Snappy

Same here, too little effect of overhead lights and in general too dark cockpit in version 2.7. It only gets halfway decent when the sun shines directly onto the panel. Hope this gets fixed. Regards, Snappy

Hey thanks a lot for replying ! Very interesting. It doesn't mirror my personal experience in MP, but I will monitor this more closely next time. Could well be that my flying is not as precise and accurate as your test programm. Thanks a lot for attaching the tacview readout! very nice of you Have a nice evening, Kind regards, Snappy

Ah ok, get it now. Thanks man!

Why would you keep 6 amraams under the wings for a close in fight? It's not like you get to use them afterwards if the other guy jettisons his to get light and kills you.

This, so much! Well put. Thank you. Kind regards, Snappy

So how exactly do you know how good the overlay in the scorpion helmet is and that its superior to what has been around for some time in other aircraft? Do you have pictures? System description? Regards, Snappy

Agree. I also think, this has more to do with the Viggen being a niche aircraft, that not many people know a lot about or what exact capabilities it brings .Even within the cold war - interested group it still seems to remain something of an outlier, compared to the omni-present F-5 and Mig-21. Like in all other aircraft, what you have to learn is which switches / button you need to press to achieve a certain goal. Whether the switch is labeled french,english, swedish makes little difference for me, at least when we are talking about aircraft with a system structure level like the viggen. Its not as if you have to programm 20 pages of FMC in swedish as preflight. Kind regards, Snappy

The paddle switch on the Hornet is a bit annoying. I actually wish ED hadn't implemented it, because I guess its exploited big time in DCS and on the other hand it's a function of the FCS thats likely never really used at all in reality. It would be ok if it was used as a one time pony like Hammer said, to expend all energy at once to grab angles for a shot. Because if the Hornet misses that shot, then it's stuck motionless in space. But what I really don't like is that people habitually use the paddle switch on the other end of the spectrum. I.e. at higher speeds to get above the Hornets 7.5G Limit . And due to its uprated engines( or overpowered /underdrag FM, I don't know) the Hornet can, with use of the paddle switch, do quite a bit more G in sustained turns .And btw this is also where it seems to outrate the Viper in sustained rate. For many people this seems standard procedure going into a merge. But its a more or less a philosophical decision. I can respect Dundun, who says, in the end DCS is a game and its irrelevant whether its used in reality or not and the downsides of it are not modelled anyway.Thats his way of playing. I find it just strange that some other people keep hyping DCS's realism and how great the FM is and then happily put it ad absurdum by pulling paddle all the time during a fight. The real Hornet pilots have said it is not used for that. Sorry , I digressed into a pet peeve of mine. Gotta take my calm-down pills now

Interesting.. did you even read what I wrote? why should anyone be out of energy or altitude, just because of a tiny advantage above a certain speed range that the viper has- in DCS that is. Actually I just wrote why this is not the case if you keep droning around at mach.8., going for rate. The margin is not big enough or there at all to exploit against semi-capable opponents, in DCS.You’re lucky to outrate anything 4th gen at all. The Mirage yea. But then again, no sound Mirage Pilot will keep fighting 2C. Anyway this whole topic is leading nowhere. You can put out Viper braggadocio all day long if it makes you feel better. We’ll see what the status is after the FMs are complete.

I'm failing to see the point of doing that at such a high speed . At those speeds in a 2C fight, even if you re a few degrees further around your circle due to your small advantage in sustained rate, the distance between aircraft is so large than any semi-capable opponent could just rate around the remaining degrees using instantenous rate until pointed neutral at you again and then use the long drive to the next head- to- head merge to regain energy. If it's a fight with fox 2 missiles, even worse.

NIce to read, but unfortunately this is far from the substantial data that would get ED to change their models. I'm not at all saying the statement is wrong, the source is good, no question. But there is too little specification for applicability in DCS ,as it's not mentioned which variant and which engine variant of both aircraft the paragraph is about. Don't get me wrong, I too wish the hornets performance was toned down in DCS. But the big problem is, contrary to the F-16 , there is little data available for the Hornet with the engine variant they simulate. So it's hard to check against documents / verify the flight model. You have to trust ED, but then again, they've gotten things wrong before too, even in their much acclaimed flight modelling. (i.e. F-5 ground speed bug, or the A-10 getting an entire 1G more in capability with its A-10CII upgrade a while back). Nobody's perfect.. Regards, Snappy

The way the data is represented is very nice. However I 've some questions about it. Is the "turn speed" page supposed to be sustained rate? or instantaneous?Seems to low to be instantaneous. Unless I m missreading it, the Mirage in your data seems to outrates the F16 acrosse the entire speed range , which it definitely doesn't in DCS. At least not if we re talking about sustained rate. Regards, Snappy

