scaflight

p. 369: "Manual fuel regulator (BRÄNSEREGULATOR) < 9." I don't understand the < 9., so I'm going to guess it's a typo? The man fuel reg only has AUTO and MANUAL as far as I can see. I'm a bit perplexed that the manual fuel regulator isn't manually operated by the pilot, but I guess there's a reason for calling it that. Throughout: The fuel regulator is referred to as both manual fuel regulator (p. 49, 369-70) and fuel regulator mode switch (p. 61). A standard term should be used throughout. p. 69: "Indicator light X-TANK BRÄ [is] lit if the external" p. 69: "and afterburner are [set] to ON / TILL." p. 70: "due to either or both of the two tank pumps [stopping, having stopped]." p. 70: "Indicates less than fuel remaining is less than 24%." -- errors. p. 73: Manual disagrees with panel texture. Manual says to set TIPP/VÄXEL switch from AUTO to LANDN, whereas cockpit texture says TILL / FRÅN. p. 76: "they are disabled above an airspeeds over Mach 0.92." -- errors. p. 80: "depending on [loadout] setting." p. 82: "A brake pressure indicator is [situated] on the left front side panel." p. 85: "sends a [signal] proportionate to the force exerted to the autpilot [where] it is then". Paragraph could do with some punctation. p. 86: "nose down [movement] which [is] countered by a change" p 88: "It indicates [pitch, lowercase p], roll and course angles," p. 93: "navigation information regarding [the selected waypoint is / selected waypoints are] displayed on the destination indicator." p. 94: List is formatted inconsistently.

I tend to want to practise the positions of switches etc so that some procedures are just down to muscle memory. That's why I made a panorama cockpit for the Fishbed back in the day, and I decided to do the same for the Viggen, using Bunyap's footage. The result isn't exactly gorgeous, but it works for me. With ten days to go, it might be of use for others. :pilotfly: Preview: 4097x2000: Clean image, or Google Drive for lossless PNG. Cobra's startup, numbers and areas. (don't forget to plug in/out ground power) Cobra's startup, areas only. Cobra's startup isn't exactly the 50-item checklist in the manual, and so the 21-step procedure I outlined here probably is not that practical if you plan to release weapons and navigate precisely. Unlike an interceptor such as the Fishbed (~29 button clicks to get airborne), the Viggen doesn't seem like something you just spool up and toss into the fray.

You know that's interesting, he says initially that he went below 10% fuel and never got a warning. p. 69 of the manual, "When the fuel amount goes below 24% and the landing gear is retracted, the warning light BRÄ <24 is lit along with a master caution alarm. The light remains on for the duration of the flight." Perhaps a matter to double check? :)

Nice one! I missed several of those in my #130 :doh:

Small input on standard nomenclature. The thread is 11 bloody pages so this might have been mentioned, BUT it's not corrected or altered as of the most recent document. Also I tried to focus only on the parts of the manual that seemed closest to being finished. --p. 65: "The AFK is manually engaged / disengaged by moving the AFK lever next to the landing lever (far left in cockpit). Moving the lever to the ON position will engage the AFK." The terms "landing lever" and "AFK lever" are not used anywhere else in the manual, and it's difficult from the list of LEFT cockpit (pp. 24-5) to discern what is meant. It's only mentioned on p. 61 for the engine control overview illustration that there is a "landing gear lever" and "AFK control lever". The AFK control lever is not mentioned on the left cockpit illustration, and the landing gear lever is called a "landing gear handle". The same terms should ideally be used throughout. --Parentheses give the Swedish name for something, but three of these begin with "swe." to denote a translation, whereas others do not. -- p. 38, "A needles" should be "A needle", and the sentence should end with a period which seems to have ended up to the bottom left of Figure 27 that page. -- p. 44, point 11. "likely to due to" -- p. 44, point 13, entry ends with period unlike the style in which other entries are made. -- p. 50, third sentence from top. Plural noun and singular verb confusion, which is a recurring issue throughout the manual. (not that I am bothered, but it's worth pointing out) -- p. 50, "The reverser assembly consists of three titanium flaps close and directs the thrust forwards and slightly downwards through the slits." Unsure how this sentence is meant to read, but possibly "titanium flaps THAT close and DIRECT the" -- p. 56, my tiniest observation so far: the digit "3" on the bottom of the list seems to be in a different font or made bold. -- p. 61, same issue with different font for numbers in the list. -- p. 197, The symbol for watt is upper-case W, but this is lower-case in parts of the text. It is also written as "20 W" and not "20w" as on p. 197. -- p. 233, change "inputted" for "input"

