HWasp

I am away from home until saturday (I was already away at the time of the initial post.) Please, if someone has the time to test and record this, post the track in this thread in order to help setting this straight. Thank you in advance!

Hi! Testing the radar against multiple ai opponents had the following issues revealed for me: (4x M2000 20000ft coming from approx. same direction 20, 30, 40, and 50 miles) In RWS radar does not try to prioritize the target at the TDC, instead keeps locking targets further away, even if there is more than 30 nm between the contacts (approx same direction, but not exactly). Radar lock jumps between targets even if there is more than 30 nm range difference between them. Sometimes radar jumps back and forth between the contacts multiple times (less than 1 second interval). In boresight mode if two contacts are inside the circle, one of them at 5 nm the other 40+nm, the radar usually locks the target much further away. No priority is given to the close bandit and there seems to be no range limit (max radar range maybe) The plane itself is truly amazing, I am totally addicted :) Track added with the latest patch. Please sort this out, it is really getting frustrating. F-18radarbug.trk

Understood :) Thank you for your reply.

Radar limitations - maintaining lock Having the radar simulated in such detail for the Hornet makes the usual tactics I am used to on the Mirage 2000 and other fighters very difficult to execute, as defensive maneuvering while maintaining a lock is very restricted now. I would really like to see from an official source (by that I mean ED and the SMEs) what the actual limitations are: What is the max ac. roll rate? What is the max ac. pitch rate? What are the recommended defensive maneuvers during a head on engagement with SARH missiles? Are there any plans to code similiar restrictions to the other fighters radars? (while still keeping them simplified)

Not mine :) This how a real F-18E/F lands. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmGDl5WS0yk Note the vertical speed on the left DDI in HUD mode at landing. It is less than 800 feet per minute on touch down. I've tested the DCS Hornet up until 2000 feet per minute, and it survived. Death comes at around 3000. I did not find an exact limitation for that, but a Hornet landing gear test video: This one shows a drop from 20 feet, meaning about 2100 feet per minute impact. I would assume, this test shows the absolute limit. Using the usual 1.5 factor common in aviation that should mean that the red line might be around 1400 feet per minute on impact. If someone has more info on this, please share.

I think it is quite clear, that the Mirage needs to stay red, especially with the Hornet coming.

Request more F-5 slots for PAK-3 and 4 please, if possible. Now that the frontline is between Maykop and Sochi, the closest slots are at Sukhumi, and nothing else until Maykop is captured. Having them at Sochi would be really nice. :)

I think the Hawk is still quite broken (I don't have it...) I do love the L-39, but I think, that simulating Mig-21R and RF-5 recon planes with the current 21 and F-5 we have would be more realistic and more fun in the current environment. They should not be able to transmit the data in flight though, only after landing at a friendly base. It could be great fun doing high alt recon at mach 2 with the 21 or trying to intercept the enemy RF-5s, or the other way around :) What do you think?

There is an important factor here missing from this SEAD/DEAD discussion : weather In BF and other popular servers it is always CAVOK, unlimited visibility. Try surpressing an SA-11 site with TGP and Mavs, when the visibility is 5 km (thats VFR minimum, not even bad weather) and maybe some low clouds...

This Simshaker/buttkicker seems a bit too much immersion for me... :megalol: Thank you, rumble is the right word. I am basically talking about the sound effects, everybody can experience, while taking any flight as a passenger in a jet airliner. It seems to me, that this part of the sim is beeing constantly improved as well, the F-5 definetaly has recieved some very nice effects since release. Also the old Su-25 is quite good in this regard.

Thanks for the info! Small details like that would help to really make the aircraft feel alive. As for the landing, I'd think about exaggerating the effects just a little bit, even if the real plane is quite silent, because that is the only feedback flying on a PC. As this part is quite subjective I'd see it as immersion building artwork rather than exact simulation.

