rinao0o

I'll reiterate my point, FC1/JF17 was a joint project which received combined effort in both design and manufacture from multiple entities including the Pakistanis and the Russians. Chengdu is the major contributor and deserves the most credit, but it is unfair to call it the Brainchild of a single group. I apologies for any mistakes I made out of ignorance in my previous comments but I still believe that calling one of the contributors a "customer" seems like an insult to our Pakistan friends and I wish you can retract that comment. If you think you are 100% correct then let's agree to disagree so we can stop playing word games like not using FC1/JF17 interchangeably and end this pointless discussion.

Like when you were so sure that Pakistan were pure customers and specifically stated that "FC-1 was Chinese brainchild", and that the HUD's similarities with NATO equipment definitely had nothing to do with Pakistan's involvement? And do you think that Pakistan's data on the F-16 had absolutely no contribution to the FC-1 project? Just answer me yes or no, you have been evading this question for too long.

Why are you so kin on minimising other nation’s role in the project? What about the Russian engine? What about the experience China gained from Grumman in those earlier cooperations? And Pakistan’s experiences in using NATO equipments? Yes Chengdu did the most amount of work and they deserve the most credit as PO mentioned. But stop claiming all the prizes, you make me feel embarrassed as a fellow Chinese.

My mistake, thanks for the correction.

Why did you ignore part of my response, my point is: the technical details of the F-16 plus the design specifications Pakistan provided partially decided what JF17 ultimately became. Pakistan joined the project way earlier than the production of the first FC-1 prototype. They were there since Super7 remember? I'm not saying that China's contribution in the "brainwave" part should be completely discredited, but that goes the same for Pakistan. In addition, if you take a look at J-10's hud picture, you'll find great influence from the F-16's hud which maybe the result of Chengdu's cooperation with Pakistan during the super7/FC-1 project.

I don't think it's fair to call JF-17 the brainchild of any single group. At the very least, the technical details of the F-16 Pakistan provided to China should justify their contribution. Sure, Chengdu may have handled some critical aspects of the project but without Pakistan's input on the aircraft's performance requirements, JF17 may be totally different from what it is today, or even scrapped to make way for J-10 as the FC-1 project loses it's main client.

Very interesting read, thanks

JF17's production company Chengdu also designed the J-10 series on which the PL-12 has been extensively tested and already entered service. It sounds like you are trying to suggest that PL-12 works on J-10 but somehow stops functioning on a different airframe with similar radar and onboard systems? Edit: a bit of search and it is rather simple to find JF-17 footage with SD-10 loaded, so this statement is completely false Same can be said for most a2a missiles entering service in or near this decade. So if the pakis have no idea about SD10's performance and doesn't trust its capabilities then why put orders for them? Don't you think they would test the missiles before buying? Just like when they bought the aircraft itself a decade ago and decided to license the entire production line? No, they are *rumoured* to have data-link compatibility with R-77 because of *also rumoured* Russian involvement during development. The two missile's airframes are significantly different both structurally and aerodynamically to call one a reverse engineered product of the other. The PL-12 project started in the 1990s, earliest A model testing finished in 2005 and entered small batch production. There are currently PL-12B, C and heavily modified D model with ramjet booster either in service or under testing, yes China is still developing new models as we speak, but it doesn't mean the export models are immature and underdevelopment because newer models are being tested.

From the recent video SD10's max range seems to be at 22 nm/25kft on 700kt closure rate. And the NEZ is 12nm, pretty close to a 120B

Thanks for your great work! With regards to teamkilling in MP, it has always been a problem for hornets even though the implement system is significantly simplified and only requires a flip of a switch, the fact is noobs and reckless players are always going to tk and that is a part of the MP environment, so I'd suggest keep it close to reality and have an "unrealistic" option (like the no-alignment INS option for mirage) available so server owners can have that choice available. But if by any chance there is a code limitation and we can't have both then I'd definitely prefer realism.

That’s a massive leading edge slat

F-16 has 2 extra pairs of under-wing pylons and 1 extra pair of centre-line pylons. While JF offers unique AG weaponry including the BRM-1/90 guided rocket system. A system that carries 18 laser guided 90mm rockets per pod. More importantly, the JF-17 should be much more feature complete when it hits early access. All in all both modules are must buys imo.

It all depends on the amount of information ED or any third party has access to. Just like Deka being a Chinese third party were given access to JF17's pilot training simulator and many exclusive documents that made DCS-JF17 possible. It wouldn't be possible to do a high fidelity simulation otherwise.

What this mod does: The vanilla frontal cockpit glass is broken after continuous updates and made the spitfire unflyable in some weather conditions. While some mods already do the same thing, this mod adds another option into the mix, choose to your own liking Transparent Semi Transparent Download: Transparent Spitfire_Transparent_Glass.rar Semi TransparentSemi-Transparent.rar How to use: Choose one of the file above and extract the .dds file from it and add it into the following .zip file \DCS World\Mods\aircraft\SpitfireLFMkIX\Cockpit\Textures\Cockpit_Spitfire_LFMkIX_Textures.zip [b]Remember to backup the old .zip file[/b] UPDATE: Integrity check can randomly fail, try restarting the client if it happens. If restarting game doesn't help, remove the mod manually or use "repair dcs world" shortcut in the windows start menu, doing so will redo all the changes to the game files and move your modified files into a _backup.xxx folder under game root

Before going into a mission try to get the map loaded into ram as much as possible by starting a custom mission first. It won’t solve everything but having a 16+g ram helps. Although honestly you should just buy a new SSD dedicated for DCS, 256G SSD aren’t that expensive these days.

