Jowen G. Bruère-Dawson

So, you're assuming that flight physics are not correct since you can do a stunt in the sim, this very stunt which don't even came through the Mi-8 Engineer's mind ? I think it's best to completely stop flight sim in this case, because flight physics will never be 100% true. Never. As I see things : -Is the flight model correct for most of the normal flight envelope of the aircraft AND is coherent with what the flight manual says ? Yes > Fine, No> Ask the devs for corrections. -Is the aircraft handling correct in completely absurd aerobatics manoeuvers for which it was never designed to and that we do purely because we will not die if the manoeuver fails because we are in a computer game ? Yes>Fine, No>Don't care, since IRL, a pilot will never try to perform them anyway (except some Pappy Boyington around there x) ). I'm not saying you are completely wrong, I just want to share with you another vision of what a ''real'' flight model can be in a sim in which it will never be 100% true anyway.

Had it 2 days ago, it was during a carrier take off

Hi guys, just coming back to the Mi-8 after many years not flying it (3 years maybe). And I'm really enjoying it. I would pay 10-15 bucks too for an extension pack, something like multi crew, graphic overhaul, and a new variant as suggested. I compltely disagree with the EA policy with F-16 and F/A-18 (empty shell at full price), I would agree to pay a little to maintain older very good modules like the Hog or the Hip up to date

Any news about this please ? Came back to the Mi-8 after 3-4 years not flying it, I really enjoy it right now ! Nice work to the team by the way. But as other mentionned, it seems pretty weak indeed

Thank you very much for your work ! It's very interesting indeed !

hi, It's been some months now that I saw on the HB F-14's section of the forum that the AIM-7 had a way too much drag. I decided to try to do a little test with the F-14 (because it's the aircraft related on the forum). Since I'm not a subject matter expert and I don't want to waste my time too much on a months old supposed bug again, I've done a fairly simple acceleration test with 3 different payloads on an F-14, here's what I found (this is not precise at all, it's just to have a rough idea of what's going on) : Other than the Sparrow/Phoenix differences, the airframes are always with 100% fuel, with full external 300gal tanks, Aim-9M on the 1A and 8A stations. Conditions are : Persian gulf, default weather, 29.92in.Hg, with no wind, all tests were conducted with autopilot and between 3050 and 3220ft ASL Full military power, from 300 to 450 IAS (in the info bar in F-2 view) - 6 Aim-54A Mk-60 : 39s - 6 Aim-7M : 35s - 2 Aim-7M under shoulder an 4x Aim-54AMk60 under fuselage : 38s Same, with full afterburner : 6x Aim-54A Mk-60 : 15s 6x Aim-7M : 16s 2x Aim-7M and 4x Aim-54A Mk-60 : 16s. Without Afterburner, from 300 to 500kts, same altitude and weather conditions : 6x Aim-54A Mk-60 : 52s 6x Aim-7M : 51s 2 Aim-7M and 4 Aim-54A Mk-60 : 53s. My thoughts about this : -All those numbers are quite close in my opinion... Which is a little bit confusing for me considering the size and weight difference between a -7M and a -54. -If we look closer, a 6xAim-7 'Cat is a little bit faster than a 6xAim-54 one, it seems pretty logic. But the difference is very small... - What I found very strange on the other hand is the fact that with 2 Aim-7 under the shoulder and 4 Phoenix under fuselage, the Tomcat is pretty much always slower than in a 6x Pheonix configuration. I tried the all Phoenix and mixed loadout 3-4 times each with the 300-450kts full burner and the 300-500kts dry power tests to have more ''data'' and it's pretty much always the same result, the mixed one, while lighter, is often slower. - The differences may seems small, but when you consider the actual weight of the aircraft, it feels like it's more important than that. Indeed the 6x Phoenix one weight 71807lbs, the 6x Sparrow one weight 68650lbs and the mixed one weight 70782lbs. The heaviest is pretty much as fast as the lightest (in average, a little bit slower), and the mixed one is often slower than the heavier... -There are many other factor to consider, some of them are human related like the time I took to go full military power without hitting the AB, when I start and stop the chronometer etc etc. -Plenty of other tests can be useful (climb rate with different payloads, same test but with different altitudes/speeds etc) but I wanted to keep it simple and see how it goes. As for drag indices, I allowed myself to copy/paste the posts of lunaticfringe in the ''AIM-54 palette weight/drag'' thread on the HB F-14 section of the forum. (https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=252921) ''The big winners in the tunnel are Sparrow; they're indexed as 2 in the tunnel versus 6 on the stubs. The pallets incur a significant penalty in and of themselves. Drag indices are as follows: Pallets (any or all four stations): 10 AIM-54 on forward stations (3, 6): 12 each AIM-54 on rear stations (4, 5) behind AIM-54s on 3, 6: 8 each AIM-54 on 4, 5 with no AIM-54 ahead: 12 each AIM-54 stub (1, 8 ) pylon: 3 each AIM-54 on stub pylon: 12 each Also note: drag indexes for the tunnel are reduced by 5 as a whole. Thus four Sparrows in the tunnel become a total index of 3 (from 8 ), whereas four Phoenix are 45- 10+(12+8 )+(12+8 )-5.'' ''The rest of the story: Sparrow stub adapters: 2 each Sparrow on 1b, 8b: 6 each Sidewinder adapter: 1 each Sidewinder on any position: 8 each And for reference: External tanks: 11 each Tank fairings: 1 each'' Given those number (if we consider them correct, but lunaticfringe said that those numbers are included in the F14AAP-1.1), I expected a higher difference between the loadouts and I certainly didn't expected the 6x PH loadout to be often faster than the 2xSP+4xPH configuration. If you have any correction to add, or you see that I'm mistaken, please share your thoughts/advice with me. I would like the ED devs to take a look on this please to see if there are mistakes with the AIM-7 model. Thank you, have a good day.

