Jester2138

I bought four :helpsmilie:

I don't see the logic there. I'd rather have a wide variety of aircraft types in their most common variant each portrayed in high quality than to have every variant, no matter how rare, of far fewer aircraft types.

Meh; there were only like 40 -Ds ever made. I'd rather developers focus on more widely-used aircraft, or DCS will just become Digital Experimental Combat Simulator.

Wider PC game market is irrelevant. We're interested in flight sims, specifically. What percentage of the wider PC game market do you think own HOTAS setups over $100? Are they a waste of time because of it? I would echo PhoenixRising above. I had fallen out of flight sims in general years ago, and started flying IRL. Sims just didn't do it for me after that. 2D monitors suck and destroy all the various physiological ways you interact with the plane. Then I bought an Odyssey and suddenly I'm enjoying flight sims again. It's just a totally different experience IMO. Since then I've spent more money than I want to think about on flight sims and hardware and upgraded to a Reverb.

Not who you were asking but I always aim for .6 mach in a turn fight. I "fly" with my ears to maintain AoA, only using my eyes on instruments in a rapid cross-check every few seconds. As for getting practice, I highly recommend the guns-only zones in "Dogfight Only" servers. Dogfighting AI is a completely pointless thing to even talk about, because even on excellent 1) they suck and 2) they're boring and don't really use "tactics" at all.

Haven't had an F-16 survive long enough to merge with it ;) but I would probably try to get him low and slow and constantly turn directly into him.

Relying on a HUD gives you bad habits IMO. You only really need AoA or speed instruments to land properly. Make sure you understand those very well and can land with just that before using shortcuts like HUDs and velocity vectors.

The Warthog, Mirage, and Tomcat are the only DCS modules that are actually worth their full asking price IMO. The Tomcat is far and away the most impressive module yet made. Anyone questioning whether it's worth $80 is just showing they don't really understand the depth and quality of the simulation we're talking about IMO.

Well there is a difference between "the real thing doesn't work, either" and "it works but it's not advisable to use it" Which is it in this case?

Not necessarily. U.S. Air Force was very worried about Soviet helicopters in a Fulga Gap scenario. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-CATCH Regarding the Desert Storm use of Apaches, those helicopters went in over flat, empty terrain at low altitudes before the fixed-wing aircraft specifically to clear a path for them. They were chosen because there was no fixed-wing aircraft that could do that mission as well as Apaches. The idea that helicopters have to be relegated to the rear of the chain running secondary missions has never been true.

Except the JF-17 is a blufor fighter.

I don't know about that... Unless I'm mistaken, Tomcats just won first and second place in the Folds of Honor competition.

+1000 Always hated the needlessly slow VR zoom in DCS. Thanks a ton, it makes the whole game feel better.

The "low/middle/high" etc. settings are completely over-done. Look at the antenna degrees it goes to when you give those commands. Instead, use search at altitude / distance. Much more useful.

I couldn't care less about what wizz-bang features any carrier comes with. I just want something that actually works and can be used by more than 2-3 players at once. Whichever carrier is the least bug-ridden will be the one I use in my missions. Based on past experience... that will be Heatblur's.

I was thinking far more basic: This is adverse yaw. Proverse yaw is exactly the same thing, just the opposite yaw. An aerodynamically simple plane like the Piper he's in only exhibits adverse yaw. The Tomcat exhibits both in different regimes as the plane's configuration changes.

We are discussing both those things. They are related. Because of adverse and proverse yaw, you need rudder when turning (and rolling in general). They're perfectly clear. I've repeated them several times here. You get proverse yaw a low AoA and adverse yaw at high AoA, this is also closely related to wing sweep angle and the switch can be seen around 8-12 units AoA depending on configuration. I've only been talking about coordinated flight aka compensating for adverse and proverse yaw. That can be needed in a level turn or a climbing turn or a descending turn or while not turning at all. It's simply needed when you induce roll via lateral stick inputs and asymmetrical control surface activation. No, you would be using only rudder at VERY high AoAs. There is a wide range where you need to use similar rudder and stick inputs to be coordinated during a roll and turn because of adverse yaw. No, you want to be coordinated because it's aerodynamically more efficient and less prone to stalling one wing before the other (i.e. spin). You should use pitch to actually perform the turn as your left vector is rotated, not slip. Not as far as I can tell. Correct... You wouldn't see both in the same turn. Yes, in any speed/configuration/AoA/whatever, in theory the rudder application is only as long as your lateral stick input. I feel like you guys need to go back to basics on what adverse yaw is based on how thoroughly this seems to have confused you.

+1

I've heard Wags give that exact explanation word-for-word in a few different places. I wouldn't describe it as "very clear," in fact I'd say it raises just as many questions as it answers. What it sounds like to me is that Eagle Dynamics isn't officially prevented from making a Flanker, but they're worried about what the Russian government might do nonetheless, and not making semi-modern Russian fighters is a voluntary decision. Hence the idea that a non-Russian "third-party" making a Flanker wouldn't be an issue for Eagle Dynamics (which I still don't totally understand - it'd be sold in an ED product exclusively, so what's really the difference? You think the U.S. gov would allow Microsoft to sell a foreign developer's scarily accurate F-35 for MSFS2020 on a Microsoft store?).

I don't really care one way or the other about VR vs. monitor zoom, but it seems pretty silly to first agree that VR users are at a general disadvantage because of different zoom levels allowed by ED, and then immediately also say that it's impossible to balance zoom levels. Either both are true or neither are. You're arguing against yourself.

Adverse and proverse yaw are caused by the differential drag from the asymmetrical control surface input used to roll. Therefore, yes, they are only present when you are in a roll. If you neutralize the surfaces and continue the turn, the adverse yaw will go away. In that sense, yes both adverse and proverse yaw is present only in "spikes" most of the time. That's how it works.

Would love anything non-NATO and first flown post 1970. My pipe dream is a study J-10 or J-11.

They still cheat in DCS (for example, through simplified and unrealistic flight models) just not through sensors.

At high AoA, yes. At low AoA, no. I'm not seeing anything by Victory205 saying otherwise, and he's described the high AoA behavior quite extensively on these forums. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3796662#post3796662 ^Read the two posts by Aaron and Victory if you're still confused. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3746595&postcount=39 Fly <10 units AoA and roll. Watch the slip indicator. Boom, proverse yaw.

Low AOA = proverse yaw, stick/rudder opposite. High AoA = adverse yaw, stick/rudder agree. It's especially important to use rudder correctly in BFM. Rudder roll is not necessary at low AoA and I'm not sure it would even work? Confused as to what you're talking about. You're never going to peg the ball perfectly and it's not necessary. But you should be generally coordinated. The ball seems accurate to me; you're probably just not coordinating correctly as described elsewhere in this thread.