Baz000

Be that as it may, you would never see such ship features underwater as you currently do in DCS, especially while underway and this is due to the wake of the ship, which isn't only just because of water being displaced around the hull but also by the propulsion system. Regardless of size of vessels, even small 20ft long pleasure boat... You can't see the screws turning or the rudder / underwater motion of engine rotation as steering drive in case of outboard or inboard outboard motors. You only see the wake, practically everyone ever gone boating knows this, it's fairly basic. here is USS Nimitz in a high performance turn: If you could see below the waterline, then surely at such a high list the propellers on the port side (left for you land lovers) would have a far higher chance of being visible, since in that turn the port side props would be closer to the ocean surface and the same such phenomena would also be present with the huge port rudder. Underwater diving environment (I haven't watched the video you posted yet, but I imagine they are coming from a diving underwater perspective) isn't the same thing as a ship underway, making wake.

An alternative is put your flight path marker on the threshold marking of the runway, when you notice the indication of ground rush, begin your flare... Bring the flight path marker up towards just a tad below the horizon line but don't level the plane out or you will float excessively. The idea is to land not where the threshold is but further down about 500 ft or so. Apparently if you ride 13 degrees AOA all the way down you will float the plane less in the flare, than if you fly 11 and flare to 13... It mentions something about that in the dash 1... I think 11 was a float of around 800ft and 13 puts you at a float of around 500ft. It was a few hundred feet difference.

The rule of thumb I use for starting my flare is when the width of the runway gets to be as wide as my HUD frame, start the gradual flare so as not to exceed 13 degrees AOA and reduce engine power simultaneously. Far away, the runway will look the same width with no discernible change... But as you fly closer and closer towards it, it will gradually start to grow in width faster and faster... As your over the runway overrun before reaching the threshold it will be around as wide as your HUD frame but it gets wider faster and faster as you approach touching down on it... At a certain point you even will notice the ground rushing around you.

Probably more of an ED problem, but this is my observation of ships in general, and based on the above screenshot the Forrestal exhibits the same visual anomaly as every other surface ship in DCS.

I tried doing exactly that and it didn't work for me, I even tried replacing the files, still didn't work too. Ultimately I had to rebind, just did only the pilot so far... At least the A and B share the same binds now.

@Mover Do some Viper pilots ever while in the air either during the perch or after on rollout on short final "fan" the boards (albeit briefly) in the override position to help slow down to at least 11 degrees AOA if they come in too fast for whatever reason? Say for example speed built up too much on them in the perch and on rollout now they have to bleed down to 11 degrees AOA. as an example per say.

I ended up having to rebind mostly the stuff on my warthog throttle plus a few commands on my VFX Virpil stick... I tried using my backup of the saved games/DCS folder for input for F-14B, F-14B RIO, F-14, and F-14 RIO and that didn't work... I also tried manually loading the .luas from the controls menu ingame and that didn't work either... Finally I threw up my hands into the air and rebind my pilot controls (since I mostly fly and not RIO) but i'm not looking forward at all to rebinding the RIO commands (those are really a pain to setup) at least give us some advanced warning of needing to rebind stuff / figure out some way we can use our existing binds or at least most of them as complex as the F-14 is it really is a giant pain to rebind controls for both the Pilot and the RIO (for me the RIO is the biggest pain to rebind, pilot is far less complex and alot easier) I mean I even saved my DCS saved games folder before the update and still it wouldn't accept my existing custom binds I had done, really truly annoying...

