Naquaii

Well, first off, this is not a bug as it's clearly an intentional change from our side. Secondly we've had a great deal of discussion internally regarding this and the natops is at best vague in parts regarding the flaps. While I agree that the passages you list seem to indicate that they should be contrallable incrementally all SME input we've received says the opposite. Unfortunately this is not the first time SME input has proven the natops is in error and when confronted with the fact that our SMEs who have actually flown and worked with the aircraft (including mechanics) tell another story we kinda have to go with them on it. To be fair we can discuss it with them again but that's our current decision. Edit: Your last reference being an emergency procedure with breakers pulled might actually mean that the function of the lever change which might be something to look into eventually.

Yeah, just confirmed too to make sure. Still works but now it only commands either full flaps or no flaps depending on position. Thx

Sure thing, please include sources for it not being that way then as that would contradict all our material. Afaik assigning an axis should still work, adding threshold values just means that they'll be fully retracted until you move the axis to a certain value and at that point they'll fully deploy. We're not removing the axis bind, just how it works.

No they didn't. The F-14 only had full flaps or maneuver flaps, nothing inbetween. IRL the flaps handle couldn't be used for anything other than up or full flaps.

It isn't as easy as that. DCS isn't a stable environment set in stone and things change very much, which is a good thing ofc, progress and all that. Saying that we should've tested the missile more is also not really fair as we built it and released it in a different state than it is now. It used to work perfectly fine and then down the line these bugs crept in without us changing anything on our side. Once again you are inferring that we are doing just that, implementing something that we know is broken and that we don't care while referring to second hand information and to be frank, it's getting seriously tiresome. The simple facts are that we are looking at the issues and if we had a quick fix it would've been in as soon as the issues appeared. But it isn't and we're trying to make sense of why these things are happening, which by the way we're having great issues to even reproduce on our side. (Not saying we don't take them seriously.) We're not even sure the issues are on our side or on ED's. Currently we're working away on moving the AIM-54 over to the new missile functions that the AIM-120 and AIM-7 use and hopefully that will iron out many of these issues. As for the ECCM it's something very much on our list and a must for when we launch out of early access, but we also don't want to rush it as we don't want it to appear as the simple on/off switch it currently is in DCS but something a bit more realistic on the displays. And to be perfectly fair, few aircraft have launched into early access with ECCM functionality at the get go and let's not forget we currently are in early access. That said, continueing to infer and accuse us of stuff like this won't change anything, like I said, we don't have a magic fix we're keeping from you that we can release to magically fix all this but we are trying to make sense of it and fix it or help ED fix it with information from us.

Those posts are incorrect if so. The next stable patch will fix it. The fix was found after last stable update so it's only in open beta atm.

I've gotten some additional info so I'll try to do some more testing. Part of me still feels like it's latency related but we need to nail it down.

The AIM-9s should be compatible as they've always been backwards compatible afaik. I do recall them having to modify their AIM-7Es though as they needed a modification to work with the AWG-9. IIRC that's why the F-14 in USN service used the AIM-7E4 and not the AIM-7E2.

No disdain from our side at least. We simply do no agree upon what you and your sources are claiming about setting the air source to off and what it'd do to the thrust.

This is not about being a priority or not, rather it's about not believing it. The amount of thrust talked about in the quote you posted (without source I might add) just isn't believable from just turning off the bleed switch used for the ECS. I'd say it should be around like 100 times smaller and then you can start to see why we're saying it wouldn't be noticable and wouldn't make a difference.

Yeah, it should be fixed next time Stable is updated. If you don't feel like waiting you could switch to Open Beta but otherwise just hang tight!

Are you on Open Beta or Stable? This was fixed but it takes a while for Open Beta to become transferred to Stable.

No, this is implemented now. This is a very old thread.

Regardless it's also a fact that there's simply not any substantial evidence of it at all, hard numbers non-withstanding.

That is still possible, there's a "cheat" to allow you to record video in black and white like that to simulate replaying a recording of the LANTIRN as that would be black and white IRL. At least I still think it works, search for "video export toggle" or something like that under the RIO keybinds. Haven't tried it lately though. And note that it was not intended for normal flight, just to enable people to recreate news footage!

You have to try and see our side here though, we have tons of documentation not mentioning this, not to mention all our SMEs agreeing that this wasn't used, didn't make a difference and wasn't a good idea. Then changing this arbitrarily from hearsay just isn't a thing. Remember, even if we would change it from just word of mouth we still have no hard numbers on what it would actually do.

If you're speaking about getting improved engine performance by setting the Air Source to OFF, then no, that's not modelled. There's just no evidence for that doing anything at all. The mid-compression bypass has some evidence for it making a difference but so little it in reality isn't even noticable.

And it's not about turning off the air source, it's the mid-compression bypass. There's a keybind for it.

Thing is, it is modelled but the effect is so minor you won't notice it. And yes, it is silly to turn it off in combat as you disable the systems that you need to defeat the enemy. That said all our SMEs have basically unanimously said that it is ridiculous and not something anyone ever did for real. And like @fat creason mentioned, it's just as with the flaps, one or two high profile pilots saying it's a thing but all the other guys say it's ridiculous.

PD-STT is not an exception, in this case it'll be a normal active launch and the missile will be active, this is an exception to the normal SARH PD-STT behavior when within 10NM.

The missile messages are encoded in the normal radar emissions from the AWG-9 and recieved by a rear antenna in the missile. Edit: Just to clarify, this has no bearing on the modelling in DCS, it's just not important to how the missiles are modelled.

Then that's working how we coded it at least. The AIM-7 ofc can't launch silent as it would be completely ballistic.

This. Basically, afaik, the datalink is only good enough for giving the missile a general idea of where to go, so it guides the missile until it finds the target with its own seeker looking for the AWG-9 returns. I'm not the right guy to ask for ETA on stuff. But we are currently working on moving the AIM-54 to the new missile modelling system, it is taking some time getting it right though. ECM affecting loft on the AIM-54 is completely related to the anti-jamming functionality for the AWG-9 and that's a tough nut to crack as we'll have to simulate some analog functions of the AWG-9 and how they show up on the displays. Best I can give you there is that it's something that we regard as needed to be able to launch out of early access.

And the data-link.

The WCS works the same in both STBY and ON (XMIT), in STBY the radar energy gets sent to a dummy load instead though. This inhibits hot trigger for AIM-7 as it needs radar guidance but it still allows it for AIM-54 as it don't for ACM modes. Slaving the radar to TCS still works and the antenna will follow but silently. The issue here is that the target should get an active missile RWR indication as soon as the missile is in range and the missile should only steer once to the correct line of sight after launch and then not guide until it acquires the target on its own when in range. It shouldn't really be a thing for over, say 20NM and if it is we might have to start to artificially limit this in some way. The RWR warning this is strange and sounds to me like we have to talk to ED about that as at that point the missile should really be a normal active missile giving a warning to the target by itself.