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.

B1-R end of story

I cant vouch for how well the exact envelope is modelled for this exact weapon, but it *is* perfectly within the bounds of physics for an iron bomb to exceed the speed of sound if dropped from sufficient altitude.

Im not sure about exact sim mechanics, but IRL: 1. Due to inverse square law and the signal only having to go one way, RWR has significantly longer detection range than radar. 2. Add to that, a beam does not have to be painting you directly to trigger your RWR. 3. As a consequence of that, just because you get an RWR warning, doesnt mean you are definitely on his radar scope. He may well be having the exact same problem finding you. 4. Radar beam is only 2-3 deg wide, to fully scan a volume, one must change altitude and antenna elevation parameters periodically, so that you are scanning the volume from as many different directions as possible, to create as dense a "net" as possible. 5. RWS scans a volume faster than TWS, as it is looking for less information, it does not need to spend so long scanning a set volume (during TWS, the radar scans as it does in RWS, but will periodically return to tracked targets to update their situation - thats the "track" part in TWS) 6. FA18 radar is actually quite a small set, radar capability is strongly correlated to antenna diameter, although it should perform well within its design parameters. Su33 (amongst others) radar is not as sophisticated, but is huge and powerful. Im not saying these factors directly inform the difficulties you are having, but its something to be aware of. Under some circumstances, you should not be surprised when an adversary detects you first and you cant find him, FA18 is not a magic bullet.

Try using a Harpoon Steerpoint (I think thats what its called). The harpoon will fly there and then take up the selected bearing, meaning you can potentially fire from quite a large area - depending on distances - and it will still go where you want.

In modern air warfare, the gun is there as a low-lethal option. Think warning shots and the like.

Your settings look good, that should have dropped 6 single weapons 100ft apart (although they are very inaccurate, you might not always get perfect spacing) I dont know what is wrong but I'll tell you what threw me at first when trying this. You gotta hold weapon release for the entire duration, until all bombs have dropped. If you just *press* it once, it will only drop for that amount of time, and you only get one or two bombs dropped. It is easily possible that they did not drop at the *exact* same time, a 100ft seperation can be an exceedingly short interval at time of release.

I mean, even if it WAS monthly, its been what? A month and 4 days? TipTopTip: developers are always bombarded with "where is the update?" demands, and they can almost never answer, and they can almost never "just speed up", and they are almost never "just milling around not really working, just waiting until the customers start complaining". In other words - just dont do it

Is this only for the F16 or will it be rolled out to other modules? Thanks!

Qu1 - what stores do you have hanging off your wings when getting this result, is it the same with a clean aircraft? Qu2 - what angle of attack are you seeing when experiencing these acceleration problems? Often I have trouble staying below 300kts long enough to retract the gear! The only time I have been flying the Hornet and thought "Hmm...full burner...why am I so slow?" ...I was trying to get an angle on an enemy cargo aircraft and in my overzealous approach had bled too much speed and because of this my AoA was very high maintaining the turn, leading to high drag and very low acceleration. (I am also wondering if, on top of AoA-induced drag, that the engine makes less power at high AoA? Due to inlet geometry?)

Is this TOO or PP? At some point you need to set the elevation, in PP you do this when inputting target coords. IIRC, in TOO, there is also an option to set elevation, unless I am wrong. In any case, incorrect elevation could explain what you are seeing.