lunaticfringe

Catching up on this a bit, having done the tests in the cockpit (with the DCS information bar showing via CTRL-Y), the highest I've been able to get before catastrophic failure is 16.2 G, with everything else happening in the 14 range. The one interesting item of disparity to me at the start is that mine were clean, and presumably at lower weight to be absolutely guaranteed to hit the necessary G values for breaking the plane, whereas your exceedingly high touches were carrying no less than bags, and in the 18 and 21 runs Sparrows and Sidewinders. With the back end issues concerning stores drag, I'd be remiss if I didn't note there may be more at play than simply the raw F-14 model- especially when it works according to their state intent when there's nothing hanging off of it. cauldron, you seem to be taken a bit aghast at something that wasn't intended; to be sure, you've accused fat of doing the same thing that you did to Mike- not reading his post. He made it clear that his intention was to state that there wasn't any prohibition in the aircraft to restrict the flight control system from delivering 25 G, and that it would do so on command- not that it wouldn't rip the jet apart by doing so, and that 13 is the point where they hold to things getting dicey. To that you said they should consult with aero engineers over the original statement, not his clarification. Similarly, this is a peculiar series of events to note, having taken stock of the complaints herein about the wing break point- I'm not certain where you're mad that he's stating this is the first of its kind, which to be honest I thought was your original point. So yeah- you have been critical of people. Nobody is giving you lip, and if you slow down a touch, there's not actually a major difference of opinion here. So relax. As it were, unstable airplanes aren't the point where an airframe could be fundamentally torn apart by onset rates. The aforementioned Eagles tore themselves all to hell, and only had OWS as a polite suggestion. Onset rate could absolutely be delivered faster than the system would deliver the tones depending on the circumstances, and bring about a catastrophic failure or a permanent down airplane. Comparatively, F-14s weren't just bench tested to 13 G, but were considered in flight test to be such and flown accordingly. In other conversations it has been noted that there are a number of events taking them operationally into the mid to high 12s, inspected, and put back into service finding no issues. FBW and software limitations were created because airplanes were getting to the point they could rip themselves apart all on their own- they didn't become dangerous and limited from progressing into dynamic instability; the ability to make an airplane unstable was a byproduct of the technology, not the onus.

Compare/contrast: versus Why would someone who is "not really interested in the module" search for a "long time" for the materials needed to create it? I'd hope he does, given you don't.

Something to keep in mind about the complaints about HB having scanned the jet after years of being in a museum: at least in the US, museums with accessible cockpits and good finances tend to exercise the opportunity using contacts in various DoD firms to increase the qualitative level of an aircraft on display via decommissioned depot hardware, and at a bare minimum, do what they can to keep hardware in the condition received. That is to say, they don't get worse- those with the support tend to get better. Complete cockpit birds are especially protected and maintained as best as they can. So to be mad that a line jet which was delivered, demilled, and has been kept in as controlled condition as possible is dirty and worn- you're missing the point, because that's the condition it was in during service. And having walked through Oceana squadron hangars at the top of sequester, it ain't that far off even now.

No, you just want someone else to make the mod, and "help" them with the smallest modicum of assistance you can offer, outside of good thoughts and hope. This is a mod. There's no eventual pathway to recompense for time or expense for those who work on it. While gratitude is nice, provision of source material is a more convincing argument that the effort will be appreciated. I'd expect those praying for a Fitter could rub together a couple bucks to buy one or two of those documents, and work together to get the person doing the actual work the entire set collectively. Seriously- even you admit the guy is behind the 8 ball on direct modding experience. The least someone doing the prodding can do is help alleviate excess effort and stress on his part in some other fashion. And what is there at no charge amounts to less than 5% of the material required to develop a module, and perhaps a quarter of what is necessary to make a quality mod.

In a more delicate fashion: Don't anybody tell him!

ive been searching for a long time and cant find free ones. ~$150 for roughly a dozen technical publications? I've spent three times that making single publications available for developers based on rarity. Most of these sorts of documents from the Soviet era have print runs of one to two thousand copies, worldwide; that puts them more in line with antiquities and rare books. Then you're dealing with the expense of finding contacts, people who will sell, and people who will export. All of this costs for this information. And this is an incredibly cheap starting investment to have a solid foundation for even a mod. Pony up.

That you, Kitty?

It's the boat. Launch and it will square up.

One begins to wonder if its connected to ED's current inertia fixing for aircraft sliding on the deck. Take a jet off the boat to shore, and it goes nuts. Take a jet off the boat on a circuit and go back, and it's still inordinately heavy. Take a jet off the shore out to the boat and it performs properly in the groove. Strange.