Correction: When I said 'exclusivity' I referred to ED putting their own development on hold, not that L-39 devs received a license which other developers couldn't also get. Since Wags made clear that such exclusive licenses aren't given to begin with, I didn't see any need to be much more specific. I don't think your summary in the above post has had any bearing on what I originally claimed, and I think your explanation shows that you are arguing another point entirely. Originally, in response to me, you wrote "And if someone would get the license for an F-16 module, ED would hold them to that license, and revoke it if the module doesn't live up to their expectations. Again, see the L-39 module that was first produced by a external developer." - but then I point out that the example can't be used to say there will be a product quality threshold. So you'll have to concede that point or just reword yourself. Your explanation quoted first in my post is arguing that competition is bad because it can wipe out developers, but that's not what you were responding to. If you want to pick up that thread, then yes - that there will be fewer developers is absolutely a result of competition, but on the entirely uncertain premise that a developer can't change their focus and develop something else. Another version, like Mig-23X instead of a Mig-23Y, or another airplane, like Su-22. The option of merging efforts is sometimes present, so module development is pretty far from the simplistic zero-sum game mentioned earlier. Overall, I think you are right that it will become more difficult for new developers. But the point I argued was that non-competition brings about poor products, and I'm principally opposed to that.

I'm a bit unsure how your L-39 example has any bearing on the argument that was made. ED gave the L-39 devs an exclusivity deal. The module didn't 'not live up to ED's expectations'. It was just not finished. That's not about the quality of a good, but about a good not being introduced at all. What was ended was the exclusivity deal, not the development or their right to sell the product. Therefore I don't think you have addressed the issue of non-competitive norms incentivising predatory practises and low quality/fidelity modules.

To phrase it this way, MasterYoda1, I think competition should be a fair option in this niche market, because it drives up the quality. Currently I don't know about -any- incentives or any penalties for an addon maker to not announce the venerable F-16 Fighting Falcon. Everyone immediately recognizes that that'd be a helluwa module, lots of people would want for it. It'd sell a fair bit simply by reputation. Even if that developer decided only on rudimentary SFM and a non-clickable cockpit a la FC3, they'd have cornered the market on a popular product. They could potentially promise continuous development and a list of features, but in the end come out with nothing but a few bugfixes and gimmicks every other DCS update. People would bite the bullet, acknowledge that the Fulcrum and other FC3 aircraft were enjoyable, and not bother about the fidelity. At what point is the line drawn to declare "this isn't cutting it"? It's more difficult to arrive at that answer than to simply state that there will be open competition for modules. I could be wrong if ED somehow require of third-devs to attain a minimum of fidelity, but I have strong doubts. Essentially, non-competition open up a niche market for predatorial vapour-ware projects. With an assured demand from no competition, the quality of goods tend to diminish. PS. Merry Christmas. :)

