Kazansky222

I'm still getting kills just fine with them. In fact the shortest range kill I got yesterday was 20 or 25nm

I've wondered about that as well, like if it was working as intended or should it be just 1 release on the press.

Yea when I get home I'll put the miz In the op, so you can try it. Really interesting, not quite sure what could be causing it. But it is lofting about 10-12k ft but it's also holding a constant small degree of AoA which is killing its speed in the cruise part of flight.

Been a while since I've flown it, I could only remember is being a diamond or a square. And when I tilted my head a small amount, squares turned until they looked like diamonds and diamonds turned until they looked like squares, like how the clouds rotate if you tilt your head in VR.

Attached is a trk file and tacview. You will see that the Aim120 fired from the wingtips has significantly different performance then the 120 fired from a wing station, perhaps to due with this odd lofting behavior or maybe due to the 120's being mounted sideways on the wingtips. I'm not certain, but there is a fairly large discrepancy. I tested all hard-points and both wingtips, the 120's fired from both of the wingtips match, and the performance of all the wing stations match. But they don't match each-other. Tacview https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aHQJ-QVwO_qnlmzj0_UBLC3cS-h4mibS/view?usp=sharing Map Caucasus, Single player test only. F16120BUG.trk

I just bound obs right 19 and 7 to my DMS left and right buttons since most the pages don't work right now anyways.

Interesting, I actually do something similar with joy2key with the warthog on an FSSB R3 base. How do you like the F-16GRH stick? Do you feel like its really worth it if you already have a warthog stick?

To be fair the HUD IFF in the hornet is pretty bad, like if you are manuvering IE, rolling around its not exactly easy to tell, and if you're in VR and tilt you head at all, its even worse. That said I'd rather have some kind of simplified IFF system in the F-16 for now, I'd rather be able to actually do BVR combat now and then relearn some IFF stuff later if I must.

I can fire both my 9x's and I still get the pipper for the 9x seeker head in my HMCS and the growl.... :)

I imagine we'll see a fix for this pretty quickly, its a bit quality of life improvement for not alot of work... or one would think not alot of work... lol

Oh yea its 1500 feet now, high altitude drops are a go, and I got my sweet low level CCRP 45 degree toss bomb profile sorted :)

Which aircraft? I'll see if I can reproduce it.

I think the heavy boys would be cool but I think the "DCS World" needs to be a little more full before that happens.

Check your axis in the windows device manager? Maybe its acting wonky, I don't have any issue with the rudder, I just make sure I turn off the NWS before I start takeoff roll, or in really high crosswinds I turn it off reaching about 50knots takeoff roll.

You must have adjusted the HOF somehow or something, because thats not possible with a 500ft HOF.

Not sure if its been said but I'd love an Alaska Aggressor Livery, and the Navy DACT F-16 livery. Iraqi, Egyptian, and Pakistani would be cool too.

I can't wait to be able to adjust the HOF for the CBU-97 in the Viper

Thank you for that insight! Hopefully ED takes your thoughts into account sooner rather then later.

The issue is not being able to adjust the HOF, and also the terminal velocity of the CBU-97 is mach .99 which is.... crazy? Like you drop it at mach .6 or .7 and it accelerates while falling until it his mach .99, and it doesn't leave enough time for the pucks to not hit the ground before finding targets. The workaround right now is to release them from low altitude so they have less time to "speed up" in the gravity fall.

CBU-97 or CBU-105 once we get CBU-105.

Cbu-97s work fine if dropped within correct parameters, the real issue is not being able to adjust the HOF like in the a10c, but hopefully we'll be able to change it soon

tbh both if you can, if you don't mind lack of features, F-16, if you want something a little more complete JF-17

So now polls decide what unrealistic things are being put into a study level sim.

I don't think I was trash talking at all. Maybe something was lost or picked up in translation? All I said is that I hope ED forces a fix, if thats not the case then I hope somebody at poly forces a fix. And the thing is the flight model of the Gazelle really only effects the person flying it, and people who purchased it, if they are ok with it and Polychop says it good, and ED agrees that its good, fine its good. But the Mistral effects people who have not purchased the Gazelle from Polychop, its unrealistic performance ruins the experience for others. Now I don't have access to any secret documents or confidential information, but I do have nearly 20 years working in Aerospace professionally, and can do some relatively basic math, and those rough back of the napkin calculations have told me there there is not a single solid rocket propellant in existence on earth that can give the mistral the performance it has in DCS and "smokeless propellants even less so". In fact the only propellant that got it up to and beyond the performance it demonstrates in DCS is metallic hydrogen and it only exists in theory, I believe a lab have said they they may have made a tiny amount of it but its yet to be independently verified. Scientifically your missile should not perform like it does, its is quite literally impossible. Now I do not believe this is trash talking, this is just simply stating facts. I appreciate 3rd party devs bringing more life into DCS World, and I hope they all continue to grow and succeed, but not at the expensive of bringing unrealistic performances into DCS World.

Could care less about lights, but IFF, damage model, and being able to jettison tanks is pretty essential.