Snappy

Yeah I thought so, but sorry just to get it clear: Frosen, are you saying there should be a text there, but it is not in DCS in general at the moment due to a bug ? Or do you see the EP13 controls text on your installation and I'm having a texture issue on my system only ? I know the countermeasure switch in the 2nd picture used to be labelled wrong in DCS . But thats a seperate issue. Regards, Snappy

I would guess the flashing is on purpose, to clearly differentiate it from the actual HUD target symbol, which is the same icon ,but non- flashing. Even more so, because I think in reality the HUD target symbol is not always directly centered on the actual position of the enemy aircraft in your HUD FoV, unlike it is usually in DCS. Probably another thing less precise in reality than in digital simulation. If you look up various HUD footage tapes on Youtube, you can see the HUD projected target symbol is sometimes outside of the enemy aircraft or lagging somewhat behind. Another reason could be, that it flashes as it re-calculates after every x no . of fired rounds during a longer burst, but that would seem pretty advanced. Certainly Victory knows much better if thats the reason or something else. Regards, Snappy

Best to leave that decision to heatblur.Naquaii already said they will look into it. Then they will reach their own conclusions.

Could you kindly take a look at this? After updating to 2.7 I'm seing this in some instant action missions, for example "Offensive counter air" and" tank busting " The Glass edges /Frame of the HUD is missing. Any idea what might be causing this? In other missions I don't have the problem. I'm using no mods, except the A-4E and I cleared my shaders folders after updating to 2.7 Also I didn't change any graphic settings after updating. No problems before in version 2.56.x Also, should the placard above the EP13 brightness and controls selectors look like this? Regards, Snappy

As someone who is often critical of DCS and ED's way of doing things, I still wish to give credit where credit is due. This is an impressive update across the entire board.Lots of improvements in many areas. Well done ED! Thank you very much for the big work you put into this! Regards, Snappy

As far as I understand it in general, ( I can't speak for specific aircraft / instruments manufacturers , so I can't say whether this applies to the F-16) not every mechanical gyro instrument like the ADI is completely compatible with aggressive maneuvres / accelerations. So on some aircraft during aerobatics or wild maneuvering the gyros are caged before you begin the aerobatics in order to protect the delicate mechanisms inside / prolong their service life.Caged meaning they are fixed in their position and not moving freely as they usually would in their function. For those aircraft, it would be a good idea to afterwards double check you have uncaged them again before you begin your approach or do any kind of flying that requires them working normally . However I have difficulty imagening a fighter type aircraft that is limited in this regards, in other words, I would be very surprised if they didn't put avionics /gyros in that can take a beating and are fully capable of aerobatics and rapid maneuvering. So it really doesn't make a lot of sense to me either in the context of your landing tutorial.Maybe its a bug, or it has another procedural context. Kind regards, Snappy

Is anybody else seeing that the HUD glas frame (top end of frame ) is missing in 2.7? I cleared the shaders after updating, but did not change aynthing else in graphic settings. Regards, Snappy

Yes in the tacview screenshot he is half a mile away , but in his HUD screenshots he is already very close, he should get the Breakaway X if he gets any closer? Or did that X have more of an advisory character in real life and people flew in closer to make sure the bullets hit the target? Serious question, not meant sarcastically . Regards, Snappy

A side question out of personal curiosity: Why did the soviets put in a western - style( for lack of a better word) attitude indicator into the hind? What I mean is, why did they divert from their usual version of the attitude instrument, where the horizon is fixed and the aircraft symbol itself moves in correlation to attitude changes? Most of their fighters up to Mig29/SU-27 use that system and so does the Mi-8 helicopter. Why did they switch for the Mi-24 to the system used by most western aircraft, where the aircraft symbol itself is rigid and the horizon moves in the background? Regards, Snappy.

Spider, re "Is the distinction still appropriate for jets with missiles?" & But when your opponent has guided medium range missiles ..." again, I can only tell from my personal non-professional opinion , so take my answer with a warbird-sized grain of salt : I think this "classification" stems mostly from the eras of close-in guns only fights , BFM , and maybe into the rear - aspect IR missiles. And even then, maybe it was more of an informal , broad classification for fighter pilots when they talked about aircrafts and fights or instructed . With nowadays all-aspect missiles and HOBS Helmet cueing , things have likely become much much more complex in regards to threat analysis. Probably a lot of time is spent going over EM diagramms and other intelligence on expected adversary aircraft strength/weaknesses, and coming up with possible gameplans against individual threats , besides of course the actual training fights / excercises themselves. I'm not sure, if such a simple angles/energy classification, which in itself highly depends on various factors, makes much sense anymore in front of that background. Except maybe in very asymmetric situations, like having an A-4 Skyhawk face off against an F-16 or so. Well , just noticed, I couldn't really answer your question and rambled around a bit too long. Sorry. Maybe you 're lucky and Victory or one of the other RW pilots chimes in. Have a good day anyway, Snappy.

Same, I noticed this as well, its more obvious with the target at high aspect . With the pipper directly on aircraft centermass / middle of enemy plane and in the lower part of the gun range, the bullets tend to pass aft of the target. Of course you can aim in front of the aircraft or just on the tip of its nose to make sure you get hits, but would be nice if heatblur could take a look at it. KInd regards, Snappy.

My take on that: It depends on what airframe you’re fighting. The F-14 is certainly no slouch in either area ( with a reasonable loadout and fuel load) but look at what airframe you’re facing and then decide which way you want to fight. It may even change within the duration of a single fight with changing energy states. I think this “ energy vs angle fighter” thing isn’t as clear cut anymore as it (maybe) used to be with 3rd gen or older fighters, like the F-104 , F-4 or Mig-17 . But even then it depended. Extreme (unrealistic in many ways) example, but just to illustrate: Take The F-4 , which you likely would classify as an energy fighter. Now put it in a fight against the SR-71 ( as I said highly unrealistic) . The F-4 likely wins the angle fight every time. Anyway thats my view on things, more knowledgeable people can probably tell you more or better how to employ the F-14. regards, Snappy

It will be very interesting to see what changes to the Hornet FM will result from its announced complete FM review. However I wouldn’t expect too much, actually I wouldn’t be surprised at all if it got even stronger. Not that this would be realistic , when even its current FM seems overpowered or underdraggy in regards to sustained turn rate & vertical capabilities. But unfortunately contrary to the F-16 theres a lot less data available for the Hornet variant to check against, except for that GAO report, which I wouldn’t consider sufficient or objective, so its up to ED and their interpretation of the data they have. Regards Snappy

Are you talking about DCS or reality? I really don’t think it works that way, neither in reality or DCS. Maybe (and thats a big IF) you can cue the older missiles via radar lock onto non rear aspect targets or head on targets, but there is no real sense in that, because once the missile leaves the rail , its still just an old rear aspect missile and can’t keep track of the target because its simply outside of its seekerheads capabilities. Since the Harrier variant in DCS doesnt have a radar and so can’t even cue its own more advanced missiles I highly doubt it can somehow “enhance” a -P Sidewinder. That is also my experience in the Viggen which can carry both all-aspect and rear aspect swedish variants of the Aim-9. One will pick up head on targets, the other one won’t.So even in DCS its not defined by aircraft. The only thing, which might work in DCS and I think it does also in reality is, depending on which rear aspect variant we re talking about, is, you might use an aircraft’s radar to speed up the acquisition process on a rear aspect target somewhere in the fwd quarter of your aircraft by having the radar tell the seekerhead where to look. But even that would still be limited to the seekerhead cone and tracking capability. kind regards, 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