Hummingbird

Yeah whilst the G-onset definitely improved a lot, which is good, I noticed a few odd things: 1. It's harder to be precise in terms of sustaining a certain G (for instance I couldn't make the G meter hit 8.1 or 8.6 G for some reason, no matter I smooth I tried to be it would always skip from 8 - 8.2 G, and from 8.5-8.7 G) 2. Related to the above, when easing slight off or adding slightly to pitch, the aircraft seems to jerk its way in pitch/G. i.e. it appears abit bumpy when trying to increase G gradually. 3. It appears you cannot achieve more than negative -1.7 G (should be able to hit -3 G) Just my 2 cents since the update.

Considering the Eurofighter will outrate the F-16 (as pr. pilot testimony on here), I doubt the F/A-18C will be close in STR, let alone bleed rate. The EF is supposed to be a rate monster beyond even the F-16, and I think we'll see the F-16 start to mostly dominate over the F/A-18C now that it's FM has been corrected.

@IronMike & @Cobra847 Are there any plans for the F-4S, or are the F-4E & J the only ones you've officially decided on so far?

Yeah, I merely prefer the S because it could actually dogfight pretty well too if push came to shove

Personally I'm very happy that HB chose to model the F-4E first. It just makes a lot of sense based on capability, combat history and number of operators. That said I'd love to see a F-4S as well at some point, that to me is one of the coolest versions

Yes, my point is that the intention of equipping these devices was to increase maneuverability; which they also did, noticably so according to the available V-N and PS diagrams.

Yes, the manuals we've been looking at definitely show a clear advantage to the slatted block 50 over the hard wing block 35 in terms of both STR & ITR. That was also the purpose of the "agile eagle" program which introduced the slats after all, i.e. to enhance the maneuverability of the F-4.

Well to be fair, the F-16 pilot should be able to handle more G's than usual due to the inclined seat and positive pressure oxygen mask.

Indeed very nice to finally see this coming.

This ones my fav so far:

Hopefully that doesn't last much longer, I'd presume the 80's version of the JA-37 didn't use classified D/L by todays standards? Man that plane would be cool to have, such a beaut.

Do you guys remember why it was the JA-37 wasn't possible back in 16 ? I seem to vaguely remember something along the lines of it sharing many systems with the JAS-39, but can't recall. Having a blast flying the AJS-37 on the 80's servers, but man I'm missing having that gun and a less sensitive engine.

My findings so far are that the AIM-120C is a longer ranged missile vs opposing fighters than the AIM-54C in DCS. Wether that's accurate to real life or not, I can't say, but I'd be lying if I said it didn't surprise me. That said, I will always prefer true to life performance over "expectations". So will just have to make due with what we got and trust HB got it right. PS: Out of curiousity, have any of you guys managed to get the AIM-54C to hit the in litterature often qouted Mach 5+ yet?

Just tested the AIM-54C & AIM-120C against a MiG-29 coming in head on at 20 kft, launched both at 35 kft and 35 NM, and the AIM-120 will reach and kill the MiG-29 everytime, whilst the AIM-54C will run out of the energy necessary to allow it to hit the MiG-29 as it goes defensive. In short it now seems like the AIM-120 has a noticably longer no escape zone.

I mean if that's what the CFD says, I'm just surprised. Thought the rocket motor provided more thrust.

I'm not doubting that the AIM-54 should lose speed faster, that's a given considering its size and shape, but with such a massive rocket motor burning for such a long time I did expect it to reach more than M 1.8 at 500 ft with a starting velocity of M 0.8. I know the Phoenix was considered as a naval medium range surface-to-air missile, which seems odd if it would barely be able to reach much over M 1.2 when launched from a standstill.

That the AIM-54C will only reach ~1.8 mach at 500 ft from a launching speed of 560 knots seems odd IMHO. AIM-54 will barely outrange the AIM-120's now.

Tested the AIM-54C at SL, launched it at 560 KTAS, and it reached a maximum speed of 1180 KTAS (going straight and level)

What's the max speed you can expect the AIM-54 to reach at 10 kft, flying straight? Should it be higher than an AMRAAM ?

The ADV apparently featured automatic wing sweep (nowhere near as capable as that on the F14 though, as IIRC it only worked up to 3 G), and I've heard (no idea if its true) that the Tornado with wings fully foward (25 deg) it would outturn the F4 slightly. Will have to look for performance charts, can't remember if I have some on the tornado.

It is quite a dramatic effect the slats have, emphasizing how great these devices really are at improving the efficiency of a wing at subsonic speeds.

Erm.. you made a poll specifically asking what people wanted addressed first, IIRC the FM was high, if not highest on that list. So I think claiming it's just an issue in a specific thread is simplifying things a wee bit too much. Also I'm very patient. Haven't heard me complain about any announced delays. Why? Because of the simple fact they were announced/communicated, and I have no reason to question a decision to delay something in the pursuit of quality, to me that's just a sign of values being in the proper place. Hence why I applaud the communication on the Apache module, to me its a perfect example on how to keep the community up to date on things, and thus avoiding the same type threads asking "what's going on??" popping up all the time. In short ED is perfectly capable of proper communication, so why not extend that to all the modules? It would only make everybodys lives, incl. your own so much easier.

You're totally misinterpreting what is being said. The issue here is not a lack of understanding that some things take time, it's about actually communicating it. In your analogy you're doing the exact opposite of ED in this case and actually communicating that there will be a delay, which your stepmother is ignoring thinking she knows what you should do, which no'one has done toward ED here. All that is being asked is that delays are announced, just as they were with the Apache, not that ED should work in a specific way. Just communicate, that's all.

I also prefer they take the time needed to make things right, that's not at all the issue. I can wait a looong time if need be. The issue is the communication, which is obviously leading people in the dark as to the reasons behind the delay, and as such naturally they will start asking what's up. If the delay is due to complexity and therefore extra time needed, no'one in their right mind would complain, as long as its communicated, otherwise how would we know? But if its due simply to being down prioritized over say a jammerpod (which I'm not claiming they did btw, it's just an example), well then obviously some people are going to be rightfully kind of annoyed, seeing as in ED's own poll it was made quite clear what people wanted to be addressed first -> the FM, unsurprisingly as we're a flight sim community.

I totally understand that, but I think some things are obviously more important to the community than others - case in point being the FM, which I think it's fair to assume is highest on most peoples list of things they want to see addressed first. So IMHO it won't be hard to predict, what the few most important things to keep the community up to date on, are going to be. In summary: If the devs focus on keeping communication flowing on the fewer more anticipated updates/fixes to a module, then I believe they will save themselves and the community a lot of frustration.