Top Jockey

I've been experimenting with the Tpod / FLIR controls a bit, and my impressions are: - the VVSLV option works OK, until... the Throttle Designator Controler DEPRESS is used; after that, the VVSLV option disappears definitely; (TDC DEPRESS does have to be used at some time, as it works as the FLIR point / target location command.) - the cage command (stow function?), does bring the FLIR line of sight to stow position in small increments, but I didn't notice it causing the VVSLV disappearance. (Also the VVSLV option is only available without WPDSG option active, obviously.)

Thank you NineLine. I'll look closely into it when I get home. Last night the VVSLV option didn't seem to be there, but it might have been something I'm doing wrong... - at the right DDI all the options and symbology seem prety much the same as on your picture, except the VVSLV option; - at the left DDI I'm selecting "manual mode" of employment for my LGBs; - I also select WPDSG at the bottom DDI so the FLIR can find the little enemy vessel quickly, then after that first target I disable it to manually search for a building, and the VVSLV doesn't seem to appear. But I'll look closer tonight.

Hello, Is this implemented in DCS ? Is it the same as the " S " key in the Flanker ?

This is frustrating... it was working OK before last patch. Now it doesn't go to boresight mode; it gets turned 180º back... Sorry, can't find it - which DDI (left or right?) what button is it ? Thank you.

Come on people chill out... My motherboard is very hot already playing DCS, I hope this cr4p doesn't melt.

Over temperature protection, by chance ? By the end of 2018 my Asus B85M-G, simply shut off by itself. Never managed to switch it on again, couldn't find anything burnt, cracked, damaged, nothing. Quickest solution, bought an AsRock H81 Pro BTC R2.0 and mounted all the hardware again. Even today as it's making a little hot here, my CPU hit 80 ºC just while flying the F-16 over the Las Vegas strip alone... everytime I see my CPU / mobo temps, I cross my fingers the mobo doesn't fry.

Hello, Now this seems more a realistic view, I completely agree. Sure, in the past I've read about the inevitable compromises which had to be made, thanks to the aircraft being developed by 4 different nations.

Yeah, you should be ashamed of youself... :thumbup:

Thank you for the lecture professor, but it would have gone much more valued without the arrogant tone, sorry about that. The arrogant tone speaks volumes about one's credibility, but I doubt very much you even start to comprehend... About the last bold: I'm not implying anything regarding BAE or Germany - you did, because that was your chance to act the teacher role. :thumbup: 2 things : - just because you dump a load of technical info, that doesn't invalidate you were also bashing a tone the other aircraft ; - I couldn't care less in defending the Rafale or Typhoon... neither of them is my relative. I just stated the obvious; whoever reads your posts, gets the ideia that one fighter is the "Holy Grail", while the other is a useless piece of garbage. And I always tend to take those views / comparisons with a grain of salt - but I believe this is an easy point for you start to comprehend. So I don't know: - why are several nations operating the Typhoon; - what all the engineers were doing on it; - neither why you didn't offer your counseling to them, as after all you make it look like the aircraft came out such a piece of cr4p.

Right there, another example of the reason of your misconceptions - the lack of a reasonable broad knowledge about military aviation. ... and being DCS a simulator, a lot of stuff do need the knowledge of some concepts. In bold, you are confusing light Attack aircraft (A-7, A-10, etc.) with Bombers (B-1, B-52, etc.) (No problem at all in not knowing stuf, just not necessary to insist in criticize before knowing a minimum.) By the way, there's also many other cathegories, for instance: C-130 Hercules... stands for "Cargo". And there are also erroneuos exceptions (F-111, F-117, etc.)

Hello, Regarding women, I can only advise you to open your eyes, pay attention and take your time to try and choose wisely, or else... :D About the AMRAAMs in the A-10... well being it an airframe with the "A" prefix, means: Attacker (from ground attack). Although it can carry the AIM-9 Sidewinder (a short range and easy employment missile) for self-defence purposes. Therefore weaponry like the AIM-120 AMRAAM (Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile) is dedicated for Fighters - "F" prefix, like for instance F-15, F-16 etc.

To the ones who do not use Track-Ir and only have their monitor: Could ED disable the zoom-in / out on the JHMCS symbols, and put them at a fixed distance from the pilot's eye ? (As it is in real life ?) I'm just refering to the symbols, not the cockpit and outside view.

