DD_Fenrir

So rafale = sudden brutal gust of wind. Hmmm....

If you have a prototypical length stick (~900mm) with prototypical throws (displacement limits) you won't need curves. The point is that general desktop PC joysticks have tiny throws compared to real sticks - the upshot on something like the Mossie or the Spit is, without curves, you'd need something like 2-3mm of stick displacement to reach critical angle of attack (stall) where the real aircraft may be almost 10 times that amount. This makes small corrections for gunnery or formation incredibly challenging and unrealistically difficult.

Anyway, we have strayed from the point. I too would very much like to see a flyable B-25 or B-26 in DCS.

Whilst I kind of understand that argument, I also don't - cognitive dissonance is a b**ch! They did? I though all the Stuka Geshwader had converted to Fw 190As, Fs and Gs by that time. Besides, that's Eastern Front WW2, and the only aircraft from that set currently is the I-16, and even that does not fit the timescale you offer. No maps for that chronology.... It's not chronological order, it's coherence. And why? One leads to another. P-51 led to Dora led to 109 led to (illogically - should have been Dutch/Belgium/German Border) Normandy, et al, over period of 5-6 years. It was an iterative process. First part true...ish. But when you're dogfight has descended from that 25kft to the weeds or you're putting warheads on foreheads the environment starts to matter. A lot. Seeing 6 lane highways, or a modern semi-trailer or a Eastern Bloc architecture block of flats when your on the deck in a Mosquito doing a low level precision raid only exposes and reinforces the artifice of the endeavour. Then there's topography; this drives tactics, especially in air-to ground but to a limited extent, in air-to-air also. These varied from theatre to theatre even for same/similar aircraft types because of the vastly different terrain forms; desert plains to desert mountains or canyons, open sea or gentle rolling hills and valleys, hilly jungles, craggy temperate mountains or glacial fjords, all bring their positives and negatives in terms of terrain masking, camouflage or even attack profiles and adjusting your weapons delivery and ingress/egress strategies to suit was necessary to maintain a reasonable level of survivability. Given that, let us say we never got the Normandy or Channel map, but we got the Mosquito, any attempt to replicate the true to life exploits of these aircraft, their crews and most importantly their tactics is pretty heavily restricted. We ask for (and generally get) for the most accurate FM's, system modelling, damage models for our virtual aircraft; we ask (within reason) the most accurate maps that a modern PC can perform in a combat flight sim, and demand AI behave as realistically as possible; why oh why then are some people so willing to compromise on that standard when it comes to scenarios? That's a logical fallacy; firstly the desire is to replicate the scenario, not the outcome, BIG difference. Secondly, the desire is to attempt some small understanding of the challenges the real aircrews faced, to better understand the restrictions, limitations and excitement or anxiety that those dry summaries that so often filled the combat reports of the time rarely are able to invoke. Just for example. I am attempting to recreate the Amiens Prison Raid, a mission flown in the worst weather imaginable for flight and under some of the most exacting type of tactical flying; low level high speed navigation, with little more than a compass, directional gyro and stopwatch. It as closely as possible replicates the actual route flown on the Channel Map and straight away you garner a whole new appreciation for the crews on the real raid as you try a lift off in a blizzard. Then trying to find the specific turn point on a wintery map at 1,000ft when every village looks just like the next and one line of rolling hills quickly becomes another, then another, then another till you're not entirely sure whether it was the third or fourth line of hills you just crossed and wasn't the turn point coming up after the fourth...?. Then you cross the Channel trying to fly at 50ft altitude and maintain your heading, but the Directional Gyro has wandered - it needs to be checked against the compass every 15 minutes, and the compass (thanks to magnetic declination) is out by 9 - or was it 10? - degrees, north (was it or south...?), but all your map bearings are given in true.... Better not fly above 100ft whilst you mess around adjusting the compass and DG else you could alert the Luftwaffe and find a cloud of FW 190s awaiting you over Amiens.... Then approaching the French coast, was it this cluster of trees or that cluster of trees or that cluster of trees on the clifftops that's supposed to mark my turn point - if I get it wrong I'll be in range of light flak guns to the east or west of my desired track... is it that village or that village that is my next turn point? Hope I don't get my course wrong enroute and overfly a V-1 site heavily defended by light flak. Then there's picking up the tree-lined road that runs down into Amiens, trying to make sure I don't fly my wingmen, into a particularly tall poplar tree or a telephone pole. Having the Prison appear in the near distance as you crest a small rise and you feel the rising anticipation in your stomach. Get as low as the terrain and trees allow before attempting a bomb-release that requires split-second precision and that won't leave you enough time to clear the prison building if you delay for a second longer than necessary. I admired the actual crews a vast amount already. Even having flown it now a number of times I can say my respect and admiration has grown further; what they achieved in terms of airmanship is phenomenal. You might say "I could make a similar mission on any map"... and you'd be right. But having the right units and structures almost exactly where they should be with the sight lines they really had, and knowing the navigational landmarks correlate as closely to what the actual crews saw, that, is the icing on the cake that takes DCS away from the description of game or entertainment software and it becomes a true simulator.

