Alpha

Hi. When using the BRU-41 with 6 BDU-33 each (standard) on the outer stations the rack causes extreme drag. Mil Power level flight with no other loadout is in the low 300s around 10k msl. Flew with a bunch ob guys, everybody had the same issue. If you jettison the BUD-33s it does not change much - but as soon as the whole BRU-41 rack is jettisoned the jet wakes up and accelerates to normal performance. Nellis, Standard Atmosphere. Regards

Will check for the registered deflection and provide track. Procedure-wise: done as before the patch, as in real life and as per the manual. edit: Just tried again. Nellis, normal Startup. Flight Control Check with Aileron left worked fine, right didn´t want to register kick initially. Deflections full as per control window. Kick worked on second try. Did another flight control check after ready for taxi with flaps down - no kick at all possible. See track. (End of track with airborne part is for the trim issue ). NTTR_Training_V7-20241003-011343.trk

If there´s a way I can help (provide a track, for example) I´d be glad to do so. Setup is standard TM Warthog, no changes in anything I can think of to impact click timings. Just tried in a 4ship with 3 other guys - everyone had the same issue despite different hardware. edit: Please see attached track (same as for the rudder kick thing. Interesting bit starts airborne, with the level flight segment at the end, around 11k ft). Last part when airborne shows the "smallest klick" I can manage - any one of which leads to immediate pitch change and vv from +500fpm to more than -500fpm. That´s a bit extreme for a single trim click NTTR_Training_V7-20241003-011343.trk

Flight Control Check: Since the recrent update my crewchief doesn´t report the rudder kick with full aileron deflection and stab aug engagement (and no return to normal while using the paddle, abviously). No matter how slowly done, no matter how much time since last control movement. No matter if left or right. I didn´t change a thing on my control setup.

I agree on the "too good" differential braking. IRL the nosewheel steering has good authority and you don´t have to give the amount of care to braking each side equally as it´s currently the case in DCS. Sure, the real pedal has way more resiatance than home setups, but anyway... It´s worth adjusting

Just got back to the DCS-F4 after a break - the elevator trim issue is still unsolved. While I have no doubt that you guys modeled it very well from a technical standpoint it´s still too aggressive (at least on my, rather average, setup) as it currenty is. IRL the Phantom does not show a noticable pitch up just because of one click of "nose up trim". In real life it trims very much like the T38 and you usually use multiple, short clicks while flying. IRL you trim while doing wingwork (flying fingertip while flying loops, rolls etc) using multiple short clicks a lot - that´s way different from what we currently have here. Yes, it´s been a "few years" since I flew the real F-4 (and T-38 before that), but I´m sure it never responded to a single trim click like it does in DCS. Also asked another former F4-Driver if my memory is just off - he´s also sure it never behaves like what he sees on his DCS-Rig. Take a normal, stable in-trim Flight at mid-alt und mid-speed and trim one click - it shouldn´t jump like it currently does. Please have you SME look into it again. During normal flying I´d recommend about half the trim change per click. Thanks

That´s not Bingo. Bingo and Joker Fuel will be monitored by the Pilot (Crew, but it´s a bit hard to see from the WSO Seat) by frequently checking the gauge. No help by the system.

Yeah, that´s me, Sile

Agreed. While the real jet required lots/frequent trim inputs it was always short klicks - a lot of times multiple klicks. In DCS (on my system) I find that a single, short klick already has quite a lot of effect. A bit less effect per klick would be closer to what I remember - but it´s not really "worlds apart" . Using MT.

My bad - forgot to mention that i´m not talking about Guns but missiles. Guns is fine, it computes the solution as it should. The problem is when using Heat/Radar (i.e. Missiles). What it should do is point the LCOSS to the targets location (that´s why we called it "poor man´s TD-Box"), obviously without any lead-calculation etc. It currently just stays at Radar bore. Easy Example: Have a 2ship in front, line abreast with good spacing. Have a sparrow selected, lock up one of those jets. The LCOSS should point to the one you have locked with the radar. This is definately true for the F-4F, I re-checked with other former F-4F Pilots as well. As we never flew the -E we´re pretty sure it should do the same thing - but obviously can´t say with 100% certainty. Hope this helps.

@Zabuzard: Just to clarify: Your version of the F-4E doesn´t have the APU, does ist? Because I tried finding the APU Test-Switch left of the left Throttle for real-world startup procedure (you always want to check the APU right after getting external Power) and there isn´t any (or I was completely blind, which is a possibility).

Excellent Module and it feels very much like the real thing! With Sight-Mode Air-Air the LCOSS should indicate the locked Target Position, it currently stays fixed at RBL. Was used like a "poor man´s TD-Box" in real life. Caveat: I never flew the -E, but this is true for the -F, which is pretty close to an -E, systems-wise. Please check with -E SMEs. Great Job, Heatblur!

Well, there´s been at least two real life Fighter Pilots in this thread alone who tried to help you understand the difference between a computer game and real life (something close to 100% of people here do understand) and why one sentence, torn out of context, might have led you to such a mistake. It´s not our job to make you understand and instead of choosing to learn and broaden you knowledge you chose not to. So far I have "read checklists" with enough comprehension to fly safely and professionally real-life military and civilian aircraft for decades - and to be amused by individuals with zero RL background making bizarre comparisons between Computer Games and Real Life

The "no" was to the idea of "Real Life Flying being different to Computer Gaming" as being airframe specific. That difference exists for any airframe. I´m absolutely sure that I´m not the only one flying real aircraft - never thought or said otherwise. And of course there are a lot of differences in flying different aircraft like those you mentioned - I don´t understand your question? "Thus I still think that AAR per se is not always harder IRL than in a simulator." - Without going into the semantics of what "harder" means (sts) one can easily imagine somebody playing DCS with a keyboard and 10fps, that will definately not be easy. But that´s beside the point: The Discussion was about somebody thinking that "if one can do it in DCS you can do it in real Life" and such ideas of comparability. The answer was and is: Nope. Being able to do fine in DCS (or any Computer Game for that matter) doesn´t mean much IRL.

Of course Sim can be harder than Real life - but only for those, who can do it in real Life and find it comfortably easy there. Of course it is "harder" for _them_ in a Game - as it´s a different thing. It´s faulty logic to interpret this as a statement like "if you can do it in a Game/Sim, you can do it in real life". Also a quote like "FYI, the T-38 and so on does not teach flying. " is another huge misunderstanding of Aviation and Gaming you´re showing. There´s quite a reason why T-38 starts with a Contact Phase and why almost everything done in T-6 is done again in T-38. A high performance Jet flies rather differently from a T-6, one learns all that while flying the T-38. And a lot more as the envelope expands dramatically. The T-38 in fact teaches very, very much of flying. No, you don´t always need/do Sim-Lessons before going to the real Tanker. The first time I refueled from a KC-135 was from - the real one. That´s a bit airframe specific as ours didn´t have a fancy Dome-Visual - but it´s nothing we need anyway. At this point in training we´re flying fingertip comfortably which is more complex than following a tanker. It´s just about getting to know the sight picture (and getting used to CG-changes). Sims and VR are a Training-Tool for very specific parts of Training. They hardly replace any real-world-flying, they add to it. The huge Difference between a Computer Game with it´s Limitations and Real Life is obvious to almost everybody here and anywhere else.