Harley

Just so you're aware, I was using a very old Saitek X-45 when I started with DCS back in 2017 or so. Since then, and since realizing that it wants much finer control than that old stick could provide, I pulled the trigger on a bunch of Winwing stuff. I don't think it's completely necessary to have that, but using Attitude Hold and BARO altitude hold are essential. Once you get good using the KC-135MPRS, try your hand at refueling behind the S-3. That hose is a lot shorter, and it takes even more of a steady hand. I try to avoid it, but maybe you do better.

Before you know it, you'll be turning with the tanker while transferring fuel. The turkey always seems to know when you connect and turns in the middle of the transfer. Always happens to me like that.

Hey, some questions about your AAR issues. There's a lot of factors that go into a successful connection and transfer. I'll tell you that it's not easy, and for me, it wasn't a matter of practice. Honestly, many pilots say it's one of the most difficult things to do. It's not necessarily all you. I'm going to give you the "cheat code" that worked for me. I can't do it without these, and a really good HOTAS is assumed, because without a really sensitive joystick, this will always be impossible. Assuming you're also in the F/A-18. Let the plane help you. Try this: Form up with the tanker on the left side. Get in close, right behind engine 2. Make the request. When you get the "cleared" call, match altitude with the drogue using ATTH. It will dampen your tendency to overcorrect. When you match altitude with the drogue, use BARO altitude hold. These 2 AP functions BARO and ATTH Attitude Hold eliminates two issues with these 2 functions: Pilot-Induced Oscillation=PIO, and dampened the flight controls, eliminating the tendency to "chase the basket" and overcorrect. The next axis to control is power, and that is always tricky. Small increments. Smaller than that. Each time you apply power, the jet will increase a small amount of altitude, so small increments with power. It will also decrease a couple of feet when you pull power back. So, it's a matter of knowing when to commit, and going slow. Slower. Small moves, dampen what you can, and don't chase the basket. Approach slowly, and before you know it, bam. Then, the last important part, watch the tanker, not your jet. Form up with the tanker, and keep an eye on the wing, engine, something else. Looking at the basket will entice you to chase it. Don't. You're kind of bringing it to you, in a way. What kind of stick are you using? That may be the biggest issue you have.

Ive asked this before I think, but there are thousands of pages to search through, and I'm hoping that the model is now complete enough to explore this again. I'm building a sim pit for this awesome beast, and I'm trying to eliminate the virtual cockpit view. Sometime in the near future, I will have all the panels necessary to use the alt+F1 view, with the HUD only. I want to export that display to project onto a mounted HUD and have just a simple view with only the canopy effects simulated in this view. Has there been any update to make that possible? I can't be the only weirdo going this far with it. Project Warthog has so much useful info, but the A-10 is structured differently, and it doesn't seem to work the same. Thoughts or ideas?

With that said, if we end up with the F-35, then we need also the F-22, the Chinese "Stealth", the Russian F-57, and advanced radar. That will change the entire battlefield, and may seriously detract from the game overall. Hoping they decide to direct some resources to this Nevada map instead.

We're getting the F-35 that not many people seem to have asked for, but 8 pages of wishlist just on NV alone, makes it seem that they aren't listening much. Makes me sad. Just the area already included in this map have so many airfield left out, and the textures, man, baked in shadows, it's not aging well. Is it just too much to ask for them to develop a little for this area? Edwards AFB? China Lake? For crying out loud, we have an F18 texture for China Lake, but it's homeless. Having this area at all with what was missed or ignored seems like such a tease. Is this the remnant of the Harrier flight Sim someone was developing back in 2017 or so? Did DCS buy these out from the developer with an agreement to abandon it?

I suppose the quality that the DCS team will feel they need to maintain for Edward's and China Lake would be too far to go? Those both are in the map area, as well as Palmdale, and a few others. It seems they've forgotten about this map, or feel it's got enough to it already, I suppose. Too bad. There's a lot of history in this area, and could become a target-rich environment. There's a lot of bases that could be added, and scenery improved. The shadows are baked in, even. It's not bad, but it's already not at their current level of quality with the other areas they have now. Afghanistan is at a higher level than this, and has very low demand/use online. They could have done so much with this area. It seems rather disappointing to include it at all with how barren it is.

