AndyJWest

Seems to apply to GBU 54s too, on the Harrier at least. I've not tried the remaining GBUs.

I've been trying out the C model. Looks are excellent, but I'm a little unsure about the flight modelling. I can understand it being sensitive in pitch, but it seems to actually be divergent in roll: trimmed hands off, it will fairly rapidly roll off to one side or another, to an extent that I'd have thought unacceptable in a real aircraft. Is stability augmentation working? Turning roll augmentation off via the switch seems to make no difference.

Before everyone gets totally overwhelmed by entirely undue hype, I'd strongly recommend reading what Dassault actually wrote. There is a Rafale in the new 'simulation' section of their website store, but it is for MSFS. link If they add anything from DCS to the store, it is presumably going to be the Mirage F1. They clearly aren't developing anything themselves, all they are doing is providing links to sellers of Dassault aircraft on existing sims.

Seems fine to me, though you need to use high gain (NWS HOTAS held down).

I've seen that, but frankly I'm sceptical. The wingspan is reduced by less than 2%, and the wing area well under 1%. Could easily just be placebo effect. Even in the real aircraft, trying to measure such effects would be difficult, and most likely overwhelmed by other variables.

It has been suggested that Razbam's contract pre-dates the requirement for developers to hand over code, but in any case, Razbam say that they haven't 'pulled out' - they have halted work on modules because they haven't been paid. As for what the contract actually says, it hasn't been made public, and likely never will, along with almost all the other details of this dispute.

Looks to me like they are simply too slow - heavily loaded, with a stationary ship and no wind.

Oops, missed that.

See this thread. It appears that the WW2 airstrip should be longer.

Could have been worse. Like the time Open Office refused to print anything on a Tuesday. Link

Some British carriers had hangers which weren't quite tall enough to accommodate standard F4Us with the wings folded, so the aircraft were modified to make them fit. I doubt it had much noticeable effect on performance.

Yup, like Dragon1-1 says, anything other than a simple lever (with a direct mechanical linkage) would add complexity. Remember, the basic design goes back to the late 1950s/early 1960s, with the Hawker P.1127 and Kestrel. They presumably found something that worked, and stuck with it. Given how much extra capability VSTOL adds to an aircraft, its remarkable how few changes they had to make to cockpit configuration to facilitate it. Other than the nozzle lever and STO stop, the only other 'special' control I can think of is the water switch - everything else is integrated into stick and rudder, used in the conventional sense. Simple is good.

Will a Hornet actually do 350 kt with speedbrake, gear and flaps all deployed? If they actually were. At 350 kt, you are 100 kt over maximum gear and flaps deployment speed, so they may not have come out at all. I'd check your throttle via the Windows controllers thingy, and if that doesn't show anything obvious, just carry on until it happens again. If it does, check to see what is actually happening in-cockpit, and save the track.

Was the throttle stuck, or could you move it to idle?

Would make sense, given that for catapult launch external tanks need to be either completely full or completely empty to prevent the fuel from slopping around.