Swift.

Any update on this bug?

Don't be mistaken, it is possible to 'fly good' in DCS right now. I'll be honest, I'm not really seeing all the issues people describe with the rudder oscillating or having to 'fight' the SCAS. Admittedly I haven't flown in the patch from Wednesday, but this is from the last update: The only oscillations I see are ones I induce myself, because I'm just a dumb fixed wing pilot that thought apache looked cool I'd be interested to see some clips or tracks of the problems people are having!

I dont have the brain power right now to figure it out, but is it perhaps taking the 'QFE' to the decks altitude, rather than QNH? Some 60ft difference

When I say performance charts, I don't me the EM diagrams, but the basic flight performance stuff: fuel burns, cruise speeds, TOLD, asymmetric limits. All of which are very useful in DCS if you want to employ it in any sense more than just 'missile go brr'

It's a page you can put on the DDIs that allows basic backup UFC function. Useful for partial panel stuff...that's not modelled in DCS yet.

What else had you been doing that flight? Any other weapon drops, did you rearm? etc

There may well be battle damage modelled, but there are no failures as such. If you dont hit anything or get hit by anything, nothing will ever break. Contrast that to IRL hornets, where something breaks pretty much every flight.

I think that behaviour is described by Mo in the post I linked

I think it depends, there may well be a force QNH used in theatre or something like NTTR where you use Nellis QNH over the whole range.

Continuous lase for buddy lasing? Where is that coming from?

What speed were you at when trying to manually schedule the stabilator? Try moving it whilst on the ground and see if its a binding issue (if you can move it at all whilst stationary). Additionally, if you are having to hold constant stick pressure. Try using the trim?

There are two things at play. There is the slew rate being limited as per the real aircraft. Which is not being discussed here. The bug is that the actual video feed for PNVS runs at a seemingly lower frame rate than the TADS. So even moving your head incredibly slowly, will result in stuttering views.

Just double checking, you are putting the master switch forwards right? I can imagine DCS might default it to rear for night time and forward for day time.

nullReference this as an approximate plot of the ATFLIRs masking limits in DCS. You can see how it can look all the way back to about 40 degrees off the tail. I know I'm diggin way too much into a film, but remember aswell that the 'apex' of your dive wont be on the target. So you climbing leg may well be displaced far enough towards the ingress direction that you aren't look straight back, but are looking more down.

They used ATFLIR, and it depends

Hi, Would you advise I make a wishlist post about it? I figure that's probably the best place for items that are not planned but are highly desired. Thanks

Any movement on this request? I know it was initially tagged as Not Planned. But I was hoping you could, idk, plan it. Not only is Nitehawk way more appropriate for our alleged 2005 era USN hornet. It could also signify the inclusion of other things such as the LST and Navflir pod. So in summary, I think the inclusion of: - AAS-38A TFLIR - AAR-50 NAVFLIR - ASQ-173 LDT/Cam Would be a significant improvement in the accuracy of our circa 2005 lot 20 hornet as operated by USN/USMC. And would add some really interesting and fun elements to the simulation.

+1 super critical feature request IMO. You've spent so much energy creating the ACLS system, only for it to not be used by online groups because it's tied to a single player comm system! Super simple fix, super important impact

Yep for sure, hence the in game derived performance charts. You might be surprised to know that those charts have a use other than complaining about flight models. Some people actually plan their flights. For example, I can't remember the last time I flew without referencing the charts for hornet or apache (the two airframes I fly).

Well obviously ideally you'd use the RL charts. As you do for hornet. But I don't think those are available for typhoon. So it's obvious that someone will eventually have to produce them, I just imagined it would be easier for the Devs, with their existing FM data to generate the charts. Than have a user try and approximate them using experimental evidence.

I'm just hoping that we get some performance charts based on the in game flight model supplied with the manual. Otherwise I'll be settling in for months of testing and recording data in the hope the FM doesnt get changed.

idk about other countries, you specified USMC squadrons. But to be fair, there are probably still some ancient hornets in the training squadrons, idk if they are still running OFP MC 19C though

The software our hornet is running is a far cry from the stuff the real jets are running nowadays

0.5 inch is already a lot bigger than what we have in DCS

Yeah NATOPS doesn't mention anything about the stick having to be centred for AP engagement. All it specifies is that roll angle must be less than or equal to 70 degrees and pitch angle less than or equal to 45 degrees. But regardless of what the real jet does (although I still maintain the above), in DCS we dont have the real jets stick. So compensations must be made, and the required compensation here is to allow an AFCS engagement deadzone, separate to that of the normal stick.