mobua

I've really taken your advice to heart but I find that against the 15, 18 and JF17 we go neutral and the fuel becomes an issue. Or they cut through the circle with nose on and strafe me down. Currently the advantage against the Hornet in particular seems to be more of a academic/theoretical one. In practice, against an equal level opponent I find it negligible. I fair reasonably well on the dogfight servers often in the top 10%. Yet the Hornet still is able to outrate as well as climb toe to toe with the Viper. Karasawa, would love to see an example of you fighting a human neer peer Hornet driver!

Thanks for the quick clarification!

As per the title, are we able to tune our radios to a ADF or NDB beacon? If so, how do we go about doing this? Thanks!

My 2 cents and as I understand it (and I might be wrong): Mode 1: SPJ with Radar priority - When ECM is active we have a penalty of 40%. Mode 2: SPJ with ECM priority - Radar and HTS inoperable when ECM is active Mode 3: Barrage Jamming - Noise jamming on all bands denying range information but possibly allowing azimuth and potential HOJ. As such, what you are obeserving surely must be a bug.

FYI, an interim solution in the meantime is to utilise the missile step long button. In my experience this brings back the countdown timer.

Just encountered this myself and was unable to succesfully communicate with the tanker. I had a wingman listen in and on his end he heard me transmit and he heard the tanker reply. On my end I was unable to hear my transmission nor the tankers reply. It was a long mission and the track file is 105 MB so unable to upload to forum. Here is a link to filehosting site: https://sendfileonline.com/?sid=556970 The incident occurs towards the final 1/3 of the mission. Thanks!

Albeit a good option considering the current implementation, to me it leans towards the gamey side of things. The solution, by negating the ability to "click" a frequency, limits prospective future capabilities such as the ability to control the lights at certain airfields: (https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap2_section_1.html)

Bare with me not being well versed in the subject. However, if travelling in a straight line wings level while accelerating at 1G (vertical G), all things equal, shouldn't the FLCS strive to maintain this? As things stand the pitch up tendency would equate to an increase of G above 1. As such I would expect the FBW to counteract this resulting in a maintained level flight irrespective of AOA or velocity (assuming enough lift is generated to maintain altitude). Again, bare in mind I'm in deep water in regards to the subject.

Yes, it's a compounding effect (a factor of acceleration) where you might start level with the horizon and end up 5-10 pitch up as acceleration decreased. It is not the behavior I would expect of a sophisticated FBW and oftentimes result in having to manually pitch forward in order to maintain level flight during acceleration. Thank you Tobias, however, with the question I was looking for an answer in why the FBW was not counteracting the forces to maintain a neutral pitch attitude.

Thank you for raazo+r. That's exactly the issue I'm trying to highlight. From the thread you linked it seems it's already a known bug acknowledged by ED. Thus the jet should not be pitching up due to longitudinal acceleration. Just a shame that it still remains unresolved.

Unfortunately I am not able to (and will not for a while) to produce a track. However the observed condition is easy to reproduce. A2A loadout, CAT I 1. Full AB departure, 2. Maintain Full AB. 3. 5 degree climbout. 4. Hands off stick. You should notice the jet pitch up with increasing speed. Sorry but this is the best I can do for now.

Hi Frederf, I've observed that after takeoff and wheels up, while accelerating in the jet has a pitch up tendency with increasing velocity. Is this correct? Would you care to explain why this is happening as I was under the belief that the FLCS would counteract this? Sincerely mobua

I would rather see an addition of a VOIP category per module in the keybind and controls settings. This would give the user the freedom of mapping any key in accorance with their setup.

I don't fully agree with this statement as ITR and g onset when modelled more correctly will both have an effect on AOA and succinctly AOA induced drag. The three variables are codependant in this regard and needs to be calibrated from a holistic viewpoint in order to give the full representation of the jet.

I think as a whole we are underestimating the effects that ITR and G-onset will have on the FM. Once ED figures this out, and only then will we be able to make a fair assessment. I for one believe the data is correct in regards to STR but we need better ITR, G onset and AOA induced drag modelling. I believe with these factors in place the "feel" and handling of the Viper will dramatically change. Hopefully the answer and updated flight model is not too far off...

Well it seems we are getting close in regards to STR, albeit <.4 mach range still needing some tweaking. Moving forward I'm looking forward to the tweaks in regards to: ITR Available G/G acceleration Energy retention/drag effects

@BIGNEWY, you got some of them patch notes? You can PM me on the DL...

I'll have a go at it tomorrow. Also I'm in VR so quite possibly what I'm seeing might be more or less pronounced than in 2D.

Hi, Just tried the mod and one of the things that stand out is how the text on the PCA is not aligned with the corresponding push button. Tried with a standard CAP loadout of 2 x 530, 2 x Magic, 1 x RP Otherwise a Fantastic mod!

So basically the DCS: F/A 18C is beating any aircraft in DCS in regards to turn rate aswell as turn radius. By quite a margin ... The big motor 402s also seem to provide comparable speed and climb characteristics with a clean hornet. That FM update is much needed.

I suspect that the advent of my problems arose in a similar fashion. Took notice after using a variant of Kagetys VR shaders. However the issue had persisted inspite of me clearing out shaders and running a repair. It is especially noticeable around noon with the sun at it's apex.

When you say Vanilla did you make sure to do a DCS repair after disabling any mods? As well as clear out fxo/metashaders2 folder? Would be good to have a third source running vanilla confirm our observations.

I'm suffering from the exact same thing, VR Reverb G2. Are you running any mods? Shader mods to be more specific. Sincerely mobua

Might I suggest that you not set an identical altitude for both jets? What your test is showing is how these jets are performing at 15k ft. I think what the discussion has been about pertains to who can go furthest irrespective of altitude. Furthermore, identical loadouts should not be a priority concern of a test. Instead try representing a typical war load A/A and A/G respectively. We could then have a follow on discussion about who brings more hurt to the AO but that will eventually fall on design principles of the two jets. Just my two cents, do what you will with it. Sincerely mobua

Would really like this fixed and escalated as it affects the overall tactical employment. Interceptions are of the moment of writing this FUBAR. Also speeds of target aircraft are also inconsistent. Sincerely mobua