AndyJWest

Ditto for the South Atlantic map, particularly for Chile/Argentina. Map from Wikimedia Commons:

Karl, Friedrich and comrade...

Alternatively, take off vertically with low fuel and then refuel in the air. Though you'll want to practice AAR first - the Harrier is a pig at it due to the location of the probe. Again, I doubt this was actually done much: it would be simpler to operate from where the tanker is coming from, or at least from an LHA or proper runway further from the target area.

Yup. The maximum weight for VTO is 20,500 lb at standard temperature and pressure. If vertical takeoff has ever been used in combat, it must have been exceptional circumstances. Operationally, the Harrier is STOVL - short takeoff, vertical landing.

"in the turn, your speed increases". If you maintain the correct AoA, you will need to increase speed in the turn, but that shouldn't be marked down.

What matters is AoA. If a mission is 'marking you down' for speed, rather than AoA, it is wrong.

So, an 'AI' make-stuff-up-from-internet-scrapings-bot says that using an 'AI' make-stuff-up-from-internet-scrapings-bot to rewrite complex software it cannot possibly have any understanding of is a good idea? What a surprise.

The F-16 is dynamically unstable. The flight control system does not 'assist' flying, it makes it possible.

Yeah, Tacview is very useful, as long as you don't try to read more into it than it is capable of. And that can vary quite a bit depending on the source - some DCS modules seem to provide more data than others e.g. on things like fuel consumption. It would be nice if there was more consistency with this, though I suppose it is hardly a priority for most people. Getting back to the F-5E, are we sure that the issue isn't at least partly down to simmers being able to move their joysticks faster than would be feasible in the real aircraft?

You may be being misled by the sampling rate. I can't determine this directly from DCS .acmi files, because they are compressed, but the files from e.g. IL-2 GB are uncompressed, and have a sampling rate of 0.2 seconds. If you take the sample rate into account, along with the fact that Tacview may interpolate some output data that isn't provided directly, you need to be sceptical about peaks in G etc.

Your Tacview file shows you rapidly pulling 6.9 G at 6:00:26, and then rapidly pulling 8.5 G at 6:00:51, pushing to -2.4 G within 1 second. Given that the actual peak Gs may exceed those figures due to sampling errors, I really don't think that whatever happens afterwards can be indicative of anything much beyond DCS modelling cumulative damage. You pulled the wings off with rapid-onset high-G manoeuvres.

TacView data is sampled at too low a rate to give accurate peak G or AoA readings for a snap manoeuvre.

I had much the same thing yesterday, after the latest update. The in-cockpit stick kept flicking to the right, while I was about to land.. No duplicate control bindings. Nothing wrong with my joystick outputs, according to the Windows game controller properties dialog.

Again, I was commenting on the ballistics of bombs, since Silverdevil seemed to be suggesting that their terminal velocity didn't agree with data. As of right now, nobody seems to have come up with the necessary data for the modern bombs. If ED haven't modelled the ballistics properly in jettisoned drop tanks, it is of next to no practical significance, as far as I can see.

Large specially-designed British bombs (specifically 12,000 lb Tallboys and 20,000 lb Grand Slams) were approaching or possibly exceeding Mach 1 by the end of WW2. And humanity had exceeded the so-called 'sound barrier' long before that, with projectiles (and with the tip of a cracked whip, even earlier). There is a nice photo taken in 1877 by Ernst Mach himself of the shock wave of a supersonic bullet here. In as much as there ever was a 'sound barrier' for aircraft, it was a controllability problem, not one with the fundamental physics, which was well enough understood in the 1940s.

I didn't suggest that it does. I was pointing out that terminal velocity data for typical WW2 blunt-bodied bombs is unlikely to be applicable to later designs which were shaped to produce less drag at higher Mach numbers.

The data is for typical 1941 bombs. More modern designs will have a higher terminal velocity, given their slender shape.

There seem to be similar issues with the A-4E mod TACAN too. I suspect a recent DCS update broke something.

TACAN currently doesn't seem to work with a 'Beacon TACAN Portable TTS 3030' unit either. A mission I made some time back using this was working fine earlier, but now it doesn't seem to produce any response at all - no sound, no response on the BDHI needle, nothing.

Good luck finding the necessary publicly-released documentation for any British Harrier.

Yup, something is definitely off. Jester wouldn't select the laser code, and then wouldn't switch to GBU 16s after I'd dropped GBU 10s (as dumb bombs, since the laser wasn't working).

A hard landing can result in worst than a blown tyre. This was the result of an impact at about 1,200 ft/min, followed by a bolter. The wheel is canted over at a funny angle, and wouldn't retract. Trying to land on the carrier didn't seem a good idea, but I just about had enough fuel to reach a nice long runway...

The answer is very simple too: No, there is no chance for this, since ED requires freely-available published sources to model an aircraft and its systems, and it isn't available.

You are clearly reading far more into that statement than what it actually says.

As far as I'm aware, Windows limits a single device to 128 buttons. There are however ways to get around this by using multiple virtual 'devices'.