captain_dalan

Hey everyone. Been a while since the last I flew more then some instant actions. So last weekend I decided to go take her out for a spin for some CO-OP. While I was telling Jester to setup the NAV grid over the bullseye, I selected the heading to be absolute 090 (the expected vector for bogies/bandits). Back in the day, this would result with the grid being positioned cross like on the TID repeater, with the sectors radiating to the right, and the 4 axis arms coinciding with the 00, 09, 18 and 27 radials. However, (this was on Syria map) to my surprise, the grid seems offset a few degrees. Is this a bug or a feature? If the latter, when was this introduced? Does the absolute heading no longer correspond tp true north? Is the TID no longer aligned to true north? Image bellow for illustration:

Thanks!

Bump

Due to personal attacks, both on me and other members of the community who try to report bugs or offer criticism (constructive or otherwise), I no longer feel safe to do so on these forums and will no longer actively pursue such activities aside from supporting already reported issues in the form of bumps, shares and reactions. So please forgive me if I don't share any here anymore. I will DM you though, if you are still interested.

In the software industry there's a concept called feature creep. And when 'improvements' are keep being added while remaining standing issues remain unresolved, it's generally considered bad practice. Now I too understand, we who signed up for the early F-14A are fewer and thus less of a priority. But that doesn't mean we are bound to remain quiet on the topic. Would you if you were in our place? Is it mistake adding these features? Man, judging by the hype of some 2025 announcements, I would say definitely not. Bread and games, man, bread and games.... But as for me...... THIS!

Me as well. I got this module for the early A but just like nuclear fusion, it's always 10 years in the future. I'm completely cold on the Sparrowhawk B. If it drops for free I won't use it. If it's a payed update, I don't need it. If it's a full new module, I don't want it. I have this plane from the very start, and I've never dropped a single bomb from it. Did one rocket run that one time for the laughs of it and that's it. If mud moving was to become a habit of mine, I'd rather have an A-6, but that seems even further removed from an early A. Now if someone was to announce a D F-14, I'd get that at full price, just to complete the roster. Heck, I'd do that for a genuine early A as well, we're talking first/second cruise or AIM/ACEVAL blocks and I don't mean visual reskins, I mean actual planes that handle and perform like that, but alas, that ain't happening. At least not until the heat death of the universe or the next phase transition or whatever resets our reality

I guess some things never change.

No perceived differences in both planes that i can over-g and are still considered fully fidelity. The Mirage and the F-16 are FBW restricted. 10-11s before blackout in the F-14 and 13-14s in the F-18, but i pulled slightly more in the former: As for plane damage, i can overspeed the flaps and melt my gyro by over-g in the F-14 if i'm not careful, while in the meantime i can pull on the paddle in the F-18 until the heat death of the universe, and nothing will happen to the plane. What seems to be the problem again? EDIT: Do FC3 planes cause the pilot to blackout sooner or something? I'm not sure i get what the OP is trying so say?

Happy holiday season guys, no need to rush it right now!

My question as well. I haven't really been flying in months and when i booted up DCS last night, just to see what the new updates did i find the spotting..... how should i say, impaired? I mean, it's not as bad as it used to in the days of yore, but at first glance, it seems like my ability to spot airborne targets inside 10 and especially 5 miles, has been diminished by about 50%. Is this the result of the new weather implementation? But i only ran instant actions on Nevada map, i haven't added any weather effects on those. Or maybe my eyesight is finally giving up? Is anyone else experiencing difficulties in spotting things between 1 and 5 nautical miles? Flat monitor user BTW, 2560x1440.

@IronMike @Silhou Bump!

Strange. Maybe it's a MP related issue? Has this happened in SP as well? I couldn't reproduce it. I can send you tacview tracks if you wish. 9-10 g and no blackout.

Confirmed in both TWS and PD-STT, the track is now much more stable when banking away from the target, while before it used to be close to 90% chance of loss if you so much moved few degrees to a side.

