Slant

Ich sehe das Problem nicht. Wenns reinkommt, toll. Wers nicht mag, muss es nicht nutzen. Ist damit die Diskussion zusammengefasst? :D

Das Entwickeln ist nicht der Grund der Verzögerung, sondern schlicht die Tatsache, dass die Navy die entwickelten Fotos nicht bekommen hat. Die sind physisch bei der Air Force gelandet. F-14 landet aufm Träger, Film geht per Heli ans Festland und byebye Intel. Bis da was zurückkam gingen Tage ins Land. Das war in der Tat Politik zwischen den Streitkräften, Planungspanne, und weniger eine Notwendigkeit um etwas auszuwerten oder ähnliches. Die F-14s wurden nicht umgebaut. Du hattest in einem Squadron 1-2 Tarps Tomcats, die anderen sind Strike oder FAC/A geflogen. Dummerweise wurden die allerdings mit 1-2 Tage alter Intel losgeschickt, so dass sie oft einfach keine Ziele mehr gefunden hatten. Das war 1998, der Lantirn Pod war nagelneu und die Squadrons haben die Bombcat Doktrin quasi live entwickelt. 2003 in Irak haben wir dann ziemlich gute Einsätze der Tomcat gesehen, dafür wurde in Kosovo das Fundament gelegt.

Wenn es nur so wäre. Der Tarps Filmstreifen muss erst entwickelt werden und geht dann an irgendein Intel Heini und zumindest im Kosovokrieg war es zu Beginn so, dass die Navy die Fotos erst nach der Air Force bekommen hat, teilweise 1-2 Tage später. Der Nutzen von Tarps war für die F-14 eigenen Strikes relativ nutzlos, erst recht bei mobilen SAMs. Du hast vermutlich recht mit Irak (wenn du den zweiten meinst, also 2003), ich glaube die haben den Prozess nach Kosovo verbessert, aber am Anfang war es wohl ziemlich frustrierend.

Not to belabor this point, but there are no EM charts for the Typhoon available. So clearly the manufacturer and the various participating militaries disagree with you. Also, remember that while we have "some" diagrams for the existing airframes in the DCS arsenal, they are just exerpts. We do not - by any stretch of the imagination - have a complete set of EM charts publically available for any of the planes as far as I know. And there are a lot of these sets per airframe. So, whether or not you can see a reason for it, TrueGrit is going to comply with restrictions put upon them, as they have pointed out. Manage your expectations, please. Let's not get ahead of ourselves here and then complain when things don't quite turn out the way we want them to. :)

Don't get hung up on dates. It's close, maybe it's this patch, maybe the one after, but we can see it on the horizon already, that's for sure. And after that we can expect some serious bug fixing and finalizing of both models. It'll be a good time to get your input in! :)

I'm not an analyst, but it seems to me that you are making some rather big assumptions about how well you can reverse engineer an aircrafts combat performance. Even with perfect photogrammetry and CAD models, there is a lot in the avionics, engineering design decisions and engine design decisions that affect performance, especially near the limits, which is what you'd be interested in as the opposing side. I would not push into that line of reasoning, as it is again not going to lead anywhere. Wait and see is unfortunately the best thing we can do. Let TrueGrit do their work, trust in their integrity and that they understand where we're coming from (which they have demonstrated again and again in their statements). If stuff goes wrong, hey, thankfully it's just code and not an actual multi-million dollar jet, they can always fix it and tweak it. :)

I'm picking this post as a hook into the discussion, so don't feel personally addressed... We know the A-10 does not have the actual RL performance. This has been the case for many years. Still, it's considered the most accurate and detailed module in the game by many. What is this obsession with EM diagrams? They exist, the developer has seen them and has access to them. This module will not have the precise performance that those classified EM diagrams show. But given that they are experienced in the Typhoon, it's not a far fetch that the deviation from the actual EM performance is very intentional and in accordance with restrictions placed upon them by the military. So... my question is... if we can make a reasonable assumption that the model is based on the actual EM diagrams as a starting point (which they will never confirm, because why would they go through the trouble of dealing with the military asking them what the heck they mean with that exactly), why is that not good enough for some here but it's fine for the A-10? Do people actually think the developer sits in his room and throws dart at a chart to figure out the FM? Of course it's going to be based on EM diagrams and his experience. And of course it's going to deviate from those, maybe even substantially, like everything in DCS does for obvious reasons. That should be enough for anyone in this thread. Now... the real trick question is: Can they manage to deviate from the EM performance in a way that it feels "real enough" to us? That is where their experience comes into play and why it's so important to have SMEs. As for the PVP crowd getting their pants in a twist and warming up to the inevitable (and equally stupid) balance discussion... rest assured that performances in the game typically are botched under the actual values. This excludes bugs, obviously, but in an ideal world without bugs (lol), you can be reasonably sure that the numbers are going to be worse than they are IRL. Just my two cents, this is quite a moot discussion. I would worry about this topic when... I don't know, EA suddenly decides to make a module for DCS, but not here and with the credentials of TrueGrit. Having said that, we'll have to see how it works out in the game. They are new to DCS and I am sure they are going to find many surprises trying to imiplement something into this eco system. :)

I mean, if you can't move your head around, yeah the visibility sucks. But Grumman had Pilots in mind that were able to move around. It is actually surprisingly good once you (literally) wrap your head around it.