It seems that Nevada is missing some pretty obvious bonuses that it could get. Maybe these are in work, and if so, oops! We're too far south to get Fallon NAS. But, it seems that we glossed right over Edward's AFB (Muroc Airfield) and China Lake. There's likely a couple others here or there, like even Palmdale, which is also pretty significant. Has this been beat to death already? Is there any word on whether there are or ever will be some plans for these significant details? I feel as though somebody knows something about this, and I missed it...

Seems the communication breakdown is about "can" vs "should". NATOPS is not a reference of design, but operation. Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean that mechanically these settings "lock out" or otherwise disable other functions. NATOPS is how the navy and the builder expect the pilot to handle their airplane. It is not a book that causes mechanical limitations in design or function. It's an abstract I think he's trying to point out. Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it's locked out or just can't be done. Blue Angels takeoff with no flaps. Or at least the videos I have of them show it like that. It is very possible to do. I think it's the difference between "you can't cross the double yellow line" and "you can cross the double yellow line, you just get in trouble for it." And that may also be where the challenge is for DCS, is that the book is all they have to go on. So, they're somewhat reverse engineering the flight mechanics from the book written after the plane was already built, and retired from our military, really.

Something broke with the last update. I've noticed this also. Even in manual mode, it's behaving strangely. Using the throttle quadrant, the dispense button should be simple. In manual mode, whatever program you set. The fwd button is supposed to dispense only one if the item, and aft is the other. I'm not in front of the game now, but the settings page still confirms the intent. Fwd on the thumb switch should dispense whatever the selected program is set to dispense for qty and type. For example, if the program on page 5 is selected, and it's set to 1 each, then the switch should pop one of the commanded, be it chaff or flare, depending on which way the pilot pushes that switch. Right now, it is fwd to run program, which doesn't seem to correlate to the settings programmed, and aft to stop program. It's all messed up.

It seems to be getting worse every time they touch it. It's raised the debate for me to even report some of these things or not. But, at least it's being worked on. I'm sure that the "bobble" they refer to is a very slight but noteworthy behavior, needed for precision. I love the posts you've made up there about this. I have questions. 1. The engineers ad McD/D definitely tried to minimize the forces exerted with the speedbrake's force by integrating an FCS counter. I think you've made the argument pretty clear with your attachments up there. I need to look again, but it looks like a force can be calculated with the area of the speedbrake panel, airspeed, angle of deflection, ambient air density, and then the total expected FCS counter/retrim, and the only thing that needs to be inserted into the equation is the time to deploy for both. Can that be assigned with the model as it is? Also, if that has been done already, because DCS devs are pretty thorough, is it unrealistic to ask to minimize the effect if all is correct as is? Something tells me it's not. Can you imagine how badly this will mess with a precision approach when trying to correct for overspeed on final? I need to try that. Even ACLS may have issues with that. I dunno. I suppose I'm not as in depth with the numbers as others, but it seems intuitive enough that the attempt to counter the speedbrake nose up input has been made, but the implementation hasn't been good yet. It seems that if the system was integrated, then it should work little better than current.

Understood. Nobody wants to be blamed for disseminating potentially classified information. Those kinds of consequences are definitely unwanted. For clarity, the book is out there, am I allowed to reference the chapter? Meaning where to find the info, or is assuming that someone else also has this info still too close to "sharing"? Nobody wants problems, and I don't want to be that guy. Honestly, and I think it's pretty clear, I'm only trying to help, and I'm not a "beta tester", nor am I seeking that, but I do log plenty of flight time in the sim, and think I can contribute helpful info. That's all. Sorry to cause any issues.

I didn't know that was a problem. I downloaded that whole manual for free online. It's definitely widespread, easily accessible. Who knew? Sorry about that. But the point still remains.

Wow. You know, it's always a precarious situation to report things or not. We never know what the result will look like. But honestly, the effect is even more pronounced now. I was around 300 kts on base earlier, and deploying the speed brake in that regime is way more dramatic now. I'm going to see if there is a definition in the NATOPS for the correlated degrees of travel that the pitch correction input from the elevons is supposed to be. It seems that the jet will perform a pitch correction, but AOA changes significantly more now. A "bobble" is a rebounding effect, normally a momentary motion while transitioning. Maybe it's just me, and I'm ok with that analysis, but it seems far more dramatic than a ground attack role would prefer. Doing some homework...

If that's the case, then it seems that even McDonnell Douglas got it only close, also. I see what you're talking about in Chapter 11.1.6 of the NATOPS. I suppose this is as good as it gets, based on that. Ok then.