Snappy

@Hummingbird could you kindly make an official bug report on this? I also thought this was adressed as fixed a few patches ago, but it wouldnt be first time , something slipped through on the actual update that gets released. It doesnt seem to get a lot of attention in this thread. Thanks, Regards, Snappy

Hi, slightly OT, but just out of curiosity during later cold war (70s/80s) in case of a conflict/soviet territorial invasion on swedish soil, which aircraft would have taken up the role of CAS? The Viggen could probably do it, but seems less than ideal due to its normally high speed profile&its "drop everything at once" during bomb runs. The Saab 32 Lansen? Regards Snappy

Virpil should not be an option then either for you personally.. It’s not as if Belarus and Russia are big on human rights and free speech either.. Belarus especially not, being referred to as Europe s last dictatorship and Russia.. well.

You were already told what it is for. To avoid imminent collision as a last resort and thats why it is on the flight stick and not somewhere behind your back or down by your knees. Not sure whats so difficult to understand about it. The swiss hornets (probably the same as the canadians) are also rated up to 9G.That is a totally different matter though as these aircraft have received significant structural upgrades to make this possible.So dont compare apples to oranges.

Whatever you need to tell yourself... Its been stated over and over again ,in reality the paddle is only for emergencies i.e. avoid imminent ground collision and not to enhance performance during bfm. I strongly doubt it is used in any form during training fights which nowadays tend to have strict safety rules as well, plus the moment you pull the paddle you essentially become a test pilot as you’re flying outside the envelope. Unfortunately 90% of DCS Hornet pilots on dogfight servers don’t get it or don’t care as they want to win at all costs. Just watch any given Hornet on a dogfight server and see them happily pull past the G Limit 90% of the time. Its ok from a gaming perspective, I just find it mildly ironic that these people chose DCS as their platform of choice as they basically put the strive for realism ad absurdum.

I like your optimism:)

Sure, if you want to take such a simplistic view, feel free to do that. It’s not factually wrong . Doesn‘t help though in a discussion about aerodynamic or engine performance related phenomen in DCS where it’s good to be specific. If you start throwing around the term „loss of tail rotor effectiveness“ the average guy probably googles it , learning that it usually refers to one specific condition where the wind conditions cancel out the anti torque effect of the tail rotor and then thinks „ Ah ok , so it was the wind, I need to avoid certain wind conditions in order not to encounter this Problem again in DCS.“ Which helps exactly zero, as this is not simulated in DCS and the real problem likely lies elsewhere.

Erm F-5E?

No - LTE is not simulated in DCS helicopters as of now. The developers stated the calculations involved are very complex and they are still looking for a way to implement it, the hind may feature it in some form.

@IronMike could this kindly be improved in the course of the upcoming cockpit texture overhaul? Kind regards, Snappy

Thought we just had a discussion in another thread about the RIOs/WCS‘s capability to manually send a -go active- signal to a phoenix that’s already inflight in order to save an otherwise likely to be wasted shot and the official response was, as of now there’s not enough verifiable info to implement that capability.. Edit : Here’s the thread in question,if I misunderstood you and you were talking about sth else just disregard my whole post.

Actually several people gave you good answers within this forums. However their answers seemed to somehow not align with your personal opinion on how things should be , so you didn’t acknowledge them or took extremely selective parts of their statements out of context.

Well the maintenance shop is on the carrier soo… Just kidding. I actually agree with you. Prefer a more complete aircraft too personally.

Yes I still don’t get why the small stuff like buggy TA readout that was mentioned to be already fixed internally long ago (on sep 22nd) didn’t make it into the hotfix. Ok ED didn’t announce the first hotfix in time after the big patch , but now we have the second hotfix and still it’s only containing ED stuff. Makes me really wonder how much they coordinate or to talk to to their 3rd parties about hotfixes in advance. I mean it’s not like other modules might have benefited from hotfixing too..

