Hummingbird

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.

It's not about giving credit or trust, in real life things can happen that can/will set back things, but how are we supposed to know if any such thing has happened or not when nothing is said? It's always best to be proactive and quel the very natural worries your customers will get if nothing happens for many months without any word. I mean there's a reason posts & threads about this subject keep popping up, it's not because people can't wait or want to annoy you guys for sport or something. The communication could simply be better. A brief heads up on any/or no progress regarding the FM in the F16 newletters and I'm sure everyone will be as patient and understanding as they've been with the Apache, where the communication was great(= credit)

It's not about announcing they did nothing, it's about keeping uncertainty to a minimum by communicating that work is still ongoing on it. They did this with the Apache, and pretty much avoided any negative feedback as a consequence. Ongoing communication is key to avoid misunderstandings and worry amongst your customers/followers, as well as ensuring their understanding regarding any delays. But if they're fine with threads popping up about it all the time, then keeping silent is fine I guess.

Yes, I think that for ours, as well as your (devs) own sake, it would nice if in the weekly updates you could write the status on it. That way people don't become paranoid as to wether or not you've forgotten about it, and you avoid threads about it popping up all the time. A win win for all of us, customers and devs a like.

I think he's talking about what I noted earlier:

It has been extensively tested by airbus, so that's not really the issue I think. The real issue is more likely a question of "is it worth it?". The EF is already very maneuverable, so it's up to the customer to decide wether a higher AoA capability & roll rate at low speeds is essential. I believe it's the same reason we haven't yet seen anyone procure the thrust vectoring upgrade for the EuroJet engine either. But let's see, Germany might just get it for their upcoming jets.

If the best effort at matching the available charts is made, then that is all that can be asked for. And it's the same standard that applies to all the other modules as well, and why so much time & effort is spent by the various dev teams to reach this goal. It's a commitment that comes with the "simulator" tag. The obvious end goal is that all the aircraft represented in the sim match their real life performance charts as closely as possible, as when they do, that's also when we get to experience how they truly would stack up in a no holds barred fight, which is what a great many of us hardcore simmers really want. Some real life fighter pilots (former & actual) might find that silly & unnecessary, whilst others totally get it and seek the same from the sim - they're human too, and differ just as wildly from person to person as the rest of us.

Should be noted that some of his results are unachieveable, and are not based on ingame infobar readings. Most of it appears to be tacview data.

Been wondering the same thing, but didn't want to ask in fear of being shut down. But yeah, it's been a while now without any updates on this.

Amazing, and the E too. I could kiss you guys!

I don't think (hope) anyone in here wants that. If it matches the charts, everything is as it should be, so that's what we're looking for.

Yes, Las Vegas speed patrol.

Hopefully we get the Spitfire Mk.XIV, F4U4 and Tempest etc at some point, it would be truly amazing. I am still waiting anxiously for the Me262A1 though, really would love to have that bird in the sim - eventhough, yes I know, it's not very "balanced" vs the Allied aircraft currently available. If we're lucky ED soon decides to take on one of the Allied beasties I mentioned before though. I think the Spitfire Mk.XIV would be a good choice, as I suspect it could be developed a lot quicker thanks to already having the Mk.IX base. Good thing is that there are also a lot of flying Griffon engined spits around, so modelling its FM as accurately as possible should be easier than say for example a Mosquito or Fw190. Other than that, I'm looking forward to trying the F4U-1 by Magnitude, should be more capable in a dogfight than the P-51, so that's something.

We do have four Ps data points for sea level we can check with, for 1 G, 3 G, 5 G & 6.5 G. It was the 5 G one I couldn't match. 5 G sustained should be attainable at M 0.46, where I can get at most 4.8 G's sustained when doing everything by the book. Videos and track files of the tests posted earlier. But yeah, dead horse at this point, waiting for next performance update before any further tests.

I couldn't get Ps=0 to match at SL in accordance with the 5 G chart, for which I posted my proof. (At 5 & 10 kft however it was spot on) As for acceleration, we did some tests, but decided against posting them after the reception of the mentioned Ps ones. We're waiting with posting any more test results before Creason announces that the performance tweaking is over.

FC said we shouldn't expect performance updates until after the next 1-2 patches. So wait until the 2nd or 3rd patch in this year.

Hoping for effective AIM-120's again soon, it's such a pain to witness how they "track" (hard to even call it that atm) targets in their current state, they're so incredibly jerky and thus extremely wasteful in terms of energy that they're not achieving even half their RL effective ranges. Going to be glorious once they're fixed and working as intended.

I'd strongly advise against that, as TacView is known for sometimes showing wildly incorrect values. Meanwhile the infobar is a live recording/reading of exactly what is happening in the sim, and will therefore be as accurate as it gets; providing ofcourse you're in SP and not spectating someones else over MP were netcode becomes a factor.

It indeed sounds like it should show DL contacts (Friend & Foe) on the HMD, just as in the Hornet. Which is why Wags comment confuses me.

Was wondering, should our Blk 50/52 F-16C have the capability of showing data link contacts in the HMD, such as the F/A-18? Asked already on YT, where Wags stated: "For this tape, year, country, just PDLT." Is this correct?

Completely fair, was just curious

Any rough idea when we might expect the next FM update? Just curious.

Very cool, thanks for sharing

Get to know the aircraft well yourself first, that way you can quickly boil down the basics for him (like what keys to map etc.), and then have him get the 14 day trial. Best way IMHO.