RED

Both sound like names the first like "... Lufbery and Immelmann ..." ->the names not maneuvers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gervais_Raoul_Lufbery the second one like a location the pilots flew to from Seoul.

Is this still some effect that comes from the update? I can remember to many scratches in 1.5 but did not remember sun reflections to be a problem. There is a thing that could lead to this problem: when you sit in the cockpit irl, your eyes will adjust to things far away and ignore those things near to you. Even if ED takes videos and models it after those, it would be likely overdone because the cameras are often adjusted to the cockpit and not to infinity. In the f16 video the pilot would have no trouble looking through the reflections from his displays, etc. In dcs we can't refocus our eyes and wouldn't be able to ignore the reflection. What makes things worse, clouds are completely ignored in this calculation. I flew the 39 on an completely overcast day and got blinded by my canopy that showed "reflections" from the sunlight that was not there. At night the flares from the flare dispenser illuminated the scratches on the canopy so bright that I was unable to differ between flares and scratches. Ed should think about A. removing these effects until a solution is found or B. allowing the user to select how strong these effects are Edit. Just noticed this is under VR. But I think this effects all setups.

Viele falsche Vermutungen bis Wags aufklärt: das Natops sagt, dass das ein Notfall Fadenkreuz ist. Wenn das Hud ausfällt, kann man mit Radar und Co noch mit diesem Fadenkreuz etwas anfangen. Das Bild mit Blick nach hinten links zeigt einen Sensor der die Kopfbewegungen des Piloten für das jhmcs aufzeichnet. Edit: snipe di sniped :)

Im direkten Vergleich schon ziemlich gut. Mir würde das so schon reichen. Verbesserung gehen aber immer :music_whistling: - die länglichen Schlieren fehlen und man sieht nur Regentropfen abfließen.

Diesmal konnte man nicht hin und her springen, sondern nur live schauen... Video sollte aber kommen.

Will there be any Russian Radio Navigation Systems for the L-39 and Mig 21 on this map? Details only lists western aids but neither include nor exclude eastern ones:

Ja, sollte eigentlich funktionieren. Ich bin gespannt wie ED das ganze umsetzt. Sollte eigentlich nicht das schwerste sein ein 2D-Layer übers Bild zu legen. https://theaviationist.com/2011/09/03/rdaf-over-libya/

Sorry about the party ... keep going! :prop:

Yeah, we will get the FC3 PFM update... :smilewink: At least for me that would give the 29 the opportunity to go from "tested ones" to "fly it more often than the 27". It will be a great opponent for the 18.

I think this thread (especially first post by OP) is still very important. I really hope ED doesn't put a FC3 level system into the simulated Hornet. We really miss out on ROE that create interesting fights. ROE are pretty useless if you can ID the contact from 70 miles with your radar. We wouldn't need to use the full potential of the targeting pods - the A-A modes - either. A better IFF-system would also allow older generations like F-5, Mig21 or F-4 to enter WVR fights and have a chance. Thinking about online events like Red Flag it would be really disappointing to not be able to fly with proper ROE because the Hornet can magically IFF every aircraft for 100% sure like the FC3 ones. Even for Single Player it will be very strange to IFF aircraft that not even have any IFF equipment onboard and would compromise the experience there. With every high fidelity fighter aircraft -M2k, FA-18, F-14, ... - this will get more important. I didn't read the whole thread, so maybe some stuff was already covered. Didn't want to open a new one although the Hornet deserves one. :smilewink:

Die F5 ist der "Dogfighter" schlechthin. Wäre ein guter Übergang von FC3 auf einfache aber gut simulierte Systeme und ein guter Übergang zur f-14/18. Mit dem acg Server gibt's im MP auch fast immer genug Action.

I just got this beauty during this sale. Yesterday I read the section with the "Circle Pattern Flight". Shouldn't this be named circuit pattern flight? You really don't fly a circle in that particular pattern. It also has some other weird words and errors in it. Some examples: -> "Underfly", "Overfly"? Are those real words? I think a steep or shallow glide path is the key word here. These little things might confuse new pilots. I am not a native speaker so i might be wrong. I never had any trouble to understand the A10 or F5 manual.

