Eagle7907

Yeah, I don't know. I'm doing my tests on an ILS going the other direction. Oh! was the weather favoring that runway? If wind is causing ATC to use other direction, ILS won't be on, I think.

I'm experimenting with strange results as well. How far away were you from runway? Nevermind, I see it now

test 2 I did another ILS, I think I know what happened. The GS wasn't being detected outside 14 miles. Here's my proof. I calculated at 6,000ft the GS would be about 20 miles out. I went there, intercepted the localizer, but no GS. Still showed below me, or so I thought. So, I started a 3 degree descent and the GS came alive right at 14 miles out. So either: 1)Viper is wrong. 2)ILS simulation is flawed. Track https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cm1tl9l1dozsas/f16ils.trk?dl=0

Doesn’t the F-16 use center tanks? Just curious since they are not showing on the ordinance options. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Okay. I guess I was much higher than I thought. I’ll revisit this. Just seemed like the distance I was away versus my altitude I can figure my slope angle, and it didn’t seem very high. Thanks for your input though. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I can only get them to respond with canopy open and engine off. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[NO BUG]Engine Feed knob not working That’s right, feed knob only affects which tanks are used for fuel supply which affects balancing. Off, I think, puts the jet into gravity feed? I’ll check. No, it just turns off the feed pumps. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I noticed it didn’t happen to me when on Caucasus with stores. I see you’re clean. You may be on to something. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

With the new release of the F-16 module, I noticed that their taxi behavior is a person driving like their late for work and attempting to pass on a one lane road. They get so close it looks like their pitot tube is almost in my engine nozzle. No where close to real life observations. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hey all, I already made a bug report, but just to prevent some wasting bombs and wondering why, the 97s (not sure 87s) will not work when releasing when the CCIP tick mark on the fall line is present. The bombs will fall to the designated area, but will fall at such a velocity, the skeets will be buried and will hardly make a kill. I advise to only release when the tick mark is not present, which means a lower altitude for release is necessary. I'm sure it will get fixed in time. Man, do they work though. I love it!

Another observation I've made involves the ILS glideslope. I noticed if you're above the slope quite a bit (more than full scale), it gives a false indication that you are below the slope. I've experienced false localizer effect IRL, but never with glideslope. Even if there is such a thing, it certainly wouldn't do it if only 2 degrees off the slope. I have a track to show such. It's long from another bug report, but it should show what I'm talking about. Also the command steering seems to be not as aggressive to get pilot to steer to maintain centered localizer. It seems to act as if there is a tolerance built in to the logic. https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyqo2n1ddwn83tz/f16cbu97cold.trk?dl=0

I've noticed the CBUs set with their burst altitude of 500 is a bit flawed with certain release parameters. I've linked a track to show what I'm talking about. As you watch, when I designated using CCIP and the tick mark showing the pipper is outside HUD FOV, the bomb falls, separates, but the skeets parachute into the ground. But..... If I release when the tick mark is not present, and the pipper is within HUD FOV, the skeets do have a split second time to deploy. I also noticed that when ripple more than 1 bomb, the burst doesn't seem to be at the same altitude. When watching, you'll see one bomb separates, and can see the skeet try to deploy, but the other is going much faster and disappears into the ground. This was all recorded from Cold Start, Caucasus map. https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyqo2n1ddwn83tz/f16cbu97cold.trk?dl=0

So I noticed changes again. Are we getting close to being completely dialed in? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

