Cab

Truth

Yes, no doubt personalities can make a difference. Food for thought, here are two articles in Air Force Magazine from 2003 and 2005 referring to the Raptor as the "F/A-22": The F/A-22 Gets Back on Track - Air Force Magazine The F/A-22, in Fire and Flak - Air Force Magazine

Welcome aboard, sir. And Happy Birthday! So, down to business... Would you mind visiting the forum thread linked below and providing your input on whether or not the A-4E had nose wheel steering? Seems to be some controversy about that.

I'll be excited just to get the F-8. Especially now that the F-4 is confirmed. Those guys are going to need someone to keep them in line.

Jester isn't a WSO, he is a RIO. They are two totally different beasts.

I don’t know what to tell you. There is one designation system for US combat aircraft called the Tri-Service Aircraft Designation System. There might be differences in policy how they apply it, but the the format is the same and there will be no overlap of designation between the Services. An interesting fact I remember is in the early to middle 90’s there was movement to remove the “/“ and change the designation to FA-18 in order to be standardized. I don’t know why it was never implemented. Question: Do you know how the previous Navy designation worked? What the numbers and letters meant?

Maybe, but in my experience I don't think so. It just doesn't seem reasonable that being able to pull up to instantaneous 13g wouldn't be relevant. But, of course, maybe I am not flying well enough to prove the point. However, unless you've actually fought someone under those conditions it's just theory. I fight with the Hornet without the paddle whenever I can, but with the paddle up to 11g's when my adversary is flying at those extreme g loads. I can tell you it's like flying two completely different airplanes. Also, you have to pick your poison (or in this case realism). Personally, if it comes down to maneuvering at 13g's and gloc'ing at 1.5g's above the operational limit, then I pick the former. But to each his own. No harm.

Granted. But I already used "long" for the body. How about, "prominent" nose?

Yes, this has gone in longer than I intended. I was just trying to give my opinion on why ED implemented the structural wing damage as they did but you guys keep engaging me. Am I just supposed to let it go? Yes, g-effects are on. And, no, I have zero interest in dealing with the firestorm that would result from a dedicated thread on this. Like I wrote above, it is what it is and I am perfectly comfortable flying the planes as they are.

I don't think there is anything here I disagree with. Hence, my idea described above for a more targeted grey out-to-gloc implementation (even if not realistic and only as a server option) would mitigate the issue for all aircraft and compel players to limit themselves to more realistic maneuvering. And yes, it would have to work with the g-spikes, too, so if I spike to 13g's I am out like a light. And admit it. Wouldn't you want to see the reaction of the "high-g warriors" after that exploit is taken away from them?

Wasn't that addressed? I have both installed and I'm not having any problems. At least none that I have noticed.

U.S. Navy and Air Force have been using a common designation system since the early 60's. Prior to that what we now know as the F-4 Phantom II was called the F4H by the Navy and the F-110 by the Air Force. Here is an Air Force Magazine article from 1962: F-110: USAF's New Tactical Fighter - Air Force Magazine

Not sure where that came from but maybe I'm not communicating well. I am okay with the status quo and will happily pull my Hornet paddle when necessary. And when I fly the Eagle or Tomcat I will certainly be pulling 13g's just like everyone else. However, to claim that players fighting with the currently allowed g-loads is realistic is just plain incorrect.

Where? In game or in real life?

I dont' have a grudge. I was just addressing the comment and offering a solution. However, you can write anything you want but words are just words, and you really don't know what you are talking about. The fact is jets maneuvering at those limits is not realistic at all. And, no, we are not talking about "that pilot who said he once pulled 12g's with no damage to the jet." We are talking about continuously maneuvering at 11 to 13g's and that just doesn't happen. And by insisting it be allowed to continue makes DCS more like x-box than a simulator in that respect. Look at it this way. When real life fighter pilots watch a dogfight tournament and laugh at the g-loads the players are flying, maybe something is "not right". But it is what it is and not what we want it to be. A 13g F-14/15 can be dealt with flying an 11g F-18, so I am good, thanks.

The problem is this doesn’t currently solve the exploitation of 13g F-15/14’s, 11g F-18’s, and 10g F-5’s. To curtail these excessive g-loads, grey out should start at .1g above the published limit increasing to total gloc at, say, 1.5 above the published limit. This would provide a visual queue to the player so he can ease his pull while at the same time preventing excessive g-loads. And gloc is preferable to catastrophic wing failure because you can have a chance to recover and continue the fight. And of course this should be a feature that can be turned on and off at the server level. But of course that wouldn’t be realistic so we are stuck with players exploiting the higher g’s. ”Fight them at 11g’s! Fight them at 12g’s! Fight them 13g’s! We will never quit! We will never surrender!!” Cab

After going back and looking at some dates it looks like 10 to 15 years old might be a more conservative estimate.

Touche

1. Not my point at all. 2. The cockpit 3. Zero and less than 1%. Plus I don't think I made any assertions, I just asked questions.

It reads like you're agreeing with me, but feels like you're not. However, with the DCS F-15 I do think it goes beyond just high g loads. The paddle in the Hornet is an equivalent problem but for a different thread, I think.

No, unfortunately with it's long body, bent wings, and cute nose the Corsair is by far the cooler of the two. The Hellcat, on the other hands, is the chubby kid who took karate and lifted weights. So despite it's looks, it can still kick the asses of everyone on the block.

Right, but my point is that if the simulated jet's performance doesn't exactly match the charts, even if not by design, is that such a bad thing. Or put another way: Are the current differences between the charts and the DCS F-14 within the scope of what pilots might experience in real life? Again, I have no agenda here. I am just asking the question.

Does it matter that the charts are based on brand new jets flown by highly trained test pilots and our F-14 is probably twenty years old with all the wear and tear that goes with operational and training flights, and flown by...us ? Is it reasonable to expect performance matching the charts? That's a serious question BTW. I don't really know how much performance might degrade over time.

I have no disagreement with anything you wrote above. However, AOA is just on piece of the puzzle and I still stand by my VERY humble opinion that the totality DCS F-15's dogfighting performance is not "right" by a significant margin. That being said I don't expect any changes based on my observations since I have not offered any real evidence. But curious people should go to the dogfight servers and watch the more skilled players and make their own objective conclusions.

Jester?