Snappy

Good Morning to you too Viper! there is actually another 3rd bug in here, which I had also already reported long ago , thread link below. You can see it in my section 4 picture : After I shortened the approach via Flip Flop, the destination waypoint is still shown as LB1 , this is wrong according to the manual. By shortening the approach/flip flopping, I manually started approach Phase 2, during this phase the destination Waypoint should be LF . (Phase 2 can be entered either manually via shortening approach , or automatically during normal approach by overflying LB point)

Hi @TOViper, I tested this again today, and the issue is still present. To be honest , currently I find the whole approach phase pretty inconsistently modelled (the HUD guidance and yellow CI course pointer are wrongly leading to different directions most of the time, not matching the manual description) Can you please try to refly the following attached mission? (Its from the older Viggen training mission pack from the user files library by cornivus. This mission sets up you up airborne about 20 nautical miles southeast of Senakhi for a landing in westerly direction on runway 27. I did the following, immediately after mission start,: 1. I selected ALT hold (I didnt want to land, just check HUD lateral guidance). 2.I selected LANDN NAV , You can see the HUD guidance is correctly, slightly to the right to the curved LB final approach course intercept (but the yellow CI course index pointer wrongly points to LF, despite LB1 being the current destination waypoint , this is another separate bug, CI should only point to LF when Landing Phase 2 begins, which is AFTER passing LB) null 3. Immediately afterwards I did the flip flop LANDN NAV/ PO / LANDN NAV: ( the system correctly shortens the approach and provides guidance to the left to the new shortened final approach intercept course intercept) 4. On the way to the shortened final approach course intercept, everything seems correct. 5. Before actually reaching the intercept point to final, the HUD suddenly again starts guiding to the left (the bug I originally reported) ( you can see the HUD turns me left, parallel to the approach course, and as you can see on the CI, where the extended centerline is drawn to my right , the nav system itself knows where he airport is , so its not a navigation accuracy error it seems , the HUD guidance itself is wrong. Interestingly , shortly afterwards , almost as soon as I roll out on the parallel heading the HUD seems to realise its error and jumps far to the right, to guide to the actual airport, but unfortunately by now the approach is a mess and the new guidance seems to the airport itself and not an actual intercept to final approach course... Sometimes the HUD seems to catch its own error earlier, while you are still in the turn to the parallel course. But I've flown this multiple times now and never did the HUD once guide correctly a contineous smooth intercept to the shortened final approach course. Could you kindly refly this mission on your computer and follow my sequence exactly? Its important that you start the LANDN NAV mode and Flip Flop immediately and that you also follow any change in HUD guidance immediately and just stupidly fly following the HUD , ignore the yellow course pointer on the CI. Sorry for the low quality screen shots, I dont know why the pictures became so low res during forum upload. The originals are much sharper, but you can view them if you click on the pictures. Kind regards, Snappy M06 - Landing - Clear Sky.miz

Hi TOViper, nice to hear from you! . I had/have taken a break from DCS, because of the lack of progress with many core problems and EDs attitude/business behaviour. So I haven’t flown in a while. Still I’d like to see the Viggen get improved . I’ll try to take a look in the next days and get back to you on this issue. Thank you very much for your dedication to testing and re-checking older bug reports!!

No, it’s a bug, currently the Rb-74 cannot lock in frontal aspect. See here : Problem is, ED ( weapons are their responsibility now) doesn’t seem interested in even replying to the report not to mention fixing the bug.

Interesting stuff, thanks a lot for explaining! Have a good week!

Just out of curiosity, since you mentioned your IRL experience and stated that the Phantom is not a Rate-fighter. What kind of fight did you try to go for then? Surely not radius? I mean I get that a lot depends on the adversary’s type of aircraft, but what was your preferred game-plan once you got into a visual close range engagement? Stay in the vertical?

Ehem.. Fantasy Black Shark V3 would like a word. Lets not exaggerate here. But still, @Ddg1500 not, this is not reasonable.

Doesn't make his point less valid though. And while we are at it, not that I have a horse in this fight, but looking at this thread and the previous one from the outside, the Anti-Razbam faction, for lack of a better term, seems to get a lot more leeway in regards to going massively off topic, moderation-wise..

Wikipedia is not the most accurate source in that regard. Here you go for a much much more detailed listing, including prototypes , pre production dates ,etc etc. https://www.milavia.net/aircraft/su-27/su-27_history.htm Other than that the wikipedia article is already directly contradicting itself there with the aircraft supposedly not being in service , but already colliding with the Orion with while actually performing service in 1987. Being fully armed too , that is. The same wikipedia article also twice mentions entry in to service of 1985, so its full of inconsistencies. Also, again "cold war aircraft" are by definition not "only aircraft that were actually involved in hot war conflicts during the cold war" . Maybe for you in your head, but not for the rest of us. Or are you going also going to claim that planes like the B-58 Hustler bomber are not cold war aircraft, just because they didn't participate in any hot conflict during the cold war period? But each to their own.

Which is what I wrote , 85. You were the one who claimed an entry into the service date of 1990. So definitely cold war.

Well, agree on the F-16A and F-18A. However, cold war aircraft are not being defined by having seen actual combat action during cold war , so Mig-29A should definitely be in. Also, not sure where you got that 1990 entry into service for the Su-27. It started to serve in mid eighties (85) already with both the VVS&PVO. Otherwise it would beg the question how one managed to collide with a norwegian P-3 in 87 already.

Thats a valid&good point in general , however I don’t see how the KURSKORR functionality falls under this category.

Yes ok, but isn’t the DCS module supposed to simulate the real aircraft as accurately as possible/ reasonable? I get though that it’s not necessarily a high priority item.