TL;DR: In this thread I submit a short opinion/letter to the LN team about competition between developers, and ask a few questions at the end whether people think it's acceptable behaviour. -------------------------- Dear Cobra and all others in the Leatherneck team, I saw a note on Razbam's forum about a team working on the Mig-23 and -19 being included in their organization. This prompts me, an avid fan of the Mig-23 and a starstruck customer of the Mig-21, to put out an opinion that I think is rarely heard on these forums. Or at least, I've never come across the discussion before. Namely that of competition between developers. Not having purchased any of their products, I can't speak about Razbam's abilities as developers. Therefore my post to you is not born from anxiety or mistrust about them. Not being a developer, I have no clue at all about how ED 'structures' the efforts of its third-party developers, through licensing, sanctioning, or whatever other forms of framework ED puts in place. Maybe this has already been discussed to death elsewhere? I also don't know what sort of plans you as a team have in the future. Therefore I can't begin to assume that you should be making a Mig-23, even if it has been my hope for a long time. All I have learned is that you and I seem to want the same things from our modules. I've bought addons for flight sims before, but I've never been as entertained and enthralled as with your product. The tiniest details reek of love for what you do. So from a principled point of view, regardless of your future endeavours, however many years your internal roadmap runs... I wholeheartedly believe that direct competition between third party developers for DCS is a good thing. And that there should be room for two identical aircraft from different developers, even full-release modules, for the audience to pick from. I know the profit margins for DCS modules can't be -that- great, so it might seem the proper solution to not step on someone else's toes, or at least to merge efforts. It's a perspective I can understand. But ultimately, I can't completely condone it as the only valid view. As a self-interested consumer I wish for the best modules possible, and I think competition would be highly beneficial to that end. To me, it would be extremely saddening to learn that such competition is "just not the done thing", and that perceived community norms* get in the way of what could be a fantastic project. I've qualified this statement enough now; if you're doing a Flogger or not, my sentiment is still the same about competition within a relatively small market like this. Cheers. :) * (I don't even know if anyone does perceive these as norms, but I could imagine so) -------------------------- For the rest browsing this forum, I guess the question is -- how do you feel about direct (module-to-module) competition between developers? It's a question I've thought about before, but it never seemed to pop up as relevant. But then, with VEAO's enormous roadmap and the ongoing Mig-23 work, it seems quite pertinent. I'm half tempted to make this a poll, just because it's an interesting question. But ultimately that's a 'general discussion' sort of thing, and I'm more keen to address this to LN proper. Would people go nuts if developer A tomorrow said "We're doing a (whatever)", but that airplane was on developer B's roadmap? Or was even being made by developer B, right at that time? If this is a discussion that has happened before, I'd love a link to the thread where it was brought up. :thumbup:

Ah I did not know this! Thanks a lot.

Cobra/Leatherneck, You said briefly that jamming was introduced across the board for such enemy ships that would have them. What about harder countermeasures in the form of CIWS? Are you implementing those? I ask because we saw the Rb-04 act realistically (according to RenHanxue) in the Grudge match by often going to the same target. In a world without CIWS, that is a bad thing and will give us incentive to not use the Swedish tactics properly. In a world WITH CIWS however, it might be prudent and even necessary, for a single rote's worth of Rb-04 to target the same ship.

1st bet: 25:10 for Viggen 2nd bet: 12:8 for Fishbed

That won't count because he hasn't posted yet, mate ;)

Thanks Your image link is wrong -- it contains a bracket. The correct link is http://imgur.com/a/r2fPu

LN is in my books the best third-party developer by a long shot, and even ED have only the A-10C to lay claim to a more exhaustive system simulation that also offers tremendous gameplay value. :) Top job to all of you, LN! NOW PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH MY FIX

What sort of effective detection range are we looking at, for an AGM-65B operated through the VID? I assume 'lock' is a matter of resting the crosshairs on a target -- it's not an actively pressed button or some such? I can't find references in renhanxue's flight manuals from 75.

I'm calling you out as a liar. No way it's anywhere close to correct. The only way I'd believe you is if you could superimpose or juxtapose the absolutely best ever AJS-37 Viggen 3D model, complete with textures, in the same position, for comparison. Now put your money where your mouth is.

Someone's been scratching on the adhesive paper - top middle - and it's such a tiny detail, but a real hint at the love and affection of whoever did the texturing. It's god damned leatherneckian by this point. If I didn't have such high expectations, you could very well call me a fanboy. :)

In a different world, where the Steam IDs were never discovered, this'd be the second thing we learned about the project. Everyone would be even giddier with anticipation, and we wouldn't have a twentieth of the information that has been uncovered by some very industrious and passionate individuals on the forums. In that respect, I kinda favour the reality that happened over the reality that didn't. ;)

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA I have been preparing a ton of 80s colour/VHS effects and synthwave songs for the Viggen release And you just blew my mind there isn't a smiley for this

I'm having a technical problem

"a lot of the same people" citation needed. ;)

Astonishing work, Renhanxue! Thanks a lot. ;)

