Hummingbird

Thanks Gasmask :) That said, is it possible you could update the skins and make sure that the mipmaps are embedded during the saving process to DDS? Asking as your other skins (which are also otherwise excellent) become very jagged once you zoom out, which indicates mipmaps weren't embedded.

It works very well according to what I've read.

This really should be something everyone who intends to make a skin sees, as I think atleast half the user made skins available have this issue.

Who'd be up for the task of making this beauty?

I see, I will link the skinners to this page ASAP: Thanks -Rudel-!

Hi guys, I've noticed that some skins which have great detail up close become very jagged as you zoom out, whilst others have no such problems. This is a big problem for me as some of the best skins out there sadly have this issue. What is the reason for this?

Yeah, once again I have to stress that this seems very much related to an overly restrictive FLCS logic which significantly lowers the G-onset rate as speed increases in order to avoid the aircraft from overshooting 9 G's. In real life the FLCS is nowhere near that invasive according to Viper pilots, with C.W. Lemoine amongst others mentioning how easy it is to accidently hit 10+ G's in the F-16 after going from a heavily laden two bag Viper to a clean one. In short the G-onset rate drops off noticable with speed in DCS, so much so that you're getting only about 4 G/s at 600 kts. Where'as in real life you should be able to get 8-10 G/s onset rates. A certain other F-16 sim lauded by real Viper jocks simulates this well, and I hope the ED devs will try it out in order to see how it differs from their FM.

My only problem with the DCS F-16 in terms of landing are the brakes, they lock up immediately (anti skid anyone?) and the aircraft skids as a result and as such the landing roll is always long for me.

I hardly ever stall my cat, that's not the issue, the issue is I'm having a hard time telling the sweet spot (15-17 units AoA) from feel alone as compared to earlier in the FM.

That the F-14D documentation is still classified is a bit silly tbh when you consider the capabilities of the systems in the aircraft that are now being deployed (F-35, F-22, EF2000 etc.), all of which are equipped with much higher tech sensors. In other words whilst the F-14D's IRST & radar were certainly impressive for their time (early 2000's), they couldn't hold a candle to todays sensors in both categories. Hence that the documentation isn't available is most likely all down to silly beaucracy, with people having no clue on how the tech works (politicians) being the ones with the authority to decide when it will be available.

Hmm... was hoping there might be a script file I could modify or something :-/

Since the devs haven't fixed this issue yet I was wondering wether there is something I can do myself to alter the amount the antenna moves in elevation with every button push? This is a very big problem for me in the F-16 atm as even the quickest push of the up/down button gives changes of 15-40 kft depending on range. And no, I don't have the possibility of using an axis for this, which I understand works, but so did button control initially until it was botched way back in the early days after launch. Hence I am just looking for any possible way that I can reduce the amount the elevation changes with button control.

I don't feel the stall is as easy to read in DCS though, the shaking is too extreme and not progessive enough for me to feel it increase properly, and as a result I have to keep an eye on the AoA indicator. Is this correct as is? I raised the issue not so long ago here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=274478

The instantanous load factor/rates are still not correct, and neither is G/pitch onset rates. So the FM still has some ways to go.

Video of the same hit on the Spitfire's tail from the photograph: The tail of a Blenheim being hit:

I tend to agree.

Yeah, still nothing. Looking forward to the day they address this, a lot. Gonna be great. Really wish they would give some word though.

Was only shooting cannon ofcourse. Also the above actually appears to be the most common amount of damage done according to a large number of British tests from all sorts of angles. No duds were recorded in the tests either In short I wouldnt expect a fighter to survive 2 hits by this weapon, and mostly just 1 would be deadly. And if it does survive it should be crippled to the point of being unable to maneuver aggressively.

Just wondering wether we will see a marked (as in significant) increase damage dealt by 3cm Mk108 hits once the new dmg model hits? Asking because atm the Mk108 is extremely anemic, infact I've managed to pour double digits into enemy fighters and they kept flying. Meanwhile in reality:

can confirm, just got blown out of the sky by an F15 at 38 kft that I couldnt see because I couldn't elevate the radar to look higher than 31 kft... *sigh*

Since a bug report on this was requested, here it is. I'm suspecting an incorrect Clmax is used for the FW190 in DCS due to Fw190's oddly low turn performance compared with the P-51 (& now P-47) ingame. I base this on NACA report TN 1044, 824 & 829 as well comparative trials between the F4U (which uses the same airfoil as the Fw190), Fw190 and the P-51B. Let's start off with NACA report TN 1044, below are the numbers summarized Link to full report: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930084610.pdf NACA 23XXX (F6F, Fw190 etc) results: FT high alt / FT low alt M 0.30 = -- / -- M 0.35 = 1.35 / -- M 0.40 = 1.28 / -- M 0.45 = 1.16 / -- M 0.50 = 1.02 / -- NACA 00XX (P-39 etc) results: FT high alt / FT low alt M 0.30 = 1.20 / 1.24 M 0.35 = 1.12 / 1.18 M 0.40 = 1.05 / 1.14 M 0.45 = 0.97 / 1.08 M 0.50 = 0.92 / -- NACA 66-XXX (P-51, Tempest etc) results: FT high alt / FT low alt M 0.30 = 1.12 / 1.23 M 0.35 = 1.07 / 1.16 M 0.40 = 1.05 / 1.19 (2nd peak low alt) M 0.45 = 1.02 / -- M 0.50 = 1.05 / -- (2nd peak high alt) To summarize these figures show a 0.28 - 0.14 difference in Clmax between the F4U/F6F/Fw190's wing and the P-51's at high alt between 0.35 & 0.45 mach. At low altitude there reason to believe the difference would be even greater as NACA report 829 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930091906 shows a Clmax of 1.55-1.60 for the F6F. Very similar to the 1.58 reported in a document from Focke Wulf AG https://i.imgur.com/SPf4kiA.jpg In practice such a difference in Clmax should make up for the Fw190's disadvantage in wing loading compared with the P-51, enabling it to match the P-51 in turns, which is also what the British AFDU tactical trials hinted at when they paired a Fw190G vs a P-51B at relatively high alt, where the BMW engine doesn't really perform, and yet little difference was found between the two in turning. Qoute: "Turning circle 42. Again there is not much to choose. The Mustang is slightly better. When evading an enemy aircraft with a steep turn, a pilot will always out-turn the attacking aircraft initially because of the difference in speeds. It is therefore still a worthwhile manoeuver with the Mustang III when attacked." For further confirmation of the airfoil data comparative trials between the F4U-1 & P-51 saw the F4U easily beat the P-51B in turning, despite the F4U having a slightly higher wing loading: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/p-51b-f4u-1-navycomp.pdf Qoute: "each plane was loaded to it own specified full fighter load, 9,100 lbs. for the P-51B, and 12,162 lbs. for the F4U's" "© The F4U-1 is everywhere superior in maneuverability and response." Once again the F4U uses the same NACA 23015 to 23009 airfoil selection as the Fw190 & F6F. Hence I would like to report the Fw190 & P-51's use of a similar Clmax (I believe 1.35 for both has been stated) in DCS as a bug.

67" Hg, 2700-2800 rpm.

Doesn't tell us anything.

I'm totally chill my man :) I do find it a bit odd how some feel like they can just take a dump on someone else for no justifiable reason what so ever and then not expect any backlash though.