Xavven
-
Posts
472 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Xavven
-
-
On 6/9/2022 at 4:40 AM, Exorcet said:
It's not like rolling anywhere gets you into a spin. You have to very deliberately pull a violent maneuver at low speed where you have less control authority. I've only done it a couple of times, but pitch override got me out easily.
[snip]
It looks like the departure behavior might be pretty accurate, though the recovery behavior might need to be improved. I haven't been able to recover without pitch override.
The FLCS is actively worsening recovery in my testing.
1. Induce a spin by climbing at 90 degrees, pulling throttle to idle, then pulling full aft stick with some roll when the plane stalls. Optionally add full rudder in the direction of roll.
2. If the nose isn't below the horizon, hold the MPO switch and rock the nose up and down in time with its natural swing until the nose is below horizon.
3. Once nose-down, ensure idle throttle (should have been this whole time since departing controlled flight) and neutralize all control inputs.
4. For a second, the plane appears to be falling straight down in a nose-down attitude (forward flight) and all you have to do is wait to gain airspeed and recover, however the plane begins a violent nose-down summersault (with fully neutralized stick!). If you use the external F2 view, you can see the tailerons are being commanded full pitch-down even if you're already actively spinning in a pitch-down direction already, worsening the pitch rate! This is very bizarre FLCS behavior.
Screenshot taken one second before disaster (started from 40,000 ft and would not recover for the whole way down):
-
Check your flight in the mission editor to confirm the frequency, too.
Also, if you can provide a track, that helps with troubleshooting.
-
1 hour ago, Machalot said:
Does a JTAC require a TGP to be useful?
I haven't practiced this lately, but could you enter coordinates JTAC gives you into a steerpoint and then get eyes on with the HMCS?
-
2 hours ago, WobblyFlops said:
The A2G radar in the DCS Hornet is a vital primary sensor for a vast array of missions. Now, based on pilot input that isn't how it works in real life but the in game radar is incredibly useful, especially the GMT and the SEA modes. The mapping modes have some core limitations and bugs at the moment but if it gets fixed, at the current level of fidelity it will be vital in a lot of situations.
As for the Viper, the biggest things are the HSD cursor, DTOS mode, fully finished HMD, markpoints, proper bullseye support and the CRUS page.
+1
and also HTS is another conspicuously missing one, but it's been teased in a couple of recent screenshots.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Glide said:
I love all the math. I especially love it when others do the math. Those of us who have detents on our throttles will have noticed that full Mil power has gone from ~11000 pph to ~14500 pph. What remains the same, however, is that in full Mil power the jet still falls out of the sky in a turning fight. This means you need to stay in AB if you want to sustain the rate, and it shortens the time you can spend in a turning fight. If this is close to perfection, then I will be resetting my expectations and learning to lean on the throttle more.
In ACM I'm in full afterburner unless in specific circumstances:
- to avoid going over ~500 knots when already pulling max G
- in anticipation of a descending turn that I'm beginning at high speed already, which would lead to me going over 500 knots near the bottom of the turn
- to avoid GLOC if pilot is near it
- to avoid a 3/9 overshoot when in or near the control zone of the hostile aircraft
- to avoid ground collision in a descending turn close to the ground
- when defending an IR guided missile
Otherwise, instead of MIL power, consider staying in afterburner and pulling more G.
Any dogfighting experts feel free to correct me. I'm always looking for advice and improvement.
-
3
-
I agree with @Wizard_03
Also, the loadouts you have present a very strange situation indeed. You have missiles but your opponent does not? How did you get into a situation where your opponent is in your control zone in the first place, then? They should have taken a sidewinder long before that could happen. At least take those missiles off your rails if you are practicing defensive gun-only BFM.
-
1
-
-
I've noticed some strangeness with the radar and also Link16 contacts since this last patch, but I'm certainly getting BVR kills still. If you want something fixed you'll have to be very specific and provide a track. I am thinking about filing some bug reports myself.
-
There's a real risk of this just being confirmation of my expectations, so at the risk of public internet embarrassment if my mind is playing tricks, I'm going to go out on a limb and say I think the FM changes this patch are really amazing.
I seem to have more G available at higher speeds and medium altitude. Pre-patch at ~10,000 ft I'd be in the 3.5-6.0 G range to sustain airspeed, and now post-patch I'm more like 5.0-7.5 G give or take. Rate fights seem easier.
