Chaogen

That request is for an incremental up/down adjustment. Which would effectively be the same as having radar elevation control binding for other AC. This was however hotly debated some months ago.

Critisize ED all you want. MSFS just reminded me how bad the overall DSC UI is. Before you waste your time though, people have been telling them for more than a decade now. And I do agree the ME is just enfuriating. The logic is completely backwards from any programming language I've had to deal with. You can write LUA scripts instead but maintance would be a nightmare. I'm talking about Heatblur who is a 3rd party developer and who's subforum this is. HB who constantly has to deal with the base sim being changed without always having a complete heads up about changes or given the wrong update version to check their modules. As a paper pushing Engineer I can tell you that is enough to chase any other prospective developers off and makes the user experience frustrating at times. That's the history I am referring to which you're not going to find written down anywhere.

That's fine. Unfortunatly DCS Early Access is in a constant state of change. It does indeed make learning something a challange.. Theres a lot of factors which have changed procedures and certain aspects of the sim, due to updates from both developers. If you have a question that ok, but without knowing the history, I would hold off on the critism until you do. As it stands today (assuming you are on a "Super Carrier". I havent flown from the Stennis since) you dont need the hookup binding anymore. Only the salute when ready, which you can most certainly bind to a button.

1. You looked up a thread from a year ago which is woefully outdated. 2. Heatblur introduced the salute. At that time the F-18 launched by pushing the throttles into afterburner. Super Carrier changed all that inculding the hookup procedure. ED went their own way without much consideration for what Heatblur did.

I use quotations because the technical term is Normal Force and down is a construct of your reference system. The other problem is what people perceive as down force (such as pushing the stick forward), when in reality the points representing load distribution along the beam, with the force vectors, are a little more complex. And yes. I would agree that force would be in addition to the weight of the aircraft. Which is all the more reason to pull back and not push over. I would note that I said on roll out which is after the aircraft has stopped flying and nose has already come down which is exactly as Chuck describes. I remember in flight school there were more instructors that wanted you to stall the aircraft onto the runway instead of flying it onto the runway. It doesn't intuitively make sense to intentionally make the plane fall out of the sky. Its something that only clicks when you've practiced a lot and become so familiar with the aircraft to flare and hold a few inches above the runway until it decides on its own to land. The upside being that you don't bounce your landings which is both bad for your ego and worse your plane. So yes some pilots do aerobraking even if they dont have to. You can do it, if you know the plane well enough (like demonstration pilots for instance), but the risk of a tail-strike is too great for the regular naval aviator to do. They land on carriers where brakes aren't even used and they don't flare in contrast to AF pilots. So you just can't compare the two. Why do the Iranians seem to do it? Easy. Spare parts and they do it every-time the fly. Even though they its not as exaggerated as the airshow videos. Landing onspeed in the Tomcat is already pretty slow with the low sweep angle and barn door flaps. Its just not worth it to showboat for Penny B.

Well slowing down is the result of many forces acting upon the aircraft. You have to use superposition to analyze each component and it's effects. At low speed induced drag is going to be greater than parasitic drag (ignoring parachutes). The elevons will induce a considerable amount of drag. Spoilers on the other hand can't induce drag, because its not creating lift. As Victory said, they reduce the lift of the wing by disrupting the highspeed airflow over the wing. The parasitic drag component they create is not as effective at lower speed. To your question is, doesn't pushing the stick forward create "downforce"? As Airhunter mentioned, it depends on the Center of Gravity along with the center of aerodynamic lift. While it is true that in straight and level flight the elevon will raise the nose by creating negative lift in the back thereby pivoting the aircraft around the aerodynamic center, which increases AOA and therefor generate an increase in lift. Pushing the stick forward creates the opposite. In this scenario though, you are on the ground. The wings stopped generating sufficient lift to fly. Pushing the nose forward will not reduce the AOA. Now lift generated by the wings is only a matter of velocity (after we deployed spoilers and perhaps raised flaps). So we'll eliminate that component from our analysis. What you are left with is a beam scenario supported by only 2 points and a force acting on the counter-lever. If we consider your mains the pivot point, pulling back on the stick will unload the nose gear, which in turn means your main gear now has to support more of the total mass. Remember only the mains have breaks. Pushing the stick has the reverse effect so while you create "down force" the force is acting on the nose gear, which has no breaks and unloading the mains which reduced your break's effectiveness. Yes. I do agree this does not take into account wear and tear on the wheels (which is also the reason formula 1 wheels are so wide even though friction has nothing to do with surface area), but essentially they are also cheaper to be replaced as are breaks unlike engine nozzles and the like. Point is Aerobraking is not very effective other than if you had a really long runway, an aircraft that landed at higher speeds (such as delta wings and hot shot Iranian/airshow pilots) and/or a penny pinching CO that didn't want to replace breaks and tires a lot, but got to blame the pilot if a tail-strike occurred.

