wilbur81

10.5 G on an F/A-18A without the paddle switch.... whoops.... but at least the wings didn't come off. 1:21:58

Nice! Just had a listen... very interesting. And that makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the link. Also, I REALLY appreciated what Gonky had to say about honoring the guys in DCS who fly it 'honest', without the paddle switch at 20:55. I sometimes feel like I'm one of the few guys who refuses to pull it in the name of realism.... but I'm sure there's a large number like me who just never mention it.

For what it's worth, it appears that the Hornet is a 9G airplane for the Finnish and (I think) the Swiss. Basically, a different FCS software and no wing-fold mech allow the Hornet to sustain 9g. I've read that the 7.5 limiter is a product of US Hornet's having the Wing-fold requirement/limitation and to generally extend the service life, particularly in the salt water corrosion environment. Foreign air forces have made other tweaks, like the Aussie's taking off the launch bar from the nose gear... which turned out to cause some pretty wicked/scary wobbling at certain ground speeds. Point: It seems that the wing-fold would be the primary concern for a US hornet exceeding 7.5 G over and over... this does not account for over-G'ing hanging stores... which is also an issue for the Viper that is not currently modeled (i.e. - The Viper is not a 9-g airplane either when carrying certain stores without 'hung' ordinance problems).

There are many variables here, but for me, as a general rule: I'm easing off b/w 300-350 and trying to never get below 250 unless I'm ready to cash-in.

^^^^This times 1000

I long to actually hear Betty say, "engine fire, left!" and it not be a preflight test.

^^^This

The color-banding in the sky at night in DCS has been around for years now... though it has improved a bit in the last year or two. Playing with your NVIDIA gamma and contrast settings, along with in-game gamma can help.

I'm SO pleased/excited about the current state AND future of DCS! Any other fancy trailers (the most recent one looking like DCS with MSAA cranked up :-)) for the 'other' newest thing honestly don't impress me all that much. DCS isn't just pretty...she's got a LOT of depth and is getting deeper still.

This ^^^ I personally have nearly zero interest in a World Map for DCS at this stage. I think the world map is overrated. Bring on a dynamic campaign in a realistic war region like we currently have... and I'm more than good.

This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Very much This

DCS at 4K with MSAA cranked all the way up looks nearly (if not just) as good...

It may have some connection to this acknowledged bug as well, which can be just as frustrating as the own-missile-lock you mention:

Only when guys emulating Growling Sidewinder TM pull the paddle switch...

I like this idea. ED has already implemented the need to have a "g-warmup" in order to increase tolerance... the stamina bar would be another cool addition down the road.

350-370 knots is correct in real life and in DCS. The data that said 450 is either bad or the paddle switch was being pulled. 450 knots will yield a pretty lazy-wide turn in the Hornet.

So, since this post has been marked as "Solution,"... any plans to help out the 2D-Pancaker's who have DDR4 RAM? Asking for a friend.

I personally haven't noticed a difference. I play in 4K... what is your resolution?

Hey, Baltic. Had a chance to get another go at your campaign (just finished mission 9)... Such great and imaginative work, Sir! Well done. W

Only because you pulled the paddle switch...fly the Hornet as it is designed, it is not outperforming the Viper, except in the well documented areas which it is supposed to. Pull flight control circuit breakers in the Tomcat, Viper, and Eagle and your comparisons would also be invalid.

Correct.

Your assessment wasn't that you were just innocently comparing modules... (you even bold-faced the Viper and Hornet results..) you are saying that you think the Hornet is clearly over performing... and your test of the Hornet's turn performance here was invalid... if you want to accurately compare how the Viper's FM stacks up against the Hornet's, don't pull the paddle. This thread should be about getting the Viper (which was a day-one-pre-purchase for me) as close to real world performance as possible. Your misleading Hornet testing will further lead to the misconception that either: "The current DCS Hornet is overperforming" or "The current DCS Viper is underperforming" Compare the Viper to every module available in DCS, by all means... just do it correctly for each so your data is valid.

I'll re-phrase for ya: A real Lot 20 Hornet will out perform a real Blk 50 Viper if the Pilot is squeezing the paddle switch in real life at certain weights, airspeeds, etc. The FCS G-available will be increased by something like 33% of the current G available, which will at times reach or even exceed 9 Gs. A real Hornet will not like exceeding 8.5g's like this over time (particularly the wing-fold feature on US Hornets)... so real pilots don't use it...but you are not going to see 20g's in DCS or in real life with a pulled-paddle. I have seen 20+ G spikes on my max-g-pulled indicator in the Hornet after a REALLY rough (read "bad") carrier landing, but enough about me...

Dude, I just watched your tracks... you're pulling the Paddle switch on the Hornet, man... this is a 'no-no'. The EM performance charts for the jet do not take this into account. You do realize that the Hornet is a 9+ G airplane when this is pulled, right? A paddle-switch-pulled clean Hornet with the EP engines WILL outperform a Viper... And it will ruin the wing-fold mechanism (and over time, other things) on US jets. Watch some Finnish Hornet demos on Youtube with a modified FCS for 9Gs and they will make your eyes water...

I assume you've played with brightness, contrast, and "grey" levels?