It seems much smoother at lower speeds as well. For example if the hostile reverses the turn and I pull as hard as possible around 350 knots to switch to a 1C fight, there used to be way more shaking and buffeting. Now the F-16 seems really compliant. It just slots itself right where I want it to go.
So it seems like a more competent dogfighter compared to before. What does everyone else think?
-
1
-
-
No worries. We'll have to live with what we've got. Thanks!
I think in the end it helps me decide personally whether I will put HARMs on 4 & 6, since in the next patch we will have the option to restrict or allow such a loadout. I don't care how others play DCS. But it's a treat when we get what info we can from SMEs on the ED forums.
-
@Scrape I had to slowly and carefully re-read your post a couple times along with another certain one from 9/28/2020 where you talk about the video line being capped for the inboard stations on that T-connector. Is that what you're referring to when you say it's the show stopper?
In other words, you are certain that no US vipers have a 1553 bus or video line to 4 & 6, and that is at odds therefore with whatever proof ED has and cannot share with us? If so, this would mean ED's proof is erroneous. Am I interpreting that correctly?
Well, that, or ED's allowing us to decide to allow HARMs on 4 & 6 to simulate a non-USA F-16, which is a whole other can of worms because of the whole "this is an ANG circa 2007" thing. Or maybe it's to end HARMgate because it's a tiresome hill to die on. Haha!
-
8 hours ago, Scrape said:
Man, I missed out on a interesting conversation. Too bad I wasn't here sooner lol. Ah well.
It's not too late to add your 2 cents, especially given your background and experience!
-
16 minutes ago, Ignition said:
I tried after writing the post but its impossible since the camera is fixed and you can only change the view angle so its not optimal, besides its a 3D representation of the real plane.
Noted. Thanks.
-
2 minutes ago, Ignition said:
The screenshots are taken from above of the maverick, not even at wing level.
I lined up the view so that you can only see the back edge of the fins of the maverick. In my opinion this gives you the best representation of where the exhaust would fire -- directly at the viewer. Please feel free to get a better angle if you can.
-
I don't think we can come to IRL conclusions from DCS screenshots, so take this as you will, but here are some screenshots I took while in the mission editor. As some have pointed out, apparently rockets can have plugs in the engine bells to protect them, and they get blown backwards when the rocket motor fires. Some seem to have more clearance issues than others, just eyeballing it.
HARM on station 6
That 3rd Maverick on station 7
Hydra Rockets, LAU-3 on Station 4
Not sure if these have plugs
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Roman_Actual said:
Does this mean we are getting the LAU-131?
As an aside, can we also get APKWS or do we need to wait for the DCS Viper II?
APKWS won't be added. See https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/253106-not-going-to-happen-not-accurate-for-year-apkws-on-viper/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-4487253
ED's reasoning is that it's not accurate for a 2007 viper. I have my own feeling about this but let's not derail the thread, especially since ED has already made their decision.
-
1
-
-
50 minutes ago, Gierasimov said:
I don't know, just reading stuff https://www.milstd1553.com/applications/ I thought of asking Crew Chief.
I'm a layman here so take this with a grain of salt, but I think a laser guided bomb doesn't need targeting info, it's just a dumb bomb as QuiGon said, but then it has a laser seeker on the front controlling fins on the back.
LJDAMs aka dual mode laser guided bombs do have GPS guidance and so would need targeting info (possibly over the 1553 bus?) just like a JDAM would. I have seen some LJDAMs referred to as Paveways, for example the "Paveway IV" is a dual mode LGB and that explains why "paveway" is listed in your link.
-
18 minutes ago, Dannyvandelft said:
Omg just chill. It's just a game. For fun. Relax. You want uber realism? Toggle the option to only fire 2 HARMS. Want to have your cake and eat it too? Toggle it so you can fire 4. It's THAT simple. Don't like carrying 6 Mavs "because realism"? Carry 4. People need to relax and stop trying to force what they think is right onto others. We can all now choose for ourselves.@BIGNEWY would it be possible to do a similar option like the HARMS selection switch, for drag chutes? Since there were some F-16C's that had them?
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk
You know what... you're right.
If anything, I feel bad for ED. This is how we thank them. They say you can please some of the people all of the time, and please all of the people some off the time, but you can't please all of the people all of the time. But they'd be wrong.
At first ED allowed HARMs on 4/6.
Then ED disallowed HARMs on 4/6.
Then ED gave us the option to choose whether or not to disable HARMs on 4/6.
In all cases, they got community uproar. So the truth is that, when it comes to the DCS community, you're pissing someone off no matter what you do.
