=475FG= Dawger

Thanks for the best DCS server past, present or future. You are a diamond in a very large coal pile.

If you aren’t damaged, the repair countdown doesn’t appear, IIRC. Besides, its only three minutes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=flat+toggle+switch&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS660US660&oq=flat+toggle+sw&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j69i57j0i22i30l2j0i15i22i30j0i22i30.6888j0j4&hl=en-US&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8#piu=ps:12&oshopproduct=gid:9797548502856059873,mid:576462680716417414,oid:2632697499063196754,iid:15548599223560500025,rds:UENfOTc5NzU0ODUwMjg1NjA1OTg3M3xQUk9EX1BDXzk3OTc1NDg1MDI4NTYwNTk4NzM%3D,pvt:hg&oshop=apv

I have experienced being launched into the air below flying speed on a rough runway in real life. Guayaquil, Ecuador to be specific in an airplane that weighed 51,000 lbs at the moment of premature takeoff.

While you prompted the post, there are lots of other people who can benefit from the information. In any case, I don't think you quite understand the concept from your response here. All that matters is the apparent size of the target in relation to the reticle. The reticle IS in the photo so a range estimate is possible. Without another object of known size in the photo, no range estimation is possible.

The key is comparing the apparent size of the aircraft to the reticle. If the 74 foot fuselage from nose to tail fills the diameter of the reticle (50 mils), the aircraft is 1500 feet away. If the fuselage is covering 1/7th of the diameter, the aircraft is 7 times as far away or 10,700 feet. Learning these relationships makes the radar ranging a luxury.

You are incorrect. There is enough information in his photo to roughly determine range without radar. The SU-24 wingspan is 58 feet. The gunsight reticle circle is 50 mils diameter. The pipper dot is 2 mils. About three pippers will cover the wingspan which is about 6 mils. 58 feet distending 6 mils is about 3333 yards away. 10,330 feet is 3443 yards The same approximation can be done with the fuselage at 74 feet distending about 8 mils which would give a guess of 3100 yards. Of course, you would have to be pretty handy with numbers to do all that in a dogfight but it really doesn't take too much practice to estimate ranges using the apparent size compared to the reticle.

The most obvious explanation is that you are in missile mode instead of gun mode. If this is the case, what is presented is correct. The easiest way to switch between Dogfight Guns (DG) and Dogfight Missile (DM) is using the Dogfight/Resume Switch in the controls setup. Aft is DG and Forward is DM.

You feel speed brakes deployed more than hear them. A seat shaker works well in replicating this.

Which is exactly what I said. Procedures are a starting point. Try reading for comprehension. It's wonderful!

In real airplanes, you don’t fly a procedure to the exclusion of all else. The procedure is a starting point, not a set of rails. If you cannot constantly correct/modify to fit the current situation, you are a monkey following a script. Whenever possible, I start my overhead supersonic at 10 feet because its fun and do what’s needed to arrive at the touchdown point on speed.

You can fire an AIM-9P or P5 from within the proper rear hemisphere weapon employment zone, have it tracking to the target and the target can break the missile tracking by simply pulling enough to reach whatever artificial aspect limit has been programmed into the missile . No need to come out of afterburner or flare. This is unrealistic behavior post launch. Mig-29’s and Mig-19’s can easily do this. Mig-21’s can also do this but not as easily as a Fulcrum or Farmer.

Don't shoot with a blue sky background. The AIM-9P and P5 loves to transfer to the background radiation from the Big Bang and track that. There are tons of other things it likes to transfer to as well. About the last thing it will reliably track is an afterburner plume. It actually performs better from the front aspect (P5 variant) And enemy aircraft can cause an aspect break lock if they manage to reach the magic aspect number post launch. There is an aspect dead zone where the P5 won't track at all surrounding the 90 aspect area and its pretty wide. The P is only reliable at less than 30 aspect.

My group is dedicated exclusively to guns and rear aspect combat, which makes us pretty exclusively Cold War. We are not a traditional DCS group, focusing on a specific airframe to the exclusion of others or pretending to be in the military. We do operate as a team at a high level, which can be intimidating at first but we are happy to help folks learn actual BFM and multi-ship tactics.

All you can afford to send him but he isn't going to say that. Every month Alpenwolf doesn't have to dig into his own pocket is another month the server will still be there. If he is forced to pay for it himself, he will have to consider shutting it down. Send what you can.

I would love to see this as well but last time I asked there was no response. Here’s hoping this time around someone will take action on this. This is the primary reason I dont fly the Harrier and certainly won’t buy any Razbam modules until they commit to providing this feature

There is no evidence that there is any significant structural difference between the two and there is ample evidence that they share similar structural strength. Both have published G-limits. One, despite any real world evidence of wing failure, will shed both wings at 1.5 times the published limit. The other will not, experiencing failure at a much higher factor. There is much more evidence of the similarity of the two structures than there is of any difference.

That’s silly. The two aircraft in my OP have nearly identical published structural limits. These are the limits used to implement the structural failure modeling. Yet they differ radically in modeling of structural failure. The only conclusion is inconsistent modeling.

This is correct.

High oil temperature does not, on its own, create an engine failure or even engine damage in a real engine unless operated for extended periods due to reduced protective properties. It is a symptom of another issue, an indicator of a problem elsewhere.

I was talking about real life. 7 type ratings, 15,000 hours in several dozen different aircraft types and several thousand hours teaching in Level D simulators. 21 repetitions and its an easy, fast flow to start any airplane you like. We expected every student to absorb the full pre-start flow in one 2 hour procedures session. After that, you did the full start on the first flying session and the next time you did it was for the check ride and the FAA examiner isn't going to look too kindly on a slow as molasses pre-start. At $1000 per hour (probably double that now) for the simulator, as little as possible training time is spent on what is considered a very basic skill. It is more a demonstration of competency than training. The pilot is expected to have a base of knowledge that enables him to study the specific aircraft systems, practice in his hotel room with a paper cockpit poster and be able to demonstrate the procedure reasonably competently the very first time. If he can't do that, he has no business training for that aircraft type.

Starting the airplane isn't the "game". Flying is the game. The ability to start the airplane using the real world procedure is a by-product of creating a fully functioning cockpit, not the purpose of creating such a thing. Of course, ED could produce lower priced versions of every module that allow you to start and taxi around but not fly. They could call it "DCS for Crew Chiefs" and appeal to the vast audience of folks interested in simulating the engaging pre-flight phase. DCS is a sandbox. It should have as few limits as possible to encompass a wide spectrum of desired gameplay.

It actually takes about 21 repetitions to get to the point he is at when learning a new airplane. After that it is just doing it often enough to keep the muscle memory. Thank god for the autostart macro AND, most importantly, the ability as an end user to modify it. It is a wonderful feature to be able to customize the autostart sequence in order to speed it up and to add all the post - start switch flipping and button pressing crap required to be ready to fight.

That explains how the inconsistency could occur if there is not proper coordination regarding a consistent, realistic modeling of aircraft structural damage. It does not explain why such inconsistency is allowed to persist.

I am wondering the logic behind different modules exhibiting radically different structural failure characteristics. The most obvious example is the F-5E compared to the Mirage F1CE. The two aircraft have incredibly similar published structural limitations, yet one is very easy to rip both wings off and the other behaves completely differently. I know opinions vary on which is more realistic. I would argue the Mirage is a lot closer to reality. However, my concern is the inconsistency in module development. Life might be a box of chocolates but structural limitations modeling should not be. Structural failure behaviors should be similar for all aircraft absent some very obvious public data demonstrating otherwise.