Snappy

Hi, thank you very much for all your answers! Hadn’t expected that many replies . Lots of good input. I hadn’t thought of the missing prop wash air flow that gives warbirds some remaining rudder effectiveness at low speed as well as the different weight distribution with big heavy engine blocks in the front of the warbirds, both things that are not there in a jet fighter.That explains why it’s difficult to do in the F-14. Bottom line: It’s more efficient to do what Victory said and use pitch authority to get the nose around back down. Thanks alot again, kind regards, Snappy

Hi, was wondering if the Tomcat ( real or simulated) can perform a hammerhead turn , i.e. going vertical or near vertical up and then rotating about the yaw axis until the nose points back down again? So far my attempts have not been very successful, I might might be guessing the speed at which rudder application is added wrong or maybe I put in too little or too much rudder. Usually I end up in some kind not-elegant flop over on the back, or a pitch hang up. I’m no aerodynamics expert, I can do this relatively well in warbirds, but I’m not sure if most jet fighter aircraft and especially the F-14 are capable of this, hence the question. If anybody has some pointers or knows whether it’s possible to do this maneuver, it would be great. kind regards, Snappy

OK, can't keep track of all bug reports from way back. Good to know. Has it been reported to ED?Does it affect Harpoons too? I can't check since I don't have the Hornet . Thanks MYSE Kind regards, Snappy

Hi Heatblur team, as far as the manual descriptions go, the RB-04 seems to be a fire and forget missile that tracks its target after launch with its own onboard radar seeker head.There is no mention of any radar update from or required datalink with the launching aircraft after missile launch. However, with the launched missiles underway and cleary tracking their target, if the launching aircraft is destroyed or crashes while the missiles are still inflight, the missiles immediately go dumb and crash into the water within seconds. Track example is attached. Of course it's desirable to survive the attack run, however getting shot down is still a possibilty in a high threat naval environment and at the least the launched missiles should still have an effect on target. Regards, Snappy ViggenAntiShip.trk

Not a complete list and I'm unable to recall the specific questions , but a basic summary of major points from the top of my head ( no claim of completeness, feel free to add to it or correct the points ) in no particular order: @NineLine you, of course especially, are free to correct me if you feel that I miss-represented any of your answers in my summary. Mosquito: Nick Grey didn't like external model, ordered complete re-do of it, which is now WIP, module therefore delayed until some time after 2.7 release Hind: raises bar in cockpit modelling, includes new cool feature (already announced to be the baked raytraced reflections, <-this reveal was not part of the interview) . MP in-game voice comms : Still work in progress , no timeline, sounded like long way off, given that available freeware alternative SRS is already very good Me-262: Unlikely at the moment for various reasons(Nineline also posed the question, how much use / fun it would actually add to DCS if modelled correctly with its unreliable engines) , also Nick Grey's personal favourite seems to be the Grumman Hellcat, so that one is more likely. Missile Performance/ Weapons effectiveness / better Ship damage model: Still Work in progress , no timeline AI: Work- in progress , no timeline , Nineline thinks current AI is already decent, actually not bad in his personal opinion new ATC: work in progress, no timeline How are future modules selected? : depends on variety of factors ( available documentation, license, SME availability, financial viability, how popular/how much is it requested , not only by vocal minorities) Side point : Tornado and Rafale popularity is acknowledged, but as mentioned, other factors play a role too. Plans for future payware maps: eventually yes, but nothing specific yet. For now focus is on improving Channel map and getting 2nd free map of pacific islands out the door. Side point: Users likely can choose which free map they want to use, if limited harddisk space is an issue. How do you manage the community/keep tally of everything ?: On how to engage: depends on personal stance / being positive - On volume of interaction: Sharing workload with BigNewy works well and helps handling it. Mig-29: Yes, planned, several employees / developers have high interest in it, at least one of them is a former Mig-29 pilot, within-company enthusiasm is there, no timeline Rework of older modules / Helicopters cockpits: Yes , in general ED likes to keep all their modules up to date as new technology / graphics become available / standard, but it's a matter of available manpower and time. So WIP, no timeline /when they get around to it. Easier accessibility of mods for MP community: Yes ED is looking into ways for providing this from server-side, i.e. option for automatic download of required mods from server when joining, so the users no longer have to download everything individually before joining. Inclusion of user-made updated models and or skins in core: Yes, ED has positive stance towards this, some high quality user skins already have been officially included, better 3D - models by users are a possibility as well , at least as interim solution, until ED gets around to updating their own legacy 3D models. Well , that's it for starters. As I said , likely incomplete, feel free to add. Still hope it helps a bit for those that don't have the time or possibility to listen to the 2 parts . Kind regards, Snappy