Really appreciate the addition of the new ship wakes for all the surface ships, but something sticking out to me has been the fact you can see through the water and see the red undercoat on the hulls almost completely as well as the turning screws... This IRL is never seen underway (while moving) as far as I know and especially on an aircraft carrier... You can look at page after page of photos and you will never see the screws (propellers) of the aircraft carrier turning or even the shaft connections to the hull of the ship, let alone the huge rudders on the carrier... This is due to the depth of the water. Really, the only time you can see such components is in dry dock Case in point: https://www.google.com/search?q=uss+nimitz&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjMoKfM6drzAhXOCFkFHcgFBigQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=uss+nimitz&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQDFAAWABg2YkgaABwAHgAgAEAiAEAkgEAmAEAqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWc&sclient=img&ei=yQFxYYyYMs6R5NoPyIuYwAI&bih=1329&biw=2560&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS952US952 https://www.google.com/search?q=cvn&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwizs7LH69rzAhX4GVkFHaCMBsgQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=cvn&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQAzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIFCAAQgAQyBAgAEEMyBAgAEEMyBQgAEIAEOgcIIxDvAxAnOggIABCABBCxA1Cr9wdY2vsHYKGBCGgAcAB4AIABXYgBpgKSAQE0mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=2ANxYbPnF_iz5NoPoJmawAw&bih=1329&biw=2560&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS952US952 https://www.google.com/search?q=ddg-51&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwjO-JqN7NrzAhUGGFkFHUVLBKcQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=ddg-&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgBMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgQIABBDMgUIABCABDIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIECAAQQzIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDoHCCMQ7wMQJzoICAAQgAQQsQNQtxdYtxdgtB9oAHAAeACAATmIAWySAQEymAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=agRxYc6bMYaw5NoPxZaRuAo&bih=1329&biw=2560&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS952US952 https://www.google.com/search?q=cg-47&tbm=isch&ved=2ahUKEwj-0cTA7NrzAhUGGFkFHUVLBKcQ2-cCegQIABAA&oq=cg-4&gs_lcp=CgNpbWcQARgIMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgUIABCABDIFCAAQgAQyBQgAEIAEMgQIABAeOgcIIxDvAxAnOgQIABBDOggIABCABBCxA1DSOViRZGCpf2gAcAB4AIABQogBnwKSAQE1mAEAoAEBqgELZ3dzLXdpei1pbWfAAQE&sclient=img&ei=1gRxYf6OG4aw5NoPxZaRuAo&bih=1329&biw=2560&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS952US952 IRL you really don't see much of anything below the waterline, especially while underway, maybe its still all WIP but from the point of the waterline, you would only maybe see a little bit below the surface, but certainly not all the way to the screws or the rudders or the sonar on the bow... You'd see below the waterline a tad bit if even that IRL, and you'd see the reflection off the water of the superstructure of the ship from the waterline up. IDK to me it just looks off compared to what your eyes would actually observe in reality, also the color of the water / tinge makes a difference too depending on what geographic region you are underway in... But even in the lightest light blue tropical waters you don't see such detail below the waterline while underway, maybe perhaps stationary if you squint really really hard. Majority of these ships, the only way you'd see such detail below the waterline is in dry dock.

@IronMike When you redo the lights again, can you re-examine the tail anti collision lights and TCS (red flashing lights) they look extremely dim and barely visible from even half mile away flying in formation at night and almost completely invisible in day time from a spread formation... Dunno if LOD issue or what. https://www.google.com/search?q=f-14+night&sxsrf=AOaemvKX9Nzxwl65ntl1Qn3IjhhFVDGhtQ:1634773579221&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi43uiTltrzAhV-rHIEHZP7D6kQ_AUIBigB&biw=802&bih=397

I imagine it is the same as any conventional aircraft using a China hat for trim... Hat up for nose down Hat down for nose up It matches the same direction as the pilot would move the flight stick so it makes logical sense.

Okay, I stand corrected... I did say generally speaking however.

You wouldn't park F-14s there, that in front of the island is called the "Helo Hole" and the helicopters park there with folded blades... Also, more towards the aft of the island from the Helo Hole is where the E-2Cs would be parked. Generally speaking of course, at start of flight operations... Often on a full flight deck you would see F-14s needed to launch on that cycle being parked right over the fantail right along the landing deck.

seems like mine got fixed all by itself, I had to reselect my F-16 as the ingame module wallpaper tho

I'm` having the same problem on my PC too, all my DCS stuff is disabled like someone pulled the plugs on all my DLCs

Or perhaps a stop gap measure in the mean time (like TF-30 engine adoption) until a more permanent solution down the road (F-110 anybody)

It seems to me IMHO like little forethought was made about it during the 3D modeling and texturing phase of development early in the project, where we constantly saw renders of the amazing wear and tear on the TCS and bump mapping, etc... Like the issue of definable modex numbers was destined to ultimately be an afterthought or possibly even an oversight once the modeling phase was completed. I can't speak for HB nor will I, but it really perplexed me why this apparently wasn't taken into account during the 3D modeling and texturing of the Tomcat and had this on day 1 of EA release. It was really annoying flying in multiplayer off the boat last night with a friend and we both took the same skin and both were 200 modex. Because we wanted to belong to the same squadron skin we ended up basically with "clone" planes I even started arguing with him to take a different skin cuz who ever heard of 2 CAG birds in the same squadron. Finally we just ended up flying the clone planes. muh immersion waz in tatterz!

