Tulkas

Well, even if it looks like the subject is not arousing the crowds, or even the developers I will press a bit further, This is how the RPS sounds like, difficult to miss and quite violent in the real sim, check also the sideslip indicator on the HUD: The sideslip indicator on the SVTOL HUD mode has two vertical lines: The vertical lines indicate lateral 0,09G The shakers will kick in if in certain conditions we reach 0,06Gs of lateral acceleration: We have this warning from the pedal shaker because at low speed the AC is either neutral or unstable in the vertical axis and excessive yaw rates can induce loss of control: Out of curiosity I went to DCS and forced the yaw with full rudder while hovering, the first thing is that the airplane will not depart, I can understand that maybe is not simulated and modelling the edge of the envelope and departures is a very complex thing. But also the sideslip indicator appears not to be working at all, this should be easier to fix (together with adding sound effects for the RPS ), is this a known bug? Cheers Tulkas

Anyone can confirm that this mod has stopped working with the last DCS version? It looks like it makes the meatball stop to show all together. It looks like the glow has been reduced in the last version of DCS, so now I can (barely) judge my altitude, but I still would rather have no glow at all, all RL videos I have seen show a crisp meatball.

I was wandering why it was not included a sound effect for the RPS? Could even be sent to the right-left headset loudspeaker to indicate what pedal to push. It is something that really catch your attention in the real plane, or in my case, in the real simulator. I remember one of the old Harriers in FSX -I do not remember if it was Razbam or Skunkworks- had the sound and it was really good, it took me by surprise because I did not know it was simulated and I immediately had a flashback to my experience on the real sim. Just curious and hopeful, I really would like to hear it when I force the yaw to the edge Other than that, I really love where the Razbam Harrier is right now and how in flies VSTOL

Thanks for the tip! I must be doing something wrong with the mechanisation because with TOO I only get to make targets from the AC present position INS mode, wished WP selected as current, press TOO, ODU shows WYP, MKP and TGP, TGP are selected, punch wished TGP number, and a target is created in the overfly position.

I've just upgraded to a new computer, 7800x3d, 4080, 32GB RAM 6000 so first thing was to test a little with the new settings. I use a Quest2. It was a fast test with the Harrier low over populated areas on Caucasus to test MFD crispiness and and instant action dogfight with the F14 vs Mig29 to test ghosting. My experience was: -Base line, all AA OFF. Quest2 resolution in OTT 1.8 and AWS off. At that resolution the cockpit instruments are crystal clear and crisp, some jagged edges on external objects, coast lines, clouds... not too bad for me. Very clear shimmering on 3D objects over the terrain, that was the most negative point. The smoothness was amazing, the first time in 5 years with VR that I had a BFM merge totally free of ghosting -DLAA ON, all shimmering gone, jagged edges gone. MFDs perfectly legible. The visuals were amazing, monitor-like quality. But the hit in performance was clear, the total smoothness was gone and there were some ghosting in the merge. -MSAAx2, bit more jagged edges that DLAA and a bit less performance hit. -TAA ON, visually like DLAA, amazing, no shimmering even on the net fences of the airports. MFDs perfectly legible. And the performance hit was minimal! I thought I had a winner, but then I tried the dogfight and noticed that the contacts appear and disappear constantly, impossible to fly BFM, no go. It was not an exhaustive test but just a first impressions. I don't want to give up any smoothness so I may swallow the shimmering and keep flying with all AA OFF. Maybe tinker a little with the settings to try to get MSAAx2 totally smooth. It's a pity that TAA smooths out visual contacts, I don't know if that can be fixed with some of the other settings. The positive thing is that I'm almost there to achieve monitor-like quality in VR, to see for first time free of ghosting or shimmering was really amazing

Is there a way to edit and convert waypoints to targetpoints? For example, if there are 4 waypoints in the flight plan that should be attacked, can I convert them to targetpoints to load them in the JDAM target menu?