Very nicely flown! Wish I was nearly as good with helicopters

Hmm, can you elaborate? Is it possible to release single bombs with which switch?! Regards, Snappy

Thanks man, that was a good one! Kind regards, Snappy

Quote: "There's really nothing stopping ED from coming in later and adding such things from time to time ya know. Just because most of the Hornet's crew is moving over to the Falcon doesn't mean work to improve the Hornet won't continue. Heck, I fully expect ED to add new features to the F-18 as they become declassified." Well I wouldn't expect any new declassified systems if I was you .On the contrary, they are already scratching things from their original Hornet goal, like certain radar modes that the real aircraft has. Anyway I'm out now. You can get stuck on Stingers as long as you like or not. It seems clear ED is not bringing them. Feel free to buy something else if its a deal breaker. Regards, Snappy

If you 're cool with delaying your Apache for several more years, while ED first does exactly this for every single weapon system(oh and conformal tanks ) the F-16 airframe (and to a degree the F-18) is capable of carrying, including those by other customer countries (as is the case with the Stingers), then fine, have it your way. Because those airframes also have more capabilities than what they bring in the sim. And btw its not touted as being "realistic" or anything. Its simply the way ED chose to simulate the aircraft. As one without Stinger capability. The more "realistic" thing only referred to dropping the idea of going to wage fox 2 war against fighter jets. Its fun yeah, maybe. Realistic, no.

Excellent .Problem solved then. Buy the Mi-24. Then you get R60. You won’t get any of the many push-to-win buttons/capabilities of the Apache though. regards, Snappy

"Now, here's the kicker, in a training scenario, that 70s era attack helo managed to 'kill' an F-15, so it's not that much of a stretch to give more helicopters A2A capability." That is not a kicker, nor is it sth. new. Look up the joint Army/AirForce J-Catch excercise from the late 70s if you havent already. Helicopters fared well against jets before, in close-in knife fighting with guns, even without stingers . If you have to personally deal with fixed wing threats without CAP, you shouldn't really be flying there anyway (unless you do it for fun in a sandbox scenario). Any semi-smart modern fighter jetpilot would just engage you with short/medium range missiles from out-of-stinger range anyway if he detects you. And if he doesn't you certainly shouldn't be drawing attention to yourself by lobbing low PK stinger shots his way. I seriously doubt attack helicopters get send into high threat(from air) areas without air cover. "Basically, I believe that if a plane CAN carry something in the real world, it should be able to do so in game, no matter how impractical it is." Yea, I get that from a sandbox playstyle point of view, that this would be nice to have. But it's just not practical and would need to be applied to all other ED aircraft too and that adds just way too much workload&complexity on ED. The US army doesn't really seem to use it, other nations do yes. So does that mean the F-16 should get the entire isreali weapons loadout that they use with it? Anyway form Joelsi's post it seems that this is not happening anyway, so we can drop the discussion. Regards, Snappy

Yea, that statement is likely true for real life. In DCS, no .Though I personally tend to think the issue is more on the Hornet side of things, not the F16 FM.

No , I think you misunderstood or misread what he said. The part of being noticed by the locked on enemy was referring to using RWS. Thereafter he specifically said "But if I don't wanna let him know, I use TWS. " I would also prefer a more realistic simulation of the TWS weaknesses/limitations in the F-16/18 by ED. Regards, Snappy

Totally looking forward to see you doing exactly that. Seriously am. I'm afraid you might be in for a rude awakening, but if you actually pull it off even better. Will check the future participant lists of the usual big brawls for your name and hope to see you put this into practice. kind regards, Snappy

Hey Lace, just wanted to say thanks for the mission ! I just had my first go at it and enjoyed it , even though I wasn't successful haha. Things were going a bit too well for my liking and everything seemed quiet, which added to the overall feeling I might be overlooking sth. First indicator of this was an RPG hitting my helicopter I'm going to try again. Good idea for a Mi-8 mission, it was fun hovering over and scouting ahead of the convoy. Thank you! Regards, Snappy

Ok then , I simply used more decimal points in the conversion..Thats why I ended on a 6. Regards, Snappy

Unless it’s a typing error regarding the baseline numbers on your part, already your first lbs to kg conversion is seemingly wrong , by some 87kg too light. 26888 lbs is 12196 (rounded down) kg , not 12109 kg Not much in the grand scheme of things, however my point is, if you expect to have this taken serious by the dev team, probably better to have this basic stuff correct. regards, Snappy