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

I read it. Doesn’t change the fact that’s it’s already very potent as it is.You just have extremely high expectations, which is ok. However I for the most part have medium level expectations in regards to other aspects of DCS, which right now work nowhere as well as the aim-120 does now. Personally I’d rather see those addressed, perhaps similar to the OP, than having the aim -120 simulated to perfection. But I’m giving up now.These discussion usually never lead to any changes.

Dear reflected simulation, with the upcoming release of the HB Forrestal, is there the possibility of a Forrestal version of this campaign for those people who don’t have or dont want to buy the supercarrier module? I know its a lot of hassle and work to redo it, so its really just a question, I understand if its too much workload for you. And while we‘re at it, you once mentioned a possible Zone 5 sequel with you teaming up with BIO again.Is that still in the cards? Thank you and kind regards, Snappy

Hi Jonsky, sorry for my late reply.Thank you very much for your that answer, I already thought it might be difficult. But thats a starting point, thank you for the idea! Kind regards, Snappy

Your condescending arrogance is impressive..

You still haven’t gotten the point or you chose to deliberately misunderstand me. The aim 120 may be incomplete and its pk off by a bit, but the thing is and read the following again please: it works well enough as it is. You cant seriously claim its a bad missile as it is now in its present representation. While lots of other things don‘t work at all or work way way worse in DCS right now and no , I wasn’t even talking about the other missiles. So me personally , I‘d rather have a sim where most things works reasonably well/ok but maybe not perfect, instead of a sim, where a few things( example: your aim-120) get perfected to the extreme while lots of others are just not working or inadequate. However this is pointless since in the end its EDs thing and they make their decisions. As for the cows , I still don’t buy it.Sure the aircraft models are more complex, no doubt, but even then I would prefer to ED to spend their modelling ressources on at least getting started overhauling these instead of spending the manpower on unneeded cows. Still the same as above applies, in the end ED makes their own development decisions. I just don’t agree with them.

I think the point is, the Aim-120 may not be perfect but it works ok-ish to reasonably well(its not like it isn’t already one of the most capable missiles in-game) while lots of other things do not work at all or are working very badly. So why make the Aim-120 even more realistic instead of bringing the other things or at least one of those to an ok-ish level? It’s like why spent effort on adding a completely unneeded cow 3d model instead of fixing the legacy Minecraft-looking F-4 or Tu-95, S-3 ,whatever 3D models? I really don’t get those development decisions either.. Regards, Snappy

Hi, unfortunately I’m not that familiar with advanced DCS controls setup and never had much need for it anyway.But now with the harrier, I ran into a problem.I would like to assign the nozzle movement to an axis on my Hotas throttle because I noticed assigned to an axis the actual nozzle movement is quite a bit faster than compared to assigning it to two nozzles up/down buttons. The only available remaining axis on my Hotas is a spring centered mini stick.Assigning it to nozzle movement works, but because it is spring- centered the nozzle position defaults to something like 45degree down,in other words for normal forward flight I constantly need to push the mini stick to its forward stop to make the nozzles stay in up position. Is there clever way around this to still use the spring centered stick for this.Ideally stick down should still move nozzles down and stick up should still be nozzles up , but the centre default position should be not be nozzles at 45degrees but nozzles up. Sorry for the block of text, just wanted to describe the issue hopefully clearly . If anyone has an idea, that would be cool. Kind regards, Snappy

You’re out of line . Where did I say anything about wanting new textures? Its nice that to you everything seems to be perfectly fine, however just because you personally didn’t notice it , doesn’t mean the Tiger doesn’t have bugs. Among others, the RWR is bugged, , the lead-computing gunsight, the TACAN system, the engine-throttle interaction thing, excessive gyro drift , the aircraft despite being long out of early access still has no airframe overstress damage model - you can happily pull 13G without any damage . So basically we now have bugs in several critical systems, offensive,defensive, navigation, Instruments, engine, damage model.While this is still being sold at full price as a supposedly full module, which gets close to zero bugfixing. So stop claiming absurd things, like me wanting a free texture overhaul.

Some people never cease to amaze me. ED hasn't managed to properly finish and de-bug the basic systems of the simple old-analog cold war F-5e years after its release and you re willing to throw more money at them for another even more sophisticated version that will likely end up even more unfinished and buggy due to its complexity..

Thank you very much for your awesome in-depth answer.

Hey, thanks a lot guys! Quite interesting- I had completely forgotten about the SK-60, but then again I didn’t realise it could be armed .