Find out the engine base line, practice with some altitude in landing configuration to hold level flight on speed and a 700fpm descent. Airbrake out, higher rpm gives you better spooling time and safer go around. For me in the B model the base line is FF between 3 and 4 downwind and between 2.5 and 3.5 on the glide, adjusting for weight. In my warthog throttle, that’s really very little range of movement. Setting on downwind pitch up the nose 10 degrees, adjust the throttle for level flight at 600ft, you will be on speed, then trim trim trim. The trim does not fly the plane for you, use your stick to keep those 10 degrees nailed, scan constantly and in a pattern the instruments ADI, ALT… correct any deviation. You probably know the theory after abeam, when to turn, 25 degrees of bank (remember the rudder!), 500ft at 90, tuck the boat´s wake under the left armpit, etc etc… Then you are on the groove, again, fly the thing, the trim is not going to do it for you. I think the Tomcat has it all: adverse yaw, proverse yaw, on speed buffeting, adverse roll, dutch roll, pitch up when powering up… every time you touch something everything gets out of wack and you have to work it back, keep the nose at 7.5 degrees up, and then you know the drill: ball, AoA, Line up, ball, AoA, line up, ball, ball, ball… you will have to earn the trap with all the controls at your disposal, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Has HB ever talked about this bug and their intention to fix it? Isn't it just to change a texture? There are mods to fix this issue with the SC carrier, looks quite simple to address

I may be blind but I cannot find Victory205's comprehensive explanation about the functionality of lift increasing devices on the F14. Somebody could post the link or, if the content has been removed, share the document? Thanks in advance!

I am preparing myself to fly the mission 5, A2G, but reading the briefing I’m not sure when I’m suppouse to turn in the target. If I remember fight the only one that is clearly stated is the low pop, 6nm. But the others I’m not so sure. Fly an arc with the stated abeam distance?

Im flying with VR, Quest2, open beta. I think my last trap was before Christmas holydays. The situation then was that flying with the Supercarrier de ball was crisp and perfectly visible. The Forrestal had way too much glow, but I still could use it to fly the glideslope. Yesterday I went for some laps around the boat and the ball on the Supercarrier was just a huge blur where was impossible to see anything, whatever the distance. Not even at the very moment of the trap. Something like the external lights of the Hornet but that does not go away when you get closer. Luckly I found a mod that fixed it. But I hate to have to use mods to fix thing from the sim, some screw the IC. I have not been able to find posts complaning about the ball after the last couple of patches. There are a few but they have been going for some years and I have never had problems before so I wonder if I am the only one who got the ball ruined after the recent patches.

Thanks! Found them! Very very impressed with the quality of the documentation!

Where do the PDF briefings get installed?

I totally agree, I hope someone listens to you up the chain. It is frustrating to see how it is possible to trap with no harm while not giving a damn about AoA or alignment. HB does a praiseworthy effort with the hook physics, skipping and breaking to reward or punish good or bad passes but it looks that they are very limited to what they can do as long as ED has full control of trapping dynamics. There are plans for LSO and Airboss posts, ready rooms... within the SC but I don't recall any emphasis on improving trapping physics. Anyway, with the SC apparently abandoned for the time being we have what we have for the long run. We will keep on trying to improve flying ball, AoA and line up even knowing that it does not matter so much for the end result, and we will keep on welcoming HB efforts to improve the carrier experience.

Thanks sir, your criticism is always welcome. I find difficult though to assert in the tacview when did I touched the deck due to lack of proper carrier graphic, I though the contact hapened at 720-750VSI and solid 7 degrees nose up, but I admit I was comming down fast on the glide slope and in addition dived a bit to correct the ball it was a CASEIII after a 3h mission, very short on fuel, some slack?

It was a 3h mission, long a heavy ACMI. If this helps: This was my trap, funny enough we did not hear the breaking noise on the deck but quite some time after the bolter. We did not know what the noise was until we found out we did not have a hook anymore. For reference, this was my buddy's trap. He came in way too fast, but his hook did not have corrosion

Yesterday I broke my first hook. The thing is I was quite light, just two sidewinders left and emergency fuel, 2000lbs or so. CASEIII in a no horizont night. I though I touched down on speed. I checked tacview afterwards, 133kts and 10,1 alfa. The guy before me trapped way too fast, 145kts and 7 alfa, and with phoenix still on board, nothing happened to his hook. So there I was, no hook in the darkest night an no divert While I’m happy with a degree of randomness so things do not always break at the exactly same parameters, on speed hook breaking is not fun as long as we don’t have barrier After I saw my buddy landing at 145kts and keeping his hook while I lost it I wished I had crashed on him after ejecting.

