Tiger-II

DCS is a simulator, not a game. Argue that point as much as you like - there IS a difference! As far as systems simulations go, our modern computers are more than capable of simulating them to *sufficient* detail to make them operate and behave like the real-world units. This is not as hard as you would think. It doesn't need to technically conform 100% to the real unit as it is not for that level of simulation, however, if we can get the operation, behaviors, and the major/important limitations in there, then mission accomplished! The sticking point is what can be legally modelled. Some systems are classified, and as such we know the ED position on that. Others may be required to be dumbed-down, but that doesn't mean they can't still be believable. I get the impression that some people want these things to fire laser beams with a 1000% [sic] probability of kill so they can insta-kill everyone on a server. That's not simulation, that's a different GAME entirely. Go play Star Wars. I'm definitely in the camp of "if it can be made more accurate/realistic", do so. We're not here for 1% accuracy.

No but someone did decide to try and argue opinion with me. Laters...

Ahh another anti JF-17 post. AIM-120 is over-modelled too, and bombs lack the ability for splash damage, and munitions have too much drag, but don't let that bother you.

Nice to see the taxi afterwards!

This is still an issue 4 years later...

I don't need to try it. I know how it works. A little story... back in the days of that "well-known civilian sim" there were a vocal group of people who kept complaining how their sim was unstable, kept crashing, and etc.. Well they all kept listing the same few add-ons (when pushed). For a long time they wouldn't accept that such modules like reshade were causing problems. I flew the same sim with the same add-on aircraft they were and I never had any issues, because I accepted the reality that the base sim was junk and things that modified shaders and graphics rendering in non-standard ways didn't play well and only caused trouble. Not that I care what you think about it. DCS for me looks good, and I'm not going to run additional crap in the background that could potentially cause problems just to have a slightly different flavor of perception. I'm happy with how it looks now. If I want to see reality, I'll go outside. There are deeper problems with DCS that need addressing first. Graphics isn't one of them.

Can anyone do this paint scheme?

DCS already looks awesome and you think it can be improved with a generic shader? ^This!

I think weapon effects are independent of the aircraft.

I think there is a bug as when this happens the fuel flow indicator increases like there is engagement, but the EGTs don't rise and the nozzles don't respond as they should.

The dogfight switch is supposed to be assigned to a switch like the CWS hat on the stick. My comment was general about how certain functions can (or can not) be mapped due to how DCS handles certain button types.

Well... I totally forgot about that! I will try it [jettisoning the pylon] and see what effect it has! I put limited stores on the aircraft and flew it, and the problem still persists. I think it is the pylon drag that is wrong. I remember this being an issue on another aircraft as well. The pylons are seperate from the aircraft and have their own characteristics. They add crazy amounts of drag, beyond what they should (yes, they will add some, but not to the extent we see).

No, and this functionality has been missing since release. For some reason there is a bit of inconsistency with which keys can be mapped, and how between modules. There is an issue where some WH "press-and-hold" switches will not work for momentary presses. It must luterally be mapped to a momentary switch, which gets very annoying (e.g. the flaps switch and boat switch become totally unmappable for certain functions).

As long as it doesn't adversely affect handling, I can handle cosmetic issues. Nice paint scheme in the 3rd pic! Do we have that in the sim?

Hi, With direct sunlight shining on the panel, the RADAR screen glass appears to disappear.

Whoa... I'm fairly sure it is not my imagination but it is flying better than before. I could actually accelerate very slightly to just over 400 kts and maintain speed in a level +4 g turn - this is definitely something it couldn't do before - and going supersonic wasn't nearly the headache it used to be. I remember it was difficult to get it to go faster than Mach 1.0, but now she'll do it in a gentle climb, as she should! Mach 1.2+ still requires a dive which is also accurate to real-world. No doubt someone will tell me nothing was changed, but I spent a lot of time flying the F-5 (in DCS) and know it well. These subtle changes to match real-world performance are very greatly appreciated! The real F-5 is no slouch, and finally the sim is close to how it should be! This brief test was with a clean jet. I'll try it later with a pair of sidewinders.

Broadly speaking I try and avoid rolling while pulling g in any aircraft (sim, or real). It's uncomfortable. I've yet to accidentally rip the wings off. Going to try flying it again as I haven't flown it since the change(s). I wish the FM would get some serious attention from ED/whoever wrote it. It had too much drag last time I flew it, but I'm not hopeful it was fixed. Maybe with the impending update it will get looked at? EDIT: see my following post.

