85th_Maverick

It's just nice that at least they've added the ability to refuel with engines running! It's a small but good step forward. Would it be possible, I ask the ED team regarding this same subject, to please make it possible to also rearm with engines running at idle only (not higher rpm) as it happens with all other DCS modules, including with planes like the MB339, L-39, F-18, F-16, F-14, F-15E, Harrier, M-2000, JF-17 which don't seem to pose a danger to the weapons loading personnel on the ground and not get sucked in the engines, if this would be an answer to why the Su-25s alone are being simulated to not be able to rearm with engines running. BTW, regarding the danger of getting sucked into an engine, that would mostly be possible when the engine is at quite high rpm, as it happened in reality on an aircraft carrier when someone got just below the intake of an A-6 Intruder when the engine was coincidentally also already revved up at full thrust setting. So, the only reason why the FC3 aircraft aren't able to rearm so far with the engines at idle is because they've been programmed that way from the beginning. Please, if you want, also try to re-code the rearming of FC3 aircraft to be able for that when the engines are running, at least at no more than idle. Having to wait until the engines reach exactly below 5%, which also takes quite some time is a nuisance. Having to repair, which requires exactly 0% is even more of it, as on a Su-25T it can take quite double the time it takes from idle to 5%.

I have more than 90% of the modules bought (only some useless prop planes are that I haven't bought). I fly the free Su-25T for more than 70% of the time! You and others may jump replying: "WWHoooo, WAAAAA, WHHYYYY! Cause you are no good at flying DCS planes, cause you this and that!" I just imagine that by experience=))). The reasons are: 1. I find the Su-25T among the most capable CAS while still having SEAD capability which is very important to me. It's more maneuverable than an A-10A/C, not to mention that it's about twice faster than the A-10 for comparable loadout. Yes, I otherwise prefer to fly the F-16 or F-18 which have better ground targeting systems, such as the LANTIRN, compared to the forward only limited LLTV of the Su-25T, yet I most of all prefer the Su-25T over the easier job with the F-16/18 simply because I like it more hardcore with the Su-25T and I'm enormously glad that the Su-25A and Su-25T are available. The same hardcore difficulty I also like sometimes by choosing to take on the A-10A against heavily protected targets which even with the A-10C it's difficult, but I like to try my best with it to see how much I can survive, so for the the A-10A is also fun! The other FC3 airplanes: MIG-29 (which has pitch stability issues when the droops come out and retract) but it's otherwise realistically performing, the Su-27/Su-33/J-11 which have underperforming engines at FULL AB, the F-15C which overperforms in constant turning at high AoA and seems like it's a kid's wonderland in DCS with it's instantly deflecting flight controls and infinite G's of the frame which sometimes can make seem like it's a flying UFO as it jumps allover the place if you use some abrupt stick and rudder inputs at speeds over 1000km/h which can also be a cheat to make most missiles overshoot, are indeed aircraft which are more or less apart from DCS, yet the Su-27 remains a must for it's beauty at least after all and not to forget that IT was the plane which started the Flanker 2.0, later LOCK ON and finally FC1/2/3 series, predecessors of the today's wonderful DCS! Cheers!

Although asked someone else for it, I can also answer that logically, the centrifuge should be a bit harder as the training seat is almost vertical, while the one in the cockpit has some backwards lean to some degrees which does help! Someone please correct me if I'm wrong about the almost vertical training seat position! About your question to Matt regarding the required G tolerance limits to become an F-16 pilot, I knew for years that it's a minimum 15 seconds at 9G without blackout out. Matt said 10 seconds and I don't know, perhaps each military set their own standards, as for a statement regarding the Hungarian pilots limit is as it's quoted here from a "Quora" (indeed, there is always a mix of true and false statements in the Quora replies): "Hungarian Gripen pilots before they can be certified has to be conscious for 15 seconds at 9G in a centrifuge. But this does not mean that for unlimited times they can perform such G resistance, pilots need relief." Here's the link: https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-maximum-number-of-Gs-that-an-F-16-can-take-without-causing-damage-to-the-plane-or-pilot Cheers!

