Tango

Hi, Seriously? Even the thrust vector is working to descend the aircraft. I've heard about the "upside-down ice-cream cone theory" but even the XB-70 didn't fly with negative wing angle (relative to horizon) at Mach 3.0 (in this phase of flight 85% of the lift was generated by the fuselage). If you look, not only the airframe and thrust vector are negative, but so too the wing angle. Everything is pointing at a descent (literally). To me, it appears the angle of incidence is wrong. Best regards, Tango.

Hi, Quick update: things are progressing very nicely. We'll have some more news for you imminently. Best regards, Tango.

Hi, SFM = Standard Flight Model. This is the basic flight model of DCS. AFM/PFM/etc.. = Advanced Flight Model. This is where DCS beats the competition. We are releasing with SFM first, but then we will release the AFM later when it is ready. You will be able to buy the AFM version, and get the SFM version in the interim period so you can fly when the SFM version is ready. Best regards, Tango.

The EB version was 90% done then, and we are now developing the CC which is the light attack version. It has a slightly different cockpit which is why it is taking longer to do. Best regards, Tango.

Given it is nearly the end of November, it's looking unlikely. There are some issues we are waiting for ED's help to resolve, and we are working like crazy to get the CC version completed, but it still has to go through the test cycle after that. As soon as we know, you'll know! Best regards, Tango.

Hi, My personal opinion agrees with you, but what we actually do is still being discussed. There may be factors beyond our control that affect our decision. We will announce product pricing when we are closer to release. :thumbup: We will clearly outline approximate timescales when we are closer to release, so people know what to expect. Like you, we can't wait for AFM either. :D Best regards, Tango.

The two modules will be sold together. EB is the trainer/aerobatic version, whilst CC is the light attack version. They have different cockpits, so we have to essentially make two modules, though systems commonality is around 90%. The only reason for doing this is because AFM is new to us, and is very complex (there is as much work in AFM development as there is in the whole of the rest of the module). In addition, obtaining aerodynamic data is hard, and consequently it all takes time. By releasing SFM versions first, you get to fly the module earlier, and we get the income to support further development. Best regards, Tango.

A guess would be the aircraft is "colliding" with the model of the bunker, but not taking damage. Best regards, Tango.

Assuming the chute catches 100% of the thrust output of the engine, don't forget that the thrust coming out of the engine is trying to push the aircraft forwards (result is zero net thrust - forces cancel). As the air spilled from the chute is not all going in the opposite direction, the net thrust is in the forward direction. We know the chute is not sealed, so instantly there are inefficiencies in the redirection of airflow, too. Thrust reversers work because they force the airflow forwards, with practically zero leakage. Best regards, Tango.

My only concern is that in the case of the MiG, they opted for simplified without the ability for a realistic mode, because of feedback from casual gamers. Too many sims are already over-simplified or lacking depth to cater "for the masses" and DCS is refreshing in that it has exceptional realism whilst allowing those who want easier to have it as well. I'm sure LN will get this fixed, but it is the presumption that it is OK to make a function less realistic/"gamey" without the realistic option being made available that is the problem. DCS is a highly realistic simulator, first and foremost. The ability for DCS to be a "study sim" should not be lost. Best regards, Tango.

Yes. I voted Yes, if you're wondering. :) Best regards, Tango.

@Corrigan: I see Vibora's point - it's a relatively small detail, and given that it is a feature of this and other aircraft (and don't get me started on tail draggers or helicopters...) that it is silly to "dumb down" a behavior such as this because people find it "extremely complex". Link If that is really the case, those people should find another game, or see it as a challenge and learn how to do it properly. It takes practise, sure, but then the MiG is not exactly a walk in the park to fly anyway. It's not that the MiG will even wander - it will track in straight line if you leave the controls alone. I wonder how many of those people have the P-51D? Best regards, Tango.

This is DCS, not a game. Please add the option for realistic rudder and braking. I'm all for making things simpler during the learning process, but the training wheels have to come off at some point. Removing the realistic option to do that however, is too far. Surely it is nothing a well-written description of the procedure wouldn't fix, or even a video tutorial? Best regards, Tango.

Fundamentally, yes. It takes bleed air from the engine, and reduces the thrust output as a result. This is why it is necessary to increase RPM slightly when it is in operation, to restore the pressure lost as the result of the additional flow. What we can't ascertain is the minimum RPM to restore this pressure, and ensure the BLC has the required system pressure to operate. The system does have a valve, which appears to be linked to the flap position. When the flaps are not in LANDING position (either due to airflow or the pilot) the BLC system is shutoff. Best regards, Tango.

I think my problem is I do not approach slow enough (I approach around 380 kph. Best regards, Tango.

I'm sure I had that problem in the original release as well. I also see it in the latest update. I think I ended up with 3 canopies in total after ejection. Best regards, Tango.

That's not the wind - that's an earthquake! :D Best regards, Tango.

This thought crossed my mind, too, but the AoA doesn't seem crazy initially (if you burn to 700 kph, AoA is reasonable for level flight, but it still decelerates at MIL and eventually stalls). It seems it is parasitic drag that is wrong, and increases drastically at altitude. Drag due to alpha (or "form drag") appears to be OK. What is really weird is it doesn't directly seem to be related to TAS or Mach number - there is definitely an altitude component to it. Best regards, Tango.

Depending on how far they modeled bleed air, then it might, though all that could happen is it simply require a higher power setting to compensate. As it is, I find I'm around 90% N1 on final, but whether this is symptomatic of the other issues we are seeing I don't know. This is why it would be really useful to know typical power settings, so it can be determined if there is a problem. Best regards, Tango.

Hi, It's been a little while since the last update! A quick note on progress: * Audio system fixed and is now fully functional * Flight Director system tweaks and new monitoring logic implemented * Flight Director now reacts to certain sub-system faults/failures * Pitot/static simulation completed (to be further improved pending ED fix to dew point reporting) * Backup ADI powered-off behavior tweaked ;) * Numerous tiny fixes to systems (in today's testing alone another 12 bugs were squished) * Model updates * Texture updates Best regards, Tango.

I know - but that is surely a HUD targeting mode only and should not affect the weapons system?? I'm saying that switch appears to affect the weapons system directly, which I'm not sure it should because the bombs and Kh-66 have distinct positions on the armament selector. Best regards, Tango.

I must say that until the MiG-21 I had never tried serious A-A engagements in DCS (on top of that, I was buried in code most of the time and flying only to test things! :D ). Having tried a few intercepts and dogfights now however, it is immediately obvious that the visibility range needs changing. Best regards, Tango.

I already reported this to ED - it is going to be a major problem with air-to-air combat. It needs fixing. Best regards, Tango.

Indeed. Happy birthday! :D Best regards, Tango.

Not sure if it is a bug, but the middle switch on the HUD needs to be switched between BOMB and MISSILE to get it to work. I tried carrying bombs and rockets, and could not drop the bombs without moving that switch, but I'd expect that the missile (Kh-66?) should be dropped without because it has a distinct switch position on the armament selector. Best regards, Tango.