pr1malr8ge

Everyone, thanks for your input. Think I'm going to wait another generation of VR head sets to come out and I will see what you guys say again.. I was kind of figuring this so not a Debbie Downer.. Hense why I posted this question.. I bought the cv1 when it went on sale just well to try it.. Whilst its cool, I hardly used it, probably a grand total of 10-15 minutes in dcs and maybe an hour total.. I don't exactly want to spend $$$ on something newer only to have essentially the same issue. My vision when It was corrected started at about 20/18 L and 20/20 R. It's been roughly 12yrs since I had the procedure and my eyes are no longer 20/20.. I barely passed my FAA 2nd class med with out the "you need glasses bit". When reading the chart I had to squint ect to read it.. How ever when sitting in my car or plane or anywhere else I can read everything just fine with both eyes open and not needing to move closer.. Compared to before the surgery where I couldn't read my alarm clock with out smashing it to my face in the morning. Which is exactly how I felt when I tried DCS with the rift cv1.. With that being said... and back to you being an Optometrist, what is your feelings on getting the surgery done for a second time.. I was 25 when I had it done the first time and being 38 now. I have a feeling my next exam for either my Drivers license or faa Medical will require the use of glasses.. In the short I dread it.

I have an orriginal rift and stopped playing with it and DCS for that matter about 2 years ago. I'm looking at getting back into DCS and was considering getting a new VR head set.. Are the new gen head sets able to read fine print in the cockpits yet? I have no desire to spend the money on a new headset if I still cannot read the print, fine details in the cockpit. The last time I played dcs with the rift I had to move my head so far forward look at gauges that it made me feel like I had 20/100 vision. After living most of my life requiring glasses and finally getting lasik, I refuse to EVER feel like that again... Thanks Pr1mal

To the Op. I had the same issue you were experiencing. In my case, the resolve was to add a dead zone in both pitch and roll axis of my controller in the settings. Hopefully this resolves your problem.

The OP mentioned it in the opening post in this thread. His debate was that the one winged IAF f15 landing at high speed would have resulted in a similar tire explosions and fire as the XB did with it's high speed landing.. What the OP fails to realize is that the XB weight is exorbitantly more then the f15 at roughly the same touchdown speeds. How ever speed was not the issue in this. It was mechanical failure which just busts the OP's theory.. Ontop of that the wheels of the f15 would have been several years of development better.

He's talking about this TFhned9man8

So, In the beginning of this Thread you try to articulate a false inception that you're an engineer and you know all.. Yet there have been numerous individuals who've tossed your Garbage into the refuse truck to be disposed of. Now, you are coming back unintelligible banter to I can only assume to make yourself feel good.. So Lets pick this apart. First, The eagle Damage model in DCS.. Yes There is valid argument that an Eagle should break apart if it hits 20+gs while at full gross weight and wing tanks.. How ever... In part of the design of this aircraft it will not be able to achieve self destruction G loading.. So the real problem is not the Damage model but the fact that the sim is allowing this to happen. So the answer is not a DM but rather refining the AF's systems to resolve the issue. Second; Right now the fact that the F15 is loosing both wings yet still flying is not INHERENT to the F15. I've seen just about every AF in DCS have this happen. Third, The IAF F15 defying the laws of physics. or your poor spelling of Physicy is your lack of understanding. There is an Age old saying, anything will fly if you have enough power. This is one thing the F15 is NOT lacking in. Therefor, it was not defying, breaking any laws of Physics. Since we can take a flying brick and put it in space. Fourth, Non repetitive practice and survival. Back to third again have enough power and well it can be repeated and survived. Practical to practice or repeat. Well not intentional. Even the PIC stated had he have known the extent of damage he would have ejected. I'm sure even knowing that it is possible as having been done any PIC would still eject. Fifth, this issue is DEV solvable. But not in the manor you believe it should be. Refer to 1, the Over G issue which is what you're most pressed with is not a DM issue but a system issue. Second Every plane in DCS right now is affected by the missing wings issue. Therefor either complain about them all or stop complaining specifically about the F15. Sixth, you're last quote in whole.. Get off your Russian Bird loving High horse. This is a Simulator, there for it's not designed to make Multiplayer Fair. Again as said the DM is not the issue for the f15 but rather for all the aircraft. You're crying like a Baby because the f15 can OverG in finite conditions that do not benefit the player and get away with it. The DM isn't the resolve for that, it's the systems. Yet what's funny is we didn't see you complaining when the Su27 was pulling 20-50Gs during actual combat maneuvers against live players with positive results for the su27 player. When that was fixed you and a lot of your SU community got upset and set out to belligerently try and dispel something that isn't an issue. The more and more you respond you should probably head your own thoughts keep emotions out and play Ace-combat on a PS gamepad! :pilotfly:

Sz7dluAFXb0 500kts 500ft

Ok, I haven't tried AARF with the hornet- I'm still struggling with getting used to stabilized approaches with full flaps. anyways.. MY f15 SME gave me some advice a long time ago. When he was an IP teaching new pilots refueling the f15 he said to use just one throttle once you've gotten dialed in on speed. Not sure if this is an option with the f18 due to it's lack of response but for the f15 with it being pretty twitchy it helps.. might be worth a shot.

What he is doing is moving files to a different folder or drive and putting in a link file for the game. The game sees the file like it is actually in the folder that it's looking for but windows servers it up via a different location. as he said it can get tricky remebering where things are at https://www.howtogeek.com/howto/16226/complete-guide-to-symbolic-links-symlinks-on-windows-or-linux/

I believe the main issue is that fact that the current guidance is in the terminal phase from the moment the missile is fired and is reacting to every micro movement of the target. This explains the excessive G pulled immediately off the rail and continual G loading through it's flight path. It would also explain why Weta's tests allowed for the distance it did since it no longer is G-loaded.

LOL... I find this quote to be utterly wrong.. First lets look at the f15... It's radar is missing several features that the real jet has. When comparing it to the fc3 SU27 they are literately identical in detection range which is not the case in real life. Second, the missiles are not over-performing in any sense for either the Nato or RUS variants. Truth be told they all are under performing. They have unrealistic drag and absolutely horrible proportional and Terminal guidance. proportional guidance is plagued with no lofting, high G loading immediately off the rail, continuous over G during any and every slight maneuver the target makes. Terminal Guidance is plagued with over eating CMs, going dumb for no apparent reasons, and due to the PN stage lacking in any KE for maneuvering ability.

As with any aircraft, you need to stall the aircraft, then hold "PRO" Spin controls, -hard rudder and bank into rudder direction.- nt3dJW0dIjY

Cue Su Lovers in 3...2...1...

Wait a second here.. This thread started out as a Conspiracy theory about an IAF jet loosing a wing could not happen. The OA complained and complained about fuel would auto ignite from the exhaust then would melt the rear Stabs and a total loss would ensue. I then flushed that argument down the proverbial toilet by explaining that his theory would not hold true due to the Stabs Materials. This thread then moved way off the original topic. Since the current discussion is well argued in specific topics for that. This thread needs SHUT DOWN!

In the Real f15 according to my SME, you cannot hear AB kick in.. How ever you know for damn certain it's lit by the feel of being pressed against the seat.. Keep in mind that there will be a convergence point where you're no longer under a great enough acceleration to feel it any longer and with out looking at nozzle position, fuel flow or speed you may forget you're in AB. On a side note, since my SME flew only the f15c I cannot say you cannot hear anything, but the AB may be even less pronounced then the f15 due to the f18 having far less thrust and if you're heavy it might not even be able to be felt.

Initial thoughts by MD was that the aircraft hit something taxing.

Ok, you're right about the melting point of Aluminum. But in your argument of melting alu skin isn't applicable. The skin of the Vert/Horizontal Stabs are a Boron-composite. I.e. Boron coated tungsten filament weaved and bonded like carbon fiber. Boron has a melting point of 2100C and Tungsten is 3400c https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1973/1973%20-%201574.PDF Even if the flame front propagated past the exhaust stream which it wont due to insufficient heat to maintain the flame, it would only be able to reach the Horizontal Stabs and they will be just fine in that environment for the short duration before the fuel supply was exhausted..

This statement might be true, how ever I could have sworn I saw/read somewhere that the traps also were adjusted for aircraft which is essentially weight. OK I found what I was looking for..

