Hummingbird

Maybe, I am not ajour with the limits of the actuators. But the F-16's LEF & TEF's use rotary actuators with torque tubes.

Hopefully this won't delay the FM update too much...

It appears to affect the FM as far as I can tell, as there's a noticable change in pitch trim when they're deployed vs retracted. I've experienced this many times at low speeds and heavily laden where the AoA requirements are higher, but never actually stopped and given it a thought until now. Easing up in a turn I'd wonder why the aircraft basically wanted to keep turning by itself for a bit, and then I realized it was because of the slats/flaps being deployed,,and as soon as AoA decreased below a certain point (7.7 units) all of a sudden pitch trim markedly changed and I didn't have to push the stick forward anymore to counteract the extra nose up trim generated by the slats/flaps. It's also noticable on take offs where you're not using the aux flaps, and just take off with everything in auto,, as you rotate the maneuver slats/flaps deploy and the aircraft again gains positive trim in pitch, and once airborne you need to force the nose down a bit and decrease AoA to get the devices to retract, after which point you again feel the change in pitch trim, this time it goes negative. Hence why I'm struggling to understand why these devices didn't deploy/retract incrementally according to what Victory205 is saying, as the reason they do this on the F-16 & F/A-18 is exactly to avoid a sudden large change in pitch trim & moment, and provide the optimum L/D for the given AoA. But these are FBW aircraft, whilst the F-14 is not, so that might be part of the explanation. But I digress, the main and very real issue that needs addressing is the incorrect speed limit schedule, as the maneuver slats/flaps clearly aren't beginning to function below M 0.58 as they should, and instead don't begin to extend until around M 0.52 where they should infact already be fully extended.

Ok, thank you for the clarification Victory205, it just appears strange when compared to likes of the F-16 & F/A-18 where the LEFs & TEFs move incrementally with AoA to a) maximize L/D for the given AoA and b) avoid sudden upsets in pitch moment & trim. However if that's not the way it worked in the F-14, then plz ignore that part of the bug report. That said, the main issue remains, i.e. incorrect deployment vs speed, because as you can see in my pictures the devices are not fully deployed at M 0.52 & 18 units AOA as they should be according to Fig 2-51 in the manual, infact at 2% they're basically not deployed at all: Note: Full 100% maneuver slat/flap extension is defined as "FLP 28%" in DCS, which again according to Fig 2-51 should be available at M 0.52. Likewise I can't get them to partially deploy in between M 0.58 and M 0.52 (say at 0.55) either, even when pulling well over 10.5 units AoA, where again the documentation says they should be about half way out.

I accept it's open for interpretation, however IMHO it wouldn't make much sense, as such devices are meant to operate incrementally, otherwise you'd experience sudden noticable changes in pitch trim & moment. Hence if you look at the maneuver device schedule on other 4th gen fighters, like for example the F/A-18 or F-16 (LEF & TEFs), the devices are incrementally deployed/retracted as a function of AoA & speed. Because if they deployed/retracted fully at a certain AoA, and not incrementally as AoA increased/decreased, you'd experience a very sudden & annoying disturbance in pitch.

They're off in both Mach and AoA schedule in the B, where they won't open until M 0.52.

German airforce have been using english language instrumentation since the postwar period, so...

I only tested the F-14B, and as you can see from the pictures, it didn't function as described in the manual. The maneuver flaps & slats (they are two seperate devices) should both start to gradually/incrementally deploy at 7.7 units AoA and be at max allowed extension (which also varies with speed) by 10.5 units AoA - unless you're going faster than the M 0.58 speed limit at SL, after which point no extension is permitted. In short the speed limit schedule governs max available extension (e.g. at M 0.55 only ~50% max extension is allowed) , whilst AoA governs level of extension within the above limit.

I'll make a new one

Here's an idea, allow servers to turn off paddle switch functionality. Then those who like it can have it on their servers, and those who don't, can have it off.

I didn't know that reading on the right was altitude, but based on bullet travel time it coincidently seems that the actual range was infact between 1300-1500 meters. That said, here's a video of shooting at a lased 1300+ m distance, again the dispersion is pretty tight (2:32 min):

Indeed it would, ED is being completely silent on the matter though, which if we're being pessimistic could mean they don't intend to model this real life advantage.

Odd, because ir seems like it takes the rounds over 2 sec to reach the target.

