HWasp

Well, right now you can get better performance with ARU off, using careful inputs.

I think the FM has improved a lot since release. Couldn't touch it back then, now it is very enjoyable imo. :thumbup: Not sure if those 2 guys last page have updated their DCS last 6 month or flown the plane since then... - Control effectiveness does change with speed, seems to me both high aoa and high speed transonic effects are modeled - the ARU 2 does decrease max elevator deflection with speed increasing, so it doesn't feel jumpy at all high speed. - if I would switch off the ARU CB it feels like an F-5 at high speed (elevator) One thing that is strange for me is when I start pulling G smoothly, looking at the G meter, there seems to be a spike at quite low AoA, then G starts to decrease slightly, even though it is quite far from stall AoA

1200 km/h indicated at 10000m is just Mach 1.6, thats the speed I mentioned when the engine really comes to life. You can get there faster if you descend during acceleration initially. Just don't exceed that hard coded IAS limit. I find that between M 1.1 and 1.4 it is a struggle, once over 1.4 it is getting better, over 1.6 it is a rocket.

When reading the IRL manual, keep in mind that in peace time supersonic flight was not allowed below 10000 m due to the sonic boom. So that instruction to climb and maintain 10km might not be for performance reasons...

It is important to know, that you need to get past Mach 1.4 for the engine to start to bite. From 1.4 to 1.6 acceleration will get better, and once over 1.6 and the intake starts to move, then you'll be over mach 2 very quick. My profile is to get to 8-10 km altitude subsonic, drop the tanks, then accelerate in a shallow descent to M 1.4 (careful not to induce a flameout with too high IAS). Over 1.4 start shallow climb, once over 1.6 you can increase rate of climb. Once over Mach 2 you do need either to throttle back or climb or turn otherwise you hit the max Mach and engine will flame out.

Do you realize, that according to forum rules, even if someone here would posess the RL documentation for the system, posting it here would result in a ban and removal of the post? We have lots of missile systems in this game that is supposed to be a simulation. The mistral behaves very differently than comparable missiles. Now which one is wrong? Yours or all the others? If ED has recently developed their own mistral version, why is it that much different than yours?

Hi! Any chance to change aircraft skins for easier visual ID? It is very difficult for me to identify F-14s and F-15s as friend or foe visually.

The performance charts are not provided in the DCS Hornet manual, the only ones available are the real ones, and you are absolutely strictly FORBIDDEN by forum rules to post those pages from the manual, due to forum rules, BUT you do need to provide evidence, even though you are not allowed to post it. Company will not share their data. If you do insist to dig up manuals and post some data, then someone, who probably can't even read that chart will come along and tell you that your data is irrelevant because that manual is for a very slightly different aircraft version. Welcome! :lol:

:megalol: You are such a serious professional, that I won't even dare to talk to you anymore. My apologies.

Thank you for your valuable input!!! https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3996582&postcount=54 in that post I have a track, where I touch down 1300ft beyond the threshold at 30k lbs and then proceed to have a ground roll of 3800 feet until coming to a full stop. ground roll in manual (which is not applicable due to different engines :doh:) : 2800 feet <---> 3800 feet in the track. Since the difference is 2800 vs 3800 would you kindly allow me to use that manual just for reference please?

There seems to be some confusion here: we should be talking about 2 separate things. That table in the manual is ground roll, meaning the actual distance from touch down of the wheels and brake application (wherever that might be). That is around 2600 ft according the table (28000lbs) You get the landing distance by adding the additive corresponding to your landing method (like 720 with 4 degrees glide and no flare and 1200 with flare) So for a normal flared landing you cross the threshold at 50ft, then you touch down 1200ft from the threshold, and from that point it should take another 2600ft to stop with maximum braking. There is clear evidence in the manual that shall not be posted here, yet they are just moving the threads around doing nothing... Even posted a clear bug report with track just to have it merged into the whish list thread

VampireNZ is talking about the slow onset situation, not the instant 12G black out. The situation that is currently implemented with the blackout growing from the edges. +1 for the grey-out! Also sounds could fade a bit

