Tiger-II

Get the F-5. IMHO it doesn't look "dated", either simulation or otherwise. It's extremely functional, generally flies very well, and is a proper "old school" fighter. It has a great weapons capability, and pre-dates the glass-cockpit era of newer fighters, requiring actual pilot skills to score kills. I own nearly every other module in DCS, and the F-5 is up there as one of my favorites. All we're missing is an F-16A Block 10.

Great to see some data on this! It is my biggest complaint with the F-5. It is supposed to be competent at ACM, but the current flight model requires that more thrust than necessary is required to fly at the desired performance, which in turn burns too much fuel and shortens the fight (fight, not flight) time considerably. Between this and the engine problem when wind is present, are the two biggest items that need addressing, IMHO. I'll try and get tracks tomorrow for a second view.

The fundamental problem with all of this is people grossly UNDER-estimate the time required to develop anything of this level. There are literal Ph.D thesis on the topic of how much man-power/man-years to write a piece of software, and yet, despite all that research, the only conclusion they all agree on is: IT'S VERY HARD. Unless you write a piece of software, count the lines, count the time it took, can you say how long it will take to write THAT piece of software and solve THOSE specific problems. If you change anything (solution, or problem), then that goes straight out the window, and you're back to guessing the mass of the Universe without looking. What annoys me the most, is there is a basic level of expectation with anything like this. DCS is a high-end simulation platform, and developers are expected to reasonably develop a product as accurately as possible. If a product can't be modelled to sufficient detail because something is sensitive, classified, or whatever, then that project should be scrapped before a single line of code is written. If you say you're going to produce a specific model of an aircraft, then people will reasonably expect a certain level of accuracy. Even if some things are pure guess-work, it's possible to add something that feels realistic even if it isn't to the eye of someone who knows how it really works. There are plenty of things in many aircraft for DCS that could be added that aren't there, but for whatever reason, they are missing. Some stuff must be omitted due to legalities, and that's fine, but we generally know what they are and they're unlikely to change between aircraft (IFF being the famous example, but there are others). This disparity however between one module having a feature while another skips it, defies logic, especially as most things are pretty central to the entire simulation. Your RADAR simulates jamming targets and inability to lock them (JF-17), while mine laughs and doesn't care (F-18/F-16/F-14)? Naaaawww... that must be fixed, to level the playing field if nothing else.

I think this has always existed? Has the vertical scan reduced such that it is no longer +/- 3 degrees wide, so it is more noticeable? Try setting a zero deadzone if you have it assigned to an axis.

Even if the HUD in the Jeff has a low update rate, the brain soon compensates and you don't see it. Part of the slow upodate could be due to processing "up stream" of the pipper, e.g. interpreting RADAR data and computing target position for the sight. There are lots of reasonable explanations for slow pipper update, vs. airspeed or altitude display. That alone doesn't explain the jumpiness. That will be due to target position prediction algorithms not liking the position jumps (which simply wouldn't happen in reality). Note that real-life gun sights are not perfect! There are plenty of examples of F-16 HUDs lagging during maneuvering, and the pippers showing their vintage on the display.

* Check you connected the virtual hose to the seat * Check you FULLY opened the regulator! Anything less than FULL will lead to hypoxia. Once it really sets in/starts blacking out, recovery is nearly impossible, even on autopilot with restored O2 flow. * Check you have oxygen in the tank (it runs out fairly quickly, especially if you AA refuel - your flight time exceeds the O2 time after about 4 hours, which I think is incorrect).

It helps, yes, especially if you have a small deadzone for controller (not sim) purposes. I never had any luck ever changing the tanker speed. It always slows down to 280 kts. Annoying. Jets are refuelled at 300-350 kts, typically.

Check the switches on the FCS panel left side, just above the standby radio panel. If they are set correctly, hit the RESET button. Also, make sure you have the AC and DC gens ON (elec panel, next to the battery switch), and the engine generator is selected ON (left side, by the throttle).