The reason the Stuka is not a thing in DCS is because it’s massively irrelevant to the chronology of the maps or the bulk of the current plane set. Should ED or another partner choose to to model maps and aircraft types from the Barbarossa-Plan Blau time frame on the Eastern Front to compliment the I-16 then you’d be warranted. In the interim, there are many, many other types that deserve incorporation into DCS ahead of the a Stuka, some of which you have already mentioned.

Where's your struggles Vole, BVR, WVR or both? If it's getting Phoenixes to connect at range, then I suggest waiting till the range to target is 40nm or under; those 100nm shots are for lumbering, fat, dumb and happy targets that have no idea you're there and cooperating so hard they must have a death wish. For more dangerous foes make sure you're Mach 1+ at ~30K ft or higher to give your AIM-54s as much energy as you can. Don't forget to crank, and prepared to either turn back in with a follow up shot or go notch defensive if they're launching on you. Getting toward the WVR envelope (under 20nm) adopt a STT mentality; at this stage I like to go PAL and maybe get a Phoenix in at any target >10nm. Sparrows work best at under 7-8nm if the target is hot. If flanking hold that to 3-4nm. If cold, 2nm. Don't forget to use the VDI; the closer you can get the inverted T symbol to the centre of the green circle the best chance you have the missile will hit. Missiles still need lead! The less energy they are obliged to expend to generate the necessary lead to make intercept after they leave your plane, the more they'll have available at the terminal phase to manoeuvre or chase down your target; if you can do that work for them your Pk will increase. Sidewinders are good ~5nm head in if you're using Mikes, but if your chasing the target tail on 1-2nm max. SEAM lock is a great tool in the Cat - use it! Again it will provide cueing in the VDI to allow you to do work so the missile doesn't have to.

Thanks NL, it would be appreciated.

Good Q. My 2 cents; depends. By all accounts the AIM-120D is matching/exceeding the AIM-54 in capability so that in itself prompts the big question: why do we need the Cat? A big factor was Dick Cheney's hatred for Grumman (earned or otherwise). Even if a peer threat to the fleet existed one suspects he'd have found even a tenuous reason to axe the Cat. (see AIM-120D....) Cost of keeping the Turkey fleet flying was a big needle in the Navy's budget so... But. The F-14Ds were certainly hugely capable and it took a while for the Super Hornet to get the systems necessary to fully replicate them (avionics and mission capability -wise). There wasn't a budget to upgrade any further A's or B's to D standard so I suspect the A's and B's would not have lasted much longer. The B's maybe 2-5 years beyond the actual 2006 decomm; the D's could have been useful for another 5-10 years maybe? Hey, we don't have an official Super hornet in game so you can easily make the hypothetical case that the Navy weren't completely happy with the performance or capabilities of the F/A-18E or F as offered in 1995 and asked Boeing to spend a few more years sorting it out (getting pylons that didn't double as airbrakes for a start....!) and ensuring that it matched the capabilities of the F-14D, and this obliged the Navy to hold on to F-14s a bit longer than 2006.