Definitely has a click sound for the AB gate, at least the -A model has , on my system

Are you also active in the subforums for the Hornet , F-5, ,F-16 , and so on complaining about their DM?Don‘t think so. Because the habitual bashing of the F-15 gets boring by now. Sure it would be nice if it had a better DM , but same goes for the other planes. Can’t count the amount of times I‘ve seen people over G the F-18 to 11 plus G and more habitually, because they want to win. Just hop on any BFM server and watch any given F-18 fight.. Yes it’s bad flying I agree with you, but that doesn’t preclude me from enjoying the F-15 from time to time. If I want „realism“ with it, I can still try to fly it just within its envelope.

I never said some of the performance is not on NATOPS charts, thats only your interpretation of things. Even if it was , which I'm not convinced of at all, that video is not a basis to build/change the FM on.

If I may ask , what is the point of this? First off , a video alone has so many unknown variables, like weather, temp, grossweight ,actual Gs pulled and so on , plus you can put in all the analysis you want, like spurts said, there is a difference between aoa and actual turn rate , which you cannot deduct accurately from a grainy video. The FM will almost certainly not get changed based on this. If it's however, just to show/share that the F-14 is capable of some impressive maneuvres, ok then, I agree with you and thanks for the video. Regards, Snappy

Dear Heatblur/ @IronMike the landing gear config warning light LANDSTÄLL is not working correctly at all. According to your own manual (page 82) : The first and the third condition are both not simulated correctly. The others are hard to test due to the abnormal configuration required for them. -The first condition in DCS during normal gear extension the LANDSTÄLL is not illumating solid as it should, but instead flashes. -The third condition seems to be not modelled at all. You can decelerate with idle throttle (at less than 1500m alt) to even below 300 km/h and still you get neither a flashing LANDSTÄLL nor a Master Caution. (this one has been reported before in 2017 and went under or is still/again bugged) I attached a track. You can see all 2 (3) issues. Not sure if you need the mission file too, I attached it as well, just a custom take off scenario. After take off I decelerated at below 1500m alt with idle throttle and even far below 375 km/h no master caution and nó flashing LANDSTÄLL. then I recovered ( barely ) and did a normal gear extension at the end of the track. You can see the LANDSTÄLL light flashes instead of indicating solid. As for take off, you can see it flashes also during gear retraction . I m not sure about this, the manual makes zero mention of take off behaviour but I would venture a guess, that the light should also be illuminating solid during normal gear retraction as a flashing light seems to be associated to warnings and abnormals. Kind regards, Snappy Landstall3.trk ViggenTakeOff.miz

Sure, that’s doesn’t change the fact though, that the AI is using a different flight model and can do stuff with it performance wise that it should not be able to.

Hi, it seems to me that the rotating drums with the mach no. digits in the Airspeed indicator as well as the the QNH reference value drum in the Altimeter are textured /animated the wrong way around, i .e. on the drums in DCS the higher numbers are downwards and not upwards. I mean this: As you can see the higher number is below the lower number. I looked at a few pictures of the real aircrafts cockpit and there it is the other way around, the higher number being on top: On the second pic the Mach meter is harder to make out, due to the dashes in front , but it seems to read 4,5,6 from bottom to top This pic is from the SFI AJS 37 del 1 kap 1 manual, again the dashes are in the way, but if you look carefully it seems to read 7,8,9 from bottom to top , again the higher numbers being above. I can attach a track, if needed let me know, but the pictures explain it . Due to way the drums are textured in DCS, the rotate the other way around i.e. animated downwards for higher numbers. This seems to go for all digits in the drums, not just the last ones. Kind regards, Snappy Edit: To be fair, regarding the main altimeter qnh value window drum , there are 2 conflicting illustrations in the aircraft manual, but given the photos I think the real system was designed with the higher numbers being above. The mach meter seems to be definitely wrong.

Very understandable, thought it might be that. Thank you for answering . Kind regards, Snappy

Fair enough. But just to understand this correctly, your own RIO SMEs are saying this was straight out not possible? Or you can’t verify it with them, because it encroaches on an area of sensitive information? kind regards, Snappy

There might differences in other areas ,like different drag , different engine inlet construction etc..

How should ED determine the limits for any of their aircraft?