scaflight

Don't forget the carrier! If the CV deck management has some level of sophistication to it, this module will move the bar way more than the Fishbed and Viggen did.

I use an X52. I have a spare throttle (from replacing the stick earlier) and actually have a new throttle with, and an old throttle without, the detent-mechanism*. It strikes me as an idea that I can move this detent up to the mil mark and mechanically slow the last few centimeters of movement. If it was warranted at all. Engine spool is pretty darn quick in this high-RPM regime though, isn't it? I've heard the throttle will be sitting at 85-90% power for the final stretch. So maybe my worries are unjust -- sure the spool-up time might be short if I'm right, but there's a limit to how much I'll pound the throttle for just three-four centimeters. *warranty etc, I'll not remove the detent for the throttle I don't use. Getting back on topic -- I definitely want to see failures pop up on a semi-frequent basis, and not just the ones of my own design. In the Fishbed and Viggen you're sort of limited if your engine craps out, whereas a twin-engine aircraft should make R'ingTFM and practising emergencies much more rewarding.

Random errors or no, I just worry about the life of my throttle, with all this ram-it-to-the-stops action.

Thanks for bringing these links. :) Unfortunately I've now consumed all his flying-related posts, so :c

Question for Dolphin, Cobra has been pretty clear that the way they want to announce models has changed after the Viggen/Tomcat. Ie, that they will run silent for as long as possible and then spring the news of the module once very close to completion. What will be (different about) Magnitude's approach to community service, news, announcements etc? Are you going to follow another philosophy entirely?

I would 100% purchase a C-172, and like #73, would love other GA aircraft. FSX is ridiculously outdated now, despite amazing addons. A Boeing 707 is a particularly relevant aircraft if we want to look at larger ones, because it has so many potential military uses with 'just some changes'.

If you post your current WIP we could go to town and help out more :) I'm more of a :book: than a :joystick: nowadays, and I'd be happy to contribute.

@lunaticfringe: I won't pursue the point much further, but in my closing commentary should point out a neat symmetry of inaccuracies here. One person argued Fishbed pilots "cry" without their lament being due. The Kfir's "threshold speed" being reported as "330". The value they compared to was "250" for the Fishbed. It's not your job to single out every post's fault, but the original post was clearly ripe for the taking, had you wanted to. The Fishbed's threshold speed is certainly not 250. Even if you assume the very /best/ of faith and suppose the poster compared touchdown speeds, that's a downwards inaccuracy of 10-20 kmh. The second poster relied on good material -- I certainly would have posted the same assertion, for what that's worth -- and in addition to refuting the above poster's point, made (as you showed) an upwards inaccuracy of 20 kmh. Meaning that with... I believe you set unrealistic standards from your own convenience, starting a slippery-slope line of argument where no reported data is ever correct enough until it hits the fifth decimal place and is denoted in cyrillics. And you're choosing what numbers matter in a relatively arbitrary way (the upwards inaccuracy is bull, the downwards inaccuracy goes unremarked) that dodges the original problem (how hardcore kfir and fishbed pilots are, a very macho subject that no doubt we must go on with for a few more pages ;) I joke!) On the whole however, I think you and I are very much in agreement on the most important thing. Poor tone and insult is unnecessary (on the part of #2 here). I'm happy being ignorant if others can correct me and not make me out to be an ass in the process :) edit: the thing about Leatherneck upholding the ideas of the ignorant is a complete straw man that I think no one benefits from discussing further.

I thought this reply might come, so I cunningly spared the last image. :smartass: As the LN Fishbed goes, this refutes the point somewhat completely. It'll have to be up to pedants to decide whether Leatherneck is stating anything about a magical 330 kmh limit. I'm inclined to say Leatherneck make no mention of such a limit, and are so vague about the touchdown speed that we can happily infer landing at 340 kmh is completely okay. Those who believe this is incredibly wrong would do me and a lot of others a favour by submitting this input to Leatherneck through the bug subforum, or in a dedicated thread about the manual. We'd all love to have correct procedures! I'm not being sarcastic either -- really, if someone has good documentation that states a touchdown of >320 kmh at <1000l fuel to be ridiculous, please let LN know! (Point being: if someone uses a game manual in a high-fidelity flight simulator, where every discrepancy between simulated FM and expected results as according to real life charts is pointed out by observant forum-goers, then they're not 'full of it'. They act in good faith and a lot of others might as well. :))

I think those arguments will fall flat.

Yeah **** him for being so full of it **** Cobra and everyone else who do they think they are writing manuals and shit and who is CrazyJohnny to take his cues from manuals? I mean ****ing hell this is outrageous. /s We should all assume good intent and be courteous to one another :)

How long did the trail go?!

