Nerd1000

They're very bad at WVR dogfighting too: I can quite easily defeat one in the MiG-21. I should note that I'm hopelessly bad at ACM and can only win against the MiG-21 AI in the F-14 about half the time...

Your radar beam spreads out in a cone from the nose of the plane, so it is possible that your wingman was inside the radar beam even though the middle of the beam was aimed at the MiG. The AIM-7 doesn't have any way of knowing whether a radar echo is the one you locked on to- the radar return from the intended target is usually the strongest because the beam gets weaker towards the edges, but sometimes the missile's position might mean it gets a stronger signal from a different target, in which case it will home in on that instead.

Well if your typical assailant is a MANPADS or any other IR weapon loss of an engine is to be expected: DCS models heatseekers as having a preference for homing in on the exhaust if it is visible to the missile, so most rear aspect IR shots against A-10s take out an engine (or both). MANPADS (and the R-60 AAM, which is so small that it might as well be an air launched MANPADS tbh) make this particularly clear because their teeny-tiny warheads often just blow up the engine without seriously hurting anything else. Can't account for radar guided weapons or guns though.

It is always possible to spoof a sensor- consider your eye, a very high resolution (>4K) sensor that can detect three different frequency bands (assuming you're not colourblind) and has a indeterminately complex self-adapting neural net to process all the data, and consider how easy it is to mistake one object for another at a distance, or fall prey to camouflage even when the object you are trying to spot is very close by. Now the 9X has a simpler problem (it only needs to distinguish countermeasures from planes) but as far as I know it's only working in one band and has a mere 128x128 pixel sensor resolution, not to mention less processing power than your smartphone. It can be confused, if you can find the right technique. I gather that new flare chemistry to better replicate the frequency spectrum of jet exhaust (most current ones produce too much visible and UV light) and special flares that try to have a more aircraft-like flight path (rather than suddenly slowing down in a way that is unphysical for a plane) are both areas of development for countering FPA seekers, similar to how towed decoys and expendable mini-jammers are appearing to counter the anti-chaff measures in radar guided missiles.

As mentioned in the OP, my altitude was 3000 ft. 520 IAS, not TAS or CAS.

Posting from work atm, so images or tracks will have to wait. This morning before leaving I quickly loaded up the F-14 (which had just finished installing) in the free flight instant mission to sate my need for the danger zone. Spent about 10 mins mucking about, including diving to 3000 ft, 520 knots and (on a self destructive whim) extending the gear. Not only did the gear survive extension at at 0.8 Mach, but my Tomcat did not even slow down or shake in response! Might need a quick look to see if this is a bug.

Well there is one area where the engine was sure to be subject to increased strain, and that is simply mechanical effects. More RPM, More power = More mechanical load on internal components. Bearings are a particular concern- overheat them (via friction) and the engine will soon cease to function.

My ideal next aircraft (after the F-14) is definitely the F-111C. IMO it's probably not out of the question- The F-111 has a fair bit in common with the F-14 (swing wings, TF-30 engines and possibly some avionics?) and possesses a lot of tech that Heatblur already developed for the Viggen (A2G radar, anti-ship missiles, recon systems etc.) But I doubt that it's what they're planning for their next release :cry:

The AI appears to have the ability to jettison the GAU-12 gunpod if it's attacked by a fighter. As far as I'm aware the GAU-12 replaces the ventral strakes and is not intended to be jettisoned in flight, so this seems to be a bug. Also, I feel that the AI flight model's ability to retain speed in turns is a bit fishy, but it's difficult to test definitively so it may just be me.

If you watch the AI in tacview you'll see that they generally don't do anything crazy- they just never make a mistake while maneuvering, while you may (at any point) be pulling too much or too little by a tiny amount. This can give them unexpected energy advantages that allow them to keep up with you in that sort of situation. I'll make one exception: The AI AV-8B is ridiculous. It can outrun the likes of the MiG-21bis in a gentle turn, and I'm fairly certain that I've seen it exceeding its specified maximum speed at sea level (I was at 1100km/h indicated and the Harrier was pulling away!) Try the same in the player version and you'll be eating an Atoll faster than you can say 'induced drag.' Flying F-15 against F-5E is actually pretty easy if you keep an eye on your speed and play to the Eagle's strengths, which are... pretty much everything, actually. It has better climb, turn rate, turn radius and max G. The trick is to keep the plane in the range of speeds at which it performs best. After-burning jet engines generally deliver more thrust at higher speeds, so the faster you go the faster you'll be able to regain energy. Going below 330 knots is a big no-no unless you really have to or it will give you an angle for a guns shot that the enemy cannot avoid.

