dimitrischal

I can use the jettison button to drop the external fuel tank on ground which appears to be a bug... Regarding the second question. I checked the manual again. So it appears the external feeds only the main tank which corresponds to the observed behavior.

I am not sure these are bugs so if not please erase this thread. In the latest 2.2 build I can jettison the xtank while on ground which shouldn’t happen per the manual with weight on wheels. Also when mounting an full external tank with a less than full internal fuel load on ground the tank is supposed per the manual to feed the internal tanks however when I jettison it after a while I get the same internal fuel quantity I had before. Shouldn’t the internal tanks be filled from the external or am I missing something?

No point comparing the -5 as we don’t have it here. There is a definite capability gap for these 2 planes in game with the f18 having the distinct fox3 advantage in a2a and a massive array of weapons for a2g that can keep thing interesting longer than the mirage or provide more potential such as full on SEAD capabilities that the mirage has none. If razbam were a bit lenient with regard to version fidelity we could get an Exocet to spice things up for the mirage at some point but the comparison generally weighs in favor of the hornet for versatility and variety. The possibility of an upgraded version has basically been ruled out atm due to a lot of systems on the -5 still being classified...

Regarding the pylon tanks the left switch controls external fuel feeding in general and the right one pylon tank feeding so you need to have them both on for wing tanks to feed. For jettisoning the pylon tanks I will check and get back to you. If I remember correctly you need to select the external stores jettison for them to go but it’s been a while so I will check later and get back to you.

May I add performing a cross bleed start on the other engine? Really helps my turnaround times in Cold War server.

From all you have written here it appears that you have a habit of large nws inputs on ground at high speed and or not centering your rudder when applying nws. The result being pretty much what you have. Runway excursions and dangerous oscillations. All aircraft even the most modern ones need to be taxied for a short distance to align with the centerline on the runway. Even with modern steer by wire systems it is standard procedure. I suggest you turn rudder stiffness all the way up on your pedals and give it a go.

Are you releasing all pedal input before applying NWS? From what I understand when landing you engage NWS with the rudder pedals not centered which will pretty much cause EXACTLY what you are describing. Also SA8 are evaded with chaff not flares, so it was luck that saved you and no f5 ever in its operational life was meant to counter high performance SAMs....

If you don’t like it don’t buy it. Simple. I have a feeling most of the hornet development was supported by the revenue from the ww2 planes and besides, like every market having more consumers is a positive thing for everybody even if they don’t like the same cup of tea. I don’t think complex fighter development will take a hit, actually the opposite will happen, revenue from easier to make modules can finance more expensive ones. I don’t expect to be served what I want exactly the way I like it. 3 and 4 gen fighters are expensive and take forever to make. Making easier modules does make sense and will benefit all in the end.

I care more that my purchase has bought me updates 3 or 5 years in the future when the module is a finished and sold product, updates that take time and developer money to get the code up to date in a continously changing platform but who cares right? It flies like a brick!

My understanding was that this configuration caused problems on the tgp lenses and the gear gondola from exhaust gases and was stopped operationally, but whatever...

Anything that was tested and certified should be included, i dont know if the P5 ever was on the harrier but if it was tested then why not. DCS is full of stuff that shouldn't be loaded on the planes we have but are. Like the triple mav rails which are operationally not allowed, or the kh66 that wasnt carried on the Mig21bis. So guys take it easy...

Looking at the US vs UK losses I see a trend for more fatal incidents on USMC harriers in comparable gen aircraft to the British. . Was there a reason for this?

It’s a black and white screen with a negative color filter in the back... Anything would be better end of story, even a half assed iteration with a query and draw distance limit. Even the way it is now with lower terrain contrast and increased object brightness would suffice. If I do it manual via luas it fails integrity check... It’s too bad to defend to any degree on its current iteration so please give me a break. I don’t care if they go full house on the thermal department nor do I want it. I want something usable instead of being unable to discern operating tanks on a winter field. I’m sure 2,5 will bring improvements I’m just waiting.

If it needs more resources let it be. Others have made it happen so should ED. Especially if this is the main targeting aid for 3 of their modules. You’re telling me to quit playing the a10 because the flir is broken and I’m asking for a proper(ish) iteration. Sure buddy you’re on to it. Keep up the good work. On the meanwhile settle for trees with higher thermal contrast than tank engines on the best modern combat sim available.

Proper thermal mapping and multi core compatibility are doable within current specs easily. So is semi believable ecm and radar operation for that matter. As for terrain hotspot simulation for the av8 certainly some compromises can be made but claiming a proper thermal map is resource hungry to a forbidding extend I think is inaccurate. The a10c is out for years and it main target acquisition system is CRAP. It’s also the same target acquisition system for the harrier and the f18 at least for ground targets. This is unacceptable...

The crossfeed allows one engine to be fed from other side tank. It’s no a fuel transfer valve for transferring fuel between tanks. I’m away and will have to check later though.

Not comparable to the F5 which is a day fighter and flew decades before, it's like comparing apples to potatoes.

If you don’t overdo it the mirage retains energy better in a turning fight. Despite it being fully clickable it also feels easier to fight in. At least to me.

These gimme more threads are cancerous

Guidance system, weapon interface and many more are different to what the mica demands. Any mod would err dreadfully on the inaccurate side if it implemented it. Further more the mirage is hardcoded by razbam not to be able fire any other weapons. Maybe a mod builder could chime in...

Su-34!!!! Couldn't resist.

It's all part of the experience isn't it? Just look at the prebitching about the "very demanding graphics that will plummet fps everywhere"... Wouldn't expect less from the community,however the work done on the F-14 is an investment in the future and DCS itself. This provides the foundation for more content to be added easier in the future. This is what matters, not little kiddies bitching about unbalanced airquake.

Why would you pull irl in the neighborhood of 6g with tanks on? Such loads are pretty severe even for ACM training. Let alone pulling 8 or 9 g. Pylon fatigue is real. Also if I'm not mistaken most multirole fighters are limited to 3G with AG ordnance so 6 on the mirage is the protection limit not a normal excursion limit.

Using the search function before posting is internet bliss darling...