raptr12

Just came back to say, thanks ED. Only took 4 years.

Yeah I'd like to report a bug. Coupled with the AWACS on multiplayer servers, the F-18 can just fly around with the radar off and see everyone. Makes for really fun gameplay.

I stand corrected, but he stays conscious from 14:10 to 14:40 8G with the most abysmal technique I've ever seen. I don't know how they let him pass. But even more evidence the G-LOC onset is ridiculous in DCS. Here's this guy pulling 12G for longer than we can pull 7G sustained in DCS.

EDIT: He pulls 8G for 30 seconds at the end of the video with terrible technique. I've been seeing a lot of people making things up about how hard it is to sustain 9Gs and F-16 "realism." Below is a Navy Ensign fighter *STUDENT* pulling 9Gs in the centrifuge for 30 seconds and we can't even pull 9Gs in DCS for like 5 seconds. I rest my case.

To be fair, fatter dudes with slower blood flow actually have a higher tolerance to G in theory.. haha

It helps indirectly. It forces air down your throat making it easier to breathe. Since it's hard to breathe in general at 9G the mask helps a lot with allowing you to breathe easier during an "anti-G straining maneuver" and therefore sustain the G's for longer periods of time.

We can't pull 9G in the Viper without blacking out (please support my post on the issue https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=273887 to get more visibility). But I have to disagree with you. Since we can't pull 9G, this question has a definitive answer in my view: yes the F-14 can out turn the F-16. The F-16 can't pull any alpha and it can't out rate you because neither plane can go above 7.1G without passing out. So it gets slow and now the F-14 with it's huge control surfaces and no limiter to stop you, can pull huge amounts of alpha and always win.

Exactly. This guy does 10 seconds at 12G and I can't pull 8G for 3 seconds in DCS:

We should also account for dehydration of the pilot, how much sleep he got, what his psychological state is, if he worked out legs yesterday... :megalol: joking aside: They don't need to model this perfectly, it just needs to be way easier to pull g's so that the the viper isn't useless in a dogfight. Some of the modeling you are talking about is extremely detailed and I don't think it's really that necessary. Going in assumptions should just be 1. professional pilot, 2. modern g-suit, 3. warmed up. F-16 has arguably the highest G-onset of any aircraft since you can just pull immediately to the limiter without worrying about over-g, but even so, professional pilots don't have issues with it.

The point of the Viper having a G-limiter is so that you can pull 9 G sustained. Right now you pass out at 9G after like 5 seconds which is a severe disadvantage. With the simulated "black out" G effects you are actually limited to about 7G in the Viper... From a balancing aspect, the F-16 just gets annihilated by the F-18/Flanker/Mirage and other fighters that can pull high alpha and point at you. In order for the F-16 to have a chance, the G-LOC resistance needs to be increased, imo for every fighter, because it is far to easy to start seeing black at the first sign of 7G+, but especially for the viper since the 9G limiter is the main advantage it has in a dogfight.

RIO Can I have my brother as a RIO if I fly a F-14?

I have a great system---1080, 16GB RAM, i7, SSD---and never had an issue until 2.5. I can't join any multiplayer without it freezing and eventually crashing at the role select screen. I've tried pagefile increases, administrator, reinstalling. At this point, starting to agree with most people here: this is a DCS software issue.

Apparently many people would buy this and defend it with their lives on this forum. :megalol:

I don't care about the F/A-18. I could care less which two seat fighter they could have spent more time making instead of the L-39. But you're pretty much agreeing with me: Players want more...more maps, assets, tankers, AWACS, transport instead of a out of place L-39.

I'm not suggesting they release a bare-bones/incomplete aircraft for purchase. I was merely suggesting they could use one for testing the concept of multicrew as opposed to developing a complete aircraft for that purpose. Although, speaking of incompleteness, arguably that was what the last Mirage release was... (I don't believe they have even fixed the IFF yet).

As I said to someone earlier, a bare-bones F/A-18 or F-14 or F-15E or F-16D etc etc could all be test beds for multicrew. Leatherneck is already developing a F-14 which is only available with two seats. It would have been a much better test-bed from an efficiency standpoint.

I agree with you on many points. DCS is not a specific era simulator. BUT, all the eras within DCS can be flown separately in a way that makes sense. I just don't see where trainers have a role in any of them, or where I wouldn't rather have time spent on a more useful aircraft.

You even quoted me where I say in all caps "AND" be useful in conjunction with the other aircraft currently available.

Be careful... The tone of your voice isn't offending me, but may offend others here. They are quite sensitive to this. Too much aggression and you might get censored like my last thread :thumbup:. Yes, clearly I meant the F/A-18F. I'm glad you clarified that. I hope I didn't confuse you. It doesn't need to be sophisticated to be fun. My argument is that it should fit into plethora of aircraft already available. As a testbed for multicrew, its fine. But the same testing could have easily been done with, for example, a bare-bones, two seat, twin-engine carrier-capable multirole Boeing F/A-18F Super Hornet (I hope it's clear which aircraft I am speaking of here). And yes, we would still be waiting till whenever, but it could theoretically have come quicker than designing, what is in my view, an aircraft that has no place in DCS (the L-39 Albatros). I understand that the L-39 is now a sunk cost. There will always be people that want odd aircraft in DCS. I am not complaining that it was made, just hoping to have a discussion that my persuade developers to focus their time on more productive things. Aircraft and simulation enhancements that would undoubtedly make them significantly more money than aircraft that, again, have extremely small niche uses.

Dear DCS forum friends, *I offended many of you in a previous post and I wish to start a new productive post on the topic of the L-39. The powers that be found a couple of my comments too offensive or too against the grain to allow, so my post was censored. This time, I will step more cautiously, be more considerate, and consider all of your views respectfully. It is my humble opinion that time spent on the L-39 could have been better used on the F-18F. To me, the L-39 has no place in the current line up of DCS Fighters. It is my feeling that the majority of players would prefer time be spent on fighter aircraft rather than the L-39 trainer. This being said, the L-39 is an excellent proof-of-concept for multicrew and I find this titillating. I will reiterate that I wish this proof-of-concept was simply actualized in the form the of the F-18, but we can't change the past. I understand there are those of you from Afghanistan, Syria, Lybia, and other third world countries that really love the L-39. I understand your passion for this aircraft, but I wish to squash the idea that this 1960's era trainer can effectively do any mission relevant to modern militaries. It has no radar, no MFD's, and no real purpose in combat but as a target. I realize this is a simulation, but even the simulated variant has no place in the DCS environment. To those of you that love the idea of having a trainer I ask, why? A two seater of any other fighter aircraft could serve as a trainer AND be a useful aircraft in the DCS combat world. I write this simply to say I hope that devs might consider these factors into future development. Love, Raptr