That doesn't look like the RWR display in the corner, it looks like a display mode on the TID, judging by the stick in front of it.

Hornet lights are a bit too bright, because (I suspect) the entire DCS community always dials the knob to maximum setting, I've speculated privately that they might be more in line with "normal light" if people actually used a decent setting on that knob.

Sorry for the late reply, but this seems relevant. Are you guys aware of discrepancies in the mirrors? Blinking lights that should be steady, wrong colour etc. Am I psyching out on drugs or is that even possible? Should I make a bugreport about this?

I have uploaded the .trk file to my Onedrive: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AnH0xLoWF09IgqJeXzilFj2G8V5VZA?e=C719Ek Hope this works. It's a biggie, though. Given how unreliable trackfiles are.. I hope it's helpful. :)

Hello there! Bug: AIM-54A MK60 stops tracking close to the target. Can I reproduce it 100%: no If not 100%, how often out of 10: Unsure, it is an MP issue. Once per OP at least. How to reproduce/ description: Load MP mission, ~30 players. 10 enemy AI targets spawn and engage player group. Launch multiple AIM-54A MK60 on targets with TWS within parameters (40-30nm) Crank either direction (without loosing the TWS track, pitch back in. Result: All missiles miss. Speculation: We think it may be a network issue when many players are in close proximity, kind of related to a bug where multiple squadrons trying to tank on 3-4 different tankers at the same time will cause the server to have network issues and heavy desyncing occurs. In our example, no visible desync happened, though. Notch may be a consideration, but we feel a 0 PK is unlikely for 10 aircraft. DCS Version: OpenBeta 2.5.6.52437 (I am in part trying to find out if anything related to this was changed, since the patchnotes did not mention anything that seemed related) System Specs: CPU 7700k OC 4.8Ghz(*) GPU Nvidia 1080 8GB(*) 32GB RAM SSD Samsung M.2 960 Evo(*) [/i]OS: Win10 Peripherals: All of the Peripherals, Virpil Stick, Throttle, Rudder, A10 UFC, Buddyfox Buttonbox, TrackIR5 etc. Does not seem relevant. Mission File: N/A Track: Upload failed, give me an alternate method, pls. Video/ Screenshots: None. Mods: I do not use any mods.

Hi, sorry if this has been mentioned before, I didn't see it in this thread. When the pilot gets into the F-14 and gets a human RIO into the RIO pit, the wings are not synced to the RIO (ie. he sees them fully extended). This causes problems with other players parked next to you, as (presumably) the RIO's client will report damage to the other aircraft which then tends to explode. Often your own aircraft is damaged in the process as well. In addition, when stuff does get synced, the wings move to the correct aft position, instead of "popping" into the correct state. That can also hit other airplanes, even if you weren't initially in contact with them. We've only found ugly workarounds for it so far. My question is, could the "default state" of the F-14 be set to wings swept back? That would solve the problem, I believe.

is the twitch channel that I found the video on.

I'll check it out, thanks! :) (Btw, you got that Twitch link wrong, it's just 104th_Bullet, no cdt in the channel name)

I think you know why. It's the same reason that prevents me from elaborating. I hope you guys had good fun anyway! Would totally like to see a video of that event. :)

It's a bit short notice. I'm just one guy, but I am not monitoring these forums (for the usual reason). If you don't post it on Hoggit as well, people like me are going to miss events like this. If you have posted it on Hoggit, I totally missed it.

Bug: AB effect at night displays a box around the effect. Can I reproduce it 100%: yes (strictly 100% yes or no) How to reproduce/ description: Get airborne during night setting, engage AB in zone 4-5ish. DCS Version: OpenBeta 2.5.6.50979 System Specs: Intel i7 7700k (OC to 4.8Ghz)(*) Nvidia 1080(*) 32GB RAM SSD Samsung M.2 970 Evo(*) OS: Win10 Peripherals: Joystick: Virpil T-50 CM1 Base(*) Throttle: Virpil T-50 CM1(*) Pedals: Virpil Ace Combat(*) Others: Buddyfox A-10 UFC, Blackhog Buttonbox(*) Headtracker: TrackIR 5(*) Mission File: see attachment Video/ Screenshots: Mods: I do not use any mods. We do have a custom livery as can be seen in the video (tailfin). NTTR_Practice.miz

Don't be petty.

If you reduce brightness to 4-5, it's almost the same level as before.

Trim it out. Sounds like a platitude, but it really is the bread and butter of many things. Before you even attempt to plug in, you should pretty much be able to let go of the stick physically and still generally stay where you need to be.

Trim it out. Using the autopilot for refueling in the Tomcat is not really a good idea. If you're having issues in the pitch axis, it's most likely because you're in auto sweep mode. You need to get your wings fixed to a position (bomb mode will do just fine) and that should make life easier for you.

You turn off pitch and roll for dogfight, if anything. And the autopilot disengage lever will do that for you. When you get into a dogfight, just pull that lever. Personally, I never take the SAS off for a dogfight.

Chuck's guides are basically a quick reference, not the be all end all. If something doesn't feel right for you, feel free to do what feels right for you.