Nerd1000

I'm pretty sure that the game configs give the BMP-2 1/10th of the AA aimimg skill given to SPAAGs. That said, there may be other factors at play giving them their unrealistically high accuracy. You can avoid their shots by keeping your distance and making evasive maneuvers (don't fly in a straight line!). This works well in fast jets like the viggen, but isn't much help for helicopters because they're too slow to dodge. Also I suspect that most other IFVs have similar plane sniping abilities, but rarely use them because they can't aim their guns up enough to shoot at you.

They're actually significantly worse shots than Shilkas. The problem is that there is usually lots of them in a formation, wheras there are rarely more than 2 Shilkas in the same group. Add to that the fact that they seem to fire constantly (Shilkas shoot in bursts) and their 30mm guns do significantly more damage than the Shilka's 23mm and you get a serious threat.

Indeed. I'd also like to add that when Russian WW2 aircraft are implemented it should be a high priority to provide female voices to represent a particular group of units....

What happens with radiators fully closed? This MW50 induced engine blowup problem doesn't seem to be an overheating issue based on other comments. I bet it's something to do with the engine durability model- they've put a decimal place in the wrong spot or something, and the engine wears out very quickly when MW50 is engaged.

Even non-standoff weapons like the low-drag bombs or rockets work against shilka defended targets- normally you can line up the target, release and then take evasive action before the bullets reach you. They're more accurate than the high drag bombs too :music_whistling:. I'm just kinda annoyed that the default loadout for so many missions is a weapon that you cannot safely deploy.

No more than 50m agl. Suppose I could try flying lower...

They may be the best option when the main air defense threat is long range SAM systems like the SA-2 or even SA-6, but it seems to me that in a typical DCS mission using a high drag bomb attack is basically suicide. The stock mission where you're meant to bomb some mobile supply depots is a perfect example: the trucks are surrounded by Shilkas, and any attempt at a low level bombing run (even when you run in at mach 1.2) is doomed to be cut short by a burst of 23mm shells. Jinking and similar evasive maneuvers work to get you over the target, but once you're there you must level out and fly straight to aim/release your weapons- at this point the AA gunners get their chance, and blow you out of the sky just as your bombs start leaving the racks. Anyone got advice on how to make this work better? Or should I do pop-up dive bombing attacks with normal bombs?

It's probably a vehicle. There are several EWR vehicles in DCS- you can view them in the 'air defense' section of the encyclopedia if you want. Generally speaking you should look for a vehicle with a disproportionately large antenna array or dish mounted on top.

The Mustang has the same issue: filled rear tank shifts the CG, making the plane unstable in violent maneuvering. Solution is to switch fuel supply to rear tank ASAP after takeoff, and drain it first (before even the droptanks). Hopefully the fuel in the rear tank is used up before you encounter the enemy.

This is very incorrect: The real MiG-21 radar has no Doppler function and cannot distinguish real contacts from the terrain, so IRL using this 'tactic' would result in a radar screen that was smothered in ground clutter. The R-3R is even less capable- While the MiG's radar at least has some ability to reject chaff or clutter once it attains a lock, the R-3R simply homes in on the strongest reflection it can see. As a result it should be easily spoofed by chaff, and should also be totally useless against anything that's flying at low altitude (the R-3R was designed to allow attacks at high altitude in clouds- against a low target, IR homing missiles or guns are preferred).

Microsoft CFS3 had airframe creaking noises that started up when you pulled high G. They got louder the more G was pulled. Of course being able to hear the airframe flexing (or anything else, really) over the unmuffled 27 litre V-12 positioned a metre and a bit in front of your toes is highly unrealistic... but it certainly gave you that feedback that's often lacking in sims.

To some degree this makes sense- the F-15 is a lot bigger than a WW2 fighter and thus to get a given level of detail it needs more triangles. The 109 is the smallest fighter in-game at the moment so it makes sense that the poly count is the lowest as well. That said, more detail is always a good thing (until it starts slowing down your framerate), and I agree things like that antenna should look round.

A little while back I built an R/C model of the Viggen powered by a electric ducted fan (flying weight 1kg, static thrust circa 490 grams), and I can confirm that high AoA causes massive speed loss on that sort of wing planform- mine needed full throttle to maintain height in turns, but easily built up a nice speed in level flight even at around 60% throttle. It also has interesting characteristics near the stall- the plane doesn't really stall as such and will happily remain controllable at high AoA while warning you of the near stall condition by rocking its wings back and forth (the drag makes you lose altitude fast). I've got another tailless model that uses a straight wing with LERX, and it has nowhere near the same level of speed loss in turns even though it's aerodynamically much dirtier than the Viggen- of course it's propelled by a prop and has a better TWR, so some of that may be masked by raw thrust. Unsatisfied with the Viggen's amount of thrust (I wanted to do aerobatics) I switched from the original 3 cell 11.1V battery to a 4 cell 14.8V battery- this gave me the thrust I wanted (closer to 700g I think), with nice quick climbs and enough power to do loops. Unfortunately it was a bit much for the electric motor and it self-destructed around 4 minutes into the first flight with that setup, so my Viggen is now confined to the hangar while she awaits a heart transplant :(

We appear to be having some issues understanding each other: by error I meant 'deviation from desired value' rather than 'software malfunction'. For example, a control system might have an error of 2%, in which case the output of the controller would deviate from the correct value by up to 2%.

