lunaticfringe

It's absolutely an option, as it exists in the menu; it is only a solution that you do not like, because of your own specific use case versus the limitations that HB is forced to work within based on the options available in DCS. You ask for something to be made available, which it is. There's no additional option for further delineation. It is what it is. Honestly, running this with varying frames between mid 40s to locked 60 FPS on a Haswell mobile i7 and a GTX 860M- with high textures, I'd have to suggest looking at the rendering options you have selected. Everything comes with a cost- and as you say, not everyone runs a high end machine.

Sounds like a job for popping the shaders folders.

If you're looking for speed while flying formation, whether with a flight lead or a tanker, or during landing once configured, there are more fundamental issues at play than a lack of knots on the HUD. Just sayin'.

Description and schedule attached. It can be managed using the DLC thumbwheel when within the operating range, or permitted to run its automatic scheduling.

A question for clarity: are they dropping fully deployed landing flaps, or partial deployment in their maneuvering mode?

The one possible option for 16 GB users (such as myself) or lower is to make certain that Windows is not managing virtual memory, but instead working a locked virtual memory value. I personally run 32 GB custom size (32768 MB min/max under the VM settings menu) and am able to connect with MP servers 95+% of the time without issue, and did so during F-14B group testing.

These are the only texture errors in my log since installing the mod, and are from a current run showing the same issue. 2018-11-19 19:38:39.745 ERROR_ONCE DX11BACKEND: texture 'p-51d_cpt_glass_norm' not found. Asked from 'NGMODEL' 2018-11-19 19:38:44.984 ERROR_ONCE DX11BACKEND: texture 'uvmapsfueltank_dft150_dft300_spec' not found. Asked from 'NGMODEL'

Ask yourself a question: What doesn't a USN/USMC F-5E/F/N do that a B-52H, or any other configuration of the F-5, does? Then ask yourself the reciprocal question: What does the USN/USMC F-5E/F/N do that a B-52H, or any other configuration of the F-5, don't do? It spends its days doing something very specific- and its software loads are going to be optimized for that.

No, you don't. You get a piece of equipment that has been programmed to operate in a specific environment, for a very specific purpose, and the documents they worked from represent that specific nature. So as I've said previously- document later, or document a different implementation. But move beyond saying that the SMEs that authored the manuals Belsimtek worked from were wrong, because they aren't.

I'll pay $200 for a map that is no less wide than Ystnes to Arkhangelsk, and goes at least 500 nautical miles north of the latter.

Might help if you knew how NATOPS are written. Would make your argument look ridiculous, but it would keep you from continuing to make it. "Squadrons" don't write NATOPS; program offices do. Offices that deal directly with the manufacturers and contractors who are designing hardware to Navy specification, and specify updated requirements to those suppliers as they come to pass. The authoring is coordinated with test and acceptance crews assigned to those offices who confer with those writing the technical publications that the details are exact, with multiple sets of eyes confirming the material every step of the way. Your belief that these documents are authored by end users is likely only predicated on the understanding that updates can be suggested from the Fleet up. Fleet-side corrections are generally through Safety Officers for operational issues- not just some LT that got told to write up the handling of a section. Corrections, which are intended to be distributed to all commands that deal with a given type as quickly as possible, every individual in the chain- from the Captain in the respective office at NAVAIR, to the authors, the test pilots, and the fleet-side representatives who are part of the annual board review of the document, sign off. Even in the event of a safety of flight update, most of that chain is still reviewing the material- and in most instances, testing it directly, prior to sign off and release to the respective units. As such, when you state as a matter of opinion that the end user "squadrons" who are writing these documents are wrong, you're not simply incorrect on the basis of their production, but are stating that a long series of SMEs- every one of them who has direct professional experience with the hardware, software, and the operational requirements in question for the material they're responsible for, are full of it, because of uncorroborated opinion. Following your recent Dunning-Kruger episode over the functionality of the F/A-18C's RWR having changed at least twice over its lifetime, I wouldn't exactly suggest that is a position of strength from which to operate. There is a world of difference between knowing how the radar equation works, how received power is interpreted by an analog system for which you have documentation or a video, and how a piece of software-driven hardware- which is coded for a specific role, and an operational environment you may or may not be considering (and may ultimately be the underlying cause for argument in this specific case), works. Until you can provide later dated documentation for the software load in the F-5N versus that from the material Belsimtek worked from, you're demands are unsubstantiated. Doesn't matter how you feel on the matter- those feelings aren't supported by fact, but instead how you think the system should work as represented in this particular application of the type. And that just isn't enough to be making demands without material support more substantial than a YouTube clip here, or an unrelated picture there.