Just feeling out where the g limit is for various speeds is enough. It certainly isn't a "yank and bank" aircraft due to there being no FBW (and you shouldn't be flying that way anyway). I rarely pull more than half stick, and any more is usually because I'm very slow.

Thanks for the reply, but DCS has a history of chronically under-performing aircraft and higher drag profiles than reality. The F-5 is still wrong to this day, with no sign of it being corrected. Is it correct that it takes several minutes to achieve these speeds? In the case of 10000 ft, it is over double the time of sea-level. Diving acceleration seems pretty low, too, and it takes nothing for the aircraft to bleed off speed. The video linked by Jel is interesting - pulling +4 g should allow the A-10 to "maintain energy" - that means no excess energy is lost as the result of simply pulling g beyond what would be lost as a result of a vertical maneuver. In a level turn this would mean little speed is lost pulling +4 g vs. say +2 g. It seems to be a common "sim-ism" that anything over +1 g causes an aircraft to dump speed like it is flying through treacle, and that straight and level flight at idle means an aircraft should decelerate to stall speed in about 1 NM. This simply isn't true at all, but we see it all too often. If you have any data on glide performance (both engines shutdown) then it would be worth testing that. I'll bet the aircraft falls short.

Hi, I found this chart regarding expected A-10A INDICATED airspeed values. I know we're flying the C model, but I'm sure one of the points of the C model was it had more power (= more payload capability). Attached is a track where I don't do much. Takeoff, level acceleration to a point where it is clear she's not going to go much faster, then a half-loop to 10000 ft to show level acceleration there, then a 30 degree dive, some light maneuvering, another half-loop, a 20-degree dive, then some harder maneuvering to show what happens with the speed trend. Overall, she seems to be lacking, remembering this is a clean jet with full gun and fuel only. Has an F-5 type mix-up happened with the A-10C II? The F-5 was incorrectly using ground speed for some parameters within the flight model. The A-10C II seems to hit the numbers if you look at GROUND SPEED, but these are supposed to be INDICATED AIRSPEED VALUES! e.g. she's supposed to make 350 kts in level flight, not 315-ish. That is quite a significant degredation in performance. https://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3150118/re-a-10c-speed-and-flight-dynamics#Post3150118 A-10C II Drag Issue.trk

It's a requirement to hold in some back-pressure during a turn. You converted some of the lift to turn rate, so you now need to increase AoA to increase lift in order to maintain altitude. It requires practice, and there is no substitute. I have thousands of hours flying sims like DCS, and yet I'm more often than not just beating up the pattern flying the aircraft at the most basic level. It's a skill you lose if you don't keep practicing it. Basic airmanship is the foundation of literally everything else you will do in flying. I also practice aerobatic maneuvers. These help sharpen your accuracy in pulling g (loops/Immelmanns/split-S), managing airspeed, altitude awareness, and control of heading (a barrel roll, if executed correctly, will end up at the same altitude and heading as the entry). Keep practicing. If you feel youreslf getting burned out, stop flying for the day. There are good and bad days. Also a real-world glider pilot here. If you're able, I strongly recommend it!

The basic airframe appears to have too much drag. Atmosphere was set to standard. Caucasus map. OAT +15 deg. C. Aircraft was put in a 25 degree dive from 7000 ft at 300 kts. Aircraft would not accelerate past 400 kts. Barber pole increase to over 500 kts, but good luck ever getting close to that. It just seems to hit a wall and won't accelerate anymore. Once you start hanging stores off this thing, it becomes a total dog, and getting much over 250 kts becomes difficult. This of course, has rammifications for its maneuverability.

I only use AP for alt hold and steerpoint in the cruise, otherwise I'm hand-flying all the way! If you have your controls set up properly the aircraft should fly well hands-off anyway as the FBW attempts to maintain zero pitch and roll rate with neutral stick.

This may be accurately modelled. https://hushkit.net/2017/10/30/flying-and-fighting-in-the-mig-19-in-conversation-with-wg-cdr-irfan-masum-part-1/

Just flying it last night, it feels a lot better than I remember from the last time I flew it. It feels really good.