nothing to do with the bug being reported here, that is: the J85 in DCS has not one nozzle schedule (as per ED's own manual!), but TWO DIFFERENT SCHEDULES that are dependent on whether you previously hit the IDLE stop or the MIL stop. It's easy to test, so please go ahead and see for yourself. We can open a separate thread if other parameters are wrong, but this is the obvious one that's probably throwing everything else out of place (it affects EGT and fuel flow as well). There is not a single J85 in existence (and most probably no other engine wither) where the nozzle behaves in two different ways based on previous throttle position. Not a single one. It serves no function. It makes for unpredictable engine thrust > flight parameters. It is not how the J85 works. It's a bug, and big one at that. ED has to fix their existing products, especially when the FM/engines have big issues like these, that's all.

Could not have said it better.

By looking at the RPM value

Looks like they silently removed it. This + the Stennis being the wrong size. I understand they want to drive sales to the payware carrier, but this is a really stinky way of doing it. What's the "official" stance? P.S. it's funny but personally, this is the kind of stuff that has me zip my wallet completely.

Here it is. Keep in mind the problem is that nozzle shceduling changes based on if you were previously at MIL or at IDLE. Starting from IDLE (yellow line), the values are near the chart even if there are discrepancies. Once you reach MIL, the nozzle closes up (purple line) and remains closed all the way down to 80%, then resumes normal scheduling. This is the issue.

Guys let me elaborate, even if I think my post was pretty clear. I do understand and even appreciate the clicks, the rattling and even the clunky noises when moving the throttles. I think they do add to the immersion and give feedback. What I don't like is not the concept, but the execution. And this is confined to the engine sounds. The looping "musical tone" is a very good example. There should be no noticeable loops, period. Another example is the A/B sound being almost 100% on or 100% off, there is very little transition as you can hear for e.g. in the Hornet or F-16 (which IMO have it spot on). Again, the external A/B sound also has some issues in being much, much louder than the normal engine sound, so much so that in F3 view, after the aircraft has passed in full A/B, if you throttle back to MIL the sound abruptly disappears leaving almost a void. So, at least for me, I fully appreciate all the nuances and feedback, but the engine sounds could be implemented better. P.S. on the Viggen, al I hear is the "musical tone", there is almost no audible engine whine and very little feedback in that regard.

Yep, this seems to do it Still curious how it was done IRL though

Thanks! So how did F-14 pilots account for that? Would be nice to hear from @Victory205 about hints and procedures they used

Using the Case 1 instant action with the F-14A, after one carrier landing and take-off again, the system picked up a 10 degree heading drift. With the carrier BRC at 034, I had to fly 025 to be on the same heading. This seems a bit too much. I checked to see if I over-g at any point, but max g I pulled was 6.

I see... kinda weird the iconic moment of a carrier break looks nothing like it I thought they had overhauled the ATC and AI to represent carrier ops, is this maybe a bug?

Thanks, but I mean before the kiss off. The wingman is just not in the right spot, he's supposed to be echelon right at the moment I make the break, instead he is in a trail formation. I can't figure out how to get him to be in echelon right.

So i'm trying the SC thanks to the 2-week trial period. I am very puzzled by the behavior of the AI wingman: when on BRC at 800ft, hook down, instead of staying echelon right, he transitions to a kind of trail formation. All coms are correctly done. I tired different ways to approach the carrier, marshalling and all. It seems he just doesn't follow procedures and always comes really close echelon when on the downwind side, and then transitions to trail when on BRC. What am I doing wrong?

Just my opinion of course, but that same sound loop in the Viggen is the reason why I think HB sound-scape is not great. I think Viggen sounds are overall not that great, I have never been in a Viggen myself so can't say with any certainty, but it sounds very artificial and "loopy". The F-14: I'm on the side of the pilots when they say the ECS should be louder, but I understand HB tries to give more "cinematic" effect rather than trying to recreate the sound realistically. That said, the viggen loop is there and it's noticeable.

What is the state of the FM after the last update? Been out of the Tomcat loop for a while and getting back to it. It feels great as usual, but there are a few "open points" that I noticed/remember from previous versions: - F-14B can reach mach 1.5 without A/B at 25k feet (clean) - F-14A can't get past Mach 1-point-something above 30k feet - pitch moment vs airbrake position: the elevators should pitch up with a deployed speed brake to compensate, but this was removed a while ago as a stop-gap measure (so during start-up checks, if you open the speed brakes, there is no matching elevon deflection as there should be) - drag of different loadouts Thanks

I was pulling my hair out when I tried it the first time after the update, I shit you not, I couldn't trap for 12 times in a row! Provided I was pretty rusty. After a few more tires i got my skills back, but I can definitely see a difference now compared to when you could just fly in at whatever AoA/Speed/glide-path and it would trap.

Sounds and afterburner effects are just the two things where HB lags behind