captain_dalan

No issues for me. Attach to CAT, salute, launch. All in mil power.

Do note that the word realism can hold very different meaning to different people. And while most people here like to pretend they are pilots, very very few like to pretend they are aviators. And i don't mean these terms in the shore and carrier based stick actuators meaning of the words.

Do you mind some clarifications on these? I only had about an hour to play around tonight, so i didn't really had the time to fully explore possible scenarios, but: 1. What exactly is the pedal shaker sound? Is it that rattling sound that used to play on high AoA excursions? 2. If this is present, it's barely noticeable if g-related. That is, it's largely drowned by the sound of the afterburner. Also, the heavy breathing and the visual blackout often kick in before the wind sound becomes noticeable. For me, it becomes audible around 6g in mil power and around 8g in burner. IF this is the sound we are talking about. High AoA related wind sound becomes audible much sooner. Is this as intended or am i missing something? 3. This now feels a lot "flatter". That is, it doesn't seem to vary much with AoA, once it reaches certain values, generally around or just above 20 units. Makes the plane feel a lot more "tame" and docile and reduces haptic feedback for extremely high AoA. It's nice to see low and medium AoA haven't been affected much. Was the real plane really so non-talkative during departures? I can now do zero-airspeed stalls and it feels very...... uneventful. 4. I still can't figure out how this works in the sim. Not before and certainly not now. As mentioned above, i did deliberate zero-airspeed stalls, and no effects on stick inputs or plane behavior SAS on or off. Tight 25, 30 and 30 plus units of AoA turns, with cross-controlling stick and rudder inputs, again no perceivable difference. Rolling with both rudders and ailerons (coordination) or snap rolls, no joy, still the same. Full deflection alerion rolls, SAS on, seems and feels snappier and faster somewhat. What test-case scenario should cover a clear test of the plane's behavior with SAS on and off? As things are, i see no reason at all to turn it to off for dogfights.

Agreed. Both on the carrier and on land runways, the breaks seem to work ok, at least as far as stopping comes to mind. This still assumes the pilot doesn't botch the landing of course! What i did notice though, is that now the breaks can't hold the plane in place with less then 40% mil power. Although, i don't recall ever reading how much power should be needed before break pressure isn't enough, so maybe it's supposed to be this way? However, that also means, that holding the breaks till engine spool up is an absolute no-no. Not that it was possible before mind you, just that now it's even less possible.

Just out of curiosity, care to share a screenshot of your view with the mirror tilted up all the way? Just for comparison? Sadly there's no other way for us non-VR users. And how do you handle edge-of-the-envelope cases with no clear view of the nose? I, for the life of me, can't handle 25 units and above, without a clear view of what the nose is doing, and judging simply by the roll oscillations is usually way to reactive for me, or alternatively my corrections are too slow to compensate, i only end up worsening the oscillations. 30 units and above? Solid look at the nose is a must!

Does he? 0:45 in this video, he says friendly 5 miles. And that is a helo next to the carrier

Ah. no argue from me there. After all, even the AMRAAMs have abyssal hit ratio once you know what you're doing.

I'd take the over the nose view rather then the VID view any days of the week. If you fly by the slip indicator rather then the yaw string, you'll be flying catchup the entire time, except in straight line flight. OP, i use these custom view angles myself. They give you a more upwards view. You can see the nose well. And, as your nose is pointing slightly up when flying due to positive angle of attack, you have no issues with the canopy bow to look ahead. In fact, the default view IMO, has you looking a bit up? Anyways, try it (just make a backup of your default views first) and see if you find it useful. And feel free to further adjust it to your needs. EDIT: this is how it looks in one of my recordings BTW: SnapViews.lua

Realism may mean different things to different people. If we look at extremely basic, micro-tactical realism, then yeah. I would agree. But if we look at operational realism, then DCS open PvP servers, generally aren't a good example of it. I mean, air superiority is completely eschewed as a concept. So it's only naturally so that any associated metrics are rendered void as well. Spawn points tend to be just outside modern guided artillery range, so abundant and careless use of burner at low altitudes is non-issue. Had real life air operations been conducted like an average PvP brawl, there would hardly be any fighting at all. Reds would hide in the mountain, and blues would have uncontested control of the sky. At best some point defense actions might take place, but that's it. So the meta isn't exactly hospitable to some hardware. Nothing wrong with that. Fun is more important after all, and probably the main reason why the majority of the userbase is here.