Hmm, I knew of 15 seconds minimum at 9G, so maybe I took it wrong at some moment from some YTube G tolerance training videos statement. Heh, even so, 10 seconds at 9G which is something known as a minimum for true pilots is not a minimum for the DCS virtual pilot which even after 1 hour of standing at 7.9G continuously without G-LOC, is unable to pass 6 or 7 seconds without blackout after going from 1 to 9G in a 1 second onset. ED still has to tweak some more if they want it correctly!

Thanks for the troll, but I'm not into that! Your name on the other hand may actually explain your reply! The subject was about how the G tolerance effect is simulated in terms of G value versus seconds versus light and/or color loss from the pilot's eyes. Even today, after some tweaks of within the code's values regarding this functions being simulated, the "warmed up" for G tolerance simulated DCS pilot still can never reach even 8 seconds from the moment he reached 9G on a high rate G onset (so that it won't take long to reach 9) to the moment the blackout occurs, compared, again, to the real world where the same TRAINED pilot MUST be able to withstand at least some 12-15 seconds before passing out. It's not me saying it, it's the training program for US fighter pilots which can set that minimum 15 seconds at 9G condition in order to be allowed to fly the real jet. "Wait, I just thought of something." They do that on a vertical seat and most pilots who train are still able to pass that 15 seconds 9G mark, while on their real jets, their seat is more or less backwards inclined which further helps reduce the unwanted effect. One like you who seems to only be concerned by $ in his eyes, which has nothing to do with the subject in question, is indeed not interested in the realism issue for this subject after all! Your "wanna reply something to try to make myself interesting with nonsense or just to try and make a foul of myself" attempt is intrinsic in it's way! So, next time you try to reply on a subject and you think you understood the subject, think of it as something truly useful, or you can remain a troll if that's your desire! Have a good day!

Yes, regardless. with clean wings and the plane has laggy stick responses. Maybe the rudder might be ok in it's response delay as it is, but the F-14 doesn't have this kind of laggy aileron and elevators deflections, the F-18 doesn't have it, the M-2000 doesn't have it. No other FC3 fighter jet has it. This is one of the reasons why I find flying the F-16 accurately in inputs or in formation flying more difficult than with any other jet which has quick and precise responses. Not in roll and yaw, only in pitch for the Su-27! And speaking of witch, why does the Su-33 have a quick elevators response in contrast to the low elevators rate of the Su-27 if you happen to have in depth knowledge about the differences (why would there be any) between the Su-27's FCS and the Su-33's FCS? We were talking about the flight controls system lagg, nothing to do with game FPS or TGP influence (there is none from that anyway). The response delay from the stick inputs has nothing to do with the input curves. Linear or non-linear sensitivity settings, you get the same inputs lagg. Either the stick and the FCS receives the inputs with lagg or it outputs them with lagg, idk, I just see this difference between the F-16 and all other jets and no it's not me. Have you tried comparing the time it takes from the moment you apply aileron input from your physical stick to the time the ailerons or roll control surfaces actually start to deflect? Try comparing the F-16 and the F-18, F-14, etc and see the difference. Don't even wanna talk about the F-15 which not only that it has the quickest response ever (arcade mode FCS if you'd ask anyone) from input apply to surface deflection, but wow, just look at those surfaces deflecting from a full position to the full opposite in merely 0.0000001 seconds (but yes, the FC3 F-15 is a different kind of story).;)

Whenever you fly any other fighter jet with or without FBW flight controls logic, the flight controls response is as expected. The one of the F-16 isn't so expected and it's always laggy. From the moment you apply a full aileron, rudder, pitch input to the moment the flight control surface actually starts to move there's a delay unseen in any other jet. Despite another strange phenomena of AoA reduction only when applying pure left stick (no pitch input) only (right stick doesn't do it as the left stick input) which is more pronounced with heavier loadout and I have already reported about, the laggy flight controls system create a particular difficulty in flying the aircraft both in formation or when trying to precisely maneuver it. Nobody can have precise the controls over a vehicle with laggy controls responses compared to one which responds almost instantaneously. I doubt that the Thunderbirds would be able to fly so precisely together if flying with the lagg that we get in the DCS F-16 flight controls system. Anyone can check this without recording track for evidence. It's a direct play evidence by comparing the F-16 to the F-18 or F-14 or even Su-27 in DCS.