It's not easy to get information about the U22. From renhanxue's excellent documentation thread, looking at del 2 kap 1 ändring 90 (revision [19]90), p. 237 onwards, we can get at some of the modes and functions of the U22 (but not U22/A). It is incredibly sparsely detailed and formatted in a frustratingly unintuitive fashion. There is however a good entry in the Swedish wikipedia for Kapsel KA-U22-U22/A, which is easily google-translated. It contains more information than the manual, to be honest. Mode A stands for Automatic, which is the default and what you should always operate in DCS. The manual modes you are concerned with are B and E. D is for "marktest" (ground test), ie for ground crew diagnostics etc. I can't categorically say D isn't also used in air, but a Swede might be able to, based on the text below. The manual remarks that manual jamming (B/E) is only used during practise. The B denotes "Beredskap" (prepared mode, or standby), so what we essentially have is standby (B) and active (E) for training purposes. You don't toggle A, wait 180 seconds, and then toggle B. You toggle B, wait 180 seconds, and then you can toggle E whenever you want to emit (but you'd be shot down trying this against a proper target ;) I don't think the Swedes wanted the Soviets to detect their jamming in training situations, so I REALLY doubt manual mode emissions are anything like the targetted, automatic mode emissions). For mode B, the bands are "F, G, J or K if the bandwidth should be 500 MHz or H if the bandwidth should be 250 MHz". In mode E, the jammer starts emitting straight away, giving a frequency modulated jamming signal in the selected band. The emission ends when you set mode B. It seems a lot of the operation was predetermined on the ground, leaving the pilot very few variables to operate. I don't know much about radars to begin with, so I won't hazard too much speculation. I include an excerpt from the manual. It's not an easy text for a Norwegian to parse, especially because the ubiquitous term "mode" is used for operating the jammer manually, for choosing a program, and for choosing a band, all in the same paragraph. My understanding is that this wonderfully analogue and mysterious appendage to our lovely Viggen is, really, not meant to be explored at all. Mode A is all you're expected to use. I can't answer your other questions, unfortunately. The U22 operates from C to Ku-band, so it'll include both H and J signals from the SA-8's radar. To my understanding, once the jammer sees those signals, it tries to spoof them. It's capable of spoofing more than one signal, so ideally it seems it should degrade an SA-8's ability to track and kill you.

Trim speed varies to me between imperceptably slow and comfortably slow. I observe very slow trim speeds when I'm on the ground. However, since I normally use att.hold during flight instead of trimming, it figures that I'd only notice slow trim on the ground. Trimming in the air (during attack runs etc) I can't think of once having reacted at slow trimming. It sure seems strange that it'd vary like this.

By the way, if you guys are testing this -- AFAIK you can, while in midair, go to the ground radio menu to rearm and refuel, and that'll tell you the precise weight or quantity of fuel aboard at any time.

I don't know what you're doing wrong... I've taken off in zone 3 reliably without damaging the gear, about 60-70 times since release. At least 20 times since Friday's patch. Are you sure you set takeoff trim and let the aircraft take off mostly on its own? The gear doesn't get damaged by wind until somewhere between 550-600 km/h. Mind you -- fuel regulator to MANUAL to achieve proper performance at altitude.

Most of the time I get nothing, some of the time I'll get the search radar but no CW/launch signal. In fact I've never gotten the CW signal from the SA-6. This is with larm knob in right position, and due care to RWR blindzones.

I've actually started recording radars from the Viggen with precisely the aim to publish and learn threats, but I've had varying levels of success. I can't get the SA-6's systems to register at all.

I've had that happen to me after a landing and new takeoff (engine and electrical sys continuously on). Didn't remember to save the track because I thought I'd just done something wrong. The solution was to reload from the cartridge (REF, IN, 9099, SKU). Not had it happen again since.

More about BK 90 (p. 345 WIP manual):

As I told someone else who had this issue: when I received my code from Heatblur it came from a different address than the purchase confirmation mail. I believe it came from SendOwl.

Not to hijack -- but sort of tangentially related: at 24% fuel, with 1x BK-90 (so within weight params), I engage AFK, with gear down, a15.5 pressed and lit. The thing never stays at altitude, it just drops. Am I doing something wrong? I've held altitude and landed it in AFK mode 2 successfully several times, so I feel like I know what kind of 'ease' I should control the aircraft with.

edit: I was so wrong

Regarding shadows -- Cobra seemed to make a big deal out of this, but I honestly couldn't tell there was any issue with them. I would recommend buying it, despite having to use beta. I'm able to enjoy this both SP and MP (friends on private server, not tried big public ones), and have hardly noticed any bugs.

Sure does for me ;) Had to put it back in place after this Friday's update.