Hi Q3ark, hmm. Well the Nav/Attack computer takes some getting used to , or better put , some reading of the manual to get the details. (yes there are lots of video tutorials on youtube too) but I still highly recommend diving into the manual. That being said, once you got your head wrapped around it, its pretty logically designed, except for minor quirks. Its not a difficult system per se , nor does it takes tons of programming to set up an efficient navigation or attack run .Actually you can get going pretty fast , once you got the basics down. Plus in DCS you have the option of putting down a route via markpoints in F10 map and then quick-loading it into the nav computer via data cartridge. I would say medium learning curve, mostly due to the fact, that it is very different from the other aircraft / cockpit designs out there. But its not rocket science . Overall , if you like older aircraft , low level ground attack & anti-ship strikes and single pass attacks , I highly recommend the Viggen. Its a well done fun aircraft and it will likely be even better once out of EA. The cockpit is labeled in swedish, but you'll quickly learn the most important switches by their positions. Its no big deal. Just a bit of practice. Kind regards, Snappy

No offense, but are you capable of basic reading comprehension ? Nowhere did I say I was losing against the Mig-15 in an F-16. And flying the sabre changes nothing about the AI flight model of the Mig. You basically missed the entire point completely as I was talking about you wrongly claiming ED had fixed the flawed AI flight models last year , which they have not. As for the vertical move, if you were ridiculously slow at your apex then thats your overdone execution thats lacking , not the vertical follow up in itself. As I as said, with the speed you had you should’ve been fine, plus with the impressive T/W ratio of the F-16 there shouldn’t be a problem at all. As for the rest of your post and your “Interpretation “ of Shaw (which I read too btw) I won’t even bother. Actually I’m out of here, as its already becoming clear that you’re one of those people who simply can’t be wrong, despite multiple people bringing you valid counter arguments. So don’t bother replying, I’m not engaging further with you, as discussions with ‘always right’ -people like you are tiresome. So keep on, whatever you need to tell yourself. Snappy

I don't know where you are gettin this from? There was nothing really fixed with the AI's flight model. What ED did last year (or was it 2019 already?) was announce (as they do they so many other things) a new flight model which would be coming for AI in the future . However this still hasn't been implemented and yes there are still way-overpowered aircraft in DCS whether you like it or not. Not to speak of the A.I. behaviour itself, which is one of the sims biggest flaws. Metzger brought up some pretty good additional points in that regard in his above post. They made some minor bugfixing regarding the general AI behaviour in 2019, but for the most part, its still as problematic as ever. But acknowledging that this is a challenging task, getting AI to a semi-realistic level.Other sim managed to pull it off though . They did announce "substantial improvements" again for the latter half of 2021, but given that this is DCS, I'm taking that target frame with a huge grain of salt. As for your video and the issue at around 1:05 , the bigger problem is, you waited way too long (with your nose on the horizon, while you actually already had enough speed for going vertical ) before you followed him up again and thereby gave him a lot of turning room above you, which came back to bite you , as expected. But hindsight being 20/20 so nevermind.. Regards, Snappy

Cobra, thanks a lot for replying to my post, I appreciate it. That roadmap would be most welcome and I do hope to see a bit more presence and acknowledgement of bug reports for the Viggen in the future. To all others who replied : Thanks for chiming in here , glad to hear I'm not the only who was frustrated by the -unable to know what HB is tracking / aware of - bugwise. @Machalot Very interested in the answer to your question too. If no reply means no tracking or what? Kind regards, Snappy