I will make this my new standard technique. Never gonna miss that taxiway again! :thumbup: I'd be really interested if they actually checked the current version (or any version after the initial thread popped up in march) against their data, or just saying that it is correct as is because in fact it was correct before. If I remember correctly there was no problem braking on initial release back then, and it felt quite normal compared to the other planes... Would someone be wiling to do some really simplified test, like measuring stop distance at low speeds like from 60 kts to zero, and compare it to other planes in the sim? At low speed it really comes down to simple friction, so it would be hard to explain, why the F15 Su-27, A-10 etc whichever module you have, would have a totally different stop distance (no not saying they should be the exact same, just in the same ballpark somewhere given a max effort braking with anti skid even leaving tyre marks) Unfortunately will be away from home until next sunday, so can't do it myself now.

I bet you did not watch the track I provided. :)

Landing distance In the following track (wind calm / 15C ) I have touched down with approx. 130 kts 400m / 1300 feet from threshold, applied maximum braking (skid marks on the rwy with anti skid on), and stopped after 1160m / 3800 ft ground roll, giving a total landing distance of around 5200 ft /1600 m 5200 ft landing distance is a comfortable autobrake 3 landing with a light 737. I was given the following data coming from the secret documents: 2600ft ground roll at 30000lbs landing weight. <----> in the track it is 3800 ft Please investigate! Thank you in advance! F-18landing_distance.trk

This is quite rude to be honest. I will make a bug report anyway with a track file. Edit: Have a track now 15C winds calm approx 30000 lbs, speed approx 130 kts Touch down 400m / 1300 feet from threshold, ground roll: 1160m / 3800 ft. That is a total of 5200 feet / 1600m of landing distance !!

It's sad if they ignored a problem like this... Can you point me, where I could find the data, so that I could try to make a report? For those, who don't think that there is a problem, let me give you some real world data from an airliner (B737): At 52000 kg landing weight (ISA / sea level ) and with no reverse thrust, on dry runway landing distance with max manual braking is 4070 ft, or 1240 meters! (vref around 136 kts) This is not even the actual braking distance, since it calculates that you will land 1500ft behind the threshold.

Hornet wheel brake effectiveness Hornet deceleration on ground with wheel brakes (anti skid on) is quite low on a dry runway. If someone has access to landing performance tables for the plane, it would be nice to test her against it. Wheels leave skid marks on the runway, still it decelerates as if it was on ice.

The situation is the exact opposite afaik: Heatblur does not have enough control over the missile behaviour (seeker logic) and that is the main reason the missile may overperform in certain situations... You should read up on the subject before trying to bash Heatblur for something that is not really their fault. Also, 1-5 points are pretty weak arguments.

Ground effect got stronger I think. Anyway, at one point there will be something official about this. I'm pretty sure they are recieving valueable feedback on the FM from their contacts at the French air force, aside from the PCA/radar stuff.

You can't expect a hit with the sparrow from 20 miles... 8 to 6 miles is more realistic against a fighter. Also Phoenix can be used below 20 miles, in fact between 20 to 10 is the usual distance I fire them against human opponents with good effect. Phoenix against everything outside sidewinder range. Use sparrow if you don't have Aim54s or the target is no threat to you.

There are changes not mentioned in changelogs, like Mig-19 buffeting transsonic and decreased aileron effectiveness there and supersonic. I'll try to be more specific: during take off it seem to me that unstick speed is lower for the same AoA and roll response is decreased when flying high AoA. Just two things to mention.

There seems to be a misunderstanding here... I said I do like the changes! I'm not reporting a problem, I say again I do like the changes!! It is better now than it was. :doh:

There is nothing about it in the changelogs, but flying the Mirage after a month or so it seems to me that there were also FM improvements in the latest patches. I really like the changes, low speed high AoA handling especially. :thumbup: Bit strange that it is not mentioned by anyone, feels like a major update to me.

Is there any chance to get an RWR overhaul with the update? I'd love to be able to see the direction of the threat locking me... I think it is in the bugtracker since 2015 according a thread in the bugs section.