Snappy

This doesn't seem to work for me,although I placed the objects as static structures in the mission editor. I did a test mission in NTTR, where I placed static objects ( Hangar) on a waypoint. Used the cue to WP mode on the waypoint in question and even though the Hanger is the only object and very clearly visible object directly in the Lantirn FOV (after Jester cues to the WP) , Jester never targets it. I used search for targets -> any . He starts scanning right past it and then moves in circles but never picks it up, even though , as mentioned it is the only and by far largest visible object on the screen. Am I doing sth. wrong? Regards, Snappy Edit:BTW , could there be "structures" field addded in the the search for targets menu?

Ok, I hope you do know which instrument the HSI is. If not, check the manual or search the internet. Above its rotating compass rose is short vertical white line(at the 12 o’clock position so to say).That is the marker for your own aircraft s heading. Now simply fly a turn and watch the compass rose rotate until the 30 (stands for 300 degrees, the last 0 is omitted from the instrument) is under that white line. Now you re flying on heading 300 towards the awacs target. hope this helps, regards, Snappy Edit : I attached a picture, 1 is the vertical line, 2 is the 30 for heading 300, sorry for the bad quality,writing on mobile

@aac1730& @Johnny Johnny Johnny This is a known and unfortunately very old bug. See bug report here: Heatblur is aware of it and hopefully it will get fixed with the supposedly big november update of the Viggen. Hope this helps. Kind regards, Snappy

At this point it seems prudent to simply ignore whatever ED announces it has in the works or is supposed to come.

Yes, you’re right - I looked at the limits with a certain stores configuration.

At the moment the only thing that would make me buy modules directly from ED (third parties I view differently) are significant updates to core, especially AI and better use of hardware/ more efficient engine. I think most people are happy or at least content with the current level of visual quality, so I don’t really understand why ED tries to cram ever more eye-candy into the already squeaking engine we have now. I mean DCS right now is lacking heavily in the entire AI spectrum and it’s not as if improvements in that area , along with an improved FM for AI will come without their own cost in processing power. So personally I’d rather see them stopping to try to get ever better graphics out of the current engine and leave some buffer for other stuff that requires processing power, even if that will most likely be drawn from CPU alone. Sure they maybe can offset some of that with multi-processor support and the graphics stuff with Vulcan,but until it’s here I m sceptic if the gains will be that big , given the age of the engine.

Well for the purporse of this discussion I would say this makes no real practical difference. Because in the end G is G. You are talking about the indicated/measured G by the accelerometer which may differ slightly with speed. But this is about the actual G force on the airframe and the point at which it makes it come apart. And this actual G force limit at which damage occurs should be more or less constant under ideal conditions, which we have in the sim. ( putting aside real world factors like airframe age ,fatigue, prior damage etc..) BTW, I don't think the difference between G measurement by the cockpit accelerometer and actual G force on airframge will ever amount to several Gs within the practicable speed range of the aircraft .That would make the acceleromater highly unreliable for use at higher speed, which is something a figher jet is expected to be employed at in combat , with maneuvering. The F-5 has a symmetrical load limit of +6.5 and -2.0 G. Plus the 150% design safety factor, we're at +9,75G. Like I said , 11 G is generous, I don't mind if ED makes the airframe starting to take damage at 10G or even 9,75 Galready. But I have severe doubts the aircrafts should fall apart at around 7-8G indicated , even at higher speed. Plus the design safety factor is very likely based on calculated real G load during the stress testing , not measurement by the accelerometer. So in my opinion at up to at least 9,75 (actual ) G the aircraft should not fall apart in its entire speed range in DCS. But proceed as you must.

Ah, thanks for your quick answer ! Would never have guessed these Mozambican markings

Best wait for @Northwind to reply, but I really think this is not about the airplane breaking apart at 11G , which is a generous limit. But the point is if (in the simulation) the airframe gets damaged/breaks up at X amount of G, then this should be consistent across the speed range where the aircraft is available to generate that x amount of G. I don’t see why it can take 11 G at somewhat lower speed and only 7-8 G at higher speed to cause damage. After all it’s the G-load that damages the airframe, not the speed. I think whatever upper limit ED wants to employ , be it 8, 9, or 11 G should be consistent across the speed range. Sorry I really can’t explain it any more clearly. As for your last question, no of course not. Below a certain point it should be impossible to reach even 7G , because the lower the speed the less G you can generate due to physics.(see my bold)

I think his point is not what the actual limit should be , but instead that this limit , at which structural damage begins to occur , should be consistent across the speed range. G is G . There is no reason the airframe can sustain up to X G at low speed but not at high speed.It’s not like the G amount itself becomes more dangerous the airframe structure.The only thing that happens is at high speed the Gs usually come on quicker with less of a pull, so you are somewhat more likely to inadvertently pull more G than intended

Sorry for sidetracking again, but which countries markings are on the F-1 and the Mig-17 on this photo? The F-1 looks like a soviet star, but that can't be it obviously and the Mig-17 has me completely clueless.. Any information on the occasion of that photo? Regards, Snappy

Last official position was ( I think, might be wrong though ) , they may ( perhaps) be added sometime in the future, but if that happens, they would only be cosmetically incorporated in the 3D model, no re-writing of the actual flight model for them. Regards, Snappy

In other news, world wide popcorn prices are spiking to unheard-of levels, due to an unexplicable sudden surge in global demand.. Maybe it would be better if you guys just stated that you don't know the answer and we can return to the original topic.

