captain_dalan

Aye, checked that myself this afternoon as well. No joy. While the above mentioned procedure did work this autumn, the AI will no longer use the Phoenix, neither in my own test missions nor in the instant actions that involve BVR. This was recorder back in august:

How do you make the AI F-14's engage at all with a Phoenix? For as long as i can remember in all my missions, they would wait till at least 30 miles away before they even consider launching and more often they get into Sparrow range before they do?

Ah, that's why assumed more love would be given to the Naval jets, namely J's!

They never did. Unfortunately the AI for the HB F-14 has been borked since the start. There used to be a workaround for your wingmen, i think it started working from this autumn, if you ordered them to engage from 50+ nautical miles, they would actually employ AIM-54's, but order them from shorter ranges and have them as independents and they will ignore the Phoenixes. ED has been notified, but so far there have been no changes.

Look i understand that not all of us are created or trained equal and life has been harder to some of us then others. Just because i can do it without any stick extensions and 16000+ DPI on my old CH Fighterstick, doesn't mean, everyone can. But i would advise most to at least try. But not try for the sake of trying. Try until you palms sweat and fingers blister. And then, and only then, if after weeks or months of idle effort, you still can't do it......then try adding some curves. Just be aware of the pitfalls that go along with them, so when you hit those, they won't come out of nowhere and you don't feel cheated....

Thanks mate! I don't have Photoshop so i used Gimp for this. But if i start doing skins more often, i may have to get Ps! Sharp eyes! Yeah, i see what you mean, the metallic shine threw me off there i didn't notice it. Thanks again! Is this better?

Hey, didn't you guys fly navy versions!?

After all these years i still find it hard to understand why people would chose to fly a plane that needs over a mile of runway to land!

Bolded by me. I must disagree with this statement. While it is true that increased resolution around the center helps with precision flying, the statement that the extremes of the axis don't require such precision are true, ONLY if you fly the plane as a makeshift airliner or a carpet bomber. Try aerobatics or BFM or heavens forbid, SAM evasion jinks with such curves, and the steeper they are the most likely you are to rip you wings off (at worst) or depart the plane due to excessive pitch (at best) If you can find away to have two separate curve settings, one for AAR and one for regular use, then go for it. But even this will require you to rewire your brain for two distinct plane behaviors. IMO, it's much better to be patient and develop fine motor skill instead of take the easy route and develop bad muscle memory. But ultimately it's your choice. If you expect to never have to violently maneuver the plane, then curves will not hurt you. Just don't try pulling the stick even slightly at mach 1.4 or above.

Sorry, something went bogus with my previous post. First thing's first. All credits where credit is due. This livery wouldn't be possible without the works of @Reflected and @Tomcatter87 who allowed me to use their works as a base and who's art has inspired me to make my first dip into DCS skin making. This is supposed to represent a 1977 F-14A, NH 202, buno 159861, block 90 from VF-213. The high-viz template is based on Reflected's high-viz liveries, from 1975-1976, with the white underbelly being adjusted to more closely resemble the photos i found for this bird. The nacelle fins are repainted from scratch. The tail art and the crew helmets are taken from Tomcatter's VF-213 early 80's livery. The blue surface on the rudders and the top of the stabs is a result of much trial and error while experimenting with DCS lighting. The fed blue didn't work for me. While it resembled the F-14D VF-213's from the 90's it just didn't 'jive' with the 70's photos. The buno is composed of digits taken from other high-viz skins by Reflected and shuffled in the needed order. The Kittyhawk markings on the wing gloves and the base of the vertical stabs are taken and adjusted from Reflected's Vark livery. Unfortunately, i could not a photo detailed enough to see the names of the crew that flew this bird on that cruise, so i kept the Tomcatter's crew bellow the canopy. It was my original goal to paint the NH 201 (the one on my DCS profile cover), but i just couldn't find a photo detailed enough from this period. I must say, only now do i understand the passion behind making liveries. For several days (more exactly nights) i found myself staying up till 4AM either researching the plane, or fine tuning the look... and no matter how much you fine tune it, it's NEVER just right! But i had to say when at some point, even though i'm not 100% pleased with the work i did. I mean, i'm definitely keeping the work for personal use AND for future modifications, but the ever critic in me will never consider it to be "good enough" . So what do you guys think? Is this worth sharing and publishing? Once again, all my thanks and full honors to the original creators who's work i based this on! Keep flaying, keep painting and clear skies! Cap D.

It will be real fun to slide off the carrier when it changes direction...

I did some tests last night, and decided to try and eliminate the human factor so i set the missions in the following manner: 1. AI F-18C VS AI F-16C; 2. AI F-18C VS AI-F-14A; 3. AI F-14A VS AI F-16C All planes clean, set to roughly same time in burner Veteran AI level. Only let the AI fight two times for every setup. The F-16 seemed most consistent. Tried to stay around 380-390 knots in all fights. The F-14 mostly tried to stay around 250-260 knots but i two fight actually went for a high energy strategy and kept its airspeed above 420 knots, while periodically exchanging energy for position. The breaks were very sloppy though, with choppy excursions above 6g. The F-18 was the poorest show of them all. In all fights it just bled off all its energy and tried to do a sustained turning fight at 150 knots, which gave him no more then 1.5g available at most times. Only on occasion, usually when the bandit would go into a dive and the Hornet followed, would its airspeed rise to 200-ish knots and somewhat improve its turning potential. All planes seemed to prefer to be at 20 degrees AoA for the most time when engaging in a turn, which feels a bit off to me. As usual, no snapshot attempts were made, so high AoA insistence makes little sense. Anyways, no further reports for now. Happy weekend and Merry Christmas to all!

