Tiger-II

I can't see why? F-16 flies competently. Are you sure inaccuracies in those FMs aren't being exploited? It's not that F-16 isn't correct, but maybe F-18 is wrong and out-performing F-16 incorrectly? OR...no-one is flying realistically? I have both, and while the JF-17 is my main aircraft in DCS, I'm more than familiar with the F-16, and nothing seems odd or unusual. In fact, I'd suggest the F-16 is over-performing were it not for several tests I did yesterday (time to altitude and time to Mach 2.0). Roll rate seems fine. It's very competent in 1 vs. 2 with AI F-14.

Hi, The TGP has some issues: * Settings reset on mode change (CCD/IR) * Stepping is too large * Zero has two steps before changing +1/-1. * TGP contrast slowly washes out with time (either too light or too dark). It's as if the sensor is degrading. * TGP head does not start caged (visual model) * TGP head can not be caged (visual model) * View snaps on pod reset. It previously slewed smoothly. * TGP view performance seems degraded (it seems like FPS issue still).

Hi, I know lighting is very much WIP, but there are some issues which seem to go beyond this. 1) MFD brightness/contrast function isn't as expected. Displays act strangely, and even inverse function if you set them incorrectly. 2) MFD at night shines brighter than the sun. 3) TGP display is affected by the same brightness/contrast issue.

What happens? Got a specific set-up to try?

That would be fine! Capable of Mach 4 supercruise, 5000 NM combat range, 10 hardpoints, "Eye of Sauron" AESA RADAR Mk. 999, and laser beams for weapons. Sound reasonable?

Yes. It's exported as FC-20, so maybe? :D

I've had limited success overriding the FBW. You must already be at the limit when you activate it, otherwise it doesn't override (by design). I've found the Jeff is a very capable fighter. It definitely benefits from good handling, even against superior maneuvering opponents. BFM is mostly skill, augmented by an aircraft that can perform. Dissimilar BFM is great fun! Jeff is capable (and more so now after the recent FM update).

WHA...HUH? It's 0700 but I already want to fire up the sim.

Yes, same here! I think overall she performs very well (and Blue seem to acknowledge this, hence their envied attacks on its capabilities). "An average aircraft with a skilled pilot will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Wow. If damage power is UNDER performing, this thing will be devastating.

Yes...she doesn't like high altitude in this config. I need afterburner to get up there, so I do that when I'm committing and not a moment sooner.

Jeff can fly at 41000 ft at Mach 1.1 with AA load if you start higher and descend. With an AA load she gets sufficiently draggy. If you have wing tanks you can pretty much forget exceeding Mach 0.98. As with most aircraft, to BVR successfully you will need to punch any tanks.

The biggest problem is people are intentionally taking the stated range of the missile as the absolute maximum range it can fly. It simply is not true!!! It's safe to say Max1mus has an agenda to get the effectiveness of the SD-10 reduced, even if he is providing tracks. It's not possible to fire the SD-10 at a target 160 km away because the launch aircraft RADAR can't possibly see the target, so the upper bound here is not the missile, but the RADAR!!! The exception would be something like an E-3A where the JF-17 can see this to the range limit of 80 NM. Good luck shooting it! As a counter-argument I will shoot massive RCS targets at max range using a variety of profiles. Also, while the missile has SLIGHTLY lower drag in the supersonic regime, it has FAR TOO MUCH drag in the transonic region. This more than makes up for the "over-performance" earlier in the flight, and denies the missile critical energy during its highest maneuvering time (end-game). Time people calmed down, and accepted Red Air have a damn good and well-modelled (not over-modelled) missile to rival Blue Air. I'm just sick of this "it's too OP!!" when missiles in DCS still have many issues (but they are now being addressed, which is great).

OK! It's something specific to JF-17. Being in the cockpit specifically. causes the BRMs to fly wide/miss. If you go to F6 (weapon view), they track as they should. The hit-box problem is a vehicle issue (confirmed) so it is just a matter of figuring out which units have the problem. Yet to try it in this build.

When I flew earlier today, they were damaging MBT but not killing them, and I was hitting them with two at a time. I was killing them after 2 or 3 hits, and some time. I had a lot of misses though due to the hit box problem. Actually hitting the target was the hard part as it kept landing long (Abrahms). Against non-armored trucks they worked great.