I own all of the campaigns on Caucasus map and Piercing fury is definitely on of my personal favourite. Things just feels right, great voiceovers, no buggy script triggers, a good mix of easy and difficult missions etc.

Pretty sure ED will start adding features into older modules sooner or later, they are already working on new cockpits for A10, ka50 and p51. Wing vapour should come as well seeing how they recently reworked mig29 with vapour added in.

It’s a thing called asymmetric load due to TGP on one wing and jammer+Aim9 loaded on the other wing. Wind also cause aircrafts to drift, sometimes very violently, search for crosswind landing to get an idea.

For what I know A10C's targeting pod already has contrast'image based locking, that's why you can lock onto all kinds of weird hotspots on the map. They should make it available to all other modules

It's similar to how you reproduce the ground effect on helicopters. Reproducing a flow phenomenon in a simulator isn't hard, the difficult part is figuring out the exact behaviour of the flow field and its interaction with the aircraft. You can't reproduce what you don't know. Which is why making an accurate flight model usually takes multiple groups of people, you'll need aerodynamic specialists to work out the flow field behaviour, modelling specialist to turn the flow behaviour into numeric functions, then coding guys who implement the functions into DCS since game physics and real life physics isn't the same thing.

turn on flight directer mode, the single blue button to the right of the 4 ap channels. That will stop the aircraft from trying to turn to your last commanded attitude and speed. And only try to buffer out some unwanted oscillations

Before ED push out their own fix, just download the ricardo's hd cockpit, I believe the newest version is 2.4. I'm currently using the black version and it doesn't just fix the light problem, the entire textures are reworked and looks a LOT better than the stock cockpit.

First let me explain how you can mess up your navigation easily by a single button press (TV). The TV switch is used to confirm your input to the system. When the radar isn't used, pressing the TV will update the INS position data so that your current aircraft position is updated by the position of the selected waypoint. This is useful if your are compensating for the INS errors by overflying a waypoint with distinct geometry feature. However, it can also screw up your navigation system if you press down TV when your aircraft is physically away from the waypoint. For example, you are flying somewhere over the ocean in NAV mode with radar off, with a waypoint somewhere inland selected. You presses TV by accident, now your navigation system thinks the plane is already flying inland over the waypoint, and updates your navigation data accordingly. Whatever distance between you and the waypoint becomes navigation error and completely mess up the navigation system. To prevent that from happening, avoid hitting TV unless: You're trying to update your INS system because you think it has accumulated too much gyro drift to function properly. You're trying to designate a new position for mission points (M1/Mx/popup point etc). Hitting TV will change the position of the mission points according to your inputs, instead of your own aircraft's INS position. You're trying to lock something with the RB75 missile. When the RB75 scope lights up, T0 T1 and TV will have a different set of functions and it will not mess with the navigation system at all. For a real aircraft this isn't a problem, because for what I understand, T0 T1 and TV are meant to be different stages of a multi-detent trigger, like the trigger on a warthog stick, T0 is when you don't touch anything and the spring keeps T0 as a neutral position. T1 is the first detent, when T1 is pressed you can manipulate the radar/waypoint/RB75 and the changes are confirmed by pressing the trigger all the way into 2nd detent "TV". You are not meant to jump between T0 and TV cause T1 is always activated in between acting both as a separate control mode and a safety buffer. However the game allows T0/TV jumping to happen and it can cause issues I mentioned above. You can map the warthog stick or any other hotas system with a 3 position trigger to get the authentic control method for a viggen. Unfortunately DCS doesn't provide that 3 stage control option for a stock client, meaning you'll have to edit some files in order to make it happen. The stock client only has a 3 position switch with T1 being the neutral position, which is alright if you are careful, but a TV missclick can still happen. To add the more authentic control scheme into DCS, you'll need to add the following lines into the input scheme file. Note that this isn't conflicting with the client integrity check so you can still join MP servers. You'll also need a joystick with 3 position trigger to make it work as intended. ..\DCS World OpenBeta\Mods\aircraft\AJS37\Input\joystick\default.lua {down = 3006, up = 3005, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATIONPANEL, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 1.0, name = "T1 Fix (trigger switch)", category = "Radar"}, {down = 3007, up = 3006, cockpit_device_id = devices.NAVIGATIONPANEL, value_down = 1.0, value_up = 1.0, name = "TV Fix (trigger switch)", category = "Radar"}, all you need to do now is binding your controller to these new commands in the game menu. A side note, many have found the 2 second countermeasure dispense interval too big for any missile launched in close proximity. to make the quick countermeasures release go faster, this line can be used. {down = 3001, value_down = 1.0, up = 3001, value_up = 1.0, cockpit_device_id = devices.COUNTERMEASURE, name = 'Fast countermeasure dispense (Impulse)', category = 'Countermeasures'}, This will add a command to release 1 flare/chaff with each button press, note that the control is still analog so you'll have to hold the button for a slight period before the countermeasure is launched, releasing the button too early will result in the dispenser doing nothing.

AB is just one of those lower priority things in DCS, not just razbam. At the moment ALL jets with clickable cockpits have that visual problem except the hornet. If you take a look at mig21 and viggen. They make M2k's burner look nice.

This wobbling actually makes sense when you think of the physical mechanism the harrier uses to hover. When the harrier rolls during a hover it does so by blowing air through a duct on the wing tip. However the center of mass doesn't always align with the duct due to changes in payload and fuelload. And when it doesn't, any roll input will likely come with a pitching moment.