Ballistic F-16.trkTacview-20211225-223911-DCS-F-14A NTTR_Dogfight_F-16C NO PYLONS 70 percent fuel both.zip.acmi Here is my track and the corresponding Tackview. I don't know if it'll work as it's a Tomcat track. This time around the AI Viper only went down to 90 or so knots CAS. Still perfectly controlable over the top. If memory serves, he did this twice, the second time, did cost him his life.

For what is worth, on Caucasus, in the carrier quals missions, i actually get 3-4+ FPS after the latest patch, but that may be ED optimizing water rendering?

I would actually prefer if it didn't! I mean, if it did, then sooner or later it would reach its theoretical maximum and then we'd end up with flying the same AI again and again. I prefer diversity. I will try to save a track the next time i do the training BFM missions. The above snapshot was taken from an F-14 flight, so that is broken by default, i doubt it will be of any use. Unless you can use the tackview file?

1. If properly employed then yes, against most planes. As for the Hornet....... that is a tough question. I simply can't confirm or deny it's sleek performance. As it is currently modelled in DCS it is arguably the best dogfighter in that configuration. STR is irrelevant here. The Hornet is performing exceptionally well (relatively) in most ACM metrics we can observe. 2. Two disclaimers: 2-1. This is going to be my personal opinion based on my personal tastes; 2-2. I am nowhere near proficient in the Flanker and the Fulcrum as i am in other planes, so some finer points of their performance characteristics may be lost on me I find the flying qualities of the Fulcrum superior and more to my liking then the ones of the Flanker. In a purely guns only environment, i would take the former rather then the latter. It's smaller, more nimble and more more E-M capable (by far) then the lumbering Flanker. This doesn't mean easier time in DCS, as already mentioned, proper tactics are more difficult to execute due to poor visibility. But, as we are forgetting tactical implementation, then 29 all the way. If however, HOBS, HMS and Archers are present, then airplane performance become less relevant and simple nose pointing is the main factor, then go for the Flanker. Not because it's a better plane, but because it will perform that first turn easier and let you have the first shot. IF you survive that long.

Haven't experienced that yet....for better or worse! But i did some practice BFM sessions against the AI this Friday night before going MP (mostly against Vipers and Fulcrums), and in one of those, a veteran AI MiG-29 actually tried to force an overshoot and then proceeded to engage in a one circle with me! ONE CIRCLE! I have never seen an AI engage in one circle of its own volition. Is it possible that ED has slipped some silent AI updates under the hood?

Have the user files been updated with the new version or are you planning on releasing it as a separate download?

I'm ok with the AI trying new tactics as long as it doesn't break the (known) laws of physics

1. Just define maneuverability as the capability to change your energy state in the air, and suddenly the 29 is one of the (if not THE) best planes we currently have in DCS 2. The F-15C is a bit overmodeled (slow) and undermodeled (fast) in DCS anyways. Still fairly close for a FC3 plane Forum rules prohibit such actions.

Looks much closer now! When is this bad boy coming out? Can't wait to get him on the Hoover Dam run!

If i happen to find the reports (fat chance that) i'll post them. Don't hold me to it though, if there is one thing older then my brain, it's my hardware and i've went through quite a few disks over the years

And i was just getting to know her....

2. (and 3) the difference can (and in the case of the F-14) is negligible. And most aircraft are designed with certain parameters and performance in mind. But that is far beyond the scope of this topic i think. 4. It is stronger when compared to its direct competitor the F-16. Even though similar, it's STR per mach is better for lower airspeeds. I don't think you can expect one plane to be better in an arbitrary metric then all the other planes, along the entire envelope. Especially when comparing similar levels of technologies. 5. I don't think relaxed stability is universally better as such. It does provide access to parts of the envelope that may not be available otherwise. But EVERY design is a compromise, and the choice of the airfoil, the geometry of the inlets, the power curve of the engines.....they all will play a part in the end product. And that product will be dynamic in nature, which leads us to: 6. I think you are relying to much on static properties (again) to quantify a highly dynamic process. Is a sail better lifting body then a 2x4? Of course it is. But that doesn't really resolve our conundrum now, does it? Better lift coefficient you say, but better at what angle of attack? As mentioned above, maintaining or sustaining g's (a turn) is a state where the excess power is zero, that is, the power of the engines is in a state of equilibrium with the total drag produced for a desired lift (g-force). Two planes can have same ratio between lifting surface and total weight (lift loading) but very different shapes of wings. In fact, they most certainly will. And even the airfoil used will have vastly different properties, that will result in very different performance at both different angles of attack and different airspeeds. There is no one perfect wing. If there was, every plane would have been designed with it.

1- He will......if i get stuck in lag. But what's stopping me from relaxing or unloading, getting my knots back, and doing it all over again. The outcome depends on what happens faster, me getting enough knots back, or him completing a turn which he starts at a position of disadvantage. 2- But the entire line of reasoning behind the example is to illustrate why you should NOT sustain at all times. If he decides to bleed or go out of plane, then there is no sustaining, ergo, no need for the illustration, right? 3- They may, they may not. It's not a given. Once both sides start playing the energy game, then who even manages his/her transitions better will come on top. And it will also be AC specific, as not all planes perform the same along the entire envelope 4- at this point we are purely academic and removed from the scope of the mental exercise, but i'll indulge you......why not? If you go one circle in such a way that you will get inside the Archer WEZ, you have just completed one way of surviving the merge with the R-73 equipped platform. It may not the be the best way, but it is A way.