Snappy

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.

The discussion wasn't about the pipper or the way the Mirage gunsight operates in general as a historic sight .That wasn't what the post was about. It was about the predictive shoot cue in steady tracking solutions , not with target constantly changing directions. It has little to do with where the pipper on the snake, as it would , under ideal conditions, tell you when to press the trigger. Nevermind though.As explained, it has limitations and limited use under actual combat conditions.

I deliberately chose an extreme example with the entire jet. It boils down to how much do people want feature/aircraft XYZ in the sim. In the end its a personal preference/point of view I guess.

Yes, but the problem with that is , who defines " believable"? Just because certain aspects of DCS are not the real deal, does that mean anything else goes? By that logic, (the russian law thing notwithstanding) you could also argue for the implementation of modern red force jet. Oh, well most systems and fm data is classified and/or we dont have access to it . However lets do our best guestimate implementation based on the information we have.. Or would you rather not have a modern redfor jet? There it gets highly subjective.. Its not like you dont have enough capability in the AH-64D without it.

This has already been discussed here: In my personal opinion ED should stay away from fantasy implementations.

Congratulations on your child Alpenwolf ! There are more important things in life than a server. Hope you and your family are well ! Kind regards, Snappy

For me ( as average ballpark numbers only) what works at average weights is to set the rotor blade pitch angle to around 7 and then once you reach a indicated speed of around 200kph,the Mi-8 needs close to zero or zero anti-torque pedal input to fly straight and relatively well balanced. That way you can live the yaw trimmer off and do longer flight segments relatively hassle free. Kind regards, Snappy

Regardless of the F-16 itself. Having FBW does not automatically mean the aircraft has autotrim. It is frequently a feature or capability of FBW aircraft, but there are also FBW aircraft which are trimmed primarily by the pilots.

It’s funny to see this argument suddenly being brought out when it suits peoples agenda, i.e. to gain even more capability. While at many other occasions people can‘t yell loud enough varying versions of „this is simulation, not a game.We don’t want gamey , arcady stuff in DCS bla bla etc“

No it’s not the same HUD. Some things are similar, but for example the target caret is completely different, both in Color and shape.

The alpha adjustment is fine, but given the very limited publicly available data and EDs not really forthcoming behaviour about what they actually modelled it on I have serious doubts about its STR capability across the speed range.It wouldn’t be the first FM they got wrong, though admittedly it is often a strong point of their modules and in general they get it quite accurate it seems. I don’t count that single data point from the GAO report as a valid way of cross-checking, even if the FM meets it on that point.

True. Neither is the F-18 a F-22 that it currently does decent job of emulating in DCS. Conveniently it’s FM review just got postponed until development resources allow, which in DCS time likely means years.

Fair enough! I respect you for coming back and at least giving it a more realistic tone. Not that you need my respect in any way . regards, Snappy

Gotta love overblown subjective blanket statements like that..The supercarrier has lots of issues and functionality missing and don’t even get me started on the Hornet. Plus, hot starts are at the same time a very good for at least as many reasons.