Snappy

How? Is there a new way to submit bug reports other than here? Serious question

That’s not a workaround. The problem is not the arming/refuelling, but the wheel chocks which are placed in the default cold&dark state . Most online Cold War servers use cold&dark state so you can‘t use the Mig-19 at all, because you can‘t overpower the chocks , even in full AB .(which in itself is probably another bug) . You re stuck in the parking position. Let me know if you have a work around for this. this should be hotfixed asap, because it renders the air unusable for multiplayer in large part.

Hi, I think the air to air AKAN manual gunsight is buggy as well. The target wingspan markers are wrongly orientated. They always stay parallel to the horizon, which makes them useless for their purpose (which is to find range to target). They should be oriented parallel to the Viggens own wingline or in other words bank angle , so that they can be used for ranging when you align plane-of-motion with your target. I attached a screenshot to illustrate the issue. The target is in a simple horizontal turn, yet you can't use the wingspan markers to get range, because they're simply in the wrong axis and even if you perfectly align your plane of motion with the target's that doesnt help you. Interestingly though, the little fin-like top marker in the upper part of the symbology is correctly orientated to the Viggens wingline/bank angle. The wingspan markers should be orientated / aligned the same way with the VIggens horizontal axis/wingline. I drew the correct position into the picture in darker green. That way the sight can be used correctly once you align your plane-of-motion with the targets plane-of-motion. I know air to air was only a secondary role for the AJ/AJS variant, but still would be nice if this could be improved.

You misunderstood me . I didn't say there are no stall speeds, but that aviation is moving a away from the concept of a fix stall speed. Because the stall speeds you can find in some aircraft manuals are only ever true under specific conditions (1G, specific aircraft mass,configuration, center of gravity etc.).So they are very subjective. As soon as conditions change, the speeds are no longer true . You can stall an aircraft at any speed, yes read that again, any speed - as long as you can generate sufficient G to reach and exceed critical AOA. If you fly a cessna 172 or similar you usually dont need to concern yourself with more than 1- 2 G during the entire flight, but even at "only" 2G , stall would already occur at a very different speed than under 1G, which illustrates why the concept of "fix" stall speeds has limited applicability. It is useful for calculating safe approach speeds and It has applications in regards to certification of aircrafts, but thats entirely a different matter. Air combat is seldom performed at 1 G. You still don't seem to understand that the Mig in your example does not have a speed loss from stalling. It has a speed loss because its wing generates too much drag if its loaded up too much in a tight turn. No I dont mean regaining energy from a close-to-stall condition, in that situation it would be a bad idea to retract the leading and trailing edge devices as you are already close to critical AOA. I meant unloading for separation or regaining energy in a fight. Yes, in BFM/ACM.There are uses for it. Be sceptical as much as you want, but separating from a fight and/ or regaining energy is a part of BFM/ACM, as is turning. Don't have to believe me, check out the Navy CNATRA P-825 / 826 docs on the internet, which are publicly available . Read the sections about unloaded acceleration and "bug out" which is the navy's term for separting.There are reasons for it. Alternatively check out the Air Force' s AETC TTP11-1 . The above mentioned official documents contain BFM/AM theory for both services. As for how much you gain, by FLAPS UP, well, for a separation or energy regain you normally want as quick acceleration as possible and me , I wouldn't leave the Flaps and Slats hanging out, producing induced drag which is exactly what you're trying to get rid off in order to maximize acceleration. Anyway, I'm out at this point. @razo+r seems to have more patience & energy than I do Regards, Snappy

I think you have to let go of the notion that there is such a thing is as stall speed. I know the concept is still somewhat popular in general aviation, but its not the speed or lack of speed that causes the stall, its the exceedence of a critical AOA. So its not as important whether plane A or B loses more speed in a high G turn (non sustained). If plane A due to its wingshape or due to not having leading edge extensions has a lower critical angle of attack it will stall first, while plane B with a different wingshape and /or leading extensions can pull to that AOA and still not stall. The use of the Flap UP position is, if you want to rapidly accelerate and regain energy. Then you can unload the aircraft (i.e. push to <1G, preferable close to 0G) and pull up the flaps,because thats more efficient. You want to reduce induced drag (and indirectly therefore lift) for maximum acceleration and so you retract all devices than generate additional lift(and drag). The plane can't sense what you want to do and auto-flaps would aim to provide you with adequate lift, which under these circumstance is exactly not what you want. You use the Flaps UP position for that. But of course you need to have some altitude for it. Obviously cant do it at tree top height. Regards, Snappy