I thought that might be the issue. Annoying because I don't have enough hat switches to bind everything onto one. Interestingly the TGP works fine. For those like me who can't assign the TDC to a hat without sacrificing some other important function, I've found a workaround: if you want to remove all locks (e.g. when returning to base) select INS as sensor before unlocking. The DMT can be placed on a target by selecting it (it will lock somewhere random) then putting the flight vector on the target and pressing unlock- you can then fine-tune with the ministick, though it will jump around a little.

Jet AI FMs are generally pretty accurate in terms of overall performance (there are only a few deviations: They can sustain negative G that would flame out the engine, and have unrealistic control at very low speed) but the AI cheats in other ways. They aren't omniscient while cruising around, and if you sneak up in their blind spot you can get a shot off without the AI reacting. Once they've spotted you, however, things are different. An AI that's aware of your presence is always also aware of your speed, altitude, angle of attack, throttle setting and aspect relative to its aircraft, even when you're so far away you should just be a little spec in the pilot's view. In fact the AI knows these values to a greater accuracy than your instruments will display to you, because the AI code is directly fed flight data from the sim. Not all AIs are created equal in DCS, and some (e.g. the F-15) are surprisingly easy to beat in guns-only dogfights due to artificial stupidity. The F-5E AI is not one of these: it will always use the exact control inputs needed to get max performance out of the jet. Combined with its perfect awareness of your movements, getting the advantage over the F-5E AI guns-only without a superior aircraft is incredibly difficult. The F-5E AI also has a working understanding of ACM and will use a variety of maneuvers to get the advantage over you: Slow down rapidly and the AI will do a high yo-yo to re-position for another attack, and if you suck it into a scissors and force an overshoot the AI will attempt to escape using a low yo-yo followed by a loop or high yo-yo to re-position onto your six. It's also rather good at deflection shooting, even against 3D maneuvers like barrel rolls. Equip both sides with missiles and the fight gets a bit more even because the AI isn't very good at denying missile shots (it prefers maximum kinetic performance over preventing you from firing on its aircraft) and tends to shoot its own missiles outside of their launch envelope (the F-5 AI will fire any time it gets tone, even if you're inside minimum range or crossing its nose too fast for the AIM-9 to track.) The AI skill level also plays into this: while skill setting doesn't seem to change how the AI flies, it will change how quickly it responds to incoming missiles. Average AIs may fail to respond at all, while Expert AIs react instantly to any missile threat by launching countermeasures and (sometimes) using an evasive maneuver.

Correct modelling of the Huey's engine temperature limits only came in fairly recently, so the vids you've been watching may be from before that fix (i.e. those players were running the engine at temperatures that should cause it to explode!) I think the best solution is to make sure you always have translational lift. If you need to move slower to track something, try zig-zagging back and forth. For takeoff, I strongly recommend transitioning to forward flight while still in ground effect (in fact I enter forward flight as soon as the skids leave the ground.)

I can select the DMT either using the MPCD or the sensor switch, but weird things happen either way: When I use the MPCD I can't slew the DMT, and when I use the sensor switch the DMT immediately locks on to my current flight vector. I can slew the sensor in this situation, but it jitters around and tries to lock on to everything. When I press the unlock/NWS button after selecting the DMT with the sensor switch it does return to the flight vector, but it immediately locks on again :mad: Anyone have any idea why this might be happening? I have the slew assigned to the mini-stick on my throttle, if the axes cause problems.

Missiles don't always maneuver at max G (if you watch one in F6 view this will be obvious). The issue is that there is only one guidance law available to them, to wit Proportional Navigation (PN.) PN works by having the missile attempt to keep the target at a constant bearing and elevation off its nose (as this means that the missile and target are on a collision course.) If the target's bearing is moving right to left the missile will turn left until the bearing is constant again. The steering input is proportional to the error (fast changes in bearing will result in larger control inputs), so if the target turn gently the missile will use a proportional input (less than max G) to maintain the collision course. DCS may include augmented PN (where the missile can account for and lead into the target's turns, allowing it to 'cut the corner' when pursuing a maneuvering target) for more advanced missiles, but I'm not certain on that front. PN works well in the terminal phase, but in the boost and coast phases of a BVR missile's flight it causes the missile to turn violently in an attempt to 'lead' the target any time the target changes course. There are other guidance laws that work better in this case: one option would be to calculate steering inputs for both PN and Pure Pursuit (PP = the missile tries to fly directly towards the target) then take a weighted average of them as the input sent to the controls. The missile would start by flying PP, and mix in increasing amounts of PN as the range to the target decreased.