TOViper

Update: Static weather, ISA+0, QNH 760mmHg. BESLAN airfield RWY 10 Elevation: 525m (according to F-10 map) Altimeter showing ~520m when Kollsman window is set to 1013mbar. Seems OK 525m ~1720ft rule of thumb: 27ft per mbar pressure (in lower pressure areas) equals 63,7mbar 1013-63mbar = 950mbar Altimeter showing 951mbar, which is 1 mbar more than required, but satisfactorily BTW: Standby altimeter still not showing the same values as the main altimeter. Deviations from ISA indeed HAVE influence on the standby altimeter. See attached TRK files (ISA+0, and ISA+10) 2021-03-19_Viggen_ISA_plus_0_Altitude_Check.trk 2021-03-19_Viggen_ISA_plus_10_Altitude_Check.trk

Still working as written above, and this time I even used more airspeed, see TRK. 2021-03-19_Viggen_TOSS_bombing_works.trk

During testing RR bombing on my own with newest OB, and also watching the TRK file using the current OB, I wasn't able to reproduce this issue. I remember having this from time to time in older versions of DCS, but I think it must have been solved during any of the last few updates. I therefore recommend to close this thread @RagnarDa P.S.: What I have experienced is that sometimes on the first run the 3km distance line doesn't show up on the A2 display, and after releasing the bombs it magically appeared. I am on this certain issue, but that's another story, and apart from this thread.

Ah, I understand. Indeed, I don't have an answer to this particular question. I personally suggest and prefer to do procedures the correct way, and if then something goes obviously wrong, posting it. If this question is really important to you, and in order to get more attention from readers (because currently it is located within another report), you may create a new thread regarding not following procedures and your observations / outcome. Maybe you will then get it answered by someone ... good luck!

I did. You wrote: "In CCIP (PLAN w/ HD bombs), I get one bomb release on press of trigger, then all other release when I lift the trigger. Edit: Owh, can it be because I go to ANF, which I shouldn't? -.-'" I wrote: "Works as intended. ...... HD bombs PLAN/ANF/MEDIUM/B1: bombs are released" What is missing for you in order to think I didn't even address your question?

At least it leaves enought roome to limit IAS to 1350 km/h when in zone 3.

Hello! Attached I have a track of the Viggen going for an inverted Immelmann. As you can see I had disabled SPAK, and went down using a slight-to-moderate elevator input. At about ~600km/h you see me reducing this input just a little bit, but then (just a tick later), the aircraft suddenly (like in the form of a step function) increases AOA, which also can be heard due to the high AOA alert. Was this the moment the pitch gearing increased the elevator surface deflection? And if so, was this a step-function in the real aircraft, or was it more of a gradual characteristic? Thanks for any info on this and kind regards, TOViper 2021-02-27_Viggen_Pitch_Input_at_600kmh_edit.trk

I only can add the idea of re-checking if any axis or button is assigned to the trim axis. I remember adding my TRP rudder to DCS ... the rudder pedals were assigned to thrust and aileron, ... no comment on that. Please also check the emergency trim, not only the normal trim!

OK, thanks for posting this diagram again, I remember having it seen this in another thread someday somewhere. Following the diagram, the behavior of the currently implemented AB (current OB version) is faulty, because I climbed from 11km to 14km with M1.6, and the AB went off. This can be seen in the attached track. Now that I see that RagnarDa's changed the thread to "FIXED", was this repaired or something else? 2021-02-27_Viggen_AB_light_out_at_high_alt.trk

Guys, just for your information, because it was forgotten to be said: In the current DCS version (OB 2.5.6.61527) you have to pull your throttle to idle before re-engaging the afterburner when below the altitude it initially went out. Note that this might blow out the engine depending on conditions, so be careful with the throttle movements. The question about why the AB is going off in that altitude was IMHO not answered by someone / any manual / any real Viggen driver. If sources exist, please post a link or leave comments, thanks!

Hi folks, currently 8 Lysbombs have more drag than 16 Sprängbombs. E.g. at ISA-25°C @0m MSL @max MIL thrust I can reach M0.75 with Lysbombs, and M0.81 with Sprängbombs. Loadout: XT + 2 Rb24J plus the bombs in each config. Here are the tracks: 2021-02-27_Viggen_Lsysbomb_Drag.trk 2021-02-27_Viggen_Spraengbombs_Drag.trk Sounds strange to me, can this be true? Thanks for any hint!

LysBombs currently need a QFE setting of at least minus 100 mbar from original value in order to illuminate timely and satisfactorily. Otherwise the leading 2 or 3 bombs will hit the ground while already illuminating but still not having their parachutes deployed. I attacked a track where I got very good results: 2021-02-27_Viggen_Lsysbomb_Optimization.trk Here is another one with 8 bombs: 2021-02-27_Viggen_Lsysbomb_Optimization_8.trk

In the track one can see even half rudder input be handled satisfactorily by the autopilot. Rudder inputs above ~2/3 deflection will lead to a yaw induced roll. I consider this issue as "input device related" (might be defective), and thus I request to close it @RagnarDa Anyway, I think this thread might make its way to a FAQ section whenever such would be created for the Viggen as well (Tomcat has one), just to have new pilots take care of their input devices before flying. 2021-02-27_Viggen_Autopilot_with_Rudder_input_OK.trk

If there was a contest of most beautiful pictures about planes ... "Ladies and gentlemen, let's celebrate and congratulate the winner!"