I guess we get to wear that badge now. Not with pride, though.
-
7
-
-
31 minutes ago, Wizard_03 said:
I don't think so, apparently we don't need evidence anymore. You can't prove to me that we can't rivet things to the jet.
14 minutes ago, Wing said:I think accountability is healthy in this dev environment, if anything developers should appreciate some accountability.
As shown earlier in this thread, it is frustrating and confusing at this point when "documentation proof" is stated as reasoning for this gameplay change, yet there actually is no legitmate USAF Tech Order proof that 4&6 can launch. For something this technical, and maintenance related - there should blatantly be tech data on those stations and the HARMS muns capability. There is none.
With that said, for gameplay sake, glad everyone is happy with this medium.
I get where you both are coming from. I agree there needs to be evidence for ED to implement a weapon on a particular station. But let's look at an extremely recent interaction with BIGNEWY on this thread:
8 hours ago, BIGNEWY said:Unlike the HARM in which we have documents and SMEs to support carriage on 4 and 6, We have not seen such evidence for Mavericks on 4 and 6. If you have evidence please PM me.
The payload restriction feature is not going to be used to allow unrealistic loadouts, but it does give more choice for the mission designer.
thank you
It's clear ED is not going to implement Mavs of 4/6 without evidence, so ironic claims about rivet guns and "anything goes" are not an accurate read of ED's modus operandi at all. ED had previously made HARMs inoperable on 4/6 based earlier research before this recent change, and they explained why they made this recent change. That explanation is not "because whiny community members wanted it for game balance", the reasoning is in fact documents and SMEs. And finally, they are not at liberty to reveal their sources, probably because they want to keep their jobs. Does that sum it up?
-
3
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Frederf said:
Can you link that? I've never heard of any USAF F-16 capable of any weapon link on 4/6.
Are you referring to this? https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/209147-viper-mini-updates/page/3/#comments
"I am posting this here as we hope this will be a good solution for “HARMgate”. Based on further research, it comes down to a “it depends” situation. While some Viper units have had their HARM shooters wired for STA 4 and 6, other did not. This explains the conflicting SME feedback and mass-consternation and confusion."
Or are you asking for the source of their research? In which case, BIGNEWY gave you the answer, which is, they can't answer.
-
Nice straw man fallacy.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, Wing said:
Unable to cite the Tech Order title that this decision was made from. Copy.
Ya'll know I'm no ally of the ED forum mods, but seriously, BIGNEWY is probably not allowed to give you the source. Maybe they didn't get it from a T.O., maybe they got it after consulting with one or more SMEs they know to be trustworthy.
Do you really want to argue that HARMs on 4/6 should be disabled again? After ED is giving us the ability to disable them ourselves?
-
3
-
-
I don't remember where I read this, but IIRC mavericks have some kind of plug on the back that gets blown off and away by the rocket motor when launching, and this debris can hit the horizontal stab on the F-16 if fired from stations 4/6. If the HARM is cleared for 4/6 then I would guess it doesn't have such a debris issue? Don't quote me on this, I'm a layman here.
-
Bravo, ED! I'm happy to see you made the right choice with this one. I'm sure you won't please everyone with this update but that's normal. I bet you have 95% or more of the community in favor.
-
4
-
-
Just now, CybrSlydr said:
Yes, it is. It's only that way because the ANG disabled it to reduce maintenance. It's still perfectly able to do so. If in an actual conflict, the capability would be easily restored - and what do we simulate in DCS?
Still get 3 mavericks though.
Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk
Let's not debate this again. The whole community has hashed it out in the now-closed thread (closed for a good reason I imagine) here. Read to your hearts content: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/245426-4-harms-for-the-viper
-
3
-
Simple F-16 landing question. (Sorry if this has already been done to death)
in DCS: F-16C Viper
Posted · Edited by Xavven
Touchdown on the rear gear and hold the nose at something like 11°-12° until 100 kts, and do not hold the speedbrakes switch aft during the aerobrake. They are automatically retracted slightly from max to avoid hitting the runway, but the pilot holding the speedbrake switch forces them to max, increasing the chance of a strike.
Then allow the nose to drop and pull aft fully before the nose touches the ground so it touches gently.
Then hold your speedbrakes switch aft fully to further extend the speedbrakes to max and begin applying wheel brake.
If I'm not mistaken, you want to switch to full forward stickThink I got that wrong, it's full aft stick to increase down-pressure on the rear wheels which increases traction and improves braking performance and handling.Engage nosewheel steering at what, 60 kts I think?