In the real-world you also have to battle with "empty field myopia", where the clear blue sky causes your eyes to focus much closer to you than you think, meaning that you see absolutely NOTHING. The worst days for flight safety are ABSOLUTELY CLEAR BLUE DAYS! More mid-air collisions happen on nice days than any other time, and it isn't because everyone is out enjoying the weather!

Dynamic LAUNCH Zone, not Dynamic HIT Zone. The longer you can support the missile with RADAR (datalink is automatic) the better the chance of the missile hitting the target. It also has other side-effects, such as preventing the missile going "pitbull" early and alerting the aircraft you're shooting at whether you fired or not. There are a lot of tactics you can employ with BVR.

A bit of background as to why it is done this way: Mach number is affected by temperature ONLY. The reason is as air temperature reduces (gets colder), air density INCREASES. However, as we climb, there is less air pressure. Air density REDUCES. The consequence is this ratio of pressure change vs. temperature change is such that they cancel each other out (in the atmosphere), so the only factor affecting Mach number is change in temperature. That's the basic physics... The local speed of sound (LSS) at sea level on a standard day is 661 kts. To fly at Mach 1.0 you would need to be doing 661 kts TAS. The tropopause starts at 36050 ft (average), and this is where a curious feature of the Earth's atmosphere begins. Between sea-level and the tropopause the temperature reduces at a lapse rate of roughly 2 deg. C per 1000 ft of altitude, but above the tropopause the temperature is constant, at approximately -56.5 deg. C. At 35000 ft the LSS is 574 kts. To make matters a bit more complicated, we use CAS (Calibrated Air Speed) which is computed by measuring the pressure of the air entering a pitot tube as we fly forwards. As we fly higher, the air gets thinner, meaning that for every 100 kts of forward airspeed we have, there is less air entering the pitot tube, so the pressure is lower at 35000 ft than at sea level, meaning our measured airspeed reads lower than our TRUE AIR SPEED. Remember what I said about Mach only being affected by temperature? CAS is affected by density and pressure! As we keep climbing, and as we approach, and exceed, the speed of sound, things get very funky indeed, and so we need to deal with it (compressibility effects). Extreme example: if we could keep climbing into space (vacuum) the CAS would eventually read zero, which obviously isn't the real situation). On top of this, we start running into other problems, like lack of thrust. The engine needs air to produce thrust, and at altitude we can compensate by flying faster for a while, but things like drag get in the way, limiting our ultimate velocity. So... what does this mean? As we climb, our CAS gradually reduces for a constant TAS. As we climb, our Mach number increases for a constant TAS (up to 36050 ft). If we climb from sea level to 35000 ft at Mach 0.95, then at 35000 ft we must level off, and accelerate through Mach 1.0. This is a very high-drag regime, and requires lots of thrust and time. Once we are through Mach 1.0, we actually enter a lower drag regime, and things can go more smoothly again. If we try and achieve Mach 2.0 from here, it will take probably more fuel than we have, due to the time required to accelerate. The acceleration profile requires then that we do two things: * Achieve greater than Mach 1.0 flight at a lower altitude to get through the high drag regime when we have more thrust * Climb above the max Mach altitude so we can use gravity to assist the acceleration to Mach 2.0. So at say 30000 ft we accelerate to Mach 1.4, where we continue our climb at that Mach number (constant Mach climb) all the way up to 50000 ft, where we begin a gentle push-over to reduce g, reduce drag, and maximize acceleration rate. We then lower the nose below the horizon slightly to get the assistance of gravity on the way down, as well as descending into thicker atmosphere helping thrust, and eventually heading towards the altitude of maximum Mach number (~35000 ft). You might have heard the term "unloading the jet". This means pushing so the g loading experienced is zero. The effect of doing this reduces the angle of attack, causes the LEF to streamline to the zero angle position, and cleans the aircraft up to minimum drag profile, resulting in maximum acceleration. This applies for most aircraft generally. Unfortunately, we can't maintain zero g forever as we would eventually achieve an outside loop, but it is usful for passing stages such as recovery from low speed flight (100 kts), and accelerating through the trans-sonic region (somewhere around Mach 0.80 to 1.25). Obviously, you don't do this if it would result in a crash or other unfavorable situation. Below Mach 0.80 and above Mach 1.25 the aircraft experiences less drag. Around Mach 1.0, the aircraft is experiencing high drag as a shockwave forms ahead of the aircraft, but the aircraft is not yet fast enough to catch up to the compressed air ahead of it. "Breaking the sound barrier" occurs because the aircraft is now flying faster than the air ahead of it, and the sonic boom is the air uncompressing at the speed of sound (it is like releasing a spring from compression suddenly). At 50000 ft I was able to accelerate to Mach 1.7 without too much trouble, then I descended to accelerate the rest of the way. If you look at the fuel used, you can see I used relatively little fuel to get to Mach 1.7 at 50000 ft, but then I used 1500 lbs just to get from Mach 1.7 to Mach 2.0. One of my favorite things to do in any aircraft I fly is try and find the most optimum/fuel efficient flight profiles, so at any given time I use the least amount of fuel. High drag means fly slower. You can't brute force your way through the drag! It just burns fuel. Depending on the drag index, there is a maximum IAS and TAS (or Mach number) above which it becomes inefficient to fly. For a clean F-16, subsonic that limit is 350 kts or Mach 0.95; supersonic it is Mach 1.4-ish, though 1.6 can be achieved with little effort. A good guide as to most efficient speed is to look at the best glide speed. For any given configuration (drag index) and gross weight, there is a speed which results in the lowest drag for the most lift. This is where you will find the maximum endurance speed. Maximum range speed is slightly higher (yes, you burn more fuel, but you also travel further), while minimum sink is a bit slower (the speed at which the aircraft loses the least amount of altitude per unit distance travelled forwards). Generally, there are three speeds. In order of slowest (speed) to fastest: * Minimum sink rate * Maximum time (endurance) * Maximum distance We are generally concerned with maximizing our flight time (loiter time). We can balance it with maximizing our distance, but this usually applies to ferry range. We care about maximum distance if we are gliding, and we balance this with the maximum endurance speed. For a clean F-16 this is around 236 kts. If we need range in combat, we use tankers. Note that more WEIGHT = higher glide speed, BUT NOT MORE GLIDE RANGE! The heavier aircraft glides faster, but it will not glide further. Conversely, a lighter aircraft will glide slower but it will not glide SHORTER! As long as you are at best glide speed, you are doing all you can to maximum your glide distance. In the F-16, clean, if it is at 6 degrees or lower in the HUD, you can glide to it (winds permitting!!!). This turned into a bit of an essay, but I hope it was useful!

What is "fi_search"? It's going to be a long (short!) evening... :D

Yes it is! I found if I cycle it ON/OFF multiple times I can eventually get it to come on a bit quieter. There is a strange high-pitched rattling type sound in the loop. It sounds less like air and more like metallic things are rattling.

Hmm. Not checked. If the loudness is correct then Deka need to check out the looping as I find it extremely "tinny" and akin to scratching nails on a blackboard, and it isn't looping smoothly. I'm not usually too sensitive to this kind of thing, but it is entirely at the wrong frequency. My pilot will need to freeze for now and work without RADAR. :D

Did you check the WEAPON laser code matched the drone laser code? If they don't match, it will fail. Note also that some sim assets can use laser codes that are outside the real range of laser codes. The JF-17 is limited to the real set, so beware codes like 1111. 1688 is the lowest first real code.

Is this in the update that dropped 5 minutes ago (metaphorically speaking)? I just had an alert that an update was available but zero time to try anything.

As the note says - it is 1.0 relative to Su-27 at MIL power. Well... how hot is that? 500 deg. C? 600 deg. C? 300 deg. C? Does a factor of 2.0 mean if the Su-27 at MIL is 300 deg. C that the IR signature is 600 deg. C?

JF-17 has low-observable intake vs. the F-16 which doesn't. As for IR signature, the installation CAN affect this, so it isn't as simple as it being "the same engine". Interesting you shoot the aircraft you don't fly. ;) How do the F-14, Viggen stack up? Curious you don't mention these. ;) Looking at the data with an unbiased eye, it looks OK to me. You neglect to mention the F-14 and JF-17 have the same AB signature (5.0), or that the Viggen and JF-17 have the same RCS (3.0). Hawk has nearly double the RCS of the L-39 despite being a similar size (5.0 vs. 2.5). F-18 "only" has an IR signature of 4.0 despite having two engines, vs. the F-14 at 5.0; and the F-16 "only" has an IR signature of 3.0 despite being similar to the JF-17 at 4.0. Bias everywhere... ;) I'm not criticizing the topic though - a great discussion! You just need to understand a bit more about how/why similarly APPEARING aircraft can have such different values. It's not as simple as size or shape.