m4ti140

Reminder you have AIM-9P and magical 24J

Откуда вы взяли предельный Cy 1.2? EDIT: First two characteristics are not for max lift coefficient, but for 28° on UUA-1. There's no max load factor shown at H=0. If you extrapolate sustained turn characteristics for simmilar load and altitude you get around 2.3-2.4 sustained load factor at emergency afterburner, so it's possible to maintain that turn at that altitude, with normal afterburner it drops to ~2. But since you're in normal AB and maintain 22° something's wrong. EDIT2: Ok, I didn't understand it at first, so that's actually 13° AoA? Why is there a discrepency between DCS and tacview? Anyway, what should happen at this AoA both a load factor of only ~2.4 and a drop in airspeed, so you're right, something's weird.

Ah, nice, gaslighting and insults. Looks like this needs to be resolved with bans, this guy should clearly be kept from any social interaction.

For DCS purposes it might as well be. AIM-9G is essentially a navy variant of AIM-9D. Both, as well as the R-13M are rear aspect. J is an all aspect missile. To say it's a "G/J hybrid" is misleading at the least. And "7G/7km" is irrelevant to DCS, even if true, missiles don't behave in DCS like what you've read in online sources like those. All missiles pull up to 18-25G. And R-13M is laughably slow compared to, say, AIM-9P. It's basically a tier below AIM-9P and like two tiers below Rb24J (due to how OP HB's depiction of it its compared to the regular AIM-9P or AIM-9P5 - it's supposed to be AIM-9P3, but it seems to have unreasonably high lift off the rail - it just turns its nose on impact point immediately after launch before it even accelerates and never pulls the same loads AIM-9P/P5 does. I'm not saying it's modeled incorrectly, it might be that everything else is - it's hard to get solid data on this). It's actually similar to R-3S in terms of speeds. The only saving grace is that it has similar G tolerance to 9P, so effectively it turns faster - but that doesn't mean much with its aspect limitations. Do some testing in DCS with each missile and you'll see where we stand. The data you can find online is not very complete or precise anyway, and if you want to post it somewhere, then go to sections for relevant modules. Here we're talking about server balance, not modelling realism, so we're interested in how the missiles behave in DCS, not real life.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[VODKA] Matroshka - MiG-21

No, he's talking about RB75. Mavericks can track aerial targets, they home on contrast, they couldn't care less what produces that contrast. Of course they should be atrocious against aerial targets, but not the Heatblur RB75, nonono, this one is like something out of Ace Combat. It's superior to dedicated AA weapons. As for RB74/AIM-9L vs R60M - R60M is a steaming pile of garbage compared to AIM-9L. It sits somewhere between RB74 and RB24J in terms of capability, probably closer to the latter.

We do not have any equivalent to Viggen with its own set of weapons. You need to add the weapon pool Viggen has to their NATO equivalents. Also take into account that AIM-9L is a much more capable missile than R-60M, they're not really comparable. Same with AIM-9P3 vs R-13M. R-13M is closer to AIM-9E or even D which we don't even have in the game. You're assigning some magic properties to Soviet missiles that they don't have.

Dude, I've literally seen people get killed by those, we've got tacview tracks from CW of them following aircraft for minutes, with direct steering and no seeker FoV limit whatsoever, nor energy loss. They're like something out of Star Wars or Ace Combat.

You have magical search and destroy mavericks that can perpetually follow an aerial target until they hit it. Use those.

You think combat aircraft are neglected by the crew then? If my crew chief gave me an aircraft that I could not clearly see outside from, I would beat his ass. You REQUESTING dirty cockpit shows you have little combat experience in the aircraft, once you actually fly it in multiplayer you will beg for clean cockpit glass. If anything, it's airliners that can be neglected. Weathering is something that can be welcome, maybe even make it a slider in ME or something so that in defensive campaign scenarios the level of weathering can be used as an indication of how screwed your airbase is. But it definitely shouldn't be forced, nor even made default.