I do believe that I have had over 1000kts ground speed before.. Mach 2.5 60k ft.. entirely possible to get close to 2k kts closer rate in this game. :pilotfly: I also want to point out that I've said this before, a family member who flew f15cs has said 20+NM shots with the aim120 are lethal against maneuvering targets. He stated he has shot 20nm against [i believe a q4f] drones that were evasive maneuvering and hit them. His indications and verbage pretty much said 20nm is a sweet spot with the 120s

Well, lets see here.. One person stated it's counter intuitive to have to push the nose down when going around. Then you state right afterwards that you DO want to rotate the nose up.. Your Statement is in the minds of those who have never done a go around is that you are to PULL back on the stick commanding nose up. This will get them KILLED! When you apply full throttle that action alone causes the plane to pitch up automatically. If you're also already at High AOA and slow you may even have to push the NOSE DOWN lower then before you started to GO-Around to prevent a stall even though you're at full throttle.

Well.. Loving this.. I'm just going to put my take. [conserning G/A aircraft] When you're slow and dirty on an approuch from Abeam the numbers, through base and final. You're on a constant decent. I have always controlled airspeed with the stick. How ever This is a bit of a misleading thing to say.. We are talking about +/- 2-5 knots of airspeed. The point is if you're way fast and trying to slow by just using the stick well of course you're going to climb pulling the stick back. If you're slow i.e. going to stall.. Of course you're not just going to push the stick forward with out adding power. In course adjustment you do not adjust one with out the other. How ever in fine/very fine adjustments you can adjust one with out the other.. At least I've been able to do so. Now, those saying that during a go-around in a Cessna you want to "rotate" the nose up is going to get someone KILLED! I have NEVER been in a Cessna when adding full power on a go-around or Touch-and-go and not had to push forward on the yoke. The reason for this is simple. you're inducing a-lot of prop-wash over the horizontal stabilizer coupled with a good amount of pitch up trim causing the nose to rapidly rise and an imminent stall to follow if pitch down isn't applied to the yoke.. in a LATE decision to go-around you might very well still "LAND" before you start to climb.. Trying to STOP this by raising the nose will just stall the aircraft! If you do not believe me go for a discovery flight at a local flight school.. Ask them to take you through slow flight and then into full power exit[simulated go-around]

Ohh God how I remember that.. nothing like watching the nose of the aircraft pitch up so fast and watching airspeed drop like a rock when you're at 50k...

I've argued this point and well so has the rest of the piloting world and on this forum. So I've generally always used Pitch for air speed and throttle for "Glide Scope" in my real life flying experience. I have not been fortunate enough to fly PIC of turbine aircraft in the real world. You will notice that a lot of pilots who argue pitch for altitude and throttle for speed fly rather large turbine aircraft. I have deduced that those arguing for P/Alt T/S is the worry about delayed spool-up. Which does make sense. In Piston engines trottle response is pretty close to instantaneous vs Turbines that can and do have rather long response times at/near idle. But yet I always seem to come across things like this and pilots of large turbine aircraft that say P-airspeed T-Glide scope. My cousin who flew f15cs and now flys a360s stated he uses Pitch for airspeed and throttle for glide scope.. While I cannot specifically state this as "Fact" as I've never flown large aircraft I personally think that those stating Pitch for altitude and Throttle for airspeed due to turbine spool up might not have the best stick and rudder abilities or simply just going by their mandated training from their employer. I feel that if you're needing instantaneous throttle response to stay on glide scope in VMC then they are behind on the aircraft. How ever. I also can understand why airlines and aircraft with high T/O&L speeds would want the Throttle for speed and Pitch for altitude as its primary basis due to the potential for windshere where throttle response is an absolute must to avoid a sink rate that will result in structural damage or catotropic/death.. just my humble opinion.

I don't know why but with the Hornet this song just keeps coming to mind kaFygeknae8

Well, lets give my .02... I'm looking forward for the f18 and not because I want to do what the a10 can do. It wont replace the a10 for cas. It can't. It as other have said doesn't have the loiter time nor the low altitude ops the a10 has. In simple terms You don't/shouldn't loiter in the f18 below 10k agl. which makes visual spotting well A LOT harder. So with that. I want to fly the f18 for the sead/strike purposes. Go blazing in launch harms maybe a bomb or 2 then turn around and high tail it back to the ship. If I want to sit around and look for something to blow up Ill fly the hawg.