Tiger-II

Beat me to it @Ramsay! Thanks! Hopefully there is enough information now for Razbam to be able to do something.

[quote]Not enough information to compare turn rate. [/quote] I'm not talking turn rate. Not at all!!! I'm referring to how fast the aircraft loses airspeed in the sim pulling a LEVEL +4.0 g turn!!! In the video, he is pulling a CLIMBING +4.0 g turn and maintains airspeed. IMPOSSIBLE in the sim with a clean jet. In the video he has some stores - you can see them in certain shots. Our aircraft is under-performing significantly.

We destroy stuff so others can't get their hands on it, copy it, and use it against us! Ferranti as a company were excellent at what they did - that is why they were destroyed as a company. Read the history - there is no doubting it was intentional. CAPTOR is an off-shoot, but because of what happened previously, it will either not be very good or will be of lesser capability due to the fact we need to share with others. We may work with the Europeans on stuff, but we sure as hell don't trust them. The US is the only country we truly treat as an equal.

INS is set so it must be fully aligned. Note that I observed this behavior after flying, shutting down, and starting up again. I did not reload the aircraft. It would appear then that the INS is warm-starting correctly, but in that case my question becomes: is the warm-start timing correct???

I thought that might be the case...but even so, shouldn't the INS still take at least a moment to align the platform? I need to see how this platform works, but most INS platforms will tumble during spin-down as they aren't being corrected anymore. From the info I can find, platform alignment should take just a few seconds. As it is, the system is ready instantly.

General thread title as there are a few items. 1) Turn performance. The aircraft seems to lose far too much speed during a +4.0 g level turn at max continuous thrust (102.0%, clean jet). Video of real thing: Try doing in the sim what he does here to "look at the weather", and the aircraft in the sim loses speed from 460 kts (CLEAN! In the video he has stores) down to 350 kts. Even running the engine beyond limits won't prevent the deceleration. This has major consequences for ability to effectively dogfight. 2) Adverse yaw. When making very very small control inputs in roll, the aircraft appears to have more adverse yaw than roll, and so it is possible to quite significantly shake the aircraft left/right in yaw with the stick, while there is almost zero perceptible change in roll angle. 3) Trim If I set trim as required (2 units nose-up) for takeoff in any configuration, this is excessive and results in large pitch up without being countered by a large forward stick input. In most flight regimes, almost regardless of aircraft speed, I have found it necessary to trim +0.0 units for best controllability, including various takeoff and landing configurations.

Ahh!! Thanks!! @RamsayGreat videos! Thanks!

What is it? It's all over the HUD??!!

I tried simple radios and they worked. I have two things to test (or three...depends). 1) It appears the radios were working but I had the wrong freq (simple radios used 350 MHz, not 127.500). 2) I'll check the item you suggest but fairly sure it is correct 3) If item 1 proves to be correct, then the F-18 may be the one with the bug!

If you fly the aircraft, land, shutdown, then restart, the flap system reset/BIT test no longer functions.

If you fly the aircraft, land, shutdown, refuel or whatever, then re-start, the INS requires no alignment and remembers everything, even though it was completely switched off. It acts like it was still running when it wasn't.

Hi, I was reviewing the pocket guide this evening (the version shipped with the module), and found that on pages 5 and 6, the descriptions are mis-labelled for the item pointed to in the image for the throttle lever and panel. Numbering for the throttle starts at 4 as the numbering incorrectly continues from the panel listing on the previous page. If you read the textual ID, subtract 3, then look at the picture, it makes sense.

No. It's the "full fat" version of the radios. I did find a thread from 2017 that said to use simple comms, but I would hope in 5 years this was addressed and fixed and now working correctly???

I think you don't understand why the ARU-2V is present at all. It has nothing to do with aircraft handling, and everything to do with control input vs. deflection, and artificial feel. The ratio changes as the aircraft accelerates in order to reduce the relative deflection of the elevator vs. stick input, in order to give a fairly consistent control response throughout the speed range. If that system didn't exist, then as the aircraft accelerates, the elevator would become more and more sensitive. That is not to say too sensitive that a pilot couldn't control the aircraft, but sensitive in that he would start experiencing larger control response than desired. It is this effect that could lead to overcontrol of the aircraft, or PIO in pitch, in certain situations. The other problem is that with the larger control effectiveness at higher speeds, it would become possible to start overstressing parts of the aircraft inadvertently or during certain manneuvers, so to reduce these problems, they reduce the deflection of the elevator with speed. As for the relevence of modern FBW designs vs. older aircraft, you need to read my post again then go and do some study. It's quite relevent to explaining older designs. If you're my age (40-something) then FBW aircraft would be the norm. Historically, aircraft were designed to be very stable and easy to fly in the absence of computer control, stability augmentation, and other aids (that is not to say such aircraft don't or didn't have bad behaviors, such as nasty, sudden, and sometimes violent stall/spin entry for example because they sure did). There is this great misnomer that aircraft must be squirrely or hard to fly. That is absolute nonsense. People with less thans 10 hours flying experience were flying Spitfires in WW2. Whenever I hear someone tell me an aircraft is "hard to fly" I laugh them out the building. Maybe they are not so good at piloting them? "The F-104 is hard to fly and will kill you instantly". Oh yeah??? Good old-fashioned stick and rudder skills are all that are required to fly anything. Knowledge doesn't mean much if you can't fly the aircraft.

Hi, I'm trying to tanker, but the tanker is not responding. I know it works as I refuelled in the F-18 last night without any problems. I have set the freq in COM1 to 127.500, all the volumes are up, etc., but when I call the tanker, I get no reply?

Interesting video but don't record in VR! Sitting off to one side is annoying, the view is unstable, and you don't look at things long enough. I've watched videos of myself flying, and I do stuff far quicker when actually flying, than I can register as an observer.

What needs patching? Is it game-breaking as it is? How do you find performance of this map compared to Marianas? Raw FPS values would be sufficient. For me, Marianas is "slower" but it is not a stutter-fest - it's still very smooth and very flyable. Just noticable. All the other maps are very smooth (>= 50 FPS). So far I haven't encountered the problems some experience of 10 FPS, but then they're probably also doing other things to the sim they aren't talking about. I have all settings maxed.

Thanks! That is what I was looking for!!

We definitely the deployed the finger during the war. I don't think many aircraft in DCS are too advanced. The major thing is no RADAR guided air-to-air beyond the earliest models of missiles, and F/A-18 and F-16 didn't participate. The Viggen wouldn't be out of place, for example. Could even be interesting. The F-5 would also work. I know, not strictly period, but similar level of technology/capability. The Harrier is a near-perfect fit.

Another vote for waiting for free trial. Marianas doesn't run bad for me, but this map definitely needs to do better. The fact it is Early Access is actually more reason to want free trial, too. Do I want to support WIP in advance? Maps are very make-or-break. You can change aircraft and fly over the same maps doing different things, but if a map has problems, there is nothing you can do. At least the Harrier will be right at home here!

As the subject! I've been looking for a map large enough to actually require tankers to fly in. Even the Persian Gulf map can be flown without tanker support. It's looking spectacular, and can't wait to see the completed map!

+1

They do roar, but my guess is wearing a helmet it is more of a rumble and perhaps more seat-of-the-pants. This being a sim with no tactile feedback, we need a little bit of an audio cue to replace what we lack in raw feeling.

Developer or user?