p1t1o

Relevant ancient flight sim lore https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shoot-me-kangaroo-down-sport/

HARMs optimised to destroy antennae with blast/frag, so light armour is quite effective, however "mission kill" should be possible with a good close hit on most radars although phased-arrays should be more resilient.

FREE GRAPHICS ENHANCEMENT FOR DCS!! Spend hours leafing through ancient screenshots from Flanker, Falcon 3.0+4.0, Tornado et al. Then go back to DCS with your normal settings. Eyes melt with graphical splendour!!

Not seriously seriously, but seriously? Yeah! But not like, y'know, seriously. I dunno, for all I know it might take 1 dev 6 minutes to action. Click-click, BANG! Done! Im not like, begging them to delay the next module and divert all possible efforts to writing an entire standalone DCS engine just to satisfy my whims... But heck yeah Im serious! (But again, not serious-serious) I cant imagine that it wouldnt! No textures, no bump-mapping, no reflections, no volumetric clouds, no NOTHING!! (Might actually be useful for things like testing....things...I dunno...)

I dont know anything about coding graphics engines, but *just in case* its a matter of "switching things off" (Im reducing a ton of work into a single phrase arent I) - is it possible to introduce a "Legacy Graphics mode" a-la Flanker 1.0 just for nostalgic purposes? For us long-time fans and to show the roots of where DCS came from and how far it has come? For the uninitiated (or under 35's) Flanker 1.0 was the DCS of 1995 and was even then, exceptionally detailed. 1.0 became 1.5 which became 2.0, which became LOMAC, which became LO:Flaming Cliffs which eventually became DCS!

I cant remember anytime in the last decade when a TRK file worked for me. Recently got back into the Viggen after a while away from DCS, tested the TRK system again and my Viggen immediately taxi'd off the tarmac, got stuck, waggled its rudder a bit (which were the commands to steer onto the runway) and then attempted to take off and fly its mission whilst still stuck in mud. Is TRK accuracy in any way related to FPS or CPU?

Try adjusting the seat height? I have them bound to my pinkie switch and regularly use them to keep HUD symbology visible.

Was freaked out for a second, but after rebinding the comms key I got over it. Never had to do that on any other module though, that weird "OEM" thing is a mystery.

Update - if I go into AJS37 control settings and open the item for the comms menu (where it shows "\" as the key) and attempt to re-bind the "\" key, it now shows that I have 2 keys bound to the comms menu: "\" and "OEM102" Now in-mission, the "\" key does open the comms menu. However, "Trad" cockpit button still has no effect. Note again that yesterday I was playing in the Hornet with functioning comms without needing to rebind anything, control entry for comms menu was just "\" ??????????

The startup procedure in Chuck's guide has step 1: communicate with ground crew, press "TRAD" button. This does not appear to work, literally nothing happens. "TRAD" button is clickable, it animates and theres a click, but no effect. Example setup: Clean Caucasus map, single Viggen set to ramp start at Mozdok. Nothing else, thats all. "\" has no effect, comms menu doesnt appear. "Trad" has no effect, comms menu does not appear. In any other mission, any other plane, comms menu works as advertised. Yes Ive tried with easy radio and without, but menu not appearing at all. Tried with cockpit open and closed. Cockpit is clickable, other controls work. The main thing is cant talk to ground crew (or anyone) so cant request ground power. Yeah I can get in the air but this aint working. Cant even seem to find a similar problem with various google searches. If I open a Hornet mission, or create a simple mission as above with Hornet, comms works as advertised. ??????????????????????????????????????????? Please Help!

In general, centre of lift moves rearward in supersonic regime, causing tail to lift and nose to drop (this is the "Mach tuck" that others have mentioned). Usually this is trimmed away with pitch-up moment, but this causes loss of lift, increased drag and higher stability (meaning lower manouverability). Forward vanes bring centre of lift forward again, reducing drag and maintaining manouverability. I imagine that they deleted it as the saving did not offset the extra complexity and weight (especially since even combat aircraft tend not to spend much time above the sound barrier) Noice.

Ahhh fair enough, thanks!

Are the glove vanes (used for supersonic trim) simulated? I havent seen any mention of them in the documentation. Related - in general, in DCS World or specifically in the F14 module, are changes in lift geometry caused by transonic and supersonic aerodynamic regimes simulated? (these changes in dynamics in the trans/sonic regimes are what make the glove vanes necessary)

My guess? Honestly I doubt the Typhoon is going to be as 1:1 realistic as the other more venerable modules, its just too new. Same with a hypothetical Rafale module. As for building the module, the Rafale would need an entirely new flight model and avionics/mechanical outfit, which is a significant portion of the work a module requires, its not "half done" just because they are making another module which also has a delta-canard, dual engine config. And some of the primary weapons of the these very modern aircraft are ALSO very very new (SPEAR, Brimstone, Meteor, stormshadow/SCALP etc) and also very unlikely to have much real data available. Not to mention these aircraft are from within the time where RCS/RCS reduction is a major factor. No way that sort of data is public knowledge. A typhoon is broadly a similar size/class to an FA18 Hornet, but has a much smaller RCS (and hence detection range for a particular radar). But how much smaller? How should we simulate that? And the Rafale is designed with even more obvious RCS reduction features. Im not keen on buying modules which are "estimations". The behaviour of ECM (we will likely never get good data on the EW functions of modern aircraft) in DCS and how it has evolved over time shows the kind of spanners that estimations throw in the works -> different aircraft with identical equipment, issues with multiplayer "fairness", issues with over-or-under-poweredness etc etc. Today, Typhoons on excersize very rarely activate their radar, a) they are in friendly airspace in peacetime with plentiful ATC covereage and b) anyone with some fairly simple equipment could record data on the radar pulses and start to determine capabilities that they would rather not share if they dont have to. Unless someone can say the devs have access to similar quality data as other keystone modules?

I dunno, the best I have for rudder control is a thumbwheel, and I've got the hang of pointing it pretty much where I want once I learnt the trim function, can even do "the funnel". So either the damper is buggy and Im an exceptional pilot, or the damper is ok and Im about average. If by chance you are comparing it to other simmed helicopters, its worth knowing that the Blackshark is a very heavy helicopter - 9.8t gross vs 4.1t for the Huey, for example.