I love these small tricks. Human factors at its best

Thanks all for the fantastic postings! Nearly all of the issues came up during the last days, so your comments represent a fantastic addition for the quick start guide. VRS caught me one time only, but I was able to re-gain airspeed moving cyclic control forward slightly (I intentionally flew out of the danger zone slow/low). Only gear was damaged, so had luck I should have bought this module far earlier ... damn. Anyway, now I have it, and I am super happy with that one!!

Hello Big! I really appreciate the step you have taken by requesting a cockpit-only shadow setting! Thank you very much!

Hi folks! I bought the Mi-8 following the tip of one of my buddies. After working into the manual and having a few very nice flights on this wonderful bird, I thought it might make sense to ask you (experienced) guys for the most significant glitches (if there are some) of this humble module. Are there some common mistakes, some things that should be avoided regarding the aircraft (and the module) that are not written in the manual? If anyone is motivated to answer in a few short words, I would be very happy! In the meantime I continue reading the full manual ... Thanks and kind regards, TOViper

I have added a "Restrict Air-to-Air Attack" waypoint action before the "Bombing" action. Works in a way I expected... the P-47 is bombing and not attacking the FW190. Did you take care of the correct sort-order initially? If you exchange places, the "Restict Air-to-Air Attack" will otherwise be executed only when the bombing is finished. test-prohibit-AA_tiny_little_thing_changed.miz

Oh, I totally missed this Thanks Dr!

Seen from a personal perspective: The introduction of 2.5 brought fantastic graphics and other improvements, but the hardware demands were increased, which in my understanding was a logical step. My 1070 was and is still able to keep good fps, even in VR, even with shadows set to HIGH! For sure, many things happend within the sim (besides development of exciting aircraft models), but the fps are still good, that's a fact. I haven't seen many serious issues in the forums regarding the modules I don't fly, but for sure there are some. Even the mighty F-14 is giving me good frames, and the F-16 with two MFDs showing camera or infrared pictures as well, which makes me happy every day I fly Only Viggen in 60km radar range is awful, and the MiG-21 radar totally kills my computer (1-2 fps). On the other hand, the situation around the SC made me think: What will be their next steps? Not take care about optimization, and quality of products? Luckily, and I think many people agree, this relates to SC only. I would not say that ED doesn't take care at all, in fact they do, and I am 100% sure they take care every day. The SC is the most prominent example where things went off, at least in my (DCS) world and all others that posted in the related performance issue thread. Giving even more detailed options in the settings dialog (shadows for cockpits only, rest different settings) would help many people right now, and not telling them to buy new things. People who can afford and are willing to by new HW every 6 months, good, but other people around depend on the direct support of ED's coders, and my simple request is to have ED put more efforts in detailed settings .... and take care about the SC! So this was my story about the 1070. I am using it since 4 years now, and it is still giving good frames. But this depends on ED's will to keep us in the loop Kind regards

OK, thanks for posting this, and if you are someday able please post a track file, that would be great. Maybe we find other things in your mission that prevent things from working properly.

Yep, I'll try this time too. Let's forget the past, should we? I personally didn't panic before launch of super-carrier. Then I bought it ... installed it ... tested it ... and the result can be read here: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/234517-reported-performance-issues/ For me its not usable during night (lights on) or with shadows set to anything other than OFF. I don't see any reason for throwing my 1070 to the waste bin (finally landing somewhere in the holy western worlds official waste-bin ... called African coast or whereever it lands, most probably the sea). Guys, there must be a way for ED as a professional software designer to adopt to the idea of not throwing away our systems every two years, and by that causing more environmental disruptions. You see any thinking in this direction @NineLine ? My question is: Why do I have to buy a bigger graphic card, if I only want e.g. the F-16 or the Viggen to be out of Early Access (which might take time, a time DCS during its evolution will use to increase performance requirements step by step)? I'm not saying that I would not buy a new GFX, but I prefer to use equipment longer than two years, and a software developer with the size and experience as ED might adopt to this idea by doing this and that with textures/code/giving the user options in order to keep it working as best as possible. What do you think?

I had the impression that "Reaction to threat" waypoint action worked pretty fine, I used it a lot in my missions. Its about to tell the AI to disregard AAA/SAM/RADAR, or to use their chaffs&flares, or fly evasive manoeuvres (laterally or vertically). This action might solve many problems when long range SAMS spot aircraft far away (which in most mission designers eyes "should" be far away enough), but then fly evasive manoueuvres by changing flight levels and/or course. These happenings might not be "explainable" to them ...

1. HB has to produce the Draken. Flyable. Now. 2. Some company has to produce Northern Area map (Norway, Sweden, Finnland, ...) Otherwise, I could never be happy again. OK, I'll stop dreaming and take a seat in the Viggen. Yeay, that sounds like a plan for a sunday afternoon ...