SinusoidDelta

The Streak Eagle profiles didn't included a pure vertical climb. The nearest to vertical was 80 degrees and only in the 3km (10kft) and 12km (40kft) trajectories. Yes, the F-15 could achieve slight acceleration in a vertical climb at high T/W ratio. You can test it out in game with a clean jet and a few thousand pounds of fuel. Start out in level flight, around 2-3kft at 220 knots. Smoothly pull the stick aft. Around 180 knots increase thrust smoothly to MIL. Once you have the nose pointed straight up to 90 degrees, plug in full AB. Your airspeed will start increasing! So, briefly, you can accelerate in a vertical climb in DCS. Should you? How much energy will you come out with on top? You're in a state of decreasing energy and exiting the maneuver means you need to spend more energy pulling back down towards the horizon. Not a very efficient flight path. The Streak Eagle's mission was minimum time to target altitude. The climb angle is an output, not an input. A time optimized climb is achieved at the velocity where maximum excess thrust occurs (not necessarily L/D max).

Could you share the Tacview? it's difficult to understand what is improbable without it.

That's not to say there shouldn't be :) You can find the referenced article by searching the ADA number below And regarding the OP's request

Hmm. I've had the opposite problem recently. I'll get an impossible number of launch warnings well outside of flood mode range.

This thread is turned into exactly what is set out not to be. Your post is needlessly condescending. You know nothing about my education or background. I have spent hundreds of hours exporting and analyzing telemetry in an attempt to validate FM performance. I have read hundreds of journal articles, NASA papers, DTIC papers, and every TO manual I can get my hands on. Yet there is no doubt in your mind that I'm not well read and I don't want to bother with all that science nonsense based of one post that you disagree with.

I didn't mean to cause such a stir with my post. In hindsight I probably shouldn't have said anything.

There is nothing tangible supporting the current state and accuracy either. After seeing so many bans, I'm hesitant to post any concerns I have.

I can have the gimbal components 3D scanned with micron accuracy if it would be beneficial. What are you planning to do with the 3D model? Edit: TM makes the stick feel very "aerospace grade" with the exposed machined surface (which is clearly the surface finish created by a bandsaw), it weighs a ton, the outrageous centering spring and the hefty price tag. It may have 4 trillion points of resolution with "space age" hall sensors but if the mechanics of the stick are this bad, whats the point? Not much on the stick or throttle was built to last, almost everything inside the base is plastic.... luckily their customer service sounds pretty good. The extension is the essential part, it basically cures the problem with brute force. I need to get one. Last night I changed the 4 compression springs for stiffer ones, cleaned the gimbal, and applied lithium grease. It feels like a totally different stick now, in a good way.

There is a big disconnect between the community and the developers on what actually is modeled. The 'nuts and bolts' are a mystery to us. Often times the burden of proof is placed on the customer to prove their concern. I don't feel a paying customer should have to pour through technical papers, purchase flight manuals, export flight telemetry data, then plot the data to prove something in the FM is wrong. The customer also shouldn't need to write a journal article quality CFD analysis of missile performance, with verified references, to prove missile performance is inaccurate. Yet we do these things anyways, for the love of the game. That is a sim community and ED's most valuable asset.

Watch your jet in external view while braking. I remember the nose wheel would skid in 1.2, I don't know why because it has no brake as you said. Also, you can't apply sustained full brakes at 100 knots. The brake pulser or something else isn't modeled properly and you will go out of control.

Thanks for the response. Does the ARI deactivate at a certain air speed? I checked this evening only by watching external view and it didn't appear to disengage. The only way I could disengage rudder deflection from stabilator position was by disabling the YAW CAS channel. I apologize if I'm missing something here.

I completely forgot that while the ARI schedule may be correct, ARI function should be disabled with the landing gear extended. Hopefully this is corrected in a future update.

Watch your track replay, the nose gear is probably locking up braking above 50 knots. It'd be nice if anti-skid were enabled for the nose gear too ED ;)

For illustration purposes:

Trim is accomplished mechanically by jack screws. The pilot relief modes (ATT/ALT Hold) are achieved by inserting commanded pitch/roll into the CAS loop.This is unrelated to the OP hence why it wasn't included in earlier post. My ATT and ALT hold commands are engaging. I'm still having the previously reported disengagement issue I detailed in another thread.

I haven't been on much recently but I haven't heard if the autopilot and attitude hold disengage has been fixed. As far as I know attitude hold shouldn't change the stick trim. I think that was a correction made in 1.5.

I've had this happen several times when either the server crashes or I try connecting by IP to an MP server that is unavailable.

This problem exists with the F-15 as well. The FM is unpredictable if you deviate from a STD day.

I think there is something unintended going on here. The cockpit altimeter error gets much, much larger with altitude. At extreme altitudes the difference between the F10 map and altimter reading can be over 20,000 ft at the end of a zoom climb.

DCS crashes for me like clockwork it seems to be due to memory leak. Open task manager and note the size of the memory working set and commit charge. At the main menu both working set and commit charge are usually at 5GB. At mission start commit will increase 6-8 GB. Periodically checking the sizes during the mission, the commit charge keeps increasing. After 30-40 minutes I start seeing 5 second stutters DCS. At this point the commit charge has increased sometimes to 15GB or more. Setting CPU affinity to 1 core and Nvidia mutithreading off actually seemed to prolong crashes but I need to try again to confirm.

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean. What should be left on the rudder pedals?

Shouldn't the HUD symbols and the HDI match? From the -1:

Do a lateral wipe, on the cross with zero longitudinal stick movement. Use rCtrl+enter to verify no forward aft movement. The rudder will stay centered with no longitundal input because the ARI is a function of stabilator position. As aft stick is increased during lateral input, proverse rudder should increase to counter adverse yaw induced by differential aileron/stabilator deflection. If you increase forward stick with lateral input, adverse rudder should increase to counter proverse yaw.

See the video below at 20:00. He has the target locked and at 17 miles (27 kilometers) gains visual nose to tail. This is further than your reference's ideal aspect for detection. He says something like, "It must be something big because you typically can't see a fighter at 17 miles. [YOUTUBE]://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0IL3UoU9CbM[/YOUTUBE]https