Dear Heatblur team, with all due respect for your continued F-14 efforts , please show at least a bit more presence in the Viggen's support forum. Contrary to things in the F-14 forums, the Viggen has , without exaggeration , nearly zero developer presence at all and this has been the state of things for a long time now. Bug reports are rarely if ever acknowledged at all or replied to for months and have been piling up . We as the customers have zero idea what you are tracking and aware of and what is missed or gone unnoticed. Especially if the Viggen is now , as per Cobra's latest roadmap to release post your primary effort to get out of EA, it would be very nice if you could at least show a baseline presence and acknowledge what bugs you are aware of and have confirmed. Kind regards, Snappy

Hi, out of curiosity, if the navigation data cartridge system was part of the AJS upgrade, how was the flight planroute actually entered by the pilot in the older AJ-37 version? Did they enter each waypoint via long/lat coordinates ? I read somewhere (cant remember the source) that that within Sweden there were a lot of pre-defined waypoints ( like the ones in our kneeboard pages) that could be entered via codes. But if so , were those pre-stored in the cK -37 memory or how did those fixes get into the aircraft at all if the option to load data via cartridge didn‘t exist? kind regards, Snappy

Hi , would like to upgrade my RAM from 16 to 32Gb. My Mainboard still uses DDR3/DDR3L so I'm stuck with that. I'm not much of a hardware person, did some reading and looked up my mainboard& CPU's ram specification. It says CPU: "DDR3 and DDR3L 1333/1600 at 1.5V" MB: "Supports DDR3/DDR3L 1600/1333/1066 non-ECC, un-buffered memory" Now I have some questions. The CPU specification, does that mean it supports DDR3 at only at 1333mhz and only DDR3L at 1600Mhz? Or does the 1333/ 1600 Mhz speed refer to both variants ? Also regarding DDR3L : Does it make sense to buy that? I read a bit about it and it seems to run at a lower voltage than DDR3. But would that alone result in any noticable performance gains in DCS in comparison to basic DDR3? I mean as far as I understand it I can't overclock it anymore anyway if the MB is limited to 1600Mhz and its already operating at that. Last question: Regarding the actual stick configuration, I'm now running 2x 8GB, DIMM at 1600Mhz. Is there any issue with getting additional 2x8Stick at 1600Mhz if its not from the same manufacturer ? I looked online and didnt get any clear answers on this. Is it better to buy a 4 set of 8GB from the one manufacturer instead? Thanks a lot , Kind regards, Snappy

@Alpenwolf thank you very much for your quick reply! Completely understand your concern of making a change that will disrupt other things in the mission setups. I will check the dynamic weather settings out in the ME and report back. @Shadow KT Good input , thanks. I never really noticed the wind in the briefing screen, will look for it next time.But regardless of it being in 3 layers, the very fact that there is wind (unless it is 0kts windspeed?) already should tell that the pressure is not 29.92 everywhere. otherwise there would be no wind as wind is mostly caused by differences in atmospheric pressure. As for the Viggen‘s design, I don’t know, pretty sure the swedes had their reasons for doing it that way, as you said guess it’s primarily designed with use in scandinavia and baltic area in mind. BTW the problem in the Viggen is not about getting QFE. fortunately the kneeboard calculates it for all flightplan waypoints in its navsystem. Targets of opportunity are another matter though. But good that you mentioned it, because that gave me another idea. Maybe the change in elevation of terrain over distance in the CW server caucasus is larger than it appears to the eye / I underestimated the changes in terrain elevation. This I will check as well, because it would account for large variances in QFE while the sea lvl referenced QNH would not necessarily have such large changes over same distance. I‘ll do some testing. Thanks a lot guys! Kind regards, Snappy

