Midnightzulu

Is there a max landing weight for the DCS Viper published somewhere? Along the same lines; is there someplace to see your real time gross weight or are you stuck adding fuel and stores to your empty weight?

More likely Pop’s Leather. ;)

As an airplane gets bigger, so do it’s flight surfaces. The size of the vertical stabilizer(s) is what’s pertinent here. I fly big airplanes for a living. You’d be surprised at the effects of even a moderately strong crosswind as you are rolling down the runway or even taxiing a 75 or 767. There is a good amount of rudder input required to counter the weathervaning tendency. That said, my gut tells me the crosswind effects in DCS may be just a TAD overdone.

Anti skid is usually disabled only as a result of a hydraulic failure. Anti skid systems can actuate the brakes many times a second. If you have a reduced fluid level, and/or a leak in the system, antiskid will very quickly deplete what you have left, leaving you with zero braking. Obviously bad. Conversely, even a small amount of remaining fluid can allow you to actuate the brakes once or twice. The procedure braking with a fluid leak (anti skid turned off) usually calls for one continuous brake actuation, coming on the brakes gingery at first (avoiding lock up) and gradually increasing pressure until the airplane is stopped.

Dude you make a lot of assumptions. Are you a Marine Corps Aviator? Know any? How about Aussie, Swiss, Canadian Hornet drivers? The fact is fighters are still mostly flown by looking out the window. American fighter pilots have command driven weather minimums based on experience levels that are typically much higher than charted mins. It’s rare that the weather is so bad that an ILS is really needed anyway. A tacan approach will get you in with a pretty low ceiling. When the weather is (even marginally) good, any self respecting fighter pilot will choose to fly a (visual) overhead vice an instrument approach. Mostly because it looks cool but also because it’s just a more efficient way to recover combat aircraft. I don’t claim to know what equipment non US operators have on their aircraft but I certainly wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of operators do without ILS. Military aviators often pass a common nugget of wisdom to the newer guys: Never pass up an opportunity to shut the f@!& up. ;)

Remember that speed plays a role in trim as well. As you go faster, the more exaggerated the aircraft response will be to control inputs. Ask someone who's flown a T-38 how much of a pain in the ass it is to trim for level flight at high mach numbers. I suggest slowing to 350-400KIAS at around 15,000 and practicing basic aircraft handling drills to include trimming for level flight. Try some 30 degree level turns, steep turns, vertical S etc. Slow down and configure and practice some traffic pattern stalls and the like. These full fidelity modules are really pretty good and you need to get a feel for the airplane before you try and employ it.....just as you would in real life. Once you get used to the F-5, she really flies pretty sweet.

Ughh...This is a full fidelity model that’s been in a release state for a long time. The avionics are fully fleshed out and functional with the exception of the rwr. This is a great module that is let down by a fairly glaring problem. I too would like to see it addressed.

I’m not aware of an ILS capability for the F-86E. AFIK Tacan/DME were the only nav upgrades made. A Tacan/DME approach is still much more straightforward than a fixed card NDB approach though, and the upgrade would allow much more functionality. This is especially true in maps like Nevada where NDB navigation isn’t really possible.

Worked it out. No bug. Apparently it was something I had loaded into the mission. When I just dropped a single aircraft onto the ramp, everything worked fine. I'm wondering what could've caused the issue though. I think all I had loaded were a wingman, a HUMVEE, a half dozen static Sabres and a single static Huey. Somehow the mission generated the phantom NDB that was overpowering the one I was trying to tune. I'll start removing things from the original mission one by one to troubleshoot I guess.

Had the winds set from the NW (343) at 4kts. Just to see what would happen I set the winds to calm and still have the same issue. I can see winds affecting which ILS is up, but NDBs, VORs, and TACANs should be unaffected by runway in use issues. Not sure why I'm seeing this issue. Not running any mods. I'm updating the stable version right now and will have a look there to see if its the same. Wondering if there are other settings in the mission editor I need to look at?