TACAN Not sure if I’m doing something wrong or not. When I select right when on the T-ILS page, it won’t turn on TACAN. It continues to say OFF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Because I also use it for track files, sometimes they are too large. It saves me time. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I had avoided this module.... I wish they would start fixing the stuff that really tells it’s still young into EA. (Even though it’s not) Small things like texture errors, incorrect systems simulation, like Harlikwin said, basic things. Still lots for them to fix that is yet to even be touched or may never be. Makes me very worried about the 15E. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I had avoided this module.... This. The main reason why I hardly fly it now. Their whole EA, specifically the developer, has the structure of a Picasso painting. Makes me wonder if it was rushed in the first place. It also makes me wonder if that’s why their fixes and implementations have been lacking. I don’t know. Just thoughts. Addendum: When I meant “lacking”, that’s more of a summarization over the whole time it’s been released. I’m not saying that they haven’t done anything. Just seems very.....unorganized. Even though they did try to organize? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ignoring warnings about pitot heat / engine anti ice etc What ever man. Take your Harvard education to good use instead of trying to insult people. Trolls will be trolling. Just like the other thread. Yeah. You know the one I’m talking about. Arguing the exact same system. You just can’t accept it’s modeled correctly. Anyways, I’m done with you. Let me know when you get those supporting facts. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ignoring warnings about pitot heat / engine anti ice etc Like I said before you’re arguing semantics. You can admit you’re wrong. It’s okay. I said “zero performance impacts”. And you know, if you’re an “expert”, exactly what I meant. The poster asked if there were any affects to engine performance. I looked to see if there were in the PERFORMANCE graphs, even went beyond to the emergency procedures, and limitations. Zero. You and only you refuted it, mind it with zero proof to back it up. I even cross referenced with another jet that is a NATOPS manual just to eliminate the possibility of maybe I wasn’t looking in the right place, JUST. FOR. YOU. Yet you still play the denial game. I’m starting to think you’re just trolling now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I understand that. I don’t like it when people just make assumptions without any solid facts. I’m not a Hornet driver, I have thousands of real airliner hours. I go by the facts, even if they don’t align with my expectations. Some have a hard time of doing such. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ignoring warnings about pitot heat / engine anti ice etc A separate engine bleed air system, internal to the engine and from a different compressor stage than the aircraft bleed air, is used for engine anti-ice. You guys need to read the book. From NATOPS F-18. For what it’s worth, this isn’t an airliner, this isn’t a Vietnam-era bird. Maybe the engine manufacture found out a way to minimize the impacts to zero. You all are looking for a there, but there isn’t anything remotely documented to support your assumptions. Zero performance impact. Period. I’m done. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ignoring warnings about pitot heat / engine anti ice etc Haha. Right. A US Navy document, written in conjunction with Boeing/McDonnell Douglas, must be wrong because you think it is. Just like global warming right? That makes sense. Unless you have factual data, like I said, you are making claims without proof. I said it once, and I’ll say it again. There are no corrections for Anti-ice ON in ANY performance chart, there is nothing detailing engine performance degradation anywhere. Unless you can find text that states it to be true from a solid, reliable source, you have no proof. I want facts, not opinions. Please...feel free to find it in the NATOPS yourself. Oh....you’ve looked too? Well. Keep finding those facts to back up your claim. Just checked F-14B NATOPS for cold weather operations, it says to reference the performance manual for appropriate takeoff distance for operating in snow/slush covered runways. It even has this note and I quote: “Because of its adverse effects on engine performance, the engine anti-icing system should be used only when icing conditions exist or are anticipated.” F-18, same section, says nothing about checking any performance charts. Gee, I wonder why? No notes about degraded performance. Hmmmmm.... Also, the functional checks on F-18 for testing the engine anti-ice do not mention any change in EGT or RPM at idle. All it says is to verify the heat annunciation comes on, if not retest at 70% RPM. The test position just verifies the INLET ICE caution illuminates. (My guess, testing the ice detector) Nothing again about degraded thrust or changing engine parameters. Bye Felicia. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Ignoring warnings about pitot heat / engine anti ice etc Oh okay. So now we are talking semantics. If there was a performance hit, it would be documented. That would not make sense to create graphs specifically detailing performance values and just leave out something that would degrade it. Especially if it’s even critical like, during takeoff? Come on man. Go get factual data. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Go read it yourself. I looked in the whole performance section of NATOPS. Looked at the Emergency procedure for INLET ICE caution. Looked at the limitations section for anything mentioning engine anti ice. Please provide factual information if you have it, otherwise there is no performance impact. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro