Chuck_Henry

Is it just me, or did this stop working in 2.8 and/or with Windows 11? Haven’t changed anything else.

There's more than size that goes into flares. Different flares burn in the UV and IR spectra in different proportions. Energy rise time (how quickly does it get hot) and kinematics of the flare (how quickly does it fall away from the aircraft) matter, too, when defeating the specific counter-countermeasures on a specific missile. Anything else is classified at the Secret level or above, and I cannot get into that here. To what degree any of that is modeled in DCS, I can't tell.

In real life, we at least have a co-pilot to manipulate the FLIR via a separate track handle, instead of in a single-seat fighter in which you're using HOTAS while also trying to fly and talk on the radios. The exact model of FLIR on my IRL aircraft (V-22) also does a lot of automatic thermal calibration, so brightness/contrast aren't a huge concern. What gets me is how insanely useless the current DCS F/A-18 FLIR is flying at night during low light conditions. IRL while flying at 240 knots and 300 feet, the FLIR is sometimes the only thing keeping me from plowing into a ridgeline. With no moon over the California or Yuma desert, even the new white phosphor NVGs become useless. Hopefully the DCS-wide FLIR rework corrects this, among other things.

TACAN is bugged right now across multiple aircraft; just gotta wait for a fix.

It is possible to aerodynamically brake the F-5E upon touchdown, but it requires quite a bit of finesse. I think the most important tip I can give you is you have, have, HAVE to be on-speed AOA or slightly fast. If you let the jet get slow in the transition and flare, you will need more nose up to arrest the descent rate. That's equals a greater nose down moment than the stabilators have the authority to arrest. Or if you just let the jet touch down hard, it will be a more violent nose down moment, which again the stabilators cannot arrest. The transition is the hardest part, and I really believe it requires a ton of "batting practice" to feel when the jet is getting low on energy. There are multiple techniques on how to fly it. Crack-shift-idle-flare works, so long as you can consistently feel how much power you're cracking out. I prefer constant pull to the threshold - that is, at the start of the runway underrun, begin steadily pulling the throttles back to hit idle right as you cross the runway threshold. At the same rate, add aft stick pressure to keep the descent rate steadily decreasing until you touch down as lightly as you can manage. Shifting your eyes to the end of the runway (typical airplane technique) or out to the side (helicopter technique I prefer) helps a lot with judging the flare. The final bit is anticipating how much aft stick pressure to hold as the main gears touch down. You can't just add full backstick, or you risk bouncing the jet. You also can't just hold what you had in the flare since the nose down moment will overcome that. Again, just practice.

I've tanked with KC-130Js in real life. The default is "normal" A/A TACAN which provides only range. However, they have a separate TACAN on board that can provide bearing. You can even couple your aircraft's Flight Director to it, if so equipped. However, that particular device is often broken and the -130 crew has no way of knowing if it's actually giving you bearing. Their crew troubleshooting and asking us to verify if we were receiving bearing or not was like those old cell phone commercials, "Can you hear me now? How about now?"

This discussion went further off the tracks and way more into the weeds than it needed to. Fact is, the F-5 we have *in DCS* is pretty garbage for flying in IMC, and this is almost entirely because of the attitude gyro discrepancies that have been reported and subsequently ignored by ED for years. Lack of ILS is realistic and is still the case for the F-5Ns flown by adversary squadrons such as VFC-13 and VMFT-401. On the off-chance the weather is really bad enough at Fallon or Yuma to require a precision approach, they have very well-trained controllers skilled in letting them down via PARs. Lack of radar altimeter gives some pucker factor, but the F-5s are still allowed to fly in IMC under a CNAF waiver. That said, this is not an "all-weather" jet by any modern standard and to claim such is ludicrous. Employing it as such is how you die, whether by CFIT or getting shot down.

To answer the original question - throttles to MIL as soon as you feel the main gears touch the deck and allow the aircraft to rotate on its own. With a positive rate of climb, retract the flaps from FULL to HALF (not necessary, but this minimizes the risk associated with excess drag on the aircraft should an engine fail in the upwind climbout), and reduce power to establish a climb to 600 ft AGL at 150 KIAS or on-speed AOA, whichever is faster (gross weight dependent). There is no hard and fast vertical velocity required for the climb to pattern altitude. I use a 5-degree high FPM. You're only wrong if you blow through 600 ft.

In real life, it is stupid easy for a 4th-gen pulse-Doppler radar to pick up a rotary-wing aircraft. It is even impossible for a helicopter or tiltrotor to employ notching against radar since the rotating blades will always create significant differential velocity.

Tau is the one who said he uses AP while flying lead. I was replying to the OP who didn't specify position.

The control inputs are sudden because when you couple a plane to autopilot, it increases the force gradient on the controls. It's essentially creating a soft stop that you have to break through to disengage or override the AP. It's actually quite hard to do in a real aircraft. In any case, you should not be using autopilot as a crutch to fly stable formation. Parade should have you constantly on the controls. Cruise a little less jockeying of the power, but still hands-on. IFR Trail is the only time that I've let the autopilot fly formation IRL, and that is to synchronize each plane's entry/exit from climbs, descents, and turns.