Sorry sLYFa, you were completely right, I just read the specific part in the manual again, not sure how I could read it that wrong, it is really like you said : All six channels selectable on the overhead dial are VHF and putting switch No. 7 (in my original post) down, selects UHF mode & the seventh channel , the only UHF one, which is UHF 243.00 Mhz. If you do that, it doesnt matter which channel you select with the dial. I guess the last part had me confused somehow, as I wasnt exactly sure how to access the UHF frequency. Thanks to you its much clearer now. Thanks a again for your kind help! Kind regards, Snappy

Thank you for your answer slYFa. There are six not seven channels on the selector and according to the manual channel 6 is UHF 243.00. Not sure which channel 7 you mean? Regarding the R-828 homing. Yes I think the ARC UD needs to be on for that too .But setting the compass mode to ON is what overrides the channel selection on the overhead panel? thank you , regards Snappy

I noticed something similar on red side. You can be sometimes very close to red smoke and still the homing indicator doesn't pick up anything and then again sometimes you get a signal indication (on Channel 4 of the ARC-UD with an alive needle indication ) and it leads you all the way over across X sectors to the other end of the map. @Enigma89 could you kindly double check that the CSAR radio homing is set up correctly for both sides and please do a practical test if you find the time? Maybe the signal output strength / range needs tuning. I would expect the beacon to lead me to nearest downed pilot and not all the way across the map, especially since it doesnt provide range , like Mordants already said. Thank you very much, Kind regards, Snappy Edit: Also, side question: is there a time delay between a Pilot ejecting and once he starts transmitting his beacon? Do AI ejections from bombers for example generate downed pilots too?

Hi, somehow I find the ARC-UD radio for homing very confusing in its setup and the manual didnt really help it getting it clearer. As for as I understood it, the 6 channels on the panel are fixed and preselected, the first 5 being VHF frequencies and the last, No.6 , being 243 AM. So why is there the VHF/UHF selector switch? (Switch Number 7) on the picture. It seems unnecessary ,since the selection of the channel already determines whether I scan for VHF or UHF. Also, another question , something else which is not clear, for homing, how does the ARC-UD determine, whether I want to home on one of the ARC-UD's 6 preselectable channels or whether I want to home on one of the channels of the 10 channels of the R-828 radio? You can't really unselect the 6 channels of the ARC-UD (selector no.3 on the picture) ? Last question , regarding Switch No.2 in the picture: Is "high sensivity" the up or down position? Does it make any difference in DCS? Thank you , kind regards, Snappy

@NineLine track attached. Not sure it makes sense, since I thought AI behaves differently in each replay. But anyway : Player Mirage vs F16 AI on veteran. In this case the AI didnt do the vertical zoom, but the track (or at least in my original fight) shows the two other issues: 1.) its just droning around in circles , only alternating between horizontal and vertical circles . It does nothing else and even this 2 circle fight it does not do well, the F-16 should easily outrate the Mirage if it was flown well. 2.) The other issue you can see it simply doesn't react at all to being shot at. I fired several times in the fight, on purpose not killing it, but close. It still doesnt jink, change plane of motion or do any evasive tactic. It just keeps going on the same flight path it was on before, which is just stupid. I attached the mission as well in case you need it for the track to work. Regards, Snappy F-16veteran.trk M2000HAF16C.miz

Ok thank you!

In any way it would be nice to have an update after 7 month of ongoing work.

Ok I have a question. I joined as Mi-8 in the following scenario (see attached pic). The red FARP in question was the only one I was able to spawn and its literally the furthest back and as far in the red side backyard as possible and therefore as far from the front as it could possible be. Still upon trying to load troops to change the course of war, I get the message "can't load troops this close to the frontline" . Well thats unfortunate and quite frustrating. How am I supposed to help change the front /battle, if I can't even get troops in my own backyard. Can this be adjusted, at least for the scenario when you are deep in your own territory, regardless of the front?

Just tested in the latest version of open beta and the issue is still there. Any ETA on the fix? Kind regards, Snappy

Maybe its better they finish the stuff they already have released and the one which is currrently in developement? Its not like EDs plates aren't already somewhat overloaded..

Ok,thanks for doublechecking Machalot!