Thanks with the inputs. I will pay attention to the carrier course, but having several F14s aligning and take off at the same time and most of them having no problem I'd discard this. Jester is not a problem, is with a human RIO. NAVGRID input error is one of my main suspects. It's easy to mess if you don't notice that you have something hooked and start introducing coordinates. But a NAV FIX should put you back on place and fix the issue and apparently it does not. User error is still my main suspect and where we focus our investigation, the second one would be some kind of pilot-RIO desynchronization over the net. We don't really have dedicated RIOs per se, we all are mainly pilots, but in order to enjoy this amazing module to its full potential we try that every pilot have basic knowledge on the back seat so we always have a fully crewed Tomcat. And then, you know, if you sit a stick monkey on the back and starts to push buttons anything can happen. Literally. We have a few good stories on that I personally don't fly online mission on the F14 if we are not two on the plane. The work HB have made with Jester is brilliant, but nothing compares to the fun and interactivity of having another person on the back. It really has brought a new level to the simulation.

1.No, we are doing carrier aligment 2.Yes. Sailing through the seas (other Tomcats flying off the same boat have no trouble) 3. Yes we are. We love NAVGRID

Thanks for the answer. Interesting. We have RIOs much more prone to suffer this problem, almost every mission. Others very seldom have seen it. But if the IMU is damaged, shouldn`t we get advisory lights? We always look at the caution panel but it does not appear to be caution lights associated to this error. I understand that this IMU fails are not connected to random fails so it is not possible to try to turn off this fail possibility?

We are encountering a recurrent problem when flying with a human RIO. It does not happen always but often, too often. We fly always from the boat so we have no checked if it also happends from shore. Right from take off appears that all waypoints have drifted. Ten or more miles. Coordinates are correct for the waypoints and they have correct position regarding each other. Datalink contacs appear on the correct position regarding the Wps, but our plane thinks is somewhere else. An INS fix does not correct it. It has happened to more than one RIO and so far we have not been able to detect some error on the start up rutine so I wonder if anyone alse has encountered the problem and has a fix for it or maybe knows what are doing wrong. thanks!

Air source to BOTH

Are you properly coordinating the turn with lots of rudder or letting the adverse yaw to take the nose to the opposite direction? it will go above the horizon as soon as you get some bank, ergo climbing a bit as you start your turn. Also is a bad technic to base your flying on the VSI, is an instrument with a lot of lag on the indication so you will always be behind the plane and overcorrecting.

It is a matter of practising more. You have a good set up, you should avoid dead zones and curves. Curves flattening the center will make your life easier with formations, landings and AAR, but as soon as you go to more agressive maneovering, like aerobatics and ACM, you will enter the steep part of the curve and not be able to control the Gs and AoA. If you are going to fly the Tomcat like an Airbus, sure, use curves. If you intend to fly the whole envelop of a fighter, better not. Practising. The time it will take will depend on previous experience, natural abilty and quality of your hardware but many of us have been flying close formation and AARs with shitty joysticks since DID EF2000 or before. What we have now is luxury. That said, the longer the better, you have more range, you need to be less careful. The developers encapsulate the response of the aircraft in the range of movement of your stick, whatever it is. So if the range is equal to the real thing, you should get a response like the real thing. Is typical to see a real pilot trying a consumer sim for first time, with a traditional short joystick, and overcontroling all over the place. If the range is half than the real, their muscular memory obtains double response than expected. I had the luxury of flying for ten hours or so the real AV8B Navy simulator, I wanted at home the closest possible feeling to that, so I messured the range of movement of the stick on pitch (not the length of hte stick!) and I calculated that a 27cm extension on my Warthog would give me roughly the same pitch displacement. It was an amazing change, very close to the real (sim) thing. Now we are just missing a quality force feedback that properly simulate trimming and we will have it all (why is nobody developing that?!) Sorry! I took the liberty of answering not being a SME of anything at all!

Apparently that’s 95% of the people in this forum