Snappy

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?

@DSplayer , @bonesvf103, ok to get back to this, I think I found the video / point in it about the option to send an go active command to an inflight phoenix. Unfortunately Ward Carroll doesn't explicitly name the switch, but to me it definitely sounds like there was a way to make a phoenix go active. Though its a bit confusing. It was in this video in his interview with the two guys from vVF-161 at 1:28:49 onwards.(dont know how to do a direct timestamp in the link, sorry) He talks about launching fox 3, then the enemy aircraft go into notch , ( making the missile go dumb, I would say he means from loss of radar guidance) and then goes on talking about going active to see if the phoenix is able to aquire the targets on its own . At least to me it seems like he is not talking about a phoenix that was launched active off the rail, because then it would make not sense to make it go active, as it already would've been active from the get-go. Like I said, its not proof, but at least to me, it sounds like this sort of functionality was available in some way at some point. But Im no expert on the weapon systems. Maybe you can have a look at it and share your opinion. Thanks and regards, Snappy

@IronMike, could this also be please be looked at with some priority. Cobra already wanted to highlight this, but there is still no fix to this old and annoying bug. Kind regards, Snappy

Not exactly proof, as he might have misremembered , but I think in one of the recent of Ward Carrols videos (probably either his BVR timeline vid or that other with the Q&A of those two virtual squadron members) he mentioned this too if I understood him correctly. I.e. pushing a switch in order to send a signal to the already launched phoenixes to go active and allow the aircraft to turn away.I might be mistaken though. Don’t have the time right now to look it up, if I get around to it, I can look for a time stamp. regards, Snappy

well in part you have my understanding for the resource realities , but at the same time I find this very disappointing, especially the part that heatblur is basically really unable to keep even a basic developer presence in the Viggen forums. And honestly, while I appreciate you trying to keep at least a low level track of things, PMing you is in my opinion a less than ideal solution, especially since I remember from a few threads related to this in the tomcat forums, that you can’t keep up with your inbox and stuff gets lost in there as well.( No criticism meant here to you in this regard, I can only imagine the number of PMs you get each day) I definitely agree with QuiGon , as of now I really don’t see the Viggen at a point where it entered a sort of maintenance mode and can get less attention as an older module and constantly draw the short straw in regards to updates. In fact on the contrary , the near constant lack of decent-sized bug fixing has now led to the point where many bugs, some of them have piled up, in the Viggen , plus tons of unanswered reports in the forums. So instead of basic occasional maintenance it actually needs a lot of concentrated bug fixing. regards, Snappy

I would say it depends, if you have a personal affinity to it, or to cold war era aircraft or are specifically looking for something thats easy to operate systems-wise, then you can consider it. However, me personally I don‘t buy into the “trainer” role in DCS as a sort of step up to more complex aircraft .This makes sense in the real world, but not in DCS. I would just go straight to the end-goal aircraft you’re interested in, if you have one that is. Also , again, just my personal position, given the state of the F-5 and the way ED treats the F-5 customers in regards to fixing bugs, I would not give them my money for this product. regards, Snappy

I know what Cobra wrote , I followed this thread closely , I’m not even talking about major texture or sound overhauls or features, it would be just simply be awesome if the Viggen at least got a decent amount of fixing of the many existing bugs in each update, similar to the Tomcat. Look at change log, the ratio is like 5:1 if you eyeball it and this seems to me to be the standard for many of the updates in the past months, not to say year. Anyway I’m looking what the november update brings but excuse me if I remain pessimistic about this, especially with the big Tomcat / Forrestal update happening just one month before with the potential for lots of additional fixing afterwards..

Looks like once again the Viggen got the short straw compared to the F-14..

Not too happy with the way Viggen development is handled either. Way too many big claims and announcements on priority (as desert fox impressively summarized) and far too little of actual substance in updates and bug fixing. Developer presence in the forums is still hovering near zero , only interspersed with Cobra popping in with the next big update announcement. What annoys me are the claims of “Viggen is priority now, we are pushing ressouces into the final stretch bla bla” only to find out via changelog the Tomcat again and again gets the updates , while Viggen draws the short straw. Regards, Snappy

Not so sure about that. It actually seems that the very point of upgrading from CBU 97 to CBU-105 was to significantly increase its accuracy and bringing it to precision guided munitions status by adding the WCMD and GPS guidance. The weapon itself may not have it, the GPS for it apparently was planned but dropped, but only because the delivery aircraft are fitted with GPS and it gets a final accurate position from that aircraft GPS just before launch. I don't think the VIggen would get anywhere near that GPS accuracy for release , because a) its ADR system is accumulating much larger errors over time and b) the TERNAV system that's used to update it/reduce errors would not work at the release altitudes that you proposed, because it is based on radar altimeter data and that becomes unusable at such altitudes, radar alt normally works reliably only until up to approx 2500-3000 ft . So in order to get a decent base accuracy for the BK-90 release the Viggen most likely has to stay low . Plus the CBU-105 entered service quite a bit later (in 98 I think) so its onboard processors for the flight path computation in the WCMD kit are probably more capable in regards to navigational calculations and drift compensation. ---- Yea, I read that part too about the supposed fail-proof - leave behind submunition in the Bk-90, which supposedly can't explode later. Not sure how much of that is marketing and whether I buy into that . Even if its true, it didn't make it significantly more political / ethical acceptable in reality.

Well, of course I'm not qualified to say whether or not the real weapon would be capable of such a feat in theory. I would think heatblur modelled the HUD symbology correctly. I could imagine though , one possible reason for why they (the swedes) didn't implement or didn't want to do high alt & long range stand off releases with that weapon: The higher and farther away you release, the greater the possible navigational error of the weapon enroute to target is going to be. Plus , at higher altitudes in reality you get usually/often significantly stronger winds than down low , so those might either further degrade the accuracy or worse push the weapon out of its envelope, make it impossible to reach the intended target. Plus the winds might change a lot on the way down in direction and intensity. Consider the development background time too, the early 90s, that means GPS was either still exclusive US military use or even if it was after it was made publicly available, that was initially in its less accurate mode. So you don't get that accuracy. So I'd guess the weapon guides on inertial only. I don't know how good or accurate the system in it was and how accurate the data it was fed from the aircraft was on average under actual battlefield conditions. So given all of the above, and also the general political /ethical image of cluster ammunition, I can easily imagine the swedes wanting to keep the possibility of their submunitions landing somewhere else and not on target as low as possible, even if it was deemed a necessary weapon for them. Could be totally wrong though, As for DCS, at lot of things there are modelled too perfect , so I'm not surprised that the weapon functions well from further away, but many factors are probaby not simulated that affect the real weapons, as well as a lacking weather / wind simulation. Snappy

And what exactly would be the benefit of you posting it? It will not make the modules release faster or whatever. DCS has enough overblown hypetrains already. Maybe just leave it to Heatblur to announce when they want to announce and in the way they want to announce.

This is almost certainly not true. The latest official statement from ED was, ( I think in the Hind developer FAQ/Interview) that LTE is presently not modelled in any of the helicopter flight model in DCS, due to the complexity of the calculations involved to model it accurately. Snappy

Maybe I was imagening things, I'll pay closer attention, next time I fly it.

Not sure about that. Might depend on selected aircraft type for opponent, as I have see them use the vertical in the other sim too. Plus there at least they use the same FM as the player. Regarding DCS AI, my experience is, that the AI seems to start its looping once you reach an offensive position. Then it seems like "oh I have no other ideas, lets start looping until the player shoots me down".