Am I overlooking it, or is the AKAN A/G gunsight wrong firing cue , that results in the rounds going constantly low, not in that list? Its a major issue and quite old too. Otherwise glad to see the Viggen finally getting a lot of love!Good Job HB! Kind regards, Snappy

No, you re just completely missing the point and misunderstanding me. For all I care , ED could've made the wings break at 10.1 G, it wouldn't detract me from enjoying the module. Because I wouldn't be fighting in a realistic way at those G-loads anyway and if I constantly broke the aircraft inadvertently because I yanked too hard , then I would try to work on my flying skills and feel for the aircraft. What do you need 11G for? Seriously for what? What does pulling 11G give you, that you can't do at 9G , which you can pull in the F-5 and even then you re already exceeeding limits quite a bit. Why do you think even todays modern fighters that arguably have considerably more performance than the old F-5, are normally limited by their FBW to around +9G? The Airframes are certainly able to generate more, but probably it just doesn't make a lot sense, because as a Pilot you re not longer operating very efficiently at above 9G.People are getting the wrong ideas, because they can still move their heads around and look around like they re sitting on the couch and the whole person is not weighing a metric ton. Even the F-16 can't pull more G (short limiter exceedences aside , which are <1G, so still below 10G) due to the FBW limiting you. Sure , no FBW in the F-5, but seriously do you really need to pull more G than an F-16 to win? This has nothing to do anymore with realistic fighting or aircraft employment. The turning G-Limit is up for discussion and I can't comment on that , but I wouldn't underestimate the effects at 7 G , because to roll one wing will generate significantly more G and the asymmetric load is probable not exactly easy on the material.

This is a fatigue integrity program, it has almost nothing to do with normal operating procedures and what limits the pilots were expected to respect. Otherwise you could drop the whole G- limitation chapter from the FCOM and replace it with , "pull as much as you want , just keep it below 40x +9G occurences/1000hrs" Still even then ,on average that would be only one +9G occurence during every 25 flight hours. If you assume a 2.5h sortie length, (which is very optimistic, given that most DCS flights on popular cold war servers are a lot shorter) , that would translate into one 9G event ( assumed ) per every 10 flights. That alone should tell you a lot on what the USAF really assumed how its Pilots performed & behaved in regards to taking limitiations seriously. On a shorter sortie , like in DCS, you would have to perform even more flights while still only ever doing a single over-G to +9G, otherwise you're already outside the USAF fatigue profile. Do you really think this is what happens in online servers? Again, in reality you have a +7.33G RL symmetric limit in the best config, plus a roll entry G-Limit of 5.2G , depending on how much aileron you put in and how many degrees you roll. This is what you should aim for, even in combat . Sure, you can exceed it by chance , adrenaline or to survive and you can also do that in DCs , to a point which is still generous in my opinion. Are you really complaining about the edge case, that you want to be able to pull the full 7.33x1.5 = 10.995G all the time without any damage? Even the fatigue integrity programm you quoted does only account for up to +9G (wonder why?) . You can do that in DCS, so what the issue?

Oh, so it’s normal operating procedure to exceed the aircraft G-Limit ,plus the safety buffer ? Sorry but you will have to provide some evidence or source for such a bold statement if you want to be taken seriously.

I think the problem is , many people on various modules in DCS have simply becoming used to habitually over- G-ing their aircraft to exploit performance gains and now that overstressing, even beyond additional buffer results in structural damage (surprise, surprise..)the pitchforks come out. They complain about it being unrealistic, but I think people have unrealistic ideas of how aircraft are operated in reality

I don’t agree.In regards to BFM they now seem to act dumber than ever in my experience After merging they seem to drone around in big circles , not max performing their aircraft at all or alternatively make pointless zoom climbs , which makes them even easier to kill. In my latest testing setups I found them to be worse than before and the state before was already bad.Their only gameplan seems to be to get killed as soon as possible.

I think by clipping he means a reduction. So you might be getting a fix.

No. Technically it comes into play when your’e passing through a height above ground equivalent to your wingspan, so 64ft. Then it increases non-linearly until reaching the ground.At a height of 20% of your wingspan (which would be 12ft rounded down for the F-14) your induced drag has already been cut by 40% , which is significant. FYI.

I was talking about mission editor added structures, I know of that limitation. As of now, Jester still can't find or target these in editor- added structures with the Lantirn.