Awesome didn't know it had that in there! So is "one needle deflection" considered having the moving needle on top of the left or right stationary white square needle? Or is it having it in between the center and left or right displaced non moving square needle? The gap between the 2 non moving needle symbols... How is that being interpreted? That is my follow up question.

Anyone know what the turn and slip indicator is set to in the F-14 for performing an instrument turn? My best stab at a guess is 2 minutes? What is called a standard rate turn for instrument flying if I'm not mistaken...I'm really not familiar and it isn't indicated inside the cockpit and I didn't see it mentioned in the Natops so I'm lost... Also is it you put the moving square turn marker (by adjusting your bank angle) on top on the other stationary white square markers to execute the turn or do you put it basically in the middle gap? So it is like 1 square turn needle width sized displacement puts it inside the gap between the left or right square and the center... And 2 would put it exactly over the left or right white square denoting a "standard rate turn" Reason I'd like to know is for Marshal holding at the boat and instrument flying. Which should be roughly a 6 minute racetrack pattern, right? Provided you have an extended wait time to leave Marshal and commence your decent... I figured 2 minutes on the turns on the racetrack pattern and 1 minute for each leg for a total of 2+2+1+1=6... But let's say you need to leave Marshal in 4 minutes to make your time, either do a complete 4 minute orbit cutting out the straight legs of the racetrack, so 2+2=4? Or make tighter turns so instead of 2 minutes for each turn it is 1 minute? And then do 1 minute for each leg so then you get that total of 4 minutes? So 1+1+1+1=4 Thanks! Hopefully I'm not far from being on the right track, I love flying the Tomcat, she really requires the pilot to actually work and not be some computer overseer.

Alt hold doesn't seem to hold alt in even a shallow 10 degree turn

How is this even up for any debate? We should have defined unique modex numbers on the jets, it is used quite extensively for comms on the boat... Also, I'd like for whoever... HB or ED to give us the real squadron callsigns to use like bandwagon, victory, gunfighter, rage, etc etc for our navy tomcat and hornet squadrons... Make it a selection in the ME or something.

As far as I understand it Mover, maximum desirable AOA upon landing touchdown is 13 and same applies for 2 point aerobraking as maximum... A warning is provided to nearing and exceeding 15 AOA on touchdown due to physically striking some component of the aircraft on the runway (primarily the speedbrakes) but also because of bottom strakes below the tail as well as i'd imagine the exhaust nozzle itself and the horizontal tails, etc... Reading the -1 there are a lot of cautionary texts related to some component of the aircraft either on touchdown or just prior to touchdown potentially becoming physically damaged or causing a drastic change in flight characteristics like the flaperon + horizontal tail movement from an immediate and drastic roll input from the pilot to counter wake turbulence from a prior plane landing, the procedure is to initiate a go around rather than try to salvage an approach which has a high probability of a drastic asymmetric reduction in lift due to movement of the flaperons and the horizontal tails. Then once on the ground, apparently the weight on wheels sensors can possibly be tripped to an "air" state under certain conditions and pilot actions and can reduce the effectiveness of braking by tripping the anti-skid on and off albeit momentarily, etc... LOL as far as 35 Alpha in the Viper, I never heard of that in the landing approach / configuration... Only in the "deep stall" falling leaf type of behavior where to recover requires use of the MPO switch and in phase rocking of the stick in pitch axis with nose movement. Also, apparently using the MPO switch inhibits roll input from the pilot stick, I suppose so you get maximum symmetrical movement of the horizontal tails. As far as speed vs AOA discussion... I like primarily relying on AOA (because it is constant and same technique regardless of stores or GW) you can cross check your AOA with a computed final approach speed by using the formula the -1 gives which was something like a base speed in knots plus 5 or 10 knots per 1000 lbs of fuel and stores added together. So, the sum of that gives you a computed final approach speed that should be matching the 13 degrees AOA apparently. If you really want to cross check everything. Me? I just do the fly 11 degrees AOA to touchdown point and when the runway matches HUD frame width I start my flare to 13 degrees AOA and hold that until below 100 kts and lower the nose basically. Apparently the 11 degree approach method is good for added controllability and visibility during the approach but has a farther "float" in the flare than if you did the whole approach at 13 degrees... Which gives you more precision on touchdown point but obviously reduced ability to flare the aircraft with back pressure on the stick so you need to manage throttle to manage sink rate. The other aspect of AOA which is important and why it makes a difference is also having to do with once you are on the ground too, that 13 degrees is like a Goldilocks zone... Too slow can create too high of a sink rate and can physically damage the MLG upon touchdown even blowing a tire, and too fast can cause a whole host of problems too such as runway overrun, riding the brakes so hard you have a hot brakes condition, etc... You can see here a clear difference in the roll out velocities between the 2 F-16s, presumably they are probably around similar gross weights and stores loads. But one aircraft has an overrun but the other doesn't. It is hard to tell in the video but i'm guessing the first F-16 landed at a higher AOA vs the 2nd one and thus was slower in velocity from touchdown on the runway... Also it looks like its nose is at a higher pitch during its aerobraking (so again higher AOA and slower) when compared to the other. Something I noticed tho is that he closes his speedbrakes when his nose lowers rather than extending them fully once the WOW on the nose wheel sensor was triggered from the strut compression, never noticed that before in other videos... Usually you see them open them fully to that 60 degrees while giving full aft stick. Hard to see but looks like although he closes the speedbrakes he did give full aft stick. At first look, the second jet seems to come in too fast possibly (so too low of an AOA) and then doesn't hike the nose up sufficiently possibly to have effective aerobraking and just eats up runway. Also, as you see him rolling down the runway the speedbrakes don't appear to be extended either.