For successful startup you need, at the minimum, APU on, PO-750 inverter #1 on, battery on and dispenser pump on. Per RL manual you also need DC generator and nose cone on (as well as fire extinguisher but that's for safety) but it doesn't seem to make difference in sim, in fact you can start up with pump off, just off of whatever's left in fuel lines. What you're experiencing usually happens if inverter #1 is off, as anti-surge doors don't work without it, and in DCS that will always cause compressor stall. All the extra stuff chuck's guide/DCS manual/training mission tells you to turn on is not necessary to start the engine but shouldn't hurt either as long as you have enough battery charge. If it causes you to skip important stuff, then only turn on APU, extinguisher, battery, inverter #1, DC gen and dispenser pump, leave everything else for after engine is on idle.

Case and point

Last time I checked this was an F/A-18C module, not F-35... F/A-18C Lot 20 only has DBS AFAIK, there was an option to upgrade those with SAR capability but it was never done, at least in Navy Hornets. I think the Super Hornets do have it, but I'm not sure.

Going to bring this up again, since it doesn't seem to have been noticed by the devs, no tag - radar elevation, as it's modeled, is completely unusable, since there's no way to center it. This is like the polar opposite of how F-14 is done, in the F-14 we have multiple redundant axes for the same functions to match everyone's hardware. And here? Here it doesn't even match the real functionality, which happens to be available in most mid-range hardware, we don't even have a "reset elevation" button.

L-39 is a great co-op aircraft if you use it for its intended purpose - flight training, with instructor in the back seat. IMO trainers should be free instead of Su-25T/TF-51, or at least available to fly in for free as long as there's an instructor with a license in the back seat, because that would open it to its intended purpose - an introductory platform for players that are new to flight sims in general.

Withdrawing

Matroshka - MiG-21

Or use the AIM-120D. Like, you know, they actually do. The AIM-120 we have in game is outdated. You're not thinking 4th dimensionally.

To turn on the flight director for PRMG you need to set the autopilot to command mode.

short version: [keyboard] everything [device] everything long version: EVERYTHING needs to be bindable to everything, that's the standard in all ED modules. This thread shouldn't even exist, all of it should just be made bindable, period. If there's something you should be asking about is what non-standard switch abstractions are needed - like what the guy above was asking about - not what we want to be bindable. You can automate the process, there's no need to pick and choose here. It's not because of pit builders, even a cheap switch panel would be near useless with how little can be bound right now. And what exactly needs to be hot-keyed will change from player to player, for instance I typically bind UFC/ICP (if present) and all functions that I need fast access to during combat or takeoff and landing. Others might need all MFD OSBs to be bindable, because they have physical MFD frames, or even full exported MFDs - this is, thankfully, possible right now, although all MFCD buttons should be bindable to keyboard as well - I don't have those but I might have to hotkey frequently used buttons, which I can't do right now. As for priorties: For the love of god, please, let us bind the UFCP and COMM keyboards. IMO any in-cockpit numeric keyboard should be bound to the numpad (+modifiers in case someone uses numpad to look around or if there's more than one present - like in this case) by default - that's the case with A-10C for instance, the UFC is bound to numpad with a modifier key. Those keyboards are there for fast entry of numeric data and if they can't be bound to a physical keyboard it's debilitating - it negates the very purpose of their existence. Also, not necessarily a priority but it's just a basic thing that should be there: idle/stop detent bindings for users with idle detent on their HOTAS. The Warthog throttle for instance needs those to be bindable as buttons.

It's a glass cockpit aircraft, unit conversion should be achievable through software alone.

Well, they physically can be loaded on those stations, it's just that they won't work. Isn't it possible to simulate that? Also there must be some mechanism to limit loadouts, because in the MiG-21 module it's impossible to load double R-60 racks on both inboard and outboard pylons. Can't it be used here? The thread is about invisible pylons, not about OP violating naval regulations.

The Greek block 52 manual can be read on Public Intelligence and there are no region locks in place or anything. When it comes to g limits it should be good enough as a source. Remember the F-16 in game is not the "current" F-16 but the 2007 one, there's declassified information floating around. In fact AFAIK that's what ED is working with, they're modelling based on publically released info, at least that's what one of their public statements implied. Edit: OK, nvm, the stores g limits are in the elusive -1-2, which is nowhere to be found. Well, sh*t :(

This should probably be considered a bug. Out of all things at least the HOTAS functionality should be modeled correctly.