The fireball is shown on the MiG-21F-13 because it was about as structurally rigid under fire as a roll of aluminum foil and was pressed for gas as soon as it passed the outer marker, and those tanks weren't self-dealing. The higher the fuel state, the lower the probability of detonation because there's less air in the internal tanks. Again- it's situational. Without data regarding the circumstances its anecdotal. If you have actual test data showing consistent launch ranges, speeds, and resulting end speeds at the point of detonation/impact, show them. I'd be interested to see them.

Your contention is specifically anecdotal, especially where it concerns what goes into the damage calculation. You listed a pair of missiles that apparently have a hard time taking it out 1:1 versus a third you say has high reliability at it. Just based on warhead weight one can see an immediate difference and a basic reason for such a dynamic. That said, one would certainly hope there are more dynamics at play than raw warhead. Type of warhead, kinetic energy at the time of detonation or impact, distance of detonation proximity- all of these aspects (and more) should be factored, as should the size of the aircraft itself; oft mentioned is 160664- which had over four thousand pounds of T-34C Mentor, fuel, and deceased crew wrapped around its starboard wing in a midair and was able to RTB, was repaired, and returned to service. These aren't toys, and can take damage. Make a real case in test- and don't call BS just because she doesn't simply detonate- that's a fuel state function. Cascading failures are more common than not when dealing with larger aircraft.

Because of the nature of some of these CTDs, I'd suggest if it is reoccurring to record your play (so that HB can see the exact sequence of events and absolute location) and provide that with a copy of the mission rather than the track if it crashes without a log. The object CTD was a pain in the neck until they got the mission, and then required very particular sequence to trigger. Some of the CTDs are dead easy to solve, whereas some are extraordinarily situational and often cause by specific things the player does. That's not saying the player is doing the wrong thing, but instead that a combination of player settings and actions trigger the event. If they can nail down the exact sequence, they can fix the issue.

Tacview interpolates its presentation between data points collected anywhere from ten times a second, to once every second or so, depending on the situation. The polling rate used to be higher, but the data collection appears to have been lessened as the back end techniques have developed. It can actually work at even less polling numbers (every few seconds), but that's not the case here. That said, because the polling is relatively infrequent, specific orientation and performance can be off. Its one thing to take three specific points in three dimensions and calculate the overall speed over time and applied G between pairs of points, and be accurate with the numbers. Its wholly another to be absolute in precision with such limited information, and it's not- you can see it from time to time with severe rolling events when the engine "guesses" you went the opposite direction, making the aircraft look like a pinwheel because you invoked a snap roll. But that's not what Tacview needs to be useful. ACM is about trends over time composed of distance and angular relationships, not absolute precision found between them.

Anyone who can count higher than the required "two Mississippi" to preclude a TF30 asthma attack.

MMJoy is the easiest solution since you simply pick the right controller, load the firmware, and start configuring in minutes. It does require the ATMega32u4 at 5 volts, Pro Micro or no. Pro Micros are the best for ease of use and installation in small locations. Leonardo may be more useful given the increased number of available pins to use for axes and button/switch matrix purposes, but it's a cost tradeoff.

R-77 warhead: 50 lbs AIM-120A/B warhead: 50 lbs AIM-120C/D warhead: 40 lbs R-27 warhead: 86 lbs *shrug*

Reduced to a maximum of 140 degrees per patch notes. See Updates and Changes sticky in this forum channel.

Bravo India November Golf Oscar.

This is an AI issue on the DCS side. The problem stems from the AI FM and flow rate not conforming anywhere remotely close to a player aircraft, and thus the AI has to use higher thrust to keep up with you, therefore spending gas much faster than you.

Sounds like not contributing was why you got your Discord ticket punched, yo.

Stickied post, top of this forum. Looks like ED forgot to add the notes.

There is a purity in its simplicity of what is presented head's up that is in many ways more effective than what came later, insofar as the process of doing the jet's actual job (ie, killing). The directness and clarity in the limited cues focuses the pilot on the task at hand. And to be honest, I find the three dimensional picture of an intercept as presented on the VDI plus TDI repeater more effective for prosecution than any MFD/HUD combination, in no small part because they're immediately adjacent. As to the difference between TiR and VR, I've never had a problem seeing in the jet with the former, and to be honest suspect that it's as much of a user settings issue as the complaints about the jet lacking feedback. It's all there- you just have to tailor your setup accordingly.

Nice quickdraw, razo+r.

That's a Sparrowhawk with the camera shoved right up next to the glass. You can see the collimating glass frame on the sides.

When you deleted the saved games folder contents, did you do so for the Open Beta branch, or just the standard DCS saved games folder?