Dino Might

Screenshots forthcoming tomorrow when I get the chance. Loaded 6x Mk83 (3 on each stations 3 and 6) and 2x AIM-7 in the tunnel centerline on stations 4 and 5. The AIM7s are set under the bombs. The Sparrows also fire without any regard to the bombs or associated racks being present. Not sure if DCS has the tools to restrict certain loadout combinations. May just be one of those issues that can't be fixed.

Right now I'm very much an A guy; however, I won't know which one I like more until I get to try it out. I just really want a VF-1 bird because of my time growing up in San Diego near Miramar. I'm quite happy with them perfecting the B before the A rolls out. I'm just pleased as punch to be flying the Cat at all right now. I have barely touched any other module since release, and I don't expect to spend any significant time anywhere else but in the Cat for a long, long time. I'm less excited about a D. If they make one, of course I will get it, but I am much more interested in the semi-old stuff. Once we're into MFDs, fancy HUDs, and FBW, it starts to seem less like flying and more like office work. Before the Cat, the Tiger was my go-to bird. The two are absolutely perfect for each other, and both have the great Top Gun nostalgia aspect for me. The movie that got me interested in airplanes starting at age 3 :)

There was a prior thread concerning this - the following is my interpretation, so forgive me if it is not entirely correct, but it is what I got out of the thread. FM dependent on thrust and drag. They had things set to match B performance charts, even though drag (and consequently thrust) were not exactly right. In running the TF-30s, they recognized the incorrect airframe drag, so they revised it such that it would be more accurate and could be used to baseline both engines. Now the airframe drag model should be more correct, but the thrust for the GE engines on the B is not matched for the B performance charts yet. It will be set right if it has not been done already. I can't remember if an expected date for new revisions on the thrust modeling would be finished for the B. More than likely there will be some kind of iterative approach, as these things are not easy to nail down in one go even with extensive wind tunnel and flight test data. It's also important to only change one set of variables at a time to be sure the correct behaviors and sensitivities are established, so the current mismatch is likely a necessary interim step.

I've been debating getting another HOTAS for the 2nd PC. Right now, I've got everything setup for pilot, but nothing for RIO when friends come over. If this stick is ready soon, I'm sold. Will put the warthog back on the RIO PC.

I was wondering why the Hornet was beating my Tomcat in the vertical the other day. Both clean, no tanks, no tunnel pylons on the Cat.

LANTIRN has been in since day 1.

This looks like some shenanigans with the engine modeling on some of these birds. How is the F/A-18C beating out the F-15C? Why do the Mirage, MiG-29, and Viggen get faster with hotter air temp? Why does the F/A-18C lose so much more speed than others with hotter air temp? And that mention of clean vs. empty pylons after firing off weapons really makes me wonder...

4000 lbs clean is quite light. I've run into the same problems and ditched the weapons/pylons/etc. and even at about 5500 lbs totally clean, I'm almost at mil turning onto base and still going from on/overspeed to underspeed pretty quickly. This is with full airbrake, DLC, flaps, gear. What I'm having an issue with is the automatic retraction of DLC at mil - totally upsets things. I wish there was a CB I could pull to stop that from happening.

In the movie, Tom Arnold's char alludes to Arnold's char having been a former Harrier pilot. Ah...sniped. oh well. Anyways, I have a good many trademark Tasker takeoffs under my belt at this point.

Have never had this happen in SP or MP, but I haven't been killed flying multicrew, only with jester.

I'm confused. First they perform exactly the same, and then the ED missile performs better? Which is it?

Agreed. Effect looks fine (distinct shock cones in all lighting conditions is silly and unrealistic) The clipping issue should be fixed, hopefully just an animation timing setting and not requiring rework of the throttle response. May warrant some testing on how quickly each element responds, throttle to nozzles and reheat effect, engine rpm, and actual thrust.

Nvm. I understand the q now. Dunno...yet

Use a TALD or two. Launch before SAM locks you. Then go in behind it with bombs.

What requires more micromanagement skill, Dwarf Fortress after you break open the hell gate, or the AWG-9?

I suspect anyone who has flown it wants that to be the case, but moving it to core game involves a host of legal, marketing, and PR issues.

I dont want HB to listen to paying customers when most of them reiterate internet lore about the F14 not being able to dogfight or the phoenix being only useful against non maneuvering large bombers. I rather HB continues to focus on making the most realistic simulation possible, and the armchair pilots repeating garbage from realvirtualfighterjocks.com go stuff it.

Are you flying clean? Someone mentioned some stores (TALD) drag effects seem a bit wonky.

F14 vs F/A-18 + JHMCS + AIM-9X is a death sentence. It's stupid to think otherwise. The Hornet has incredible nose authority and can afford to lose all speed to get a HOBS shot off that the 14 won't be able to contend with. Now, if you give them both AIM-9Ls, or guns only, it's a totally different ballgame. Either one can win, and if both are flown well, it's likely going to come down to whoever gets the forward quarter shot with the missile or the high-aspect crossing gun shot. F-14 has the energy, Hornet has the nose authority. Make the other guy play your game long enough and you'll win.

I think it would be a major undertaking. Definitely worthwhile if they sold it as a new module, but just as an upgrade to the existing module, hoping for some people who haven't already bought it to buy it? Not likely. Remember that the way these things are modeled, it's not just bolting on another system. Just adding in the HMIT would probably take a couple of months of bug quashing, let alone the entire PE upgrade. That said, I'm all for it. The A-10C was my first module, and I'd love another one. I have more hours in the Hawg than any other DCS aircraft, and I still routinely take it out for a spin. I'm one of those clowns that loads it down with every weapon possible, light on fuel, and goes to shack an entire airfield complex in one sortie.

Cat is easier to catch a wire, harder to actually make a safe pass. I jumped in the Hornet the other day just to compare them again, and it was so much easier. I think with a real LSO calling waveoff, you'd be surprised how many tries it takes to get aboard. I think i have had maybe one pass in the Cat where inwouldnt have been waved off for long in the groove, high to low ball, poor lineup, etc.

I just did about 15 hook up runs at the carrier tonight. Still looking pretty ugly. I need to get more consistent on my turns. Will give HUD off a go tomorrow night. Right now I'm pretty heavily dependent on the VVI, and am usually not getting on speed until in the groove. I started to give up on trimming for on speed after having to readjust every time I'm moving throttles anyways, so I don't know if I'm building in really bad habits for now just flying it stick and throttle without any additional trim after the break.

I've flown the engines off the F5 prior to release of the Cat, so I feel that the HUD is just fine, especially when you set declutter on. I don't see the need for airspeed and alt in the HUD for formation flying. I still use flat screen trackIR, and it's no issue matching speed.

I think the B-17 could be a fantastic addition to the assets pack and/or Combined Arms. Keep it AI flown, but add functionality for people to jump in as gunners, bombardiers, or navigators. The systems could remain simplified. Example: Bombardier - once doors are open, you have dials for course adjustment commands, sight adjustment, and bomb release. Devs could limit gunner positions to ball-turret and top-turret if they wanted to reduce the total development effort. It would add a lot of great things that people want without requiring the development of a full, flyable module.

Awesome writeup, IronMike. That answers all my questions/concerns. I am very pleased the F14 models the RWR more realistically, though I will have to change how I fly, being used to (unrealistically) using the F5 RWR as a passive localization and intercept tool. I hope the AI radar behavior and consequential launch warnings from 200 nmi away ends up getting resolved. As it is, I am usually ignoring the RWR if I haven't heard Jester calling out bandits within 20 nmi.