@Alpenwolf, one minor request/feedback, though I suspect this has more to do with DCS's buggy weather system than your server. But could you maybe in the weather setup for the missions (if its possible) select a slight more evenly distributed air pressure over the maps? At the moment it is extreme and unrealistic. For example in "when mountains cry" the distance between Vaziani and the third red lake / Water factory is just around 130 km , but the pressure already changes from from 959 hP/mb to 804 hP/mb, so about 155 hP/ millibar over such a short distance. That is extreme by meteorological standards!! I mean consider this for reference: Locally a drop or rise of just 7 hP /mb over 24 hours is considered relatively large and usually indicates the arrival or exit of a larger pressure system. And the the lowest ever (!) recorderd air pressure , was as far as I know just 840 mb somewhere in the pacific during a major typhoon.So still much higher than what DCS does. Normally I wouldn't get wound up about this and I guess for the fighter types it is of little issue. But the problem is for the strike aircraft , the Viggen, a lot of the HUD symbology for bombs and other weapons is based on correct pressure settings (QFE actually, but thats closely related to the general pressure QNH). That mean due the large changes of pressure, combined with the fact that these occur over a short ground distance, that means the attack symbology or cues often just become visible on the HUD glass for the pilot very late, shortly before reaching /overflying the target. Before that is it not displayed since it is either above or below HUD display range/out of view. This makes setting up stable bomb parameters unnecessarily difficult. There are weapon delivery modes that use radar alt instead, but they are not suitable for every weapon and especially not every situation on CW server where a low level - level pass is often the best option. Well as I said, I think its mostly DCS weather system , but if you could look into it if it can be when you set up the mission it would be nice if this could be improved with less stark changes. It currently that way in many missions, at least those on caucasus terrain. It would also make the weather a bit more realisitc , though I think many people couldnt care less. Rant / pet peeve over Sorry. Kind regards, Snappy

Cobra, thank you for chiming in here and good to hear a lot of work is going on in the background on the Viggen. That being said, I would honestly appreciate a bit more developer presence on the Viggen forums. Contrary to things in the F-14 forums, bug reports here rarely ever get any official reply or even acknowledgement and it has been that way for a long time. So we have no idea, what things you are keeping track of and what may have gone completely unnoticed or slipped by. Especially in the lead-up to -out of early access- . Kind regards, Snappy

When is the abyssmal AI, as well as the announced new FM for the AI aircraft planned for release? This is a huge , not to say gigantic weakness of the sim that existed for years with near-zero improvement. For a sim that has a supposedly extensive single player majority user base this is lacking big. Also it detracts from employing tactics , because the AI aircraft do not feature their real world weaknesses and strenghts which you would normally exploit /adapt to. On the contrary, some have superpowers. And don't get my started on my AI wingmen.. Regards, Snappy

Hi @Flighter, is there any chance you can reset both servers or reboot them? The server lag lately is really bad, as in unplayable and it happens more and more often .Teleporting and rubberbanding all over the place. Its not just me, everybody has it when you ask in chat . The german server seems worse , but the one in greek is not much better. Not sure what causes it. Thanks a lot . Hope you are well. Kind regards, Snappy.

Hi Flappie, I know that ENKEL- launched cannot be programmed.Maybe I formulated badly. I wasn't asking about how to program sth that is not possible. It was more for technique in launching or approach tactic . (which you later in your post gave ) My thinking with ENKEL / GROUP was the following: Shoot one missile in enkel, making it just definitely go for the first front row (of the ships) target it detects. The other missile in Group mode , should by design definitely go for a the second or third row of targets in the detected group. Thereby making sure they dont target the same ship since "group" - mode missiles should always go for depth not not front row. As the manual says later on,they only go for (grouped (in depth targets )) . If they dont detect multiple target rows they rather go on past the targets and not hit anything. But as I wrote above for various reason thats not always practible since multiple ships not always are positioned in a way that it constitutes a "group" for the missile or the approach angle makes it impossible. But thanks I will try your approach of aiming to left and right side of the formation..Maybe that works. Regards, Snappy. (BTW, this is OT, but re your other post for the AKAN gunsight.Did you figure it out how to bring it up? If not let me know I'll put up a short track for you)

Hi, is there any effective way to prevent my 2 RB-04 from going to the same target when attacking a group of ships? Because in my experience, even when waiting quite some time between releases they often seem to go for the same ship. Guess if the convoy is big enough i.e. deep enough for several rows I could send one off in group mode and the other one in ENKEL, hoping that the group one goes for the 2nd row. But thats not always feasonable, if the ships are not staggered deep enough or my approach direction is not suitable for group mode. So are there other ways to make sure they go for 2 different targets? In a low threat scenaria I could circle and attack from another direction, but against a well defended group of ships I'd prefer to take my shots and get out as fast as possible. Kind regards, Snappy