What Kurfurst said suggested that the Merlin's throttle body was after the supercharger impeller- I corrected him, as any examination of the outside of a Merlin will reveal that the carburettor is positioned between the air intake on the aircraft's underside and the supercharger impeller. I agree that the differences between different throttle body locations are probably minimal- What I read was from a old Hot-rodder's engine tuning guide, and those guys aren't always scientific about what they do. The feature of the R-R regulator you described is interesting. How much error is there? Would one notice a difference in engine power, or is the variance small enough for the pilot to ignore under standard use?

On the Merlin the carburettor and throttle body are positioned before the supercharger, so below critical altitude the impeller is effectively creating a vacuum to suck air past the throttle butterfly. This is the cause of power loss at altitudes below the full throttle height- in fact as I understand it placing the throttle body after the supercharger is more efficient, but causes other problems. The D-9's supercharger (and presumably the S-P supercharger it is similar to) uses variable inlet guide vanes, a concept later seen on compressors for jet engines. The vanes aren't a throttle (though the Jumo had one of those too) but instead aerodynamic devices that modify the airflow into the impeller, effectively changing the angle of attack of the impeller blades and thus the overall pressure ratio of the supercharger. A little trivia: the variable speed drive of the DB600 series is also seen on some versions of the Allison V-1710. When it became obvious that the V-1710 wasn't going to be used only in turbocharged planes (as had originally been planned, hence the weak supercharger) Allison designed a bolt-on auxiliary supercharger driven by hydraulic clutch to bring altitude performance more in line with the Merlin. These engines powered the P-63.

The old space-shooter Starlancer didn't make you go through procedure, but there were briefings by the flight commander and failing to follow orders (or teamkilling the idiotic AI wingmen for blocking your shot on the mission objective) would result in your RIO taking control and flying you back to base for court martial, followed by execution. If you ejected too many times or failed an objective they'd demote you to a transport unit, assuming it was your side that picked you up rather than the evil Coalition. Consequences FTW!

The huge file size is happening because you're recording in an uncompressed video format such as .MOV, .MKV or .AVI. If you can, set your recording software to use .mp4. Otherwise download Handbrake (a free and open source video format converter) and set it to convert your video file to .mp4.

VNe is more of a guideline than a hard rule. The Spit was often dived to much faster than its VNe as well. Also the VNe is 750 km/h IAS, whereas that test might have been 800 km/h TAS at an unspecified altitude.

That's where I'd put my money. You can test for it in the DCS version: if the rudder is responsible the instruments should show a large amount of side slip when the uncontrollable roll appears. Otherwise perhaps some detail asymmetry in the airframe might be responsible- what if, for example, Messerschmidt's wing jigs were slightly off-spec (though still within acceptable tolerances) and as a result the factory consistently produced wings with a slight twist in them?

The weird arrangement of the spit's wing MGs is a consequence of the thinness of the wing- spacing them out like that was the only way to accommodate 8 guns and an acceptable ammunition load in the wing, the ammo boxes being long and narrow to fit within the structure. AFAIK they always planned on having the elliptical shape. The plane where the wing became elliptical (or semi-elliptical) to accommodate weapons was the Tempest: making the wing semi-elliptical allowed them to fully enclose the cannons in the wing (once the shorter Mk V cannons were fitted) for a marked reduction in drag, and probably also helped accommodate the ammo given that the wing was much thinner than that of the Typhoon. I guess the long, projecting cannon barrels on most Hispano armed fighters had a pretty noticeable effect on performance, otherwise they wouldn't have bothered. The 109 had the same problem as the spit when it came to fitting guns in the wings- they never managed to fit anything more than single 8mm MG in the 109 wing without some kind of bulge or gondola to provide room for ammo (though certain late model 109s have so many lumps and bulges you might not notice a few more).

It also kept dirt out of the gun's workings.

Presumably modern digital FCS would know about that problem and automatically avoid using the ailerons for rolls at high AoA. Dunno if the same can be said about the Flanker's more primitive FCS though (doesn't it still use valves?). Related: would the same problem apply to the stabilators?

Indeed there is such a thing- in fact there may be one in your car, assuming that you have a car with a traditional automatic transmission (that is a kind with a torque converter). Most older automatic transmissions have a hydromechanical computer that decides when to switch to the next gear based on engine RPM, throttle position and speed.

The spit's gear track is actually narrower than that of the 109! That said, the handling on the ground should be slightly better because the wheels aren't splayed out at an angle like the messerschmidt's wheels are. The Spit also has lower wing loading, a bigger airframe for it's amount of power and (hallelujah!) a rudder trimmer, so it should have more forgiving handling takeoff and landing.