How many aircraft in DCS have this in real life? Lol you just came with a pointless answer and SharpeXB just said what was correct to say. And the #1 problem you mentioned there is still unfixed. Once there was a thing called "Impostors" and impostors.lua which was actually the best workaround so far by making vehicles and planes disappear much later from screen and although it wasn't realistic in essence, if tweaked good enough it could make flying or ground units get physically seen from more realistic distances. For whatever reason..., they gave up on that "impostors" feature and returned to the same initial problem which remained.

I totally agree with you. When I meant that zooming and and out is a cheating in multiplayer what did you understand? It's as simple as it sounds. Zooming in/out is a way to cheat in PVP. Having a bigger monitor, yes, covers more view, similar to having greater FOV and vice-versa with a small monitor, but being able to zoom in at the levels DCS allows us for we can see planes and ground units from impossible distances to the human eye and that's the cheat and it can and should be corrected (I hope) in the future by limiting the zoom as to be the equivalent of a 50 degrees (not 60) FOV and not below that. Anything higher can help those who don't have or not want to have a big screen and just use either a laptop or regular PC monitor. Said this just to be fair with everyone. On the other hand, having a big screen and also abusing the zoom in, heh..., I let you guys test this against another player in MP who has a smaller monitor and is a decent person not zooming in but rather flying with the default zoom level (as everyone else should). ONLY in VR (I use it most of the time) the zoom and field of view are exactly real (at least from what I can see compared to real life), but there's where it all limits to. Out of VR..., and you can abuse it quite a lot which personally disgusts me when I see others doing so and they most do, at least on YT videos. Thanks, but now this is the new technique as you define it here. Before X update, the "view.lua" file in DCS main folder and under CONFIG folder there was a line defining the default FOV which was global for the whole game and all vehicles. Now it's as you describe it here.:) Well, if he answered "SLAVA UKRAINI" it's already enough said=).

After the latest updates the view is now more stretched and I was wondering why. Although we now have key combinations which can modify the zoom (FOV angle) levels for each outside view, the default FOV within the "view.lua" file inside the CONFIG folder in the main sim's directory is now being set at 78? Why was it a good idea to make it even worse for looking around and spotting stuff as it was already almost impossible to see an enemy unit with the default view zoom/FOV? IRL one should be able to see a human on the ground even from 3km high if there's no haze and the weather is clear, but in DCS you can't see one even from 500m with the normal zoom/fov value. In fact, all units in DCS become extremely hardly visible from ranges at which in reality it isn't hard. This subject regarding the units visibility in DCS is a decade long debate and will most certainly continue if not finally done right. Zooming in or out is first of all an unrealistic feature, we all must agree with that. A human eye can't zoom. If one requires a bigger monitor or more in order to have more coverage is one thing, but to increase the FOV and distort the image for whatever sake is odd. Also, in multiplayer, the zooming feature must be blocked, because it's simply a big time cheat and exploit. The server admin should have the possibility to lock the FOV at 60 or have the natural zoom locked for everyone.

I believed you said that you need to have all the collective down as for preventing rotor overspeed due to that comparison. So, it's doable in the MI-24 as I've already showed in my track but it's just very difficult unless you have some lower weight and I was thinking that something might be wrong, but AeriaGloria better explained what goes on with the blades through his technically detailed reply.

You don't overspeed due to collective up, but due to collective down + increase in AoA on the advancing blades.

Copy that. So all in all it's the lower blades radius + the much lower blades washout (decreasing incidence towards the tips) and both reduce the aerodynamic autorotation of the main rotor as the AoA increases on the blades. The effect is there indeed, but I just thought that it's way too small to be true and now I understood why. So, it's a very bad day for a HIND pilot to lose both engines and rely on autorotation for landing. He can have a landing but he must do it at a much higher speed and much better coordinated aft stick and collective at the right moments in order to reduce the vertical speed as much as possible before touchdown. Thanks;)

Who's comparing apples and oranges? Did you read correctly? Both being 30mm AP and doing about 5 times different damage? Maybe not 5, but a couple of times anyway. You probably compare the 30mm HE of the 2A42 with the 30mm AP of the GAU-8...!

So I just wanna know if is there any script that I can run on a unit to make it engage an enemy target only after X amount of seconds of getting inside the launch range. Thanks!