You can periodically copy and save the "logbook" word file... after a new install you place it at the respective folder. On Windows 7 it's in : C:\Users\YourUserName\Saved Games\DCS.openbeta\MissionEditor

The F-16's current status is "Early Access". At the DCS store, they inform that the time a product remains in Early Access can vary widely. I know sometimes the wait can be boring, but they did inform us beforehand...

Again my 2 cents : I'm here (with DCS), because a given aircraft in which I spend money... is mine. Otherwise, if obligated to pay regularly only to periodicaly access a given product... forget about it. Either the aircraft is mine or it isn't at all.

Hello, Sure you are biased. Anyone who reads your post #49 can see it: after all you write only faults about the Typhoon and not 1 fault on the Rafale... The info throughout the web seems to vary a lot regarding the 2 of them, and sometimes even contradictory. Although many places consider aspects like for instance, their Turn Rates (both instantaneous and sustained) roughly similar. Regarding close coupled canards vs nose mounted canards, again the info varies. Some say close coupled favors pitch rate, and nose mounted favors high alpha / nose pointing authority, at slower speeds. Personally I have no way of telling which site / forum is the most trustworthy. From the back of my head I can recall one disadvantage of the Rafale: its lower top speed, and less powerful engines... that was what the Saudis reported to France when they first evaluated the Rafale, and asked if more powerful engines could be installed. (Read this a few years ago, so I don't know how it is today.) Even still just for the record, I voted YES for the Rafale. (As I really find it a very impressive machine, in several aspects.)

Yeah, no bias at all... :megalol:

I'm able to select -12.4 ºC, in Caucasus on January...

Hello, Yes, in therms of real life employment it's one thing. But my point was: from a technical comparison point of view of several different airframes, the Fulcrum was the one which got below my expectations when trying to achieve and maintain a 6 o'clock position on a given bandit. For instance: - I never was expecting the MiG-29 to pitch its nose with more difficult and restrain (thanks to its the constat pitch down input by the AoA limiter) than an F-15 ; - neither that it bleed speed easier than the Su-27, this one is easily perceptible when trying to maintain at a JF-17's six, during an high G turn. Below, explains why the MiG-29 bleeds speed somewhat easier than the Su-27 : Below, the Instantaneuos Turn Rate differences between the Su-27 and the MiG-29 (in bold), also confirm my perception that the Su-27 can sling its nose around a little bit faster (pitch rate) whitout using "S" key, only the paddle switch :

Thank you for your input rossmum! I understand you, the thing is: from my first flight sim experiences, eventually I assigned the MiG-29A Fulcrum almost legendary dogfight capabilities. It all started mid 90s; there wasn't the internet availability we have today; all the info one had access really was the one shown at a given flight sim (i.e. TopGun Fire at Will); eventually one also starts reading about it on magazines; etc. and all that contributed to grow that airframe to an almost cult status ! ... then you get to DCS and you see that a much heavier airframe - the Su-27 Flanker : - can pitch its nose around slightly faster / freely ; - also doesn't try to pull its nose down constantly (to counter excessive AoA by pilot), like the Fulcrum's flight control / AoA limiter ; - and besides, doesn't seem to bleed speed as easier as the Fulcrum when pulling G's. Also, in DCS the Fulcrum doesn't seem to me to have much higher pitch rates than the Tomcat or the Eagle. It seems to have a small turn radius, also a good Sustained Turn Rate... but it doesn't impress me more than a Hornet for instance. Essentially @Ironhand, @bies and many others already explained why it works that way. Post #70 of this thread, link below confirmed my first impressions. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=257858&page=7

By the way, are the AIM-9 spot / scan modes considered as finished already ?

Take it from me, @Hummingbird has looked at this kind of stuff over and over. There's a lot of posts / threads about this throughout the forum.

I don't know the slightest bit of programing... but given the knowledge and experience ED does have in flight models already, I believe correcting that shouldn't be too big a task for them...

Are you and your friend flying with the amount of fuel for roughly the same time of flight / afterburner in your different airframes ? Let's say 4 to 5 minutes in full afterburner. (Which obvioulsy means different fuel quantities for either the F-16 and the Tomcat.) Post #81 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258416&page=9 If you maintain at the least 400 kts at sea level, can he still get higher sustained turn rate than you in his Tomcat ?

No you're not the only one noticing that, essentially it's what @watermanpc said at post #2. Several threads about that, this one right below your thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=258416