First time in the plane? How many g-s did you pull? Did you perform any g-warm before pulling them? Just ran all the BFM instant actions in DCS for the F-14, managed to pull up to 10g on a few (just for the kicks of it), managed to rip my left wing of by rolling to adjust my aim on a jinking F-15 (because i suck, or they changed something about structural stress since last year) while pulling 9 or so g's, but i never blacked out. Came close to really deep grey-out on a downward spiral once, but that was the worst i did.

What are the actual consequences for tactical gameplay? Changes in burn-through ranges? Track loss? Lock-breaks? How is the opposite side effected?

That's ok, i can afford to host these for the time being, hopefully until someone notices or investigates the thread.

Hello there. This bug report is a continuation of this discussion: Namely, unlike a couple of years ago, the F-14A (i haven't tested the F-14B) seems to manifest increased performance (lift over drag) at higher mach numbers then it's supposed to, especially when compared to the CADC wing sweep schedule that is supposed to be optimized for maximum excess power. Right now, when wings are fully swept forward (20 degrees), the performance first drops at around mach 0.6, and then somehow raises at mach 0.7 and 0.8, before hitting a wall as expected near transonic speeds. I ran several tests, at different altitudes, and they all yield same results. I attach the video recordings from my tests with this post, as well as two short tracks taken this afternoon (i made them as short as possible) at mach 0.7 and 0.8 up at 15000ft. For full relevant documentation, please check the thread mentioned above. The Videos: And the tracks below: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-rbspHyUabuVm4sfsoq0805SjL0dOvpY/view?usp=sharing https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FcdsbKbq6DGoN6d9z-kVMqeGdMH4QmXn/view?usp=sharing Note, the tracks are too large for the 154kB restrictions (i wonder how short a track needs be to fit), so uploaded them to g-drive and given access to them. If needed, i can add the Tacview files as well. Have a great day and safe flying!

Roger, creating a bug report then.

Likewise! I realize that for most of the consumer base, shiny graphics first, and pushing buttons as close second is the major selling point for flight sim, but for me it's actually flying the things, so flight dynamics and aircraft performance are much more important. If pretty graphics were the main factor here, other market share holders would be considered. Is there a way to transfer this thread into the bugs? I have a distaste for double posts, so if we could just mark the discussion as bug or possible bug, pending investigation instead of opening a new topic and then copy-pasting the entire thing, it would be great!

Rivet counters? So, for you a plane breaking the laws of physics equates to faulty texture? Good to know.... I would say "most realistic" flight modeling is major part of sim marketing campaign, but WTH do I know, being a rivet counter and all....

Customer support 101! At least it's good to know what to expect in the future. Have a great weekend everyone

Well...it's dead Jim!

@Kanelbolle and @MAXsenna The issues seems resolved with the latest update (the hotfix), but i can't be entirely sure it's the only thing that helped, as i did follow Kanelbolle's advice as well, and added both exe files and configured them for high performance. A note, that even after this, i still had issue with the Persian Gulf map. In a final act of desperation i created a direct shortcut to the exe in the bin folder, thus bypassing the updater all together when running it. Et voila! This completely resolved all stutter issues i had when panning the view around. My launcher is still disabled BTW. For the time being i'll mark this as solution, though i will keep an eye on the stutters with future updates and the role of the launcher in them.

This didn't seem to make a difference. The screenshots above just so happened to be from different maps (Nevada and Caucasus), but i have repeated the tests in all maps i own, except maybe Marianas. For me at least, the stutter isn't map related, but launcher related. Which is weird, as both indicate same versions of the file, both in file explorer and inside the game splash screen. I'm running Win10. My settings are the same when i check the graphics settings in the game. Do you mean some other settings file?

I had the chance the do some troubleshooting the last few days, and the launcher definitely plays a part, though in a bit of unexpected manner. When i enable the launcher, and i run DCS through it, the bin folder exe performs smoothly, no stutters at all. But i run the exe of mt-bin folder, the stutters appear, like the the screenshots above. It's the complete opposite when i disable the launcher, and run the exe files through the shortcuts or the updater.