According to the mission editor and Lino Germany's beacon map, there should be an NDB just off Gudauta Rwy33 on frequency 395.0, identifier XC. In the F-86 I tune 395 (verified by the kneeboard) and get an AIE (.- .. .) ident with no bearing info (bearing needle spins around indefinitely). If i tune just a little higher, still on 395 and into 396, I get a very strong ID of SH (... ....) with a bearing of 355 degrees. Out of curiosity I took off and followed the bearing until I got North of Maykop. The needle was still pointing North. Couple things: 1. XC doesn't seem to exist in game, or at least not tunable in the Sabre. 2. Wherever SH is, its signal is way too strong to be able to receive a good ID and strong bearing from a station somewhere North of Maykop while at the foot of a 12000ft mountain range on the ramp at Gudauta. Please (re)comision XC NDB and fix the signal strength of SH NDB.

Some Sabres did have those things, and trust me, flying DME arcs, computing lead radials, and mastering the fix to fix WILL up your pilot game! That said, it’s certianly not required to enjoy the module. I’m just a nerd who would love to practice old school instrument flying in this thing.

I realize Belsimtek have their hands full with the Hornet release and upcoming F-4E. However, if they ever decide to update the Sabre, I hope they'll give some consideration to this modification which added an RMI, DME, and a course indicator (and presumably TACAN) as shown on page 1-10 of the T.O. F-86F-1 flight manual(1971 update). Tacan would add a much more useful medium for navigating in DCS and the RMI and DME would make radio navigation much less clunky than it is in the current Sabre. Caveat: Please do not take any development resources away from the Hornet or the Phantom to do this. Just a wish, nothing more.

Did you check out the “bugs and problems” thread at the top of the F-5 section? Sounds like someone with similar problems was able to solve them by us checking a couple boxes in the settings menu. Might be worth a read.

F-5E radar is quite useful in ACM modes which is where you will find yourself in any aerial engagement since there is no iff and all bogies need to be visually id’d. Bomb dropping was done visually up until the early to mid 90s. I’m not sure, but imagine one or two fighter pilots actually figured out how to hit a target without the help of CCIP. :smilewink: Sure, the F-5 is not competitive against modern fighters, nor is it very survivabable on the modern battlefield. It is, however, a great match against the MiG21, will give a MiG23 a run for its money, and it is very rewarding to be able to effectively employ A/G ordinance manually. If you think you might like a nice, analogue western aircraft, the F-5 is outstanding. It should also make a great primer for the upcoming F-4E.

Modern aircraft design has progressed to the point that the pilot has been gifted the ability to focus almost entirely on the mission. Today’s aircraft will typically alert you when something’s wrong with the systems.

Not necessarily a bad thing. Expand the customer/revenue base so they can keep up work on the more “hardcore” stuff for those of us that want it. Some who come into the sim via the FC3 route will become more interested and expand the full fidelity consumer base. The problem with hardcore sims has always been the limited audience. Attracting more people to the hobby is a good thing. Of course, many will approach things in a more casual manner than some of us might like. I think the online servers and various online groups will step up to the job of providing appropriate venues to suit the various approaches one could take to simming.

Why? This is how it works in the real world. The aircraft I fly for a living has a max landing weight significantly lower than MGTOW. There is nothing stopping me from landing overweight except for my desire not to harm myself, the aircraft, lose my license, or get fired. If there is an emergency (i.e. aircraft is on fire), the crew always has the option of exercising emergency authority and landing overweight. There is certainly nothing stopping you from doing it in the sim besides having to live with your own shame. ;) However, try some heavyweight landings (either on land or the boat) sometime. Then try some at 33K and below. I'll bet you'll find life is much easier if you comply with the aircraft operating restrictions.

Yeah. “Doxing” apparently. I don’t think he’ll have much luck on that particular quest. He has a tendency to post as if he is some sort of expert. Just wanted to make clear the reality is he’s clueless.

Well, you’ve got one here. A-10s and C-130s refuel around 200kts. I never saw one spontaneously combust while on the boom. Where are you getting your information?