This is one thing, the other is that the maneuver slats/flaps schedule should also be based on AoA, i.e. they need to gradually extend with gradual increases in AoA until the AoA of full extension is reached, that is as long as it's within the speed limit of the devices: To explain with four different scenarios: 1) The F-14 flies at M 0.3 @ SL, thus full extension of maneuver slats/flaps is possible (Fig 2-51). Starting at 7.7+ units AoA the maneuver slats/flaps begin to gradually extend until at 10.5 units AoA where they are now fully extended (Fig 2-52) 2) The F-14 flies at M 0.5 @ SL, thus full extension of maneuver slats/flaps is possible (Fig 2-51). Starting at 7.7+ units AoA the maneuver slats/flaps begin to gradually extend until at 10.5 units AoA where they are now fully extended (Fig 2-52) [Same as scenario 1] 3) The F-14 flies at M 0.55 @ SL, thus only ~50% max slat/flap extension is now possible (Fig 2-51). Starting at 7.7+ units AoA the maneuver slats/flaps begin to gradually extend until at 10.5 units AoA where they are now commanded fully extended (Fig 2-52), however in this case it's limited to 50% of max by the speed limit schedule (Fig 2-51) 4) The F-14 flies at M 0.6 @ SL, thus no slat/flap extension is allowed by the speed limit schedule (Fig 2-51). The maneuver slats/flaps extension command is halted by the speed limit schedule, no extension happens irrespective of AoA. Now upon testing this in DCS, it appears that atm the slat/flaps instead seem to only either fully extend or fully retract on either side of 7.7 & 10.5 units AoA in the schedule on Fig 2-52, with no gradual extension in between when within the max extension speed limit ( Mach 0.52), which I believe is a mistake as it means the slats/flaps aren't operating gradually according to AoA, which leads to weird occurences where full extension & retraction can happen in the same 7.7-10.5 AoA interval below M 0.52 depending on wether you're coming off or putting on the AoA. Example: Speed M 0.37 (245 KTAS), alt 195 ft, 9.9 units AoA, yet zero maneuver slat/flap extension: It is my understanding based on the charts & descriptions in the manual that the slats/flaps should instead be partially extended between 7.7 and 10.5 units AoA, with the speed limit schedule (Fig 2-51) then governing the max extension actually available. Thus in the case above (9.9 units AoA, M 0.37) the maneuver slats/flaps should've been about 80% extended, and 100% had the AoA been 10.5 units due to being within the max extension speed limit of M <0.52. Hope this makes sense, and I'd love some input incase you have anything to add. PS: To anyone not in the know, do not confuse units AoA with degrees AoA.

9.4 G's... would love it if the DCS F-16 would do that... FLCS logic should allow for 9.3 G sustained, so hopefully this real life capability is reflected with the next update to the ITR & G-onset part of the DCS F-16 FM.

Did some testing today to see if the maneuver flaps/slat schedule was on point, but alas: That's M 0.52, 18 units AoA, but zero extension of maneuver flaps/slats. According to the manual, at SL the maneuver slat/flaps should start to extend at M 0.58, be about half way extended by 0.55, and by 0.52 they should be fully extended: Based on further testing it appears the extension schedule is incorrectly set to initiate right below M 0.52, instead of at the correct M 0.58. Now forgive me if I'm mistaken, but wasn't this listed as addressed?

One thing I've noticed after flying around abit: When looking at the controls indicator in the upper left corner, it appears I'm mostly never allowed full rudder/yaw deflection, that is when I apply full left rudder the indicator on the upper left shows me only applying 60-70% of that. Why is that? I've often been unable to apply the required amount of rudder to execute a maneuver because of this artificial limit to my inputs.

That's what it's supposed to, but I've yet seen it happen online with jester in the backseat.

I am talking about the WCS being able to store a track and send the active signal when the missile reaches the predicted location of the lost target. You can do this with a human RIO atm, but not with jester... Atleast not in my experience. Lose TWS track with jester, and the missile is dead.

Of course he can, all he has to do is keep the extrapolated track and send the "go active" signal where the AWG9 predicts the target will be based on the previous info, but instead as soon as a track is lost jester switches back to default so the missile never goes active.

I wish Jester was smart enough to do that...

At 1310m the spread looks pretty tight, first rounds seem right on target: The targeting & tracking system probably recieved many improvements since 1995.

Kind of yeah, it would be better to for example say NIIRS 7 at 2 km.

I'm not a fan of tacview, as I find it often contains error readings. Hence why I only do measurements using the infobar. As you can see in the video attached, 9 G is not sustainable at 450 KTAS (448-449 KIAS) in the actual simulation. Best I can for sure get here is 8.8 G. So my assessment is the F-16 still needs some minor tweaking of its STR before its right where it should be, being in general 0.1 G off. As pr. NineLine's previous post ED is perfectly aware of this, so I definitely expect further tweaking.