Now I’m confused, you and @renhanxue are seemingly contradicting each other. With him saying KURSKORR only affecting the main course indicator and not the standby compass and you saying it’s exactly the other way around.

Maybe its the different angle from which the pictures were taken, but I really dont find they look very similar. The part of the missile in front of the moving canards is much much longer on OPs pic than on the Loral datasheet picture. Also in both pictures there seems to be a "regular" sidewinder mounted on the inner pylon station and again in the Loral pictures the strange missile barely exceeds it in length, while in OP picture the strange missile is much longer than the regular one.

This is what wikipedia says: AIM-9R (USN) [edit] The AIM-9R was an improved AIM-9M developed by the navy, it included the new WGU-19/B IIR (Imaging Infrared) seeker, with much better tracking performance and detection performance (during daytime), with the ability to reject both background terrain and clouds, a bigger seeker FOV, and more effective counter-countermeasures capability against known and postulated jamming or seduction techniques. The first live firing occurred in 1990, but in 1992, production was cancelled as a lack of funding due to defense budget cuts.[16] But I'm not so sure if OPs photo really shows an Aim-9R. The tip part still looks much longer. Maybe it is something entirely different, not a unknown variant , but a modified missile to for telemetry data collection or something. Another link, scroll down to the middle of the page is a official US Navy photo of an F/A-18A test firing the Aim-9R at china lake , if you hover the mouse over the thumbnail, the photo enlarges. It doesnt look like OPs missile, the front part seems to be more conventional and shorter http://www.chinalakealumni.org/1991/1991mo.htm#thumb

Yes, most of us would I guess. However more than one thing can be true at the same time. The way this constantly happens with ED with almost everything they announce, whether module EA release,normal patch, Q&A newsletter answers ,whatever you name it , points to systemic organisational/planning issues. Which is why people are getting annoyed. Its not because they delayed this one patch. They delay everything and usually more than once and usually at the last minute. Its not the first rodeo and it seems ED is not really learning from their experience. I totally get why people react negatively.

Can't make this stuff up. They should stop announcing anything, can't take them seriously anymore anyway at this point. I get that its software and unexpected things do pop up, but the frequency , not to say consistency with which these busted release dates and last minute patch delays happen with ED seems to point to serious planning/organisational and QA issues.

This. I mean this is their official (!) forum section for the aircraft after all. Their most direct and official point of contact with their customers. I really don’t get how 9Line or BigNewy don’t post about the delay here the moment they get the information.Especially since they cancelled the EA release again on extremely short notice. Not only that but still zero from them as of now. Very disappointing PR on all fronts.

Not all, according to 9line on discord it’s delayed again and won’t be released with tomorrow’s patch

It’s „plane captain“ though (from airplane ) , not „plain captain“. Unless you want to call him/her somewhat boring/simple.

Ok, thanks for explaining your approach. I've done manual bombing and A-G gun via pop-up as well. Since you are overbanking during the pull-down to target from the pop-up you need to roll upright again afterwards, yes. However I seem to manage fine without crossed controls for that. But whatever works for you.

I'm all for correcting the F-18 FM , as I personally also think it is overperforming and it is very unfortunate that there is very little officially available turn performance data to check against for the F-18. However that being said, is GVAD in your conversation seriously suggesting that the available F-5 data is used to extrapolate the F-18 performance, because , quote "the curves are similar" ?! I hope not, because a) the only similarities they have is , they are both cropped delta wings and have LEX and trailing edge flaps. But so have many other planes with different performance. b) If thats the same GVAD from the Mig Star Mig-17 developer team, I hope he is not the one doing the flight modelling, at least not with that approach.

Why do you use cross controls in that context and in which phase of the attack run exactly ? Seriously interested as I don’t understand how it helps to keep pipper on.

Dear developement team, I know this is additional work , but I would really appreciate if you could publish a quick guide (doesnt have to be super long or exhaustive, 1 or 2 pages would suffice) on tactical employment in air to air combat / BFM phase. I don't mean weapon employment/switchology , that's clear and no problem. But actual airframe employment. Maybe one of your SMEs could be so kind and give some feedback about that , similar to what Victory205 did for Heatblur and the F-4E here under "maneuvering flight" A couple of examples I have in mind: ( I know a lot of it depends on many factors and sometimes there is no one-size-fits-all anwer) -At which approximate speed they typically wanted to enter a close range IR or guns engagement -Given the choice , what was the most preferred altitude band to fight in? (low , medium, high?) -did they mostly prefer rate or radius fights? -Which AOAs/G-Load did they aim for during rate vs radius maneuvering or vertical reversals? -was common doctrine to go more vertical or prefer stay in the horizontal plane of motion. -any quirks or vices to exploit or avoid in the flight envelope? To summarise, simply a quick hands-on guide on how to get the most out of the aircraft in the BFM/ACM scenarios and how to avoid areas where its performing suboptimal. I get that it was primarily an Interceptor/attack aircraft, but there must have been some training /guidelines for close-in fighting as well. But unfortunately, contrary to other "more famous" airframes (like the F-14,F-15,F-4 etc) there is very little information and stories about the Mirage in this regard to be found in articles, podcasts or internet. Neither did I find a lot of publicly available performance data on the F1. I did quite some self-experimenting in DCS, but I really find the Mirage F1 challenging to employ it effectively in BFM. With intercepts or air to ground its not such a big deal, because these two areas are more airframe-agnostic/independent and you can transfer a lot of general concepts from other aircraft. But the BFM/ACM area is a bit of a special because it highly depends on individual airframe performance strenghts&weaknesses. Thanks a lot , its just an idea. Kind regards, Snappy