lunaticfringe

Would you like to be more specific according to the charts as to where acceleration is missing?

If ED thought it was breaking the AIM-120, they'd tell them to turn it off. Instead, all actual signs show ED will be adjusting the 120 as appropriate to deal with a correctly modeled ECM function, because that's how things are handled in a simulation.

Because you're not considering the engineering and material limitations of the weakest link in a gimballed radar assembly under the expectation of high loads: The gimbal. The follow-on is that you're not considering how steered arrays work to get around the limitations of gimbal directed systems- namely, the corner of the maximum train angle achieved by the antenna itself. It's dead simple to make an ESA radar point at 110 degrees on a 60's era 60 degree gimbal. You need two of those gimbal angles to do it pre-ESA. Youre also not considering the experience of aircraft that were expected to receive side facing radar, and that ultimately did not due to budgetary restrictions and performance of the system already installed- and the follow-on was recognized as not needing it after experience showed it unnecessary.

A T-39N Saberliner versus an F-14 or F/A-18? One has no weapons, whereas two do. One is stressed to, perhaps, 3G and a cruising speed of 450 knots, whereas two are stressed to 7G and can blast around at 550 knots without breaking a sweat. And one has negligible radar capability and integration to the crew to maintain good positional tracking on a visual intercept conversion, whereas the other two are solid. The Saberliner is performing a slower intercept, thus its turn circle is smaller, even at a substantially lower available G. The Hornet or Tomcat starting its conversion turn is going to be coming in hotter, and so while it can get away with more G to maintain that pure pursuit turn (nose on, looking for the bandit to be on the bandit's 3/9 at 90 degrees), it's also going to have a larger turn circle. Thus, the lateral separation has to be bigger to make it "fit". The keys of what makes a training platform pull a maneuver well are different than the tactical airframe. In certain situations of speed and altitude the F-14 or F/A-18 could perform a closer conversion, but it's of marginal utility and generally asks for trouble (the danger part), whether inadvertent (collision) or hostile intent.

For proper immersion, is everybody wearing ear plugs?

The Viggen isn't a new product.

Few things: 1. Yes, that's a D HUD. 2. Max trap being 54,000 lbs gross, in a B or D you're like 140-141 knots on the kneeboard chart with neutral DLC. 3. Look at how low on the bracket she is. 4. Notice her rate of descent (right side under the altitude) from trying to get down from a high ball- like 200+ FPM over nominal. It's all cumulatively coming together to push the jet's speed up. Better altitude coming into the groove and not having to chase, and with a nose higher in the bracket, it's on the number. It's just the amount of variance to being on speed and on-altitude that's doing it, and you can note it come down just by getting things back closer to control (drops from 147 to 145 quite rapidly, but then goes back up as the nose lowers).

It's mimicking the Hornet, because that's how ED's carrier ATC is built. You'll note signals on the deck relative to the Tomcat setting up on the catapult are missing as well- again, because it's ED's show and not HB's. The options mentioned that are included in Vaicom that don't show in the DCS comms menus/button options do exist in the comms menu logic (CLARA, and additionally things like wingman/flight pump, anchor, etc.), but for some reason aren't implemented currently by ED in the menus for all types, or at all, but still remain and function. Why they're not accessible is up to that dev team. Until such time as ED has completed all of the ATC stuff and permits third parties access to situationally override, the only option is going to be akin to what was mentioned as Reflected has done.

Put the HSD into TID Repeat and it'll show you the RIO's alignment gauge at the top, which references how far along the process the INS is.

Diagram of Penny Benjamin: 1. Load up a copy of 'Career Opportunities'. 2. Fast forward to 1:08:35. 3. Go along with whatever she does. 4. Involuntarily dig for quarters.

That's the one.

The 23 Enigma is tied to the Illuminati in the works of Robert Anton Wilson through The Illuminatus Trilogy, The Principia Discordia, and other authors. With that in mind, I am of the opinion that Jester has a strong resemblance to John Dillinger.

Charts constructed using the same interpolated data set match. Earth shattering, I know.

Because you admitted something different then versus what you're choosing not to acknowledge now, as some form of justification for placing your limited testing of the changes here. You realized what was being inferred, you just don't like it- even when you're challenged to admit to having said it, because you just want a reason to keep on going. At the end of the day, Creason and Victory have both also outlined, explicitly, what they expect to see for continued focal point discussion, which you've failed to provide since. You can't provide that, so you've migrated to call it "documentation" of the changes, but it's not. For them, it's noise. It's not helping anything, and has simply caused a bunch of nonsense. If you're not going to show validation or critique out to the standard they've requested, stash it somewhere else- for your sake as much as anyone else.

Did you understand his inference then? Because you seemed to earlier in the week. This isn't a false narrative.

When chasing 1.5 DPS and what amounts to rounding errors against the chart, that does legitimately begin to look like a push towards something other than helpfulness- especially after you (and everybody else) have been asked to stop by the two people working on the FM. Instead, you lead with "I know they said don't, but...". They have better tools to do this process, and have noted specific areas they know are at issue that you haven't. And still- you've ignored the people doing the heavy lifting after they asked, but you're uncomfortable with being ignored? That's a bit of a stretch- you have to admit. See, here's an example- you acknowledge that paper charts aren't 1:1 exact, but then raise a question by inference as to whether or not the goal of the people doing the FM work to the highest standard is what they're actually after. One of the reasons the aforementioned 3-5% variance is accepted in the professional realm against EM projections is based around the acknowledgement that the real time model is built to contend with far more than the ICAO standard day configuration- an environment that you'd be hard pressed to find a single example of taking place in actual flight test. There's slop in the charts; if the engine, wing, and drag modelling is to a higher degree of precision in the real time simulation, where it breaks from those projections may well be more accurate than the charts you're pounding to, especially in those places where the human error of the draftsman or the need to apply "graphic design for effect" has been noted.

As a quick aside, I would love/hate to hear his specific thoughts on what Thell Reed's daughter did/didn't do on a particular movie set recently.

You've already disproven your first contention by the second with the overperforming F-15C in this very conversation. Every aircraft in DCS has envelope holes; that said, the Tomcat has been closer to the numbers during it's release than pretty much every other DCS aircraft- even when it was missing nearly 1.0G in the sub-400 region. That is not to say that accuracy isn't the goal, or that the F-14 is inferior to modelling of other aircraft; it's not- it never has been; the heart of the envelope has always been at or better in proximity to the charts against any other module in DCS. That said, chasing one or two tenths of a G because of a 1.5 DPS rate difference on the absolute bleeding edge of performance isn't a chase that will pay dividends for the overwhelming majority of people who use the module for the reason you suspect- because they're going to overshoot or undershoot that value over the course of an engagement from one moment to the next. You'll recall Mugs' comment on the subject of slide rules and ass-kicking.

Bogey is the incorrect term and it should be changed at some point. You can, however, in the meantime record your own replacement term for the selection and have that work instead.

re: Cat 3. Works fine here.

GBU-10 is 3 and 6 only. 3/6 - Front 4/5 - Rear

This. GBU-24 is cleared on stations 3 and 5 only.

If you have a lock, ACM up doesn't affect anything for Sparrow or Phoenix. The LTE process goes on about its normal process with the Steering Bias and Doppler injection.

What amount of deviation are you seeing?