Tiger-II

I call BS. They just want the F-16 to dominate. LOL! Why are people finding it hard to believe the JF-17 could actually be good? They said it themselves that the JF-17 is lighter which translates to lower inertia and faster change of direction. The Viper is no slouch in DCS and I fly both (previous to DCS I flew nothing but Falcon BMS for years). The JF-17 can hold its own for sure, but you must fly it right. Check my sig for the rest...

What's wrong with the existing textures? Any reference photos to compare? Every F-86 I've looked at looks different from the simulated version we have. This is the closest I could find: https://www.airliners.net/photo/Japan-Air-Force/North-American-Mitsubishi-F-86F-Sabre/3935899/L

Check my sig for what I think to that.

Balance... GGRRRRRR... Fly better. Learn the weaknesses of the platform you want to attack and the strengths of your ride of choice. BS3 is on the pre-buy list!

Why does MP bork everything?

As I understand it, SA-2 is pure pursuit if above the site (ballistic trajectory), otherwise it will track and lead if far away/low. DCS doesn't matter. I have had it fire into a mountain because while I was high enough to see the tracking RADAR the missiles were flying such that they were too low and didn't clear the terrain (they were firing pure even at 10 miles with me not-quite beaming). Any other SAM I've seen launched at me also fires pure. I don't think DCS varies it at all. SA-6 should come down from above depending, but they never do.

In DCS, the missiles are "OK", but they aren't correct. Unless it changed recently, SAMs fire AT you rather than the missile flying more correct flight paths for the missle type. So my point was this: for Meteor to be included must be due to the fact the performance in DCS is not accurate to the real missile. It carries the Meteor look and name, but that's it.

Don't forget there is sustained vs. instantaneous g loading. If you "yank" the stick, you're imparting very high instantaneous loads on the airframe, and it could be this that's breaking it. The g meter can only show sustained g loadings. It doesn't react *that* quickly to g.

F-5 is AI? It uses SFM and has too much thrust in AB. No thanks to integrity check AFAIK it's now not possible to edit the file if you want to fly online. If you look at the thrust for AB it is double what it should be. Correcting it back gives it the correct performance and it makes all the difference.

It seems to be a pitch-down moment that appears out of nowhere (when ground effect becomes a factor). If you counter it, it doesn't affect the landing. I tried breaking the gear and it seems as sensitive as before? I had to drop it in to break it. Even touching down with 2 degrees descent angle wasn't sufficient. I ended up bringing the speed back so the pitch was +10 and the aircraft started to drop onto the runway to finally bend the mains. I haven't tried it at max gross yet.

Yet we still struggle with PL-10 performance? I wish ED would drop the WVR thing and get serious about modelling missile flight profiles correctly. I'm thinking Meteor will be there in name and looks, but functionally just an AIM-120 or similar??? I can't see how they'd allow that to be represented accurately. DCS must be sufficiently "lo-fi" to allow it.

I know they are...I'm just surprised it has such a limitation for a new design. It's the kind of thing you'd see if you deliberately wanted to reduce performance. Early export versions of the F-16 were intended to have engines that overheated if in AB too long (by design), but they soon dropped the idea as too complex for production.

We didn't get Block 2 for the same reason we won't get Block 3. It's too new. I think even if the info on the RADAR was available, it still wouldn't be allowed. DCS has a rule that the latest gen of anything will not be permitted. We won't see block 3 as a result. I don't know how they're managing to produce a Typhoon, unless they're working on the Tranche 1 airframe that basically has nothing useful (not even the ability to self-launch LGB - that was added to Tranche 2 as an emergency addition due to Libya). We won't see anything that carries AESA RADAR in DCS for a very long time. IFF only exists because the way it works is simplified/unrealistic in operation. Sad, but true.

I might get to test this later. I can't believe the gear is more fragile than it already was.

You're making the mistake of zero-slip relative to the wind, and GROUND TRACK! If the ball is centered, the aircraft is flying straight. Whether it is flying straight AHEAD relative to the ground is an entirely different matter. Assume you have a huge 200 kt wind from your left (270 deg.). If you are flying at 100 kts perfectly straight (centered ball) with the nose pointing at 360 deg., then your ground track will be off towards 060 deg. or so. Clearer? If you're hovering in zero wind conditions, it is REQUIRED that you roll slightly to one side (usually towards the side the tail rotor is mounted on). This is to offset the thrust of the tail rotor that will otherwise try to accelerate the aircraft sideways. You roll very slightly to counteract this behavior. Given that the aircraft is in unaccelerated flight, the ball will actually be off to one side slightly due to gravity. It will NOT be centered in this condition.

.

Map and compass. GPS is overrated, and probably jammed anyway.

Get used to flying 10 feet off the ground, and hiding. You play hide-and-seek with your target. If you can see them, they can see you. Make sure you know where they are without looking. You don't fly helos in a combat zone over the top of your enemy. You will be shot down within minutes. Study the map and know the terrain. It takes practice, but that translates to survivability.

I don't care for nerfed. I only care for ACCURATE. If it is rubbish IRL, then so be it. I don't believe specs though as the side that uses them has reason to over-state their capability.

I'm not just getting slow...it's intentional. 100% yes, I'm flying against the AoA limiter. I'm aware of cornering speed, but that's idealistic in combat. Super-slow maneuvering happens, but it's a problem in Jeff when the F-16 can light its burner and Jeff can't without unloading.

Good! Because that was a serious problem.

When they had their PR offensive back in 2020 it was "6 months away" and looked pretty complete at that time. What happened? I'm now thinking they've had a serious problem in their dev team. The extended time no longer makes sense. OH-58 is still top of my buy list, before anyone thinks I'm trolling. It's why I'm here now in March 2022.

I don't do advertising platforms. What did it say?

Ahh! Thank you! I forgot I had asked previously. I see...that makes more sense than AoA. Is there a reason AoA factors into it, or is it inlet pressure again (i.e. does AoA feed into the AB controller at all)? I need to do some more investigation of this regime.

You are flying too close and too low to the target. Fly higher and further away, and don't be afraid to fly the Jeff at 250 kts. She flies really well between 250-350 kts (depending on weight). If you have wing tanks then don't get below 300 kts. Learn your weapon gimbal limits, and fly a Z pattern while you search for the target. Once you have it, accelerate (if beyond weapon range) until within launch parameters, and then fire. The Jeff weapons are best around the 20-25k altitude (some have a hard limit above which you can't fire them anyway). Forward airspeed is everything, and for glide munitions don't forget to point your nose (azimuth NOT pitch!) at the target with lots of speed! A quick rule of thumb: if you're at 20000 ft and the ground target is at -10 degrees in the HUD, then the target is ~20 NM away. That is less than 3 minutes flight-time. At -5 deg. it is ~40 NM away, and at -15 deg. it is ~10 NM away. 20000 ft: -5 = 40 NM (x 2) -10 = 20 NM (1:1) -15 = 10 NM (x 0.5)