howie87

I'll test when I get home. Are you using emergency afterburner and were they in those charts?

You gained 700ft in altitude in the F-5 and lost about 800ft in the MiG though...

Wait for Zen benchmarks and pricing and buy what suits you best on a cost/performance/efficiency basis. For people who don't care about pricing and just want the fastest chip I imagine Intel will still be top dog but I'm hoping Zen will restore some balance and bring prices down slightly across the board. If you can get a real 8 core Zen chip with multithreaded performance similar to a 6900k (a $1000 part) for around the $350 mark the 7700K would be a real tough sell for Intel, even with its better single threaded performance.

Aww man! I'm running a sandybridge i5 too and would love to step up to an i7. If anyone else decides to give one away let me know lol. :thumbup:

I noticed this in the supplements section. -Flighte should be flight -Utility hydraulic reservoir should be flight control hydraulic reservoir -The dark purple lines are not 'wheel brakes' but hydraulic supply lines. Noticed many other typos in the supplements section too which I will add to this thread when I get the chance.

Try setting: 3. MASTER ARM: GUNS, MSL & CAMR to 'OFF' instead. Maybe it's sending conflicting signals as the weapon release button is used for sidewinders (MSL) in this mode? Just a guess...

Sounds like the difference is probably due to installed vs uninstalled thrust then. I guess we can put the 'higher than official' figure down to a possibly uprated engine in later models too.

Page 26 of the manual: "The F-5E was powered by a more powerful General Electric J85-GE-21 engine having a 5,329 lbf(2,185 kgf) afterburner thrust" Page 77 of the manual: "The aircraft is powered by two J85-GE-21 turbojet engines equipped with afterburners. Sea level, standard day, static thrust at military (MIL) power is 3250 pounds (1475 kgf) and at maximum afterburner (MAX) power, 4650 pounds (2110 kgf)"

Reduce power to zero and stall the aircraft. While the aircraft is decending, pitch up fully and rotate the stick slightly left and right. In F2 view you will see the left aileron occasionaly teleporting between semi and fully deflected states. The right aileron curiously doesnt do this. It seems as if the rates are still out by a few decimal places somewhere for the left aileron.

GTX 770

This is fantastic. I'd love to see more CPU architecture testing though as I'm running an old i5 2500K at 4.2GHz with 16GB of 1600MHz DDR3 and am wondering what kind of performance this will give relative to Skylake.

You're quoting facts from Wikipedia about the regular F-15. First of all the Streak Eagle was stripped of all none essential avioncs and even paint and had an empty thrust to weight ratio of 1.33. It also only carried only just enough fuel for each flight and had to fly a very specific flight profile to reach that altitude in that time. Not just point 45 degrees nose up and accelerate. Thrust decreases at altitude as air density decreases. Even with a thrust to weight ratio of better than 1 at sea level, by the time you're up at 30,000ft it would be much less.

The issue isn't the max altitude you can climb to, it's how quickly it gets there. A Mirage 2000 shouldn't be able to match the Streak Eagle to 65,000ft. Especially in a 45 degree climb from sea level! Just fly the profile I outlined and you will see what I mean. IAS and Mach increase at an unrealistic rate right at the point they should be decreasing in such a steep climb.

No... It's not. The flight model is flawed.

I agree that this one seems a little rushed. I think it has a lot of potential but it doesn't have the DCS fidelity feel to me at the moment. I'm probably just going to uninstall it for a few months until it's in a more polished state.

Something seems very wrong to me at altitudes above 15 - 20,000ft. You can put the aircraft in a verticle climb at 180 knots in afterburner and it will just accelerate straight through to 60,000ft. Even a clean, low fueled F-15 can't do anything approaching this. I think (and hope) the engine model is still a work in progress. Try taking off in full burner, pulling to 45 degrees nose high at 350 knots and seeing what happens. Then try the same in the F-15, MiG-21 or Su27. At the point where they begin to lose thrust and you have to drop the nose to maintain airspeed the M2000 actually gains thrust and speeds up to Mach 1.4. Pretty sure it shouldn't be able to supercrise at Mach 1.3 with 4 missiles either.

20% fuel, Takeoff with full afterburner and reach 350 knots, pitch to 45 degrees nose high and hold attitude. True airspeed beings to increase rapidly above 20,000ft and the Mirage hits Mach 1.46 during this climb. Where airspeed should begin to bleed off the aircraft seems to take off like a rocket. For proof that something is very wrong... Streak eagle F-15 time to climb world records: 15,000m 49,213ft 1:17 20,000m 65,617ft 2:03 RAZBAM M2000 time to climb: 15,000m 49,213ft 1:47 20,000m 65,617ft 2:03

Missiles (IR) already do target heat emmissions and are therefore more likely to damage your engines and the rear of your aircraft. You can also tweak the percentage chance of random failures in the mission editor. I think they're currently based on real mean-time-before-failure (MTBF) data which are often in the range of hundreds or thousands of flying hours. If you want to simulate flying an older or less recently serviced jet, just ramp up the failure probabilites.

The failures aren't scripted... They're dynamic based upon which hit box the missile happens to damage. I think the damage model in DCS is actually pretty good for the most part. Almost every system in the A-10C can be individually damaged or degraded which is incredibly immersive (minus the unrealisticly slow way that hydraulic pressure bleeds off meaning you never have to use of the manual revision flight mode).

[REPORTED] Z-fighting with TGP in WHOT and BHOT Not sure if this is a 1.5 bug or a long standing one but most vehicles flicker and you can see aircraft through hangar walls/ceilings.

Yeah, I don't think DCS is reporting the correct vram usage at the moment. I get 100 fps and supposedly 4GB of vram usage with only a 2gb card... Something seems off to me.

Don't suppose this is coming out with an English cockpit?

The MiG-21 has TERRIBLE cockpit ergonomics though. Switching missiles is clunky and the controls are spread out all over the place. You can 'cheat' by mapping controls to your HOTAS but I like to click on things in the virtual pit. The F-5 will be much better in the regard. Plus I won't have to convert everything from metres and km/h to feet and knots in my head!

Well, I certainly wouldn't even know where to start with coding avoinics or a flight model so you get a massive well done from me! I love it when a DCS module really hits a home run and this one in particular looks to be coming along very well indeed.