Snappy

In the current latest version, after the big update, the U22/A pod doesn't seem to indicate correctly. In mode A ( silent recording) the MOTVERK light should flash to indicate signal recording . This doesn't happen.The light stays out. In mode B-E (active emitting) MOTVERK light should illuminate steadily (same as it does with older U22 pod) when the aircraft is illuminated from the front by radar and the pod is actively jamming. This doesn't happen. Instead the MOTVERK light now flashes in MODES B-E , when the pod is jamming. I attached a short track and its related mission file which demonstrates both issues. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- U22Ajam.trk ShipJam2.miz

Hi @TOViper, noticed a small issue, on Page 113 of the current manual , the example images for the Linear and Logarithmic radar picture are swapped, The logarithmic radar picture for is under the text for linear and also vice versa: null

Do you use high or low-drag bombs? Which speed are you flying during/before the drop?

Hi, I recently decided to refly the single mission "Hunting the Hunters" where you have to search&destroy the frigate looking for the allied sub. However it seems not possible to give orders to my wingmen on this mission. After taking off, I select special channel 1, press the comm menu button and tried various orders, but they don't reply or follow my orders. Neither do they reply when trying the other special channels. Does anybody have an idea or can test this? Regards, Snappy On a side note, it seems communication behaviour in the single missions / instant action is a bit inconsistent, besides wingmen/flight being on special channel 1 usually. But for example on "tank busting" mission , you can issue orders to your wingman while using the "interphone" comm menu ( and he will reply) , while in "beachhead interdiction" it seems you need to use the actual PTT of the FR22 to bring up the comm menu , issue orders and for the wingman to reply. If you do it via intercom on that mission , he wont answer, at least not to me.

Do you realise that a few videos (even if some originate from Boeing itself ) with OSINT data, plus some guesswork is not nearly enough to make a full fidelity module for DCS? Plus , as you mentioned yourself, it’s radar is highly advanced and therefore surely equally highly classified. Like it or not, but the radar is one of the elemental systems of a modern fighter jet, so if that can’t reasonably simulated , why bother with rest, even if there was enough data for the rest. Which I‘m sure there is not.

Hi Myse, ses, I read some more in that manual.Seems you are right. I stand corrected . But maybe you can understand that I find it a bit confusing, their explanation of total field of view vs effective field of view: If the pilot can only ever see a 9 degree cone of the HUD image with each eye, which is 18degrees total, minus some overlap between the two eyes , why even design the system to project so much more symbology off to each side in a total 30 degree FOV ,( so almost twice the actual effective FOV) , which is never seen with the eyes under normal circumstances? Or I'm maybe misunderstanding something or it gets lost in the translation to english. Anyway, thank you very much for your continued work on the Viggen in DCS!

I do not think this is a camera position issue. Take a look at the real world AJS 37 manual DEL 1 KAP 1, Chapter 17, the HUD/CI section, has quite a few pictures of the HUD images , amongst others these: You can see, in level or almost level (referring to pitch ) flight, all 4 5 degree pitch line value numbers are in the field of view. It doesn't make sense to put pictures in the pilot manual that the pilot can only expect to see with his nose touching the HUD combiner glass. They would use pictures that show the image as the pilots will actually see them from their normal head position looking at the HUD. The manual can be found here , the pictures above is on pages 270& 271 (in a PDF viewer , not the manual page numbering):

@MYSE1234 yes, there really seems to be something wrong with the lateral scaling or FOV of the new HUD, not only in VR , but in 2D also. Take a look at this HUD picture from a real Viggen: (taken from this youtube video at 3:25. nullnullnull null It easily shows the four 5 degree +-pitch value numbers at the upper&lower left/right corner all simulateanously in its field of view. There is even a little more viewing room on the left where "17" course value moves into view. In DCS now after the big update , depending on viewpoint , you are lucky to get two (if any at all) of the 5 degree pitch marker values into view and then only on one side, usually none of them are within field of view: Also in level flight, only the upper 5degree plus numbers are barely in view , while the lower ones are completely cut off: So the HUD field of view seems to be too narrow in DCS or stretched laterally. These screens where taken in 2D, latest DCS version. Kind Regards Snappy

Got it, thanks a lot for your quick reply!

What about the rest of the items from the changelog that @Rudel_chw mentioned?

Yawn , how much more of an incorrect blanket statement -overgeneralisation can you put out there? Its simply not true, as shown by the ACEVAL/AIMVAL face off and other occasions where the light grey eagle drew the short straw.. And I don’t care which aircraft is supposedly objectively better, much depends on pilot skills anyway. I just dislike factually wrong overgeneralisations.

I second this. Trainers make no real sense in DCS or you have specific interest in that aircraft. Unless you want to LARP a military pilot training programme . Otherwise you can just skip to the aircraft you aim to fly afterwards. The added complexity is probably offset by the additional work of having to relearn a lot of things if you transfer from a trainer aircraft. The Mirage F1 BE being the only exception. Hm ok, but that’s not what OP wrote.He specifically talks about trainer aircraft and teaching.

Well Iraq maybe, the rest not, according their discord.Seems more like the „beyond“ part.

Ah ok, got it! Thanks for your clarification!

Committed to deliver in 2024?! Where did you get that from? The Newsletter says , quote "Let’s take a brief look at the new aircraft under development in 2024" Nowhere does it say these will be delivered in 2024.

Interesting.With any significant bank angle I would have expected an observable heading change since the lift vector is now tilted to one side in the direction of roll and now has a sideways component, which is what normally produces heading changes.

Hi, like the topic says, on the -BE the key commands for raising or lowering the seat only seem to affect the forward seat. The rear seat doesn't move up or down. Unless it's height is also fix in reality, this seems to be a bug? Regards, Snappy

Hi @baltic_dragon, Are you still maintining / servicing this campaign? I encounter the same issue, the mission is unplayable because even if you take another taxi route to avoid the blocked runway access your Wingman Teeter still insists on taking the standard route, then stops because of the blockage and never takes , which prevents his later shootdown and mission flow. And while we are at it , the previous campaign mission "Hotel 6" is also a bit buggy most of the time. As soon as it starts in the hangar with cold aircraft , I get a text prompt "taxi to designated parking spot for extra points" and audio line "one, gear up" plays. Looks like some trigger misfires. You can still start up normally and the mission will work, but this is confusing and should be removed.

to your question: If you fly around straight and level in a Cessna at 80kts and then change your aircraft’s pitch attitude by 1 degree up or down the resulting effect on your vertical speed will be less & slower than if you fly straight level in a 400kt fast jet and do the same 1 degree pitch attitude change. I know you’re not flying 400 kts in the pattern, I picked more extreme numbers to illustrate.

Fuel Flow, with the numbers being the values on your engine gauges in the different phases.

Are you sure the E-2 doesn’t also jam and the original issue with the R27 HOJ was simply repeated?

Yea I’d also be interested to hear what Dawger thinks is „generous“ about the F-14 fm It may have been upon release, but by now it seems quite refined and on data.

Sure. But the built-in capability to make a turn at 9G does not mean the engineers envisioned a game plan where you drone on in a continuous 9G 2Circle to win.Reclined seat or not. I think the current G-load modelling of DCS gives people the wrong ideas about fatigue or better lack of it in DCS.

Su-15 would like to have a word.Both in regards to being on the way and to Sukhoi producing only bombers „back then“. Now back to F-4 topic.

Caucasus or marianas islands. The less entry barriers the better in my opinion. Preferably the latter , as the desert, rocky ,middle east/persian gulf scenarios become a bit monotonous by now. Again , just my personal opinion.