Don't you just love it when people stop by unsolicited to tell you how you should be doing your job?

Wow. Salty!

Is what it is mate; these are the actual, prototypical fuse times as used by the RAF in WW2. Bear in mind that in reality low level bomb releases were far more likely to result in bombs skipping: 1 or even 3 seconds could not guarantee you being clear of your own bomb blast if the bombs travelled significantly after dropping. The RAF didn't come up with the 11 second fuse by plucking a number out of thin air; these timings would have come after much testing and include a safety factor to make absolutely certain you wouldn't get fragged by your own bomb detonation. As for mobile targets, this isn't where you'd use skip bombing; skip bombing was used against shipping and for static precision targets for the very reasons you outline. Mobile vehicle targets are best attacked by dive or glide bombing profiles with pull out at sufficient altitude to mitigate any danger of being caught by the blast of your own bombs.

Correct. The Mk.V has a 30 minute delay fuse. Non-adjustable. Not so. It's 30 minutes front or rear. Ultimately, if you want any other fuse time, instantaneous, 1 sec, 0.1 sec, 11 sec, etc, use any other bomb variant than the GP mk.V. Correct.

And therein lies the primary issue.

I think their next project should be DCS: TAB*. This should feature SSTWF/F** and AFDCSFF(ANNIAM)*** plus a prospective GOAETS**** implementation. *Take A Break ** Spending Time With Friends/Family ***Actually Fly DCS For Fun (And Not Necessarily In A Mirage) ****Go Outside And Enjoy The Sunshine

Precisely. It may be smaller but it physically has to move less mass… unless fapador thinks they weigh the same also…

So, let me get this straight, given all the parameters I outlined that will govern how effective an aircrafts rudder will be at Zero airspeed and power-on (which I would have thought was implicit given the nature of the manoeuvre being discussed), you choose one where the values for the various aircraft are similar and believe that disproves my theory? Furthermore, you present it as a fait accompli, as if this information is somehow a revelatory three-pointer, as if this implicitly proves that all aircraft should stall turn with equal acumen. Wow. Then you say most aerofoil profiles are from those 1920's.... THERE WERE MANY DIFFERING AEROFOIL PROFILES FROM THE '20s. IT DOES NOT MEAN ALL AIRCRAFT USE THE SAME ONE. What about the rudder surface area? I notice you pay lip-service to this aspect when it seems fairly critical given the progressive increase in fin and rudder area of various aircraft sub-variants to cope with increasing power and directional stability issues as the war progresses. What about the rudder pedal foot forces? What about the thrust to weight ratio? What about the torque? What about the yaw-roll coupling behaviour of the airframe? What about the presence of any aileron surface area in the propeller slipstream? What if your aircraft is too powerful to stall turn without torque rolling out of it under power, yet with power off there is insufficient rudder area to provide enough yaw authority at that low airspeed to perform the manoeuvre? I notice you avoid addressing this particular issue: How do you get around this particular fact - not opinion, fact. Who are these pilots you keep referencing; what are the names? What hours do they have in Mustangs/Spitfires/109s/etc. What gives their apparent criticism any legitimacy? Personally, I suspect you troll here in an attempt to discredit DCS. Your posting history is littered with bitter, accusational and tacitly insulting criticism of EDs but the arguments therein lack the knowledge, education or authority to do so in a manner that stands any actual scrutiny. I'm at a loss at what you wish to achieve; unless it's to get DCS turned into some faux arcade game version of itself.