Unless it were permitted to be a Su-25 analogue in the free release, thereby extending a limited performance carrier aircraft at no charge for interested players. And I'll be perfectly honest- for Western players, especially those interested in Vietnam to late 70's era aircraft such as those that will be forthcoming in the not so immediate future (MiG-19, F-4E, etc.), that's a big, BIG draw for those on the fence to see the legitimacy of what is on offer. Personally, I know a number of people whom I shared this announcement with this afternoon who will be installing DCS for the first time specifically to roll in the Skyhawk. I'd be hard pressed, were I ED, if this release hits on all the points for what an ESM-based mod can do, thereby proving this team has what it takes going forward, making a one-time offer for a not insignificant financial investment to pique their interest, and give them the tools required to get it over the ASM hump with the SDK.

First thought: Did you happen to read that particular manual? It has nothing on the APG-69, the integration of the MFD, or the HSD/GPS. Purely the AN/APQ-153. It's also a substantial part of the materials Belsim already had when they originally developed the F-5E, including the source that certain individuals swore up and down is an incorrect description of the operation of the ALR-87. You're going to have to work a fair bit harder to go down this particular rabbit hole. It'd be nice to see happen, but what you have presented doesn't help the case.

That's not what the CADC does on the airplane in question. It doesn't care about VNO, and forward sweep's limitation is applied load, not speed. You would stop accelerating before the wing assembly was under threat of failure. But what will do it is excessive high loading- at least long term, hence the reprogramming. Meanwhile, the sweep mechanism transitions in excess of 7 degrees per second even under maximum load, while normally completing it in just over three seconds, thus responsiveness is just fine. I'm not certain it's particularly useful comparing an airplane designed with automatic sweep functionality added on against one designed with it from the start with full automation and a higher designed load factor. Besides- it slows down just fine in aft sweep, and transitioning to automatic after a big opening angles grab with the pitch rate in the swept configuration picked a lot of grapes off the vine- whether the F-14 actually entered fast or not.

Then go through the motions. And still waiting on the raw audio data related to the -87.

Easily documented and proven. Generate a track accordingly.

While all of that is true, there's one big factor that is consistently forgotten about the F-14 and ridiculous G numbers: as Mach increases, the Tomcat's max CL decreases as a function of the wing sweep. This has been mentioned before, as the original program didn't start the transition until after 0.8 to maintain CL, but was swapped for the Ps schedule it had for all but the first block. That bit of CADC code changes the level of danger immensely. In the regime you're really going to test the load capability (around M 0.7 to 0.95), the sweep schedule is going to make it more challenging than most any other aircraft to get a number higher than 10 or so on the gauge, because the rate of bleed and required control authority versus available Ps is so high. And as the Mach number gets higher for a given equivalent air speed (the ultimate determinant of how much G you can put on the plane) as altitude increases, the availability of big loads goes down even more as the sweep occurs earlier. If she can survive multiple bumps of her ultimate load, that's fine. But unless you've really goofed up to begin with, it's a number you're going to be hard pressed to see.

A number not being disclosed doesn't mean it's arbitrary. Simply means it's not currently up for discussion. We'll know in due course.

Hoser went 12 at ACEVAL. Music went 10.2 to evade the remains of the Fitter he blew up.

Bingo. Put the TDC at the correct range and then change the elevation.

No.

No.

No problem, grape.

The first one to get a look has an advantage, and there is plenty to be done at 60 miles. What you do at 60 leads to where you are at 40, and what you are able to maintain at 40 is what you have a minute later when you're in initial shot parameters. Sitting around following a tight controller directive is nowhere close to having an actual track file building as an aid. Just what he needs for a supposed pre-planned set of DLO's: PHASE II - LONG RANGE INTERCEPT, DAY 2 1. Nothing 2. Can 3. Be 4. Done 5. At 6. 60 7. Miles You're arguing with people that there's nothing to do at range and first look, after having told OP that already. But now you're falling back on the claim that this was all a lark to start conversation, yet you're unable to hold it with anyone else when challenged? C'mon, now- don't get mad that you made a faulty declaration and are questioned on it, because your continual response is the same. If you had more to offer, you already would have. And if it was anything that was actually constructive as to what can in fact be done at range, you'd be forced to agree with the contentions made in opposition to your original comment.