That's all fine in regards to pilot head position inside the cockpit Nineline and I appreciate the transparency of sharing anything with us about behind the scenes discussions. But my particular point of concern has to do with forward quarter RWR azimuth display visibility on the non critical outer threat ring / radius. In your statement above, no where do the words RWR, or azimuth display, or anything related to the sort come up. Maybe other people in this thread have spoken about such and in my opinion are doing nothing but muddying the already murky water. Pilot seat position or head position was not really a consideration of mine at all when discussing the problem I observed, if anything... That is the one singular item that has received so much scrutiny both in and out of the development process. No, sir my point is the forward quarter of the RWR azimuth display is obscured from sight. This is not a problem inside the critical threat ring fortunately, however this is a problem on the outer critical band area about a 45 degrees cone in front of the nose. Furthermore, and I certainly am no expert on this... But from what I understand the RWR azimuth display shouldn't have a RWR nails, for lack of better words marching towards the center of the display as you get closer to the radar emissions source. Unless I'm wrong, which certainly is possible... The RWR nails should stay "parked" inside either the non-critical threat ring or the critical threat ring. Western designed RWR display is exactly as named, an azimuth display and provides no reference to estimate ranging... Unlike the signal strength ring that is shown in eastern RWR. Instead, western RWR design shows to the pilot the priority of threat based on how the RWR was programmed and there are a ton of variables that go into that, some reprogramming even done in theater based on threat intelligence. So I'm not entirely 100% sure but my inclination leads me to believe on an azimuth display for radar threats that this is possibly not the correct behavior to have a nails you are flying towards that initially appears in the outer most radius of the non critical threat ring start moving closer and closer in radius towards the direction of the outer most ring of the critical threat area / the inner ring of the non-critical threat area. Okay, so for example you have 2 nails on your RWR display... (no idea how DCS would display this, haven't tested it) SA-6 and SA-10 and instead of them both being inside the critical threat area, for sake of this example SA-10 is in the critical threat area and SA-6 is outside that in the non critical threat... And let's say they are on the same azimuth and your jet is flying towards them. Alright, so here is my point in this example... The SA-10 is closer to your jet? Right? And thus the SA-6 should be farther away than that SA-10? Not necessarily, and in all likelihood the RWR is conveying to you the SA-10 is a far greater threat to your jet based on how the RWR was programmed. What about that SA-6? Well in reality in this hypothetical example I came up with, your jet is far actually closer in proximity to the SA-6 than the SA-10! If you continue flying in this direction, ultimately you will fly over the SA-6 before you do the SA-10 if neither fires at you. So why is the SA-10 in the critical threat band on the display? Because the RWR is not displaying distance to radar emissions source, it is displaying threat priority based on it identifying what kind of radar equipment it detects based on the emissions hitting the sensors around your jet. The SA-10 system is a far greater threat based on it's capabilities than hypothetically the SA-6 in the example which is far closer in distance and possibly will fly directly over. Also keep in mind, I'm only talking about nails here not spikes... If the SA-6 spikes you, it probably should move from the non critical threat area and join the SA-10 inside the critical threat area on the azimuth display, as now a fire control radar is actively tracking you vs a search radar blindly bouncing off your jet. With a tracking you, the next phase is a missile launched at your jet. Anyways, point is... And my example demonstrates this... The azimuth display is exactly as it sounds, radar emissions source azimuth and detected threat priority and not necessarily distance to emissions source. If it did, you wouldn't need that cheek pod for the HARM, because your own RWR could estimate a range to the emissions source for a targeting solution. From my understanding the HARM HAD sensor pod that mounts to the cheek can actually triangulate the location of the threat radar based on it's emissions, and that provides you a DLZ (dynamic launch zone) to launch your HARMs. Your RWR shouldn't provide ranging or distance, so I don't understand why I see a nails marching down the display as I fly closer to it. And again I could be wrong but I don't think this particular RWR behavior is correct.

