Tiger-II

This is an actual problem? :huh: How is that even possible? Does that apply to any static objects, anywhere?!

The word people are looking for is LONGITUDINAL STATIC STABILITY. It is this that is responsible for the oscillations in pitch due to disturbances. An aircraft with positive stability will eventually stop oscillating. An aircraft with negative stability will depart controlled flight, and an aircraft with neutral stability will not dampen the oscillations (but it may or may not depart controlled flight due to this behavior). It gets way more complex than that, but that's a good basic description. I personally find the Tomcat easy to fly on the approach. The PITA is seeing the carrier and getting lined up. The ICLS is great for solving that problem. Know your approach AoA, be on glide and on-speed, and she'll pretty much land herself. F-18 is a bit trickier due to the slow response from the engines, but basically the same deal. Half the battle is the set-up. Fly accurate and correct pattern to final, and you're already there. "The quality of the landing is determined before you begin the approach."

Sounds promising! Looking forward to getting it! :thumbup:

+1

I'm curious as to why it is needed at all. The Ball should be visible on the side of the carrier as in reality. That they need a visual aid says something is very wrong with visibility generally within the sim. As for those screaming "it's only a game" - maybe, but we fly DCS as it is *supposed* to be the best of the best in terms of realism and accuracy. If we wanted arcade mode, there are dozens of other *games* out there. I do understand that VR users have resolution issues, so helping them out I see no issue with...as long as it is optional for the rest of us! I'm running a 4K display - how many pixels does it require before something should be visible? Even my 20-year-old digital camera has better resolving power than this. I'd prefer the lights to be a little too visible than a little not; it would still be more accurate/realistic than a pop-up.

What was your GW? Empty, she flies sloooooowwwwww........

I've seen some weird things with SD-10 since I started looking, but I'm sure it is DCS side rather than anything Deka are doing. It does mean however that missiles are missing when they shouldn't.

ALL HAIL DEKA! :D

I need to clarify something: 1) It appears the map in the HSD for the Persian Gulf is not displayed correctly 2) When the INS is not properly aligned (e.g. bad initialization coordinates) the nav system has strange issues, and RADAR and RWR etc. are offset, seperate to the map display issue.

Any chance of the brightness knobs actually functioning as expected? Not only in terms of click interaction, but function? This works on the A-10C for example.

A suggestion: there are a couple of short training missions which you say are addendum to the main (full) training mission and not simply cut-out for brevity. It would be good if these were labelled as such as I only spotted this by accident, yet they contain useful information (an example is the variable nozzle training missions). Overall, I like the training missions very much! Great job! :joystick::book:

Thanks! :thumbup:

On the power panel? Yes. I tried this again with a full GC alignment - it appears it is a problem in Persian Gulf specifically. I don't remember this problem in Caucuses. ** There does however appear to be a problem with a bad alignment (e.g. when wrong ramp coordinates are used). It results in strange system behavior ** FULL GC ALIGNMENT; MANUALLY ENTERED CORRECT COORDINATES FOR RAMP. Looking more closely, it appears it is the map that is incorrectly placed on the HSD. Note the red dots for my two missiles - they did fly left and right of the aircraft when fired, so the F10 and missile guidance and target positions correlated. It's just the HSD map that seems out of position; not the data. Note that INS is aligned correctly in this case. (No, I did not photoshop an outline of the B-2 into the F10 map screenshot).

Thanks! I'll look more closely at this! They weren't jamming - I ensured they did not react to me nor enabled the jammer (if they had one fitted).

Which part? :D

Don't run off the tarmac. Ever. Are overheated/worn brakes simulated? Be thankful if not.

Hi, I hope I can explain this clearly, as there is a serious systems fault. The first is the cause, which I think might be a bug in its own right, but it impacts multiple systems thereafter. 1) INS ramp position problem When using the option to "get ramp coordinates" (F8 -> Ground -> F6 -> Get ramp coordinates) the coordinates loaded are not accurate enough. It can be up to 10 miles away due to precision error. 2) INS position error a) Effect on RADAR: RADAR targets are not real. It shows targets at the correct azimuth and range, but as if the aircraft is NOT offset by the INS position error. i.e. it is acting as if there is NO INS position error and the aircraft is in the real location. b) Effect on the moving map: the moving map is drawing correctly for OWNSHIP position. c) RWR and missile alerts are painting in the WRONG place. They are offset to the wrong position (because of INS position error) and are appearing as if the aircraft is in the REAL location, not the offset location. d) Nav mode is screwed up completely. If you set a waypoint (I used the alignment point copied to WPT01), the line on the HUD compass INCORRECTLY points at the correct geographic location, while the TD box is offset to the correct spatial position for the aircraft relative to the alignment error. i.e. if I fly the heading bug I end up at the correct geographic location. If I fly the TD box on the HUD I end up at the correct INS position (as far as the system is concerned). I appreciate this is confusing as hell. I'm having a hard time explaining it. It's only a problem if the INS is not correctly aligned, but the RADAR should not be affected by it, nor RWR symbology with SPJ as these are relative bearings/distances and not derived from INS position.