Slightly OT but that simulation (strike fighters ) is much better than its often given credit for btw. Sure it can't compete with DCS in terms of FM and graphics, but it's got its strength in other areas and its far from arcade-ish. Survey sim is a better tag. Regards, Snappy

Not arguing the limit-of-range part or the skill & bravery of the argentinian pilots , but systems-wise ( HUD for example )and especially radar-capability -wise the Sea Harrier was far ahead of the mirages and A-4. Plus they had the benefit of all aspect sidewinders, which the Argentine Air Force had not ( as far as I'm aware.) and which represents a significant tactical advantage . Still, challenging conditions for both sides , no question. Regards, Snappy

I have the same experience as Quigon, rounds have a tendency too fall short by some margin .On both Caucasus and NTTR. In my personal opinion, the gunsight and firing cue could use a rework. The firing cue seems to come too early which is why the rounds fall short . Yes there is the mention of a short delay between cue and trigger pull in system design, but I think that is only to account for human reaction time. Presently you have to wait until shoot cue, then hold back for another one and half second or so( which is hard to estimate ,making accurate gun runs difficult) and then pull trigger to get the rounds on intended target . That is making the system error-prone, which doesn’t make sense. It seems more logical to get the firing cue when you really have to pull the trigger right away, because that is a clearly defined point in time, not a guess the pilot has to make sometime after appearance of the cue. regards, Snappy

@Spiceman yes I got that ground clutter part, of course you dont want to get this clutter messing up your radar picture , but I thought it was the MLC that filters the ground clutter returns out, not the ZDF , despite the ground being close to or at zero doppler. @Noctrach No problem, ok it seems the wording in the manual isn't completely optimal either then. I'll just go with what you , Saber and Spiceman said. ZDF filters a certain closure speed band and MLC filter a certain groundspeed speed band with the accompanying implications for detection. Thanks again everyone , for your help in explaining. Kind regards, Snappy

Cougar, can't remember exactly which one, but I think in one of Fighter Pilot podcast episodes on TOPGUN ( the real one, not the movie) it was mentioned that due the increasing complexity of the multirole spectrum, the whole true multirole approach (as in each pilot does everything, every role the aircraft can do) might no longer be feasible and that squadrons in the future may focus again on certain roles only. But if I understood correctly it was more of a future lookout/possibilty nothing definitive yet. Of course I also don't know, if that would imply that a squadron will for example, exclusively train/do Air2Air or whether it means Air2Air will be the main thing for them , but they will still train to a lesser degree A2G or SEAD for example and stay current in those areas too. Regards, Snappy

Hi Guys, thanks for all your detailed answers! It has become semi-clear now , but still I 'm confused - sorry! The MLC is more or less clear now to me, but the ZDF still is murky.. @Noctrach Why do you say in regards to ZDF , that the F-14 own groundspeed is not considered with this? Heatblurs own manual states (bold underline by me) re the zero doppler Filter "The blind area is centered around a closure rate of negative own groundspeed..." and later again "The resulting blind area is 200 knots wide, meaning that a chased target moving at a speed of within 100 knots(+/-) of own groundspeed will be invisible to the radar" Is this an error in the manual or what? Btw I find the 2 sentences from the manual in themselves somewhat contradictory, because the first sentence makes it sound like if ownship is doing 400kts groundspeed the blind area is affecting targets pulling away with -400 kts negative closure (+/- 100), while the second sentence makes it sound more reasonably that target of 300-500 groundspeed , not seperation /closure will be filtered out. @Noctrach @Saber2243 Your scenarios are both good , if the ZDF is centered on closure rate . I think my confusion really hinges on whether the ZDF speed band is based on own groundspeed or closure rate.The heatblur manual makes it sound like its own - groundspeed based. @Spiceman, Thanks for your link! Funnily I had just watched your video yesterday evening and it was part of my questions came up. (Not that anything was wrong or off with your video, on the contrary, it illustrated well the practical workarounds , its just that I kept thinking a bit more about it and trying to understand , unsuccessfully ) Kind regards, Snappy