Sideburns

As mentioned the smoother you are with the D9, and presumably also the A8, the better it will fly. It can turn but you need to load the wings smoothly / progressively, not just give it all the load at once. Flying smoother will also help you retain energy. I'd recommend setting some curves on your joystick to assist with this. But the Fw190 series has high wing loading, so it is not the best at turning... rolling on the other hand.

There also seems to be a bug atm with negative drag values after weapon release, so making such measurements after a weapons release could be a bugged result atm. (This is certainly true of Rb24/24j/74 and tanks, if you test the top speed with a clean Viggen vs a post Sidewinder launch / tank jettison you will see). Or alternatively there is information in this thread. Long story short it does seem like the Viggen thrust / airframe drag / weapon drag situation could do with a review.

The sooner it is reported it as a bug, the sooner it will get fixed

As hinted/mentioned/implied at you tend to do Hi-profile for fuel efficiency and enabling your own sensors at the expense of people being able to see you coming and more easily track you. Lo-profile costs a lot more fuel with a AAA / manpad risk but is generally more survivable from a SAM* and interceptor/fighter perspective, the biggest advantage really being denying the enemy advance warning of your approach, but also at the expense of your own sensor visibility. IRL you'd also find some planes prefer high alt whereas others prefer low alt in terms of handling etc which would have some bearing on mission profiles. Given the short ranges involved with the CW server missions people on both sides have the fuel budget during a mission to effectively do a Lo-Lo-Lo profile at no real cost to combat effectiveness. To me the lo-lo-lo profile feels realistic if you look at the air campaign of the six day war (i.e. deliberate low level tactics to avoid radar). I also find it fun flying low, akin to real RAF tactics, but appreciate others might want a more Vietnam / Korea style high and low alt mix combat situation. It feels a bit contrite/annoying to put in fog or similar to force people up. A more realistic solution would perhaps be AAA / manpads / ground fire spread out liberally either side of the front line to discourage low level as mentioned, make 10-20kft more attractive as a survivable altitude beyond SAM reach, but appreciate the DCS engine can't handle large scale deployment of ground units to fully enable this. Anywho, just my 2 cents. Great server, missions and fun as always @Alpenwolf. Cheers! *Unless your talking, modern rapid response systems like SA19/SA15 etc, but given this is a cold war server discussion...

Speaking of mature tone, right back at you (borderline psychopaths?). It is possible to post a bug without the hyperbole. Never pretended this was a none issue, in fact I specifically said the opposite. You asked for another negative drag example and it was provided. All the best and see you in the online skies.

Atm, with the Phoenix the way it is the midcourse guidance update and going active can produce some fairly drastic, speed bleeding jerky manoeuvres by the missile. I find setting target size to large reduces the going active disturbance and helps the missile retain energy and track the target more smoothly.

@m4ti140 as mentioned earlier in this thread the F16 has the negative stores drag issue, and also as per the attached bug report it over a wee bit. Hence the suggestion, in the interests of fixing the bug asap, it might require ED to look into it the negative drag stores issue, particularly if they are responsible for weapons these days. Anyway, enjoy your hyperbole.