So few people appreciate the simplicity of friction. Its all about the Normal force. Engineering 101, if you want to stop shorter, or corner faster, increase the "Down Force". Same reason I retract flaps on roll out. 1, I want to stop flying and 2. it makes the tires more frictiony, which in turn makes the brakes more effective.

If you look in the top right corner there is a search function. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=244824&highlight=wing+sweep https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=281656&highlight=wing+sweep https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=237236&highlight=wing+sweep https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=273837&highlight=wing+sweep https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=264154&highlight=wing+sweep

Right? I mean if we want to get technical, this thread should have stopped there. Semi-related to another hot thread, since they also use the insta-killer TF-30s there should be no Cats left by now. On a more serious note, ignoring the Onspeed and inducing a flare which will undoubtedly arrest the decent, and make the Cat balloon, can be managed with DLC to get you that smooth nose high landing and a bit of roll out. Btw, OP, your video didn't really show aerobraking. Only the first clip form 3:11 had marginal aerobraking but the nose was on its way down before it cut to the next clip. I would not call 5 seconds aerobraking. The rest didn't show roll out at all. Besides that why would you. Landing at Echo bay is fun. And you get to sit and watch Hornets and Vipers dart the end of the runway while you refuel. Better than proving I can aerobrake. If I want to do that I'll get in a 16.

I think you are extrapolating a lot from this one design quirk. Which really isn't a quirk. As said before the "cover" which is really a switch just configures the aircraft in an ACM configuration so you do not have to set everything individually with the push buttons i.e. Gun Rate High and Missile Mode/STP (Which this topic is really about). It doubles as a safety cover to jettison ordinance which you obviously dont want to happen accidentally but you do want quick access to in a dogfight. The rest of the safety covers work all as advertised and no different than the eastern designs. Consider the L-39.. Firing a pyro charge to cycle my gun.. That's something I still struggle to wrap my head around. Surely that could be done automatically. Besides the gun has its own safety cover. Oh and another safety cover on the stick which has to in the down position to fire. Not up mind you, which is how every other "safety cover" works.. Not to mention Launch Authorization of some of the more advanced jets. I highly doubt someone under-stress is going to be able to get through all those "safety features" without messing something up along the way, and being left unable to fire because they did. I know I have in DCS, more than a couple of times.

Well then I understand your remark even less. 350 is clearly marked. After that its Idle and a 4g or 15 AOA turn. Never heard of 325 through the turn (other than bfm) as you are trying to loose airspeed, so you can lower gear,flaps/dlc (at 250) through the top of the turn so you are Onspeed rolling out on downwind with minimal trimming. Besides the 350 is a reference point. You can do the break anywhere between 300 and 500.. You don't have to get it at exactly 350.00 kts.

Energy management it not flying the performance chart. You have to be adaptable make constant adjustments and understanding if you have the energy to perform your next maneuver. I learned more from dog-fighting in the Sabre than any performance chart. And alas all of this is academic, because if you managed to get in a dogfight with a BVR Aircraft, and somehow managed to slow down quick enough for the perfect "initial" speed, you're not going to be looking at your ASI in a turn fight. You better be looking at the bandit. The plane will tell you if you are bleeding energy or not. Your scenario constitutes a very small percentage of engagements. A perfect, 1 on 1, Guns Only, Post Merge fight. Besides this is conversation completely off topic. There have been countless ASI discussions. Bottom line is learn to work with it.

The Tacan indicator is a hardware issue.. I have an Index and I still have to zoom in. Which is why indexing the knob and counting clicks works fine for me, and given it's position,size and design of the upper knob in particular I'm wiling to bet that pilots probably had to do this too. Or have it preset before you even leave the ground like the bomb selector drum or even the gun ammo count. And once again I do not understand this obsession with reading the ASI. Its in 10 knot increments and the labels are every 100kts. What are you trying to read? Its an analog dial. You dont need exact numbers because as you said you can memorize the positions. Easy. Between 5 and 7 is cruising and above 8 is hauling. Between 1 and 4 is bad. 5 o'clock is 250. Gear Down Flaps Down. Approach speed is onspeed. Why make it difficult?

(1.1) I never said I get to fly whenever I want to. I said if you put the time and effort it you can make it work. It's very easy to say I dont have the time, or schedule. I have to get up at 4 in the morning, and work up to 60 hours a week. Which means I have a very limited window in the evening to fly, if I even can and that slot rarely aligns with most other people on the server. But I can see who's online and message them if I