captain_dalan

Do you own and fly any of the warbirds, that is WW2 era props?

It affects people flying against it.

Contrary to most people that have a gripe with the current implementation, my issue is not with the upper range performance, but with the more medium range shots against non maneuvering hot or slightly offset bandits. Namely the bell distribution curve for PKs is way too normal (that is symmetric on both sides of the median) when compared with most written or spoken accounts of doctrinal use, that imply it should be skewered towards the nearer ranges. Hopefully improvement in guidance algorithms remedies that. However, it could be that all those mentioned accounts are wrong or exaggerating or outright lies. In such a case maybe the best PK zone is a narrow band around the ideal range that leans both slopes in an equal differential and we are all just spitting at the wind here

Looking at the results of that test, i think that while the overall acceleration is all over the place, not all parts of the envelope are created equal. That is, the time you'll spend being above mach 1.4 or the situations that warrant it, is much less pronounced then the time you'll be between 0.9 and 1.2. At least for most BVR. BTW, has anyone done this for the A model?

Been using this for over 5 years now as i have no room under my desk for rudder paddles and the cost of a new desk + quality rudders is a bit too much for me to invest in. I understand why it may not be enough for the helo guys, but for warbirds and Tomcats it's more then enough.

I'm guessing transonic drag is bonkers? And it's been so for ages now. The A model won't even go supersonic with some loads above certain altitude. As for the reaction to dropping ordnance.....have you guys ever fired a shoulder mounted Sparrow while in a 4x2x2 or 6x2? The thing immediately drops to the heavier side.

Bolded by me. Are you serious? There is literally 0.2-0.3g difference (resulting in 0.4-0.5deg/s turn rate difference) between the two planes at best sustained mach, for the same loadout and with a greater fuel margin for the A (more burner time). Acceleration? Yeah sure. But Turning? There is hardly a difference. Unless you are one of the 1 in 1000 flyers that plans to do lateral cartwheels with the plane, your engines won't die either.

Not due to its turning capability though......

So no feedback on this? @IronMike?

Or wait for the trans sonic drag to be fixed

Ahoy there mates, it's been a long time. This is not a bug report, or i would have posted in the bugs section, but rather question on the edge of the envelope scenarios. I've been doing some flight tests for a friend recently, and some of those involved riding the max lift all the way down to stall speeds. Now, i could be wrong (it would not be the first time), but if memory serves, with the wings forward to 22 degrees, this meant 30 units of AoA, or 32-33 degrees. As the AoA spiked and airspeed dropped, i started adding appropriate rudder inputs, which bellow 200 knots generally meant (after making sure you are coordinated) full rudder in the direction of bank, in order to prevent the nose from sliding in the opposite direction. This is how i used to do it anyway. To my great surprise, i found that the rudder didn't have enough authority to keep the nose level and straight. Especially bellow 170-160, no matter how hard i stepped on it, my nose kept sliding "up". It may be my technique that is wrong, however when i checked the tacview file, i noticed something strange. Unfortunately, some weeks ago i deleted all of my old test tracks, in order to save space, so i can't compare the test data side by side. But the new tests, indicate my angle of attack to spike over 34 degrees when i pull the stick full aft. Often going up to 35. This is post stall category unless i'm mistaken. And it's not just transient alpha either. Once pegged it stays there. So i started the mission again and this time i pulled gradually. First to 20 units, then 25 units, then 30 units...... and look, i still hade more stick travel unused. And as long as i didn't use that extra travel, the true AoA remained inside 32-33 degrees and my rudder authority was enough to arrest any slipping or sliding tendencies. As soon as i pulled that extra inch or so, my nose went sliding and the rudder could not keep up, even when engaged before the pull. So, what gives? Were the controls changed somewhere along the way? Is this the intended behavior? Should we actually be able to "oversteer" the plane with full aft stick command? And if so, should the CLmax line follow the 32 or 35 degrees AoA? Thank you for your time. Tacview files attached bellow! Cheers and clear skies Tacview-20220501-193157-DCS-Sustained turn rate test flight f14B 5000ft 55620lbs.zip.acmi Tacview-20220501-203938-DCS-Sustained turn rate test flight f14A low clean.zip.acmi

1. Eh, the instruments in the B were exactly the same as they were in the A until fairly recently anyway. I doubt most people even noticed the the difference when they were changed 2. From what i've seen thusfar, most DCS users hardly use the throttles during BFM for compressor stalls to be an issue, and a good portion of those would crash long before they killed an engine if they pulled AoA and sideslip sufficient enough to kill an engine. 3. They most definitely are. Zone 5 is my all time favorite in any plane i've purchased in DCS! In short, i think most people that stay away from the A, just do so on general principle, not because of any technical issues

I thing HB can no longer help you there.

Isn't all ammunition now ED controlled?

Any chance for a hotfix that will repair the issue without disabling the wake turbulence?