like I said prior, the same issue exists in VR as it does in Track ir as it does in 2D. Changing the default view doesn’t fix it. It is directly a pilot line of sight issue with the top most half of the RWR azimuth display which makes absolutely no logical nor tactical sense. My video demonstrates this very well, Panther’s comments on the photographs I provided demonstrated this pretty well as she says the photos are accurate to the jet. Apparently on Tuesday she is going to sit inside the jet she has sat inside of hundreds of times and reconfirm. I am going to ask her personally to ask any Viper pilots she runs into about it and see if they can provide some insight to her about RWR azimuth display visibility while in flight because maybe that changes slightly vs on the ground perhaps? I mean, I was always under the impression that Eagle Dynamics as a company in a really niche area of the market prides itself on the level of fidelity and accuracy of their products they produce and are always willing to hear all kinds of feedback from the users who utilize their products. Here I am, a user... I have been for quite some time and I own alot of various DCS modules and i’m providing feedback on an issue I believe to have found, my wingman I fly with that I explained the problem to even can see it. don't listen to me, fine... I’m no expert on F-16s, I only go off references I can find... I literally went through 20 pages of google image search finding any photo that seems to be situated from a pilot view perspective, furthermore I found images of people sitting in the F-16 ejection seat that shows there is a considerable gap between their heads and the headrest of the seat. Why is that an important detail to understand? Everyone is hung up on the seat being reclined 30 degrees but when talking about pilot line of sight based on eye position you have to understand the pilot eyes location in relation to the cockpit. Anyways, I get for lack of better words lambasted on here... Fine, don’t listen to me? What do I know? Like I said i’m no F-16 expert! But Panther, on the other hand who works on F-16s and has sat inside them hundreds of times? If you read her comments in here she says that there is indeed a problem and that ED needs to fix it. And she also says that the photographs that I did dredge up is an accurate representation of how the RWR azimuth display should look visible and without obstruction. I think that if you don’t want to listen to me that is okay, I mean I can only point out that “this doesn’t seem right or makes reading no sense, etc” and that is purely subjective to my anecdotal experience and observations as well as internet sleuthing. I mean that is all fine and dandy! But what I really don’t understand is when Panther is echoing the same thing i’m saying or am I echoing her lol?? There seems to be no credence given into her professional opinion or her experience regarding the matter. The thing that really baffles me is instead of analyzing and observing what may be causing the problem ie: is it cockpit 3D geometry needs adjusting? Is it default pilot head position (which is what so many people in this thread have been arguing changing via snapviews) I don’t think it is potentially a default pilot head position issue because of how much scrutiny from so many different people that has received in particular in the development process but again that is merely my opinion. im going to record a short video in VR demonstrating the same issue. I look forward to hearing what Panther says after her work on F-16s on Tuesday, be interesting to see if she says something other that what I have read her say so far in this particular thread

Did you watch my video because I spelled out the issue very succinctly and plainly?

See the funny thing is in a real F-16 which a facsimile DCS F-16 is supposed to simulate, looking at the RWR with your eyes does not work that way from what I understand, using basic logic.