CheckGear, in response to your #112 and later posts: You're running a risk of cherrypicking at this point, in the word's most sincere meaning in academia. When an argument is forwarded, such as RAND does, it's necessary to show that some evaluation has been given to the other hypothesis -- that we've made a token effort to falsify our arguments. What you quoted is a drop in an ocean, a paragraph in the whole text, but I think you're using it for more than it is worth. "Even RAND entertains the ..." is not an argument, because RAND to be taken seriously has to. What you would prefer to do is say that RAND lists x y and z as factors that would make a Soviet defensive posture more likely. When I tanked MBot for being 'the sourcy kinda guy', that meant attributing individual statements to sources. You're not really a sourcy kinda guy by just listing books. Much as I'm sure these are good reads, I can't attribute any of your information to them, because you haven't. Therefore, when you cite a 'generally conservative mindset' we're not really any the wiser as to what that means. Instead, I'd argue that it'd take a comatose mindset for them not to attack. My response in this thread is to delve into the discussion to clarify something. At some point the effort to refute the "mother of all naval battles" became "the Soviets won't attack" (I paraphrase). As for the former, I don't want to analyze what posture NATO and Soviet naval forces would assume relative to one another in the event of a war, but I do think the latter notion has to be done away with. It is based on and perpetuates a loss-averse, un-creative or conservative Soviet military to state that Northern Norway would not be attacked. NATO planning for Northern Norway shows a stark contrast. The entire county of Finnmark was virtually without defense (approx. 5,000 soldiers). Its status was as a buffer, with no intent on holding (Gjeseth, 2011). Thousands of NATO troops did exercises in the counties of Nordland and Troms, to the south; just about zero did anything in Finnmark. Therefore, on every level of evaluation, from the geopolitical (having a bargaining chip), strategic (buffering strategic forces, destroying ELINT facilities Vårberget), to the tactical (low losses), an attack on Finnmark makes sense for Russian commanders. To refute your argument about desantes being outgunned -- they would face no other opposition than local defenses and whatever naval assets happened to be in the region; as the RAND argument goes, the disproportionate number of these forces near Murmansk contribute to a compelling case that the Soviets wanted to seize and hold Finnmark, whatever their strategic interest (SLOC, GIUK, nuclear defense etc) was. We can also argue that the threshold for tactical nukes is radically increased in a liberal democracy's territory, compared to a border skirmish. Additionally, that the great expanse of Finnmark allowed Soviet forces to disperse more than they could hope to in Russia, and to extend a SAM umbrella 400 km westwards, not to mention to better secure lines of communication with (entirely undefended) Svalbard, where Soviet SAMs would serve a strategic role. These are defensive considerations. We're in essence down to a 'how could they not?' about very basic opportunism. The budget for what is and isn't worth an effort is difficult to draw up, but I don't see any reason the Soviet forces in the north would want to stay within their borders at all. If anything, their best bet would be to expedite a rapid assault through Finnmark, launch cruise missiles at (poorly defended!) AFBs in Bardufoss, Andøya, Bodø and Evenes, and hope to dislodge the initial Norwegian defense in the Lyngen Alps before the defense even had the time to be set up. Assuming a highly conservative or outright timid Soviet commander, he could assume a defensive posture as soon as there was any opposition in the Lyngen area. Dealing with counterfactuals isn't easy, but this one's not among the hardest. I don't pretend to go from this to surmise what efforts NATO naval assets would make. I do think, however, that naval superiority would be the defining factor in breaking any standoff. Whether either side has any interest in breaking that standoff is another matter altogether. And clearly, none of this criticism is meant in any derogatory or offensive way! Simply intended to be positive and constructive. I just have to clarify, since text is such a poor medium for conveying emotion. :) Gjeseth, Gullow (2011). Landforsvarets krigsplaner under den kalde krigen. Oslo: Fagbokforlaget.

Thanks for being a sourcy kinda guy, MBot. The RAND document indeed provides some very good arguments for how the Soviets might have acted in the event of war. What I pictured earlier was an AO which relies on a few key premises that I think are realistic enough that LN might have opted for it. These are, * Soviet forces attack through Finnmark quickly, winning the land battle until the defensive lines in the Lyngen Alps (close to Tromsø). * NATO presence is sufficient to stall amphibious assaults further than Tromsø/Andøya. Additionally, smaller units of airborne or amphibious desantes may fail to hold Bodø AFB, though certainly cripple it for a while. This would give LN a scenario full of potential where they could focus their efforts wherever they wanted: ground battle in the mountains, or air/sea battles north of Lofoten. Every asset in the Soviet inventory could be present. This all leads to the single thing I'd like to see more than anything else: a CV operating in the radar shadow of the Lofoten mountains. Right next to my home. Enthusiastic though I am, certainly the Iceland AO represents a much more economical terrain in terms of effort and detail. I therefore find that to be a more likely venue for LN's efforts. :cry: