Airhunter

No, I'm just asking whether this is what's holding up everyone else? As in the ability for other developers to push patches.

So, given you missed yet another short term release window projection. Is all this stuff and the Super Carrier really holding up everything else regarding DCS? Other developers are waiting to push various updates. The Viper has had a broken datalink since forever even though it has been marked as [FIXED INTERNALLY] for a month now. I need answers. Are you guys even aware of something called "feature creep"?

See attached tacview and the graph below for reference. Fix it. I don't care what you are smoking but fix it.

Again, this is just an observation. Since there are no public documents for these engines and planes I can't really do an apples to apples comparison. Seems like DCS isn't built on public data after all...

The HAF one has the -129 engine so it is correct. Block 50 and 52 (CCIP is just avionics).

That. Thermal image aside the Tomcat's LANTIRN is currently probably the most realistic and complete TGP rendition in DCS:

Or a guide on how to properly report it once it breaks for someone.

Source?

A pretty high likelyhood of it happening is jumping on a MP server, either dying or crashing and respawning in a new Tomcat. Once this happens maybe you can analyse the issue better.

You have an AWG-9 - use it.

I hope HB considers this then.

The SC was supposed to be released in April as well. I wouldn't be surprised if we only see it by the end of summer, given the current state of DCS.

My question is, have you guys tried repairing the jet? And if so could this be temporalily be fixed by a repair (resetting all possible failure states)? Really odd issue indeed. I've really only had it happen after getting shot down and respawning in a new jet.

Interesting.

Yes.

Earlier on the TCS was covered with a bullet fairing afaik.

Cool! :thumbup:

Nice, so finally I'll be able to get a launch warning from my 12 o'clock. :P

Awesome news! This is HUGE.

As far as I know they recorded some from the real AJS-37.

The 27R/ER series hasn't received any significant upgrades since the early 90's. There are various new seeker prorotypes and proposals but those are far from being in serial production. Point being their economy is in a flat spin and they barely have the money to finance R&D for singinficant upgrades of that missile. Using a fox one in 2020 is also a bit "yikes". The R-77 series is the future, not the 27. The 27 is a pretty mediocre missiles IRL by all accounts.

Does anyone have any pictures of it IRL? EDIT: Nevermind, found it.

Those values are stated for the SMR-95 on that site, no test conditions specified, and not the RD-93 apparently. Also in your calculation, what are the 2.2046 lb? Where do you get this value?

So what you are saying is you developed this with classified material, contrary to ED's statements than all their modules are built on "publically available" documents and data? Regardless, I do see the points some people are making. Intake geometry and aircraft weight do indeed affect overall performance, speed has a mostly linear effect on TSFC and should increase in low decimals between Mach numbers of 1.6 - 2.3 (roughly speaking from what I could find). With this being based on non-public information and performance charts I can't really make my case here as I don't have a reliable reference like I do for the F-16C (HAF manuals). On the same note, the developer can also claim whatever they want since they have the "real manuals" and data and we have to believe them somehow? The entire reason I conducted these tests was because I had a discussion with some people saying the JF-17 was more fuel efficient than the F-15 or F-16. There is also no FF gauge in the JF-17 which makes manually plotting any perf charts pretty much impossible for the scope of DCS.

You guys forget the F/A-18C is dual engine. The speeds I tested at are noted in the graphs, there is really no way to test this at X speed and full AB in most aircraft in DCS. It's either a static test with wheel chocks or max AB at X altitude and see where the speed settles. What is more worrying to me is the FF of around 22k lbs/h in the Hornet (per engine) while the Viper is getting close to 60k lbs/h at almost the same conditions. I also understand that without an exact thrust reading or graph calculating an accurate TSFC is almost impossible hence why I took the base published engine ratings for all my calculations. Again, I am mostly wanting an answer from ED on what data they based this on as there isn't anything public out there in terms of FF charts and thrust profiles at X altitude. The FF values and AB times I measured were really odd and stood out from everything else out there. The base Hornet also isn't an exactly new design, it's already phased out by the Navy.