Assuming your „end state“ picture on the right is supposed to show the aircraft in pure vertical attitude, please explain why the lift vector is pointing straight up? I really don’t get this. Depending on airspeed and actual AOA the wing may or may not be still generating lift, but in vertical attitude I’m pretty sure that lift would not be generated upwards in direction of flight.

That’s too bad. sorry to hear that it’s been such a frustrating experience for you both. I’m not too happy with the way ED basically abandons their old modules , at least to a large extent.. Snappy

Ok, @Ramsay& @Art-J, thank you both for your helpful and quick replies! Guess we just have to wait until ED gets around to addressing this, if ever. kind regards, Snappy

hey , sorry, can somebody just give me a summary of what the latest developement on this point now? I skimmed over the thread and in the end, there seems to have been some issues with incorrect testing conditions , but on the other hand the thread has a "reported" tag. So is the VRS behaviour correct now or getting a reduction sometime in the future? Thank you very much in advance, Kind regards Snappy.

Sure , technically it could be done, whether it can actually be done by ED remains to be seen. Personally, I'm getting zero excited about this. If you look at EDs track record in regards to the things they announce with big pomp, versus the stuff they actually delivered upon and when.. I mean, among other things MAC, public bug tracker, AI improvements , realistic FM for AI, ATC, their own voice system (yes its there, but in what state?), the other core stuff, network code, weather .. Also when you see how little bug fixing some of their older modules receive, you get the impression their plate is more than overloaded already. They are ambitious, no doubt, they even want to overhaul electronic warfare ... what they actually pull off and in what timeframe remains to be seen.. Instead of continously pushing out new announcement about what fancy big new things are to be come, I would prefer them simply to finish the stuff they already started. So I take this with a motherlode-sized grain of salt and expect it to (maybe) become a thing in 2027 or so. Happy to be proven wrong. Regards, Snappy

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you to Fat Creason and Victory205 for their continued huge efforts in further refining the flight model of the F-14. I have only an approximate idea how much testing , changing and re-evaluating is involved to get it within single digit or less percentage points of the available data while at the same time trying to make it respond correctly and feel right according to the real pilot’s input on how the real aircraft flew. So thank you both and everyone else involved with the FM very much! Kind regards, Snappy

None of the above applies in any form to the issue on dogfight servers where the huge majority of hornet absolutely pre-plan on using it from the get-go to win at any cost.

Here we go again…roll eyes..it’s as if you didn’t read the thread.Guess there’s no way of convincing people like you, even if the Hornet’s lead designer told you otherwise you’d probably still come up with arguments why the paddle should be pulled to improve combat performance.

Right, like ED doesn’t mess up FMs ever, despite their marketing hyperbole. Remember when the A-10 v2 came out and suddenly got an entire G more available across its entire range? Wonder how that got past ED and their math in the first iteration despite all their data.. Anyway we’re getting off topic, you’re right on that point..

Can‘t say I’m surprised at all. Still very disappointing as the same thing just happens over and over again. Viggen drawing the short straw. If it slips further past end of November I‘m seriously annoyed and at this point my trust in Heatblur’s PR is quickly eroding. I’m just tired of big announcements in regards to the Viggen that are then not kept or delayed again, because of the Tomcat constantly getting priority and I say that as a Tomcat customer. Sidenote/rant: I seriously can’t understand why ED is apparently unable to timely coordinate their patch/hotfix schedule with their third parties..this seems to be another recurring theme.

How is that going to work when there is no publicly available hard data charts for the F-18? That one whacky GAO report is not really usable to verify it’s flight model and ED is not exactly forthcoming on what exactly they based the whole FM on .. Sure I agree using dogfights for performance evaluation is less than ideal due to the variables involved , but I can understand where Plaiskool is coming from. It really seems to be performing extremely well in sustained rate and energy sustainability , which is hard to verify without data.

Hi @Reflected thank you for your quick reply! I can understand your position. Will be interesting to see what the changelog says . And just once again thank you very much for your Zone 5 campaign ! I’m immensely enjoying the atmosphere you created for it! Kind regards, Snappy