Hi! One of the few small problems for me with most current DCS modules is that I feel like aircraft behaviour on the ground is a bit sterile. According to my experience there are more sounds and vibrations during ground ops even on the rather smooth surfaces of most european airports. I'd think that taking off any of the less maintained concrete runways of the Caucasus map would be quite the ride with most high speed jets. Also during those rather hard landings, that are normal procedure for the Hornet, I would expect some noticable sounds from the landing gear. I think it would add greatly to the immersion of the virtual pilots if you could improve that aspect a little bit overall in DCS and also with the Hornet.

I see only one real positive cause to develope a new FC-3 level aircraft: An interesting high performance aircraft, that has not enough data available or the necessary licences are not given for the developer to make it a full module. I for one would love to see even simplified russian cold war hardware like the Su-22 or Su-24, and all the Migs up to 31, If and only IF a full module is not possible for some reason.

Heatblur F-111F Confirmed! :megalol::megalol:

Off topic, not trying to convince you about the subject at hand: I would encourage you to buy either the F-5 or the Mirage and then study the Chuck's guide for 20 minutes, watch some Crash Laobi 1 minute DCS tutorials, then have a one hour practice session in the mission editor. Some quick visual circuits, then some live fire excersise. Thats all the investment you need to start enjoying those modules, if you are already experienced with something like the A10C. Being proficient and combat ready is of course an other question, but compared to the A10 and the Kamov these are much more simple.

Instead of making simplified versions of modules already made for a higher standard, it would be much better to have other interesting planes as new FC3 level modules. I am thinking about those russian cold war legends, like Mig-25 and 23 or the Su-22 and Mig-27. Maybe there is not enough data available, or maybe there are other issues making them not suitable for developement as a full module, but still it would be great to have some of them, even with simplified systems, provided their flight models are up to a high standard. (Btw these are also the ideal foes for the Tomcat :) )

That result is spot on, thanks for testing again! Seems like my memories were not accurate and the plane matches the charts perfectly :)

Thank you for testing it! Was it with or without stick deflection limiter override?

Here is my initial post with the link to the manual, since it was a long ago

I am talking about the margin the limiter makes by not allowing the AoA to increase gradually to 24 degrees as the speed drops according to page 14/269 of the manual I have linked before. If you could find anything in the manual that states 22 deg is the maximum for the system, then I would be happy with that.

Having a huge margin would disagree with this statement from the manual.

That may well be :) But still, back to the manuals. 1. The flight envelope on pg 20/269 shows that 8 g is available for the airframe at around M 0,46 (550kmh) at 21400 kg (this should be absolute max. with limiter override) 2. The other graph at 51/269 shows max 6g at 600 kmh and 8 g at 740 kmh (Much less, obviously) In my opinion this means, that pg 20 shows the values without the limiter and pg 51 shows the operational values, with the limiter. If that would be true, then the problem is that the plane does not reach the values according to the pg 51 graph. In this case I can not understand why the limiter would not increase it's limit to 24 deg according to the Mach vs AoA limit on page 14 so that it could meet the performance data on page 51.

I thought that was not something they do IRL :) One day I have had a long, guns only dogfight session with a friend of mine flying the Su-27 and I have found out that the best way to win the game is to go direct control before take off and switch it on for the landing only (IF there is a landing:)) The plane is extremely responsive in that config, but of course I would not even think about it in a real plane. My observation is that the limiter is too restrictive and it holds the aicraft way too far from it's real capabilities. In my opinion this might have something to do with the constant 22 deg AoA limit...

In my opinion the purpose was to enable experienced pilots to get that last little bit of performance out of the aircraft at the expense of safety. I think what the authors mean by that statement is that generally it does not worth the risk to go beyond limits. But also I have never seen an aircraft manual, that says: yea just go disregard any limits, it will be good for you :D

In one of my previous posts I have already given you the page number (14\269) where it clearly states the AoA limitations depending on Mach number. (Cannot upload from my tablet sorry) Also, again I am aware of the basics. I think that the purpose of a limiter should be to hold the limitations :) Also, since pulling through the limiter might be dangerous, I don't think that it was meant to be overriden by the average pilot all the time.