Hi, Not flown in a while, and wondering what I missed regarding the Jeff? It seems there is still much work to be done on the RADAR modes? What is the deal with the SD-10A? It seems the flight model/guidance logic has been changed again (temporarily)? Not to beat a dead horse, but can we have a "current progress" thread so we can keep up-to-date with the current state of things? What is the situation with the BRM missiles? Did they get corrected? They were so wild they were almost unusable in some situations, and fine in others (particularly shallow shots where it could miss by flying wide and impact behind the target).

This again? Search the forum for historic posts by Chiron and myself. There is a ton of discussion on this by AeriaGloria, Harlequin, and others. I spammed the forum with links to numerous articles and "other information" about the SD-10*A* missile that we should be carrying on the Jeff. Did that ever get changed? The SD-10A is one heck of a missile, and yes, it is superior if flown correctly to the -120B model AMRAAM. It's closer to the C, but with higher terminal-phase speed and maneuverability, and slightly longer range if fired at optimum launch parameters. The SD-10A is so good it is even used as an AD missile, which reportedly has 80%+ PK. I linked evidence of all of the above after hours and hours of reading information. As already stated, this stuff is classified so data is scarce. Before anyone goes screaming "Chinese propaganda!", it is a Russian missile built in cooperation with the Chinese for EXPORT. There is much already known about the missiles it is based upon. EVERYONE lies about their capabilities, either positive or negative, to lull the enemy into a false sense of security (or fear).

I am not flying enough! THANK YOU DEKA!!!! :thumbup::worthy:

I'm not sure why this is. IIRC on the F-16 it is to make it constant-time, but here that isn't the case it would seem. I don't think it is processing, as it is simply changing the sweep and not the number of contacts it is tracking. Great to see this update!!

Did they do this?! Does that mean the JF-17 will be showing up for real at RIAT 2021?

I'd guess the aircraft are prepped before the pilots even get out there. The pilots aren't going to show up and ask "hey - I want 2x Mk-83 and remove the refuel probe". That stuff will be handled by the mission planners in advance, and the aircraft will be readied before the pilot even shows up.

It's better if it is defaulted off, but I find it's not a big deal to call up the ground crew and ask for it to be removed. I do this as step 1 before anything else. Works fine and doesn't add to the time required to start.

I figured the delayed tests were exactly that...tests. I haven't seen systems failures beyond forgetting the ECS a couple of times during start-up.

I keep bug-reporting this for the TGP, but no reply yet. Seems strange that it won't keep the last setting on mode switch.

No - it's in one of the SD-10 discussion threads. I'm hiding nothing. I have posted dozens of links in the past month or two and read a ton of information. Finding a specific link will take me several hours; time I do not have right now.

I hope you're not taking my word as 100%. I'm not even sure. Am I even confusing it with the Tomcat? Who knows. To be honest, I didn't really notice. I had noticed it seems rather quick to pick up contacts, but tracking them seems to be OK? It doesn't seem "magical", as least as far as the display goes. If you have a specific example, I'd be interested in what is actually going on. :lol:

The intake is above the smoke plume. The other consideration is local aerodynamic effects. It could be the local airflow causes the smoke to move towards the intake, exacerbating the situation.

I thought I read that TWS built tracks even in RWS, for the first contacts it sees? Switching to TWS then uses the known target track data immediately. It would be interesting to test the TWS update functionality/prediction by shooting at a target TWS that turns immediately 180 degrees and seeing what the missile does. Unless a target is maneuvering, TWS should be reasonably accurate (not perfect, granted). I wouldn't use it to track anything I needed good data on. In fact, it's a mode I don't use very often at all.

It's not photoshop. In a link I posted recently, there is a photo of Jeff sat on the tarmac with these mounted to it.

There are some weird problems with the engines. I keep encountering an odd issue where the engines suddenly lose RPM and sound like they're shutting down, but really, they just glitched. It doesn't happen all the time. I have almost zero hope of anything being seriously addressed at this point.

As long as you understand the setup for bombing, it's actually very easy.

So just add E-3A on red side?