You need to first acknowledge the deficiencies of the AWG-9, it is the first TWS radar available and as such not as sophisticated as newer models. This means if you or the target manoeuvres a lot the track can be lost. As the radar has large doppler filters it is also easy to lose a target while looking down in the longer ranged pulse doppler modes. This leads to a bit of an conflict as you generally want to be high and fast launching your missiles to give them the energy but then below the target ideally to keep them tracked and also give their missiles thicker air to deal with (note above 3 degree the AWG-9 will automatically switch off the MLC doppler filter making it much more likely to track a target as it enters a notch type situation). So ideally, high closure target (manoeuvre to make it high closure if needs be), launch missile high and fast (28k+, Mach1+, gives your stick a damn good starting push), give some time for TWS-A to engage as part of phoenix launch if not already in TWS-A, gently manoeuvre to be below target and keep them there to give TWS best chance of holding the track and then also crank (i.e. turn away from them but keep them on radar) to bleed their missiles if any and slow down to sub mach 1... in an ideal world. Of course people tend to not like being shot at and with an F14 RWR indication and a high fast track on their own radars may guess what you are up to, dive and notch to be below you and beat the AWG-9. Also this clearly assume a 1v1 situation which often isn't the case. But with the right conditions you can get 70-80 mile kills or more on high closure, compliant (i.e. fly in a straight line) large fighter sized targets. It can be useful to force Jester into specific radar modes, either TWS-M to keep the radar pointing forward or TWS-A to follow targets (note you can use Pilot Lock Mode to reset the radar to forward and level but this does reset your picture if TWS-A keeps pointing where you don't want it). Also it can be handy sometimes to do the "point radar at a height at this range" from time to time. I've heard people have success with "vaicomm"? and other voice command software but I just use the menus rapidly. Once the fight gets to 15-20 miles without a lock switch to the pilot radar modes. As ever Jester is not a replacement for a good human RIO. Inb4 people come in to rip apart this specific situation with their own examples.... of course this is ideal and contextual. Edit: As I've explained before I would not use PLM to reset radar / radar picture with a real RIO, unless I had an potential pilot lock situation. But it is handy with Jester to reset things when they go off the beaten track too far.

Also, avoid afterburner unless you really need it. The F16 flies really well and fast on Mil if you are smooth and stay above 350knots. If you use afterburner keep it to short bursts for normal flight and try to use nose down to get speed instead. Having a detent in your throttle or using the virtual detent helps massively. I rarely run with 3 fuel tanks unless I really need it and no AAR is available, makes the aircraft sluggish. Mostly run with 1 or 2 external tanks. Also rarely run with no external fuel tanks, unless I'm doing a point defence scramble or similar and need to turn into a rocket ship... and even then one fuel tank goes so quick under full AB it doesn't slow you down much but does help endurance.

At this point it's just becoming more hyperbole about it being a "massively game breaking" bug. My previous post was intended as a suggestion in the interests of sticking to facts, getting the bug fixed asap and guesses on which teams should resolve each issue given that there appears to be two issues here. Other aircraft are also affected (core DCS aero bug? weapons being ED's responsibility now?) but the Viggen does seem to be the most affected by this negative drag bug, as well as missing overspeed damage (also not unique in that respect) and being a little too fast even without the negative drag bug. I did search on the forums and asked on the ED Discord yesterday if there was an existing bug for negative drag from weapons release but no answer so far. W.r.t the excessive speed effects there should probably be effects, such as but not limited to skin, airframe, equipment and engine damage, starting at Vne to stop continual over speeding at or above that speed. Hence my comment it would be useful to have some kind of surrogate environmental feedback given the comment earlier that the cockpit and airframe would be noticeably warm and served as a warning in real life, it would be nice if this feedback was universal across all fast aircraft. My original comment was on the assumption the negative drag bug allowing the Viggen to do 1780kph (the maximal speed with evidence so far) will be resolved. As per @renhanxue's response I don't think there is anyone who has claimed the Viggen should be capable of sustaining or surviving unscathed a speed like 1800kph down low, of course at such speeds you would expect a more severe effect.

Aye, the complaints while valid seem incredibly odd. Admire the devs putting up with inane criticism.

I had a similar issue, I was using the # key to bring up radio which appears like it should function. Really you should use alt+# or ctrl+# to bring up the pilot and RIO radio menus specifically. If you are tuned into the right frequency it should work.