Aye, i would consider everything under 5000ft to be very low. On co-altitude launches, i don't expect any hits at all from 50 miles away, not even on hot ones. Shooting from a look down may improve the chances, but then you are faced with the issue of radar dropping tracks due to less-then-perfect lookdown capability. Especially over land. But i hadn't tried this enough times to be able to make an educated guess. Anyways, against cold targets..... unless the bandit changes his mind and turns hot, 50 miles is a stretch, even at high altitudes.

That's a very good point.

Guidance failure, jamming and low flying targets are the first 3 things that come to mind when missiles fail to loft. I have no idea how being outside max range and with low or negative closure would effect the shot. In this case the scenario seems to involve at least one. Was the target jamming as well?

Da*n! next patch's gonna be a bonanza of new features!

More details might help, Tacview track if possible, or in absence of those, detailed description of the engagements?

Didn't have the time to confirm it, but this is from an early Hornet thread here on the forums: null

This. Every time my Phoenix failed, wasn't because it didn't have the energy to connect, or that another missile in DCS would have had it. It's still the longest stick around, even at 35kft. Why do you think a shot that can't possibly connect under the firing conditions isn't a viable, or even a desirable shot?

Added the F-14 myself and a new personal high score, this time 66 (over the previous 62). It could have been 68, but i may have entered the final break a bit too aggressive

Do note that that total surface area isn't available or really useful at all possible Angles of Attack. It only comes into play at very high values.

Of course, but that would IMO require more work intensive changes to the Jester logic, while what i proposed is already there, it just needs interfacing with the Jester wheel, so it should be easier to implement short term? That looks like a really neat mod, though having to override it after every update is a bit tedious.

I usually don't encourage it, but i've recorded few traps with the controls indicator ON last night. Maybe you'll find the recording useful. If nothing else, it should help get some general idea behind the entire process. Full disclaimer, i am far from being the best stick behind the boat AND i hadn't done this in few weeks now, so i am a bit rusty. Especially with my groove times. Hope this helps and feel free to ask more questions if something seems unclear:

I've noticed this even with unloaded gun tracks. Say a bandit is burning rubber in a straight line just ahead of you and you actually need to aim the cross a bit higher to hit it. I always thought it was a feature though, and not a bug, so i tend to naturally aim a bit ahead then the reticle says. More pronounced the farther the target is.

This could be a very useful Jester wheel add-on as well. Say under BVR-TWS options, we can have the number of tracks generated by the AWG-9, and they can never be more then six of them, so there should always be enough room for all. Then once selecting a number, we can have DO NOT ATTACK option or BACK. Would help in saving some time for people that don't like jumping in the back seat or just for "immersion" having your RIO do it.

Lift quotients are usually calculated to work with reference wing areas for that plane, so you should be fine with most vanilla data.

Ah, that explains it. I usually do all the tests in standard atmosphere conditions. Eh... that fuel consumption (still no reply on that topic, hopefully after the FM revamp?) is still rather fishy and some of the envelope edge cases are questionable. But just based on raw performance, it's probably ok-ish. But Draconus is right, this is not the place to discuss it. There's no recovering from it by using command inputs once it fully develops, short of lowering alpha. At least not one i've discovered or am able to execute right. But go into the excursions with no sideslip and you should be ok.

Inside those parameters there isn't a valid way to confirm or deny your statement. If you chose to hold one or the other as true, that will entirely up to you. But i for one, would never take that statement as anything other then contrived. I can always fudge some numbers to reach a conclusion that would suit my argument. Especially with vague metrics that hold little actual value. There's a reason people use Ps diagrams.