Different aircraft are... different. That these even needs to be said seems surprising, but... Rudder authority at zero airspeed will vary based on a host of factors including: Rudder area Rudder profile Rudder mass balance profile Vertical stabiliser area Incidence of Vertical stabiliser (often off-set to compensate for torque in WW2 era fighters) Rudder position in propellor slipstream Moment arm of rudder (distance from CoG) Given the even superficial huge differences in the format of the vertical flying surfaces seen in the WW2 aircraft is it any wonder that some have better rudder authority than others? As for the example video, that's an aeroplane specifically designed for aerobatics, ergo one assumes that excellent rudder authority at low to zero airspeeds is a requirement. Not so with WW2 fighters. More often than not the overriding concern is speed; larger vertical tail surfaces causes more drag, so the designers calculate the minimum vertical tail surface area to keep the aircraft just positively stable directionally. Else you are slowing the aircraft down. As we see so often, their calculations are not quite enough to account for either (a) the increases in HP that comes with a new improved engine or (b) for the instability introduced in reduction of the vertical area behind the CoG (cutting down the rear fuselage to install bubble canopies, for example). Because of this we see after the fact retrofits of tail strakes/fins or enlarged vertical stabs and/or rudders because they had initially hoped to avoid the necessity of increasing the vertical fin area and thus reduce the effectiveness of that HP increase or form drag decrease by reintroducing more drag inducing empennage area.

Understood and an understandable desire, frankly. It would be a step towards helping the AI RIO relieve the pilot of some workload, which is his job essentially.

This, this and again this. So much of what a RIO does is abstract thought processes; prediction, estimation, extrapolation and gut instinct. Not to mention how much of that is coloured by character and experience. These aspects are some of the the most difficult - if not impossible - to program on AI. Throw multi-bandit groups of different types at varying ranges and azimuths and who do you think is going to best recognise which is the greatest threat? And to what? If you’re on a TARCAP you may want to prioritise threats against your flight; if running escort then you might want to prioritise the threat to the strike package; and if running an intercept against a formation of escorted Backfires threatening the carrier group you’ll want to make sure you’re launching on them rather than the escort. Asking the AI to manage all that nuanced combat decision making is expecting too much.

Yeah it’s the shift of both the CoG and the CoP - even when you manually sweep the wings aft at lower air speeds it gets nose heavy as the wings go aft. It depends on where the CoP is in relation to the CoG; CoG must move aft as the mass of the wings is transferring aft. CoP must also move aft but you get a nett reduction of the total lift generated by the wings (wings forward = more lift, wings aft = less lift). If the CoG is forward of the CoP, wings lifting moment around the CoG must increase to justify the requirement to increase in downward force provided by the horizontal tail is to maintain nose attitude, meaning the centre of Pressure must be travelling a greater amount then the CoG. If the CoG is aft of the CoP, wings lifting moment around the CoG must decrease, meaning the centre of Pressure must be travelling a greater amount then the CoG.

It’s cog, not Mach tuck. The wings are fully aft a good ways before you hit the number. Glove vanes were there to bring a measure of instability to help maintain the aircrafts pitch rate at supersonic airspeeds.

Libya complained to the UN. In 1989, what seems to have occurred is an unfortunate combination of RoE, AWG-9 limitations and a crew egged up for a fight. At that time the F-14 crews RoE was if they were committed to an intercept they would make an offset, i.e. turn away from the intercept course - if the bandit adjusted to correct for their own intercept course you make a 2nd offset. If the bandit’s correct their vector then you offset for a 3rd and final time and the bandit commits again then he’s fair game, kill him. This seems to be in response to the 81 shoot down and the increased forward quarter missile threat of the eastern bloc types that were the likely opposition of the time. In the lead RIOs defence he made 5 offsets before committing weapons, with him reporting on each occasion the banditS jinking back in intercept. It’s just that the apparent recommit behaviour of the MiG-23 flight was an illusion, a graphical presentation anomaly of the AWG-9. Even the E-2 controller confirmed he could not corroborate the behaviour of the MiGs that the lead RIO was so sure he observed. Seems the MiGs never even turned on their own radars - again from the E-2 controller. The incident is held in some disregard by the USN and is apparently not looked upon favourably by Topgun. A good example of what not to do.

Question 1: When? The development of the DCS: Tomcat module is still in progress and Heatblur are still fine tuning some of the performance parameters. Ergo, some legacy patches may have given artificially improved performance. Question 2: What atmospheric pressure? Map and weather will define performance as air density significantly effects thrust as greater pressure = greater air density = more oxygen molecules to burn in a given cubic measure of air, whatever the altitude.