GPS/IRU is more reliable than the speedo in your car. Here's a true ATC story: I was a brand new, very green LT just out of pilot training. My first assignment was flying DV (VIP) Airlift out of a fairly large international airport in Europe. On my first flight at my new base I was taxiing out to the runway on a parallel taxiway. I had been taught to keep it under about 15kts at the schoolhouse, so that's what I was doing. Apparently we caused quite the traffic jam behind us with a Lufthansa, a Delta, a Thomas Cook, and several others behind us. At some point Lufthansa decided they'd had enough and queried Tower as to whether the Lear in front of them could pick it up a bit. The IP in the left seat had a good chuckle and told me I taxied like his grandmother. Lucky for me, the Euros are pretty civilized when it comes to ATC. If that had happened at JFK, I have a feeling they'd have found a nice quiet place on the airport for us to wait as the conga line went by!

Ground speed is used all the time in the real world as a taxi speed reference. Also the whole “fast walk” thing is great in a Cessna at the local patch but will get you yelled at at JFK or LAX. 30kts taxi speed is pretty common on a parallel taxiway. Unless you’re Southwest. Then it’s about 50. :smilewink:

I’ve noticed the tanker will give a “breakaway” call whenever a contact is made right now. Is this a known bug?

I haven't get really the purpose but anything on the diagonals as it is difficult to hit them on any controller. They do work for the axis control or view change when hitting a one edge isn't causing trouble. I got the HOTAS set (stick and throttle) for a 75€ as new in spring sale. Good price as normally 129€. And purpose was to get for long time first non-FF stick and single axis throttle for learning experience and then use it as a third HOTAS system on different location. For few days the throttle was very smooth on me. But then it started to get sticky. Eventually it was so sticky that I couldn't move at all it accurately. And the pot in the throttle is 8-bit that is causing inaccuracy easily with the sticky moving. So it was time to open and lubricate the two bars to get it smoother, but didn't help much. Until I removed the tension bar (two metal bars with other having a plastic feets to squeeze on the two slide bars) and it was better, but not at all same as originally. The downside by removing the tension bar is that throttle can little rock when moving, so it is needed to add there. First I added the lithium grease but then couple days later needed to remove it and then add silicone spray lubricant and it has neither helped much. The throttle just ain't at all as smooth as it was originally, regardless the tension bar tightness. The TDC slewing would be important but for F/A-18C it works still, while with some other aircrafts it ain't so optimal as its location is little bad. Why I am planning to replace the TM16000 stick with CH Fighterstick as it is cheap option to complete the otherwise good 3x 4-axis throttle functionality, if I can just get the throttle move smoothly again. I am waiting to get change to buy the VKB MCG Pro once in stock again (missed the couple day time window) as I don't mind to use such different stick with other aircrafts. But the TM16000 stick is just... Unsuitable for DCS. The shape is terrible, it is high force stick, single trigger and just too little buttons and single hat is just not great. You can fly but not really operate as hat ain't such problem but lack of the buttons for thumb rest and pinky. So probably get the CH fighterstick replace it and then mod it with slight extension and RC model cars tension bars to make it so that it stays where you leave it (non-FF non-centering stick) so it can be used for helicopters too. The F/A-18C doesn't require such trimming mechanism etc, but lets see how it eventually then works. As far as walking the throttle and differential thrust go: I fly multi engine jets for a living. Walking the throttles is certainly a good technique for making small thrust adjustments but is by no means a requirement. As to applying differential thrust to aid in maneuvering: I’ve never seen it done in the air. On the ground it can most definitely help with tighter turns, especially if there is a lack of grip with the ground surface, but it’s definitely not typical to see airborne. At cruise we may adjust individual throttles incrementally, but this is generally done to match fuel flows to avoid an imbalance or to match fan speeds to avoid an annoying harmonic dissonance. Don’t get me wrong—having dual throttles will definitely add to the experience and increase realism, but I don’t think it’s a necessary piece of hardware to enjoy a centerline thrust fighter type module. As far as the Velcro mod for an afterburner detent: could you explain or provide a link as to how this is done? I’m definitely interested in a simple low cost solution like this. :thumbup: Thanks!