Ahmed

The correct procedure for engine failure on landing configuration is still to retract the flaps to half as part of the boldface. In any case nothing stops you from giving it a try on full in DCS :)

Probably the S&A guys will be able to give you better advice but: You will need to be more agressive with your control inputs (especially throttles) in these conditions and you will have to live with the brief AoA oscilations. I wouldn't advocate for the one ball high target, you are setting yourself up for that firm landing, or a long bolter scenario.

the biggest problem is that the weather is not synced in mp currently so one guy can be inside the clouds while another one has severe clear... big changes needed with the weather engine

IFF can only positively identify a contact as friendly. For any other (lack of) responses, the ROE will dictate whether they are classified as bogeys, bandits, hostiles or even friendlies depending on multiple criteria. The current system in DCS is quite arcadish.

Hoping that the introduction of PLID also changes the current arcadish IFF that automatically marks as hostile after failed interrogation from 2 f/a18 donors, and then proper ROE can be implemented such as in RED's example

Oh yeah, the good ol' "military landing". I'll grab some pop corn

Ideally they would re-visit the wording on the publicly available documentation and check for missinterpretations, but as it says "EW page" only, I guess it is more related to the programming whilst on the ground, or other specific EW page stuff.

It appears that the flight model deifnitely is in need of some work

Did you read Kevin's other 2 books of the Raven One series? Additionaly, Bogeys and Bandits or Air Warriors are good reads too; or Vipers in the Storm and Viper Pilot if you wnt to go the F-16 way

Confirm the same with several different cluster bombs. Also updated drivers recently to 430.39. Rolled back to 425.31 and all works again

According to Wags' post on ED FB 15th January:

Hi, I am aware that the team has way bigger priorities currently, but I noticed that the departure warning tone logic in DCS doesn't seem to match the real specification. I'm posting it in case it can get reported. I tested in DCS with flaps FULL and the warning came at 12º AOA as a constant speed/frequency/rate beeping sound that doesn't increase its beeping speed/frequency/rate as the AOA is increased. I've never heard the tone increasing the beeping frequency or becoming constant. Shouldn't the logic be: Flaps UP: Constant (not beeping) tone above 35º AOA and below -7º AOA Flas HALF: Beeping tone starting at 15º AOA and increasing beeping frequency until constant tone at or above 35º AOA Flaps FULL: Beeping starting at 12º AOA and increasing frequency until constant tone at or above 32º AOA Also, I never noticed the yaw rate tone in DCS (beeping at 40º/second yaw rate and increasing frequency until constant at 60º/second yaw rate, unless the AOA is out of the limits above and the AOA tone is playing) Easy to reproduce but can attach a track if needed. Also, I attach a video (of definitely a different version/lot) but that seems to have the same specification of the tones as above. Regards,

Could be a damaged friendly with broken IFF transponder... would be great to have this possible in DCS

The salute itself is just eye candy. But of course, as DCS is about realism, being able to conduct the correct launch sequence instead of getting automatically shot out of the boat when you select mil without having performed the proper checks, is a must (although not high priority understandbly). Glad to see the salute will be implemented! It surprises me that some people oppose this :huh:

A ROE matrix is way more complex than just interrogating your target. Some modules (FC3, M2000) may have an advantage with a magic IFF implementation, but you still should have enough SA to declare a contact as hostile based on other criteria. Lets say that, if he is screaming towards you at M1.5 and you are spiked... you don't really need an IFF interrogation. 1+1. Actually I don't see any advantage on those modules. IFF only tells you that a contact is not replying with a friendly code. It does not confirm that it is hostile by itself. I'm not a big fan of the current "double interrogation = hostile" implementation of L16 either. Probably the best solution for DCS would be for ED to create an IFF API to be used by all modules the same. Introducing IFF transponder failures into the damage model or random failures would also steer the usage of IFF towards its real one, instead of a mental "master arm" switch.

As it is all spread in many different threads, and for the shake of the discussion and especially the "rwr correct as is" tag, I'm posting the links to the other threads where symbology has been discussed and photos/videos have been posted: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=197024&highlight=rwr https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3347781&highlight=rwr https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=218199&highlight=rwr https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3601263&highlight=rwr Plenty there to suggest that the current DCS symbology does not correspond. EDIT: Current DCS implementation shows all non-locked threats as non-lethal threat (short stem), STT threats as lethal threats (dashed stem) and missile launch as critical threat (long stem). All the pics/videos above suggest that correct behavior would be: - Non lethal threat (threat estimated not within lethal range): short stem - Lethal threat (threat estimated within lethal range): dashed stem - STT lock (critical threat): long stem - Missile launch: flashing long stem ( right side) Same applying to the RWR azimuth indicator in th appropriate ring. Apart from being supported by publicly available documentation, this also matches the way HB has implemented it too in the F-14 RWR azimuth indicator (aside from the F-14 not having HUD symbology), and also makes total sense from a human factors and HMI point of view.

^^^^ This Every module suffers from it

Excellent idea. A scripting API for DL (and also for IFF transponders btw) would really improve the simulation from the current compromise of having two fighter interrogations auto-declare a track as hostile!

And another example of the different threat line lengths in the HUD page too supporting what is said in this post about the lethal/non-lethal band, and also that the line length in the HUD EW should depend on lethality The video from where the above screenshot is taken (including rwr sound) can be easily found on youtube

Same with sound priorities. HB F-14 seem to follow what yt videos show (new guy tone taking priority) while the F18 does not. First video also shows the HUD RWR threat azimuth line on missile launch blinking (end of video 2-3 o clock position), that was my understanding of the correct real behavior as posted here Are there any updates/fixes planned?

Most of that added difficulty can be blamed on the lack of seat-of-the-pants feeling. The same way that it is quite difficult to hold a level altitude (trivial most likely in real life) in the F-14 without constantly actively monitoring the instruments, it also requires a more exhaustive scan when flying it around the case I pattern. Also I realized that you need a good stick with good calibration in order to AAR with the Tomcat without sweating due to constant spikes.

Because IRL wear and tear is different between engines and the situation you describe is quite usual. In simulations this is normally not modeled but ED took the step of modelling it in the F/A-18.

In my opinion a trainer is not really needed as this is a simulation, as others pointed out, and some of the reasons they are required in real life do not apply here. On the other hand, a trainer aircraft also provides a simpler airframe to learn basic admin/monkey skills and I have to say that I have seen lots of videos on youtube of people who really master the switchology and combat employment of the airplanes but lack basic stick and rudder skills (more evident on landings and especially carrier traps at the end of those videos). So I guess it depends. If you need to improve admin flying then a trainer may be useful as a stepping stone and a fun new aircraft to learn and fly. If not, I don't think it is worth the money investment and I'd recommend going straight to a complex module.

Shouldn't it be more appropriate to make these requests when the products are (almost) feature complete? Seriously.... the Hornet has no LTWS, no ECM, no TPOD, ..., the COMMS and ATC systems are still in diapers, they just started coding the DC.... and you are asking for a female pilot on a 6 page thread? :huh:

I think that DCS is, at the moment, more tailored to CAS operations, that's why, personal preferences apart, the A-10C or the KA-50 may offer a more fun environment. Also, the Hornet is far from complete and at the moment offers limited capabilities. With larger maps and a dynamic campaign, DCS may become more multirole in the future.