bkthunder

Does Barthek's mod pass the IC check?

There isn't, I have no time to update it but if you want access to keep it alive an update it I'll gladly provide you the permissions to edit (a few here have access but none have contributed much). PM me.

The warning "boop boop" tone is very loud compared to everything else, I can't find the volume knob for it, can you help locate it? Thanks

I think it's been reported in a variety of ways, but I can't really pinpoint the specific posts. Anyways when I lock a target, the target box and all steering indications point to a non-existent target at the bottom right / left of the scan space. If I unlock and relock 2-3 or sometimes 4 times, it eventually gets a good lock. It's been happening in ACM modes but I noticed it happens also in any other radar mode.

The Hornet has a very basic damage model, you are mostly fully ok or fully damaged regardless of what hit you. E.g. a single bullet can kill both engines and you lose all power, or you lose a wing etc. It also doesn't really matter where you get hit. You can get hit by a bullet on the nose and lose a piece of the tail. I suppose they will at some point include a damage model but who knows.

The main gear rims are also too (in diameter) compared to the RL aircraft, since you're checking...

Bumping this thread since this wasn't fixed. I'd like to hear the rationale behind leaving this unresolved though, ED launched the new A-10C II and cashed in on it, so what's preventing them from fixing old errors?

Unfortunately I don't think you'll ever need to use it, the HYD system and connected damage model is incorrect, so you'll always have enough HYD pressure to operate everything (unlike in the real plane). Manual reversion is also never needed for the same reason. A windmilling engine is all you need to have full HYD pressure.

@IronMike Are you guys aware of this?

So, have they made a decision on which option to go for?

How is this even in the wishlist when it's a basic feature of the F-16??

Full fuel

Hi, with a clean F-14B and standard day (15 degrees, no wind), I can reach mach 1.5 at MIL. That is, I never had to engage the A/B, just MIL power all the way to Mach 1.5. I know the F-14B could supercruise just above Mach 1, but Mach 1.5? That's F-22-like supercruise. So I'm reporting this as a bug.

Please read this from my previous post and try to test it:

If the IAS displayed on the infobar matches the IAS on RL charts, then ED FMs are all wrong, because the infobar is not displaying IAS at all. As proven by different sources, it displays EAS, which is up to 100kts different than IAS. I would trust HB over ED here. And if you read the reddit post it says the only aircraft that gets it right is the Mirage (i.e. not an ED module). I don't think the F-14 was tested but it can be done and verified with the help of some online calculator and the Mach > IAS chart for supersonic speeds. edit: just did a quick test with the F-14. The IAS/CAS indicated on the gauge is pretty much correct for a given mach number. But here's something interesting: The TS (true speed) according to the infobar and F10 view is higher than it should be for that same Mach number. e.g. I tested at 20k feet and Mach 1.5, the TAS should be 920kt, but in the F-14 it's 933kts. The test was done in ISA conditions (15 degrees) and 0 wind, so TAS and GS are the same. With the F-15, same conditions, TAS is 920kts, which is according to the chart on the reddit post, correct.

Can the team take a look at the F-5 engine bug which is also related to nozzle scheduling?

Too bad this is not a Viper problem, but a problem in every single DCS aircraft with a HUD...

Ok so, it's been a while and unsurprisingly this bug is still affecting all modules. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but I thought having the correct speed reading on your hud is kinda important in a high-fidelity study-level sim... While I understand there are many bugs to squash, I truly find it astounding that a thing as basic and literally in your face as a speed reading is left bugged for years on end.

This has been reported as fixed but it clearly isn't.

Latest update: Version 2.7.1.64310 The bug has not been solved. F-5 engine oddities 2.trk

Well, that new GA sim got the water pretty much spot on as far as I have seen, especially the "milky" look at higher altitudes and the patches of different currents that drastically change the reflectivity. The sea is never a one continuous surface with the same color and reflectivity all over. I have probably ever seen a mirror-like reflection once or twice in over 16 years of flying. I'm talking about the sea, not rivers and small lakes which are a whole different story.

Ok, this really looks wrong though!

My 2 cents, as I regularly fly over water (as a pilot, not passenger) in real life: - The amount of reflectivity seems to me, to be mostly based on the height over the water + the amount of waves. E.g. if you look straight down, you don't see any reflections, if you look far on the horizon, you see reflections. the lower you are, the easier it is to see reflections because you are more "flat". The single most important factor to a mirror / glass look or not, is the amount of waves. I have hardly ever seen a perfect mirror, because there always currents and small waves that make a texture. That said, the reflectivity in DCS, with a calm wind, doesn't seem so terribly wrong as some of you make it out to be. - There are cases where water is like a mirror, and anyway every pilot knows that water is extremely deceptive and makes it very hard to determine your height visually. I have personally experienced this, especially when the sky is overcast with different shades of grey and bluish that merge completely with the color of the sea and waves. Disorientation over water is real.

Among other things, G-onset rate is also too slow, max negative g is 1.5g less than it should be, and the FCS "stops" pulling at about 8.5g, it seems quite random when you can reach 9 or not (either way max g should be 9.3)

Will this be fixed as part of the FM review?