Hey Matt, do you have plans to do a more complete TACAN Tutorial for the Hornet with things like ARCING methods, RADIAL TO ARC Intercept and so on that are important flying around the "boat"?

With the f-14 we will be able to move mud very well. I guess it will be the only two seater with a targeting pod for a while.

Belsimtek said they need their engine engineers for the 18. Once that gets released we can expect an update for the Huey.

Most likely the mission was not updated for 2.5. If the jtac has sees no Target he can only advice you to continue your mission. With the new trees he probably has no LOS.

Persian Gulf will be awesome for ACG. The flight over the water won't be actually that long. And there are some islands to fight over...

yes

The version we have in DCS? Since A10C and F/A-18C are 2003+ the other types were greatly improved for combat at that point, too, but we have the "old" versions. Which is ok. Check out this incomplete and not researched table:

Jup, im letzten Stream hat Wags gesagt, dass die F-16 "sehr interessant" ist. Da sie jetzt anscheinend alle Systeme für die F/A-18C sehr "gründlich" entwickelt haben und sagen, dass sie auch für andere Flugzeuge genutzt werden können, macht es nur Sinn, wenn das nächste auch der F/A-18 ähnelt. Bei einer F-16 dürfte vieles zwar anders aussehen, die nötige Technik im Hintergrund dürfte aber die gleiche bleiben können. Wenn sie jetzt die Basis sauber entwickeln, sollten andere Module auch viel schneller bei uns ankommen.

Friday news or the next stream will be very interesting...

hmmm

Nice!

P-1289 also explains how to pull: For the pilot the most important thing is to know his options while looking at his bandit. His options are defined by his energy - speed + altitude. He will check those if he wants to know what maneuver he can fly (offensive or defensive). The AOA/G gauge doesn't tell you how much energy is left but how the pilot performs the aircraft. E.g. Too slow -> better no nose-high maneuver too low -> no vertical nose-down maneuver Why should he check another instrument if the speed gives him an already ok feedback in combination with his butt for G and AOA. In DCS we can happily ignore the G-Limits of the F5 and pull until we would black out. Coming back to OPs interests: Heavily laden: Try to turn level and with not too much AOB - eg. 20-30. Climb with wings level. If you do a good roll-in you don't need to maneuver much in the target area. If you need to be defensive by surprise use the emergency jettison button. dogfighting For the correct alpha and pull into the turn you also need to know if it is a turn rate fight (2C) or a turn radius fight (1C). I usually experience 2C because of loosing sight in a 1C. As already mentioned a good corner speed for 2C is 450kn. But if you are generally above 350kn you are fine, too. Most common error is to not ease the pull after the initial turn. So if you end up slow, you pulled to much. Since the F5 is faster than the F-86 or P-51 but the turn rate is not that much better you will have the feeling that the A/C doesn't turn that much. Little tip: Jettison the pylons if you go Air to Air.

The jammer of the Mirage is implemented the same way the jammers of the other planes are in DCS World - a very basic way. In DCS World: against human players Jammer off/Radar off -> they have to find you with their radar,EO or eyeball/ no RWR indication for others Jammer off/Radar on -> they get an RWR indication Jammer on/Radar off -> they will get a direction from their radar without range at (very) long distances to your position, if they burn through your jammer they will see you like the jammer was off/no RWR indication Jammer on/Radar on -> you are the light in the dark, all sensors will at least show a direction towards you outnumbered, sneaky and low -> jammer off number advantage, high flying CAP -> Jammer can be useful to hide distance/altitude This can be discussed very long, better try different stuff yourself Any hostile will see you on their radar quite easily. To my knowledge the jammer has no effect in close range (but for others getting to the fight from a distance). You burn through the jammer before you can launch effectively in the F-15 (maybe not at 40k?). So no need to treat the F-15 different. When you get launched on, the difference for you between HOJ or TWS is that the bandit might go radar off after the launch -> no 15 on the RWR. The missile warning tone will still come on late when the AMRAAM turns on the onboard radar. AI -> they often know very well where you are but the jammer might delay a launch (in the ME you can set different launch distances for AI, too) GL