probad

it's appreciated no, it's not about argument. it's about people being parasites and latching onto every little perceived opportunity to try to turn it their way. it's their prerogative, but it's also dev's prerogative to have the final say.

"im gonna cry until i get my way" it's the oldest trick in the book. comes as standard equipment on infants. what you're proposing under the guise of customer service is in actually the concept of handing over creative vision of the game from qualified, employed professionals to unqualified amateurs. while yes, this will create a fleeting calm and satisfaction by sating the ultimate powertrip fantasy of the gamer (oh look! im part of the process! im a de facto developer! this is my game! wheee!), how many more games do we have to destroy before we realize this is a horribly irresponsible and self destructive business model?

so what is it you're looking for? a flight sim or personal attention this is a rhetorical question not aimed at you personally, but i think this is the sort of question that people ought to be asking to themselves.

just so especially this im a regular mp player so i know the landscape, but here you've told me no backstory at all -who are these people? -what are their motivations? -how significant are these issues? ...etc. offering answers to an obfuscated problem is at the end of the day a form of deception.

what, do you think the sound barrier is a wall that smacks the pilot lmfao

bug = doesnt fly like arcade thunder

you're not even trying to comprehend what he's saying. here's the deal: air's behavior and the resulting airplane's behavior changes with airspeed. the f-5 has no assistance for compensating with this unlike the carefree trim scheduling that compensates for airspeed variations that the f-15 and fbw aircraft have. so while yes, for a set constant airspeed, there is a trim that allows for stable level flight, this is a relatively delicate equilibrium point that can be upset by the most minor deviation. any pitch deviation will result in descent or ascent, which results in an acceleration or deceleration, invalidating the originally set trim. likewise, any throttle state mismatch with trim will also result in an upset. the "problem" is that trim here is graduated in steps, so for your given airspeed, the correct trim angle may be in between two attainable trim steps. theoretically you can set a desired trim angle, and then adjust throttle for equilibrium (no different than the landing technique of aoa for speed, throttle for altitude), though the f-5 in particular has poor spooling and acceleration characteristics that will frustrate this. in other words, true equilibrium state in the f-5 will be practically impossible to obtain. get used to handholding the aircraft. to my understanding, stability augmentation here does not mean the f-5 has a system that helps you maintain level flight. instead they are limiters to keep aircraft behavior predictable and useful in maneuvers.

basilisk

save a replay track, upload it here. its in user/saved games/dcs/tracks

there actually is: list of not implemented features = everything not named in list of features: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3285514&postcount=13 wip = everything none of you bother to read through or think through the ample quantity of information already posted so this is not convincing at all.

this has never happened in the history of ever

competitiveness was not, and should never be, a consideration for dcs modules; this issue is a misunderstanding stemming from inadequate documentation. if you want to help resolve it, then start from a documentation standpoint and not from your competitive self-interest.

is this something you made up

you use european aircraft inventory to disprove american doctrinal policy? way to move the goalposts because you suddenly find yourself having to reach. all european aircraft are expensive the tornado is fairly expendable as far as the inventory goes.

since the navy is almost guaranteed to be a major doorkicker it makes sense they put a premium on their native dedicated ewar platforms. ewar/elint is responsible for quarterbacking tactical aircraft against radiating threats. what i never quite figured out was the fate of tas (navy analogue for hts to be integrated into fa-18c), there were some articles about it getting tested around the late 90s but beyond that information is hard to find with casual searching.

generally: -it's primarily an issue of proficiency, once you are good at flying formation, you only need to spot another flight element out of the corner of your eye to keep formation with him. -flight lead issues communications to wingmen on his intentions specifically: -for the battle of britain, enemies came en masse and so spotting wasn't a real issue. flights would be guided to the enemy formations using ground radar and then it would just devolve into a free for all furball. but yes, welded wing formations like the 'vic' turned out to not be conducive to aerial combat. -in the pacific the us adopted loose deuce, as separation made it easier for wingmen to be fluid and responsive. wingman and leader were free to exchange lead depending on who had the better offensive position. loose formation only requires the two aircraft to be in general proximity to each other, lessening demand on precise stationkeeping. pQvF7V-VEYI this may also shed some insight on how formations are managed.

certainly. aar builds upon the fundamental skill of formation flying, irl pilots have to be proficient at formation flying before progressing to aar. if you are having trouble with aar it means you have poor formation flying skills. of course there is no risk involved in simulations, so conversely aar is a good way to sharpen your formation flying skills for dcs. your combat flying will benefit a lot from getting better at aar, you will have an easier time flying in a coordinated manner with other players because you are more proficient at holding formations. you will also be better at managing airspeed for maneuvers which is important for controlling your positional geometry in dogfights.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=213495 come on you guys why do you all think that you're so special that you're the first and only person to notice something this is obviously not correct behavior because the vortices come off regardless of wingtip orientation to the wind, so long as the game believes there is positive aoa.

there have been many concerns already raised about it, ed is well aware, and if wags had to personally address the concerns of every individual i dont think he would even have time to sleep. maybe you should show some consideration. more qualified analyses have been made before in this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=210579

no

i would not recommend you think too much about the speed. you are flying formation with the tanker. look at the tanker, not your hud.

i think the engines are quick to respond -- but the airframe isn't, especially in approach configuration where it's highly draggy. i find the large throttle motions required for landing to be helpful and not a hindrance.

use ab detent keybind far more reliable than sussing out where the softdetent is by listening for the sound

agreed, and i think your proposal is both reasonable and practicable.

i would buy everything if they were 100% off