Right. What I'm describing is specifically for land-based operations.

It doesn't have to be. In fact, NATOPS says if performing a short field landing or a wet runway landing, consider flying the approach without DLC since this will result in a slower approach speed. In addition, upon touchdown you will immediately have access to the full aft deflection of the stabilators for aerodynamic braking, as opposed to having to manually deselect DLC.

Damn, and here I thought I was just crushing the short field landing game in the Tomcat.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3303095/ You want these 2 mods. They add ICLS and TACAN to most major runways. You have to make up your own procedures, vice follow an approach plate, but other than that it works very well for IFR practice in the F-14 and F/A-18.

Long, long, LONG standing request for this plane.

Looks almost exactly like the T-38C avionics modernization.

Long, long, long-standing bug with this module.

Let's not forget about the altimeter lag in a dive, in which the actual altitude (from the F2 info bar) and the cockpit gauge vary by as much as 200 feet (IRL acceptable error is less than half that). The module is close enough to reality for anyone who hasn't flown an F-5 or T-38, but the fact that there are longstanding bugs like this, especially with things as integral as the flight dynamics, makes one question ED's commitment to supporting their "complete" aircraft. Just asking for some professionalism here.

I think there's a little confusion here over using throttles to set exact altitude and flight path angle. Specifically, a misconception that you must trim to on-speed AOA in the downwind and then never touch the stick again in terms of pitch. This is a drill intended to develop the muscle memory of flying the F/A-18 in approach configuration with its rather unique control laws compared to other fly-by-wire aircraft. You are not required to, nor is it necessarily recommended, to fly the jet this way operationally. It's like how at the V-22 FRS they constantly harped on us to keep the nose level and use purely nacelle angle to control airspeed all the way to touchdown. I can tell you few people do that in the fleet; we set landing nacelle early and use the cyclic like a helicopter. Flying to the ship is the rare exception because you want to avoid pitching the nose high to correct for excessive speed, since losing sight of the LSE is an automatic waveoff. Minor stick inputs are sometimes better than throttle adjustments, especially in shifting or gusty wind conditions. This is because of the inherent lag we've all seen in increasing/reducing the Hornet's airspeed and waiting for the FCS to play catch up and pitch the nose accordingly. Watch any video of Hornet/Rhino pilots flying at the ship and you'll see tons of miniscule stick corrections in both roll and pitch. Stick and throttle should always be coordinated, even if the Hornet's FCS gives you the option to just use power and let the FCS handle the stick, so to speak.

There are different schools of thought on this, and it also depends on your specific aircraft’s characteristics. On one hand, pulling back on the stick will shift more of the aircraft’s weight to the main gears and make braking more effective. On the other hand, with close proximity to flying airspeed, pulling back can also increase the AOA just enough to put significant lift on the wings which decreases wheel brake effectiveness and can cause you to become airborne very briefly (dangerous). That’s why it’s so important in an airplane without spoilers (F-5, T-38, F-16, etc.) not to just yank the nose up to like 12 degrees upon main gear touchdown. Without flight tests, it’s tough to say quantitatively what is the best technique for stopping in the shortest distance. In the case of the F-14, I nearly always plant it on-speed, let the nose come down, and gradually pull to full backstick at the same rate airspeed decelerates toward 100 KIAS, and then steadily increase wheel brake pressure. And I do not retract the flaps; that causes the spoilers to retract. Never had a problem stopping the plane in time. It *is* worth saying that aerobraking is a technique for reducing wear on the brakes. It is not a short field/minimum run landing technique.

It is a near-certainty that the ground friction in DCS is too high. My comparison comes from the DCS F-5 and the MILVIZ T-38 in P3D. The former is laughably finicky to aerobrake in terms of keeping a stable pitch attitude on touchdown and landing roll. There's this sudden bucking forward that coincides with main gear touchdown, so you have to anticipate and compensate for that and probably cause some pilot-induced oscillations in the process. The latter, you barely have to think about it. You touch down on-speed, the nose stays where it is, and you just gradually bring the stick full aft as the stabilators lose aerodynamic authority.

This is correct. Following a centered ball in the DCS F-14 perfectly will earn you a 1 wire just about every time. It's still a "correct" glideslope, but not a correct hook touchdown point.

F-5 effectively abandonware? Nahhh...

I think the trim rate in the DCS F-5 is a bit too fast, or each click creates too much change in the hands-off stick position. I've sank quite a few hours into the Milviz T-38C (which was created for the USAF Pilot Training Next VR sims and validated by actual Instructor Pilots), and the trim is much easier to get stable, much like how Bob1943 describes the real jet. I wonder if there are any core files that can be tweaked to get something more realistic.