Mirage 2000 Fuel Shut Off valve is also electricaly powered IRL, it's not strange for me. Thanks for your feedback. Lenux, the F-16 is not a good reference, because first : it's another aircraft like previously said, and second : the FM need corrections is some areas.

that's it, you have the manoeuvrering flaps down. You need to set them up

What is this book please ?

flew yesterday with latest OB, didn't happened to me

Just tried, and I was unsuccessful too. I'll go back to the manual to see if I made a mistake

update INS was possible some months ago, I remember doing an OBL update on a 600nm mission. I'll try again and tell you if it still work

2000C with M-53P2 and RDI is cold war era. Don't really understand. You maybe want to talk about the Mirage F1 instead ?

If I understand correctly, we had M-53-5 engine specs, (less thrust than the P2, most notably because the -5 don't have the DSV), and in the future, we will have the P2 version with more thrust and better RPM response ?

Thanks for your answer, When I read your ''edit'' note, I understood that our DCS 2000C was equiped with the M-53-5, and the Thales 2000C was equiped with the M-53P2. The main factor that was coming to my mind was engine thrust of course x)

Wait, we don't have the M-53P2 in DCS ?

The troll is not ''COMPLETELY'' wrong however, even if I don't agree with him. But going further into this discussion is useless, hope Razbam will learn from their mistakes, that's the most important.

Same for me, this is really annoying Razbam please fix this. It's a long time bug and it can be really important during bad weather or night. Thanks.

Hi, noticed the same thing 2 days ago. I though I just didn't saw the needles move, but I'll try again to be sure

Hi guys, Just tested PLAN bombing mode with high drag bombs and it seems that the interval selector is not working. Master Mode on NAV, Waypoint 1 set as target waypoint M1, QFE set, Weapons selector to PLAN, and Weapons sight mode selector set at 10m for the first try (and seems right), on second try, set at 60m, and there is no difference in bombs interval between the two distances settings. Weapons dropped between 100 and 200m. I also tried DYK mode with low drag bombs, distance settings worked fine in those conditions. DCS version : OB 2.5.5.33184. Persian Gulf, quick try in the ME default weather conditions, waypoint placed at the Qeshm Island airport. Can you look at this please ? Thank you.

Nice to see some news ! keep the job going !

Yes, same here, please Razbam investigate. I admit its very weird, it works fine at the beginning of the mission, and then, FPS just drops to 5-10 for me

Tested last week, and it worked, but it was not under the latest open beta version.

Yes, lights are not good, but It's maybe a DCS problem.

I was searching for an answer as well. Me too I modify Through the Inferno PG, added a flight of 2000 wothan AI wingman, but I would like to make it rearm when I do it