So using the cold start mission and doing a high speed test with an unarmed Viggen, i.e. no weapons launched or tanks dropped, the plane appears to top out at M1.3 1550kph @ 50% fuel (also only rises to 1552kph at 24% fuel). Seems a little more "reasonable" (i.e. still slightly too fast) and suggests the 1780kph speed demonstrated in Rossmum's track is a weird released stores weapon drag bug. Edit: This is with DCS 2.7.1.6430 Open Beta and my point being there appears to be two bugs here. 1) The Viggen is slightly too fast (if a stripped down special version was predicted to do 1542kph runs then perhaps 1450-1500kph should be the limit for military version, gut feeling here based on a physics degree) and should have consequences for sustained high speed runs to limit them (airframe overheat or engine fatigue/damage, but bearing in mind this was more modern tech than the MiG21 and a purpose built low level interdictor), probably HB remit to fix and 2) Weapon release excessive drag reduction bug which appears to affect several aircraft and is probably an ED remit to fix. Given we are missing the sensory feedback to detect a cockpit or airframe getting warm it would be interesting to discuss how this could be indicated in the sim.

Also wondering the same... no changes or no patch notes for F14

There is some interesting information in this thread Also a link to the Polish manuals http://www.muzeumlotnictwa.pl/index.php/digitalizacja/katalog/2309

Man, I didn't notice that. Good find / bug hunting! As for the Hadwell / similar videos, he's not a bad pilot but if you hang around long enough on said servers you'll realise how long and how many deaths it takes your favourite youtubers to get their footage.

I was reluctant to get the Viggen, but it is a jet I keep coming back to for low level interdiction fun. It fills quite a similar role to the Tornado, Jaguar and other low level strike aircraft of the cold war. One pass and haul ass. It sounds like a boring mission but actually it is exciting flying below the tree line, trusting your Ternav is in order to put you at the right point to pop up and drop ordnance. Also the anti-ship capabilities are incredible. Flying as a two ship low level across the waves, sorting targets and unleashing the RB15f un unison to overwhelm the enemy CIWS... great stuff. For air to air, not BVR capable but can be fun in a cold war era furball. Note the AJS37 Viggen doesn't not have a built in cannon or chaff/flare, these take up pylons.

I think this roadmap is a great step forward in transparency, and one other module developers could learn from. I just hope it doesn't bite you in the butt with rampant speculations or pedantic checking that this community is known for. Thanks for sharing!

I have reported this in the bug section, with evidence in game and IRL but it hasn't yet been acknowledged afaik.

Ditto, spending freeze due to lack of good progress on old bugs like this, and also newer modules.

Yup, it wasn't reasonable at all for people to expect faster progress on the Viper. Particularly given it was initially stated that the Viper and Hornet teams were separate, a statement later rescinded. I think most people who bought early access Viper were aware it was early access, what wasn't clear was just how early access the Viper was and what rate features would appear. But in your defence I think there are a growing number of people who no longer buy EA, myself included. It is good to see clearer EA functionality statements from ED (a'la the Hind), but they still lack accurate timelines. I now try to enjoy DCS for what it is, rather than what it is promised to be, and submit bug reports where I can. But in the same sentence I won't be spending more money on DCS generally* until there is a consistent improvement in delivery. *Except Heatblur, they have slipped on some promises but generally have produced exceptional products, handling the community comments and feedback very gracefully.

5800x, 32gb, SSD, 2070, 1440p screen with gsync. Doesn't appear to be a significant performance decrease. Looks really good so far.

Given the map updates, and large number of changes, expect it to be large.

Overall the patch is fairly substantial and some really good improvements, but I was also disappointed to see this omitted. Hopefully it is in there.

When flying with 18 mk82SE (high drag mode) in the F14 100ms singles or 200ms pairs seems to be a "safe" setting with Jester. 50ms singles or 100ms pairs seems to be certain doom for the airframe with the bombs clipping either under or close enough behind to destroy the aircraft. I don't think the mk20 cares. Edit: mk82AIR appear to be more stable, F14 appears to have safe setting of 50ms singles or 100ms pairs. Presumably IRL there is an actual lower limit on the timing/spacing of weapons release and also IRL weapons spacing is probably generally wider than what we are doing in DCS due to IRL blast / fragmentation radius and aim to get at least some bombs on target (vs tendency to have tighter spacing in DCS due damage modelling). Then again there should probably be a post launch safety fuse on these things to avoid them blowing up near the aircraft.