Hi, This is more of a general question, but I'm posting it here because I like to fly the JF-17. :thumbup: I haven't done an exhaustive test of this, but flying in MP the other night I thought I had a RADAR or sim or sync problem. I was trying to locate an F-14 on RADAR. I could see most other things I looked at, but not this. It was pinging my RWR, and he had me locked at one point (well... not hard-locked but certainly he was looking in my direction) then a bit later I had "MISSILE MISSILE" warning... I dodged the missile, then turned around to look again for the F-14. Nothing. Through the entire engagement, I had nothing of the F-14 on RADAR. I got curious as to why I could see other aircraft, but not the F-14. I fired up an SP mission with me, and one armed F-14. I set him up to orbit (due to my non-existent mission creation skills, I had inadvertently set him up to literally fly circles in one spot). This presented an unexpected test scenario: because he was just orbiting in-place, it meant my RADAR was looking at him from pretty much every aspect possible. I could not see him AT ALL, until 35 NM. AWACS I can see right out beyond 80 NM (not on the RADAR scope as the range is insufficient, but the map starts painting their target so the RADAR can see them at that range). I would not have said the F-14 was so uber-stealthy that it would only appear at 35 NM??? I can see Su-27 out to about 50 NM (I wouldn't expect much more). No wonder I never saw the F-14 in MP as I never got within 40 NM of him, and he turned cold and ran after he missed me with his Mk-60. I've intercepted even F-15 at 55 NM, and F-16 out to nearly 60 NM, so what the heck? Seeing as I found a convenient way to get aircraft to orbit in-place, I'm going to set up a mission with various aircraft to see at what ranges I can detect them on RADAR. Has anyone done a range test of the RADAR to see what they can see at what range? In my test scenario I set the aircraft to orbit at 30000 ft, and I was co-altitude.

Not here as well! "Balance"? You fly DCS then have the audacity to talk about balance? As in life, war is not fair. If it's a fair fight, you're doing it wrong. Always be looking for ways to throw the fight in your favor. Force your opponent to make an error if you're equal. etc., etc. This isn't a first-person shooter where you are at level 39 and they are at level 20 and you should "win" because you are a higher level. This is supposed to be a sim where SKILL and TACTICS win the day, not because you *think* you should win because you are in the superior aircraft. The Red Baron didn't have the best aircraft, but he knew how to fight. For some reason, he needed to land in a field. It was thought someone saw him, and landed and shot him with a revolver because they couldn't win the fight in the air. I personally enjoy flying the inferior aircraft, and beating people with superior skill. I'll push to the merge if I'm able, because BVR is too easy.

Thanks. I'm acquianting myself with it.

These missions are very good! Very useful.

In the training mission it says that T/R mode is "Transfer - Receive". It is actually TRANSMIT/RECEIVE. For DME distance the system works by sending a data packet with a time stamp which is then received by the TACAN station and re-transmitted. The RTT (round-trip time) is then computed, and thus the distance can be determined. If the system is receive-only (e.g. for EMCON) then DME is lost but bearing is still available.

Prior to the free month I didn't pay too much attention, but I bought the module having done some research, but mostly on the module itself. Now I'm actually looking at the forums and the bug reports plus encountering some weird things myself, I'm seriously questioning what they're doing. I don't regret the purchase, and I hope they'll get things sorted out, but it's not great. It does seem that since things started with the French their other projects slowed down, despite what they claim about being seperate teams. ED seem to have stopped pushing updates at the moment, too, so it will be interesting to see what has been addressed.

Uhh... LOL?! :D I'm going to try using SD-10 as anti-ship missile...

Thanks. Will try that again. Does the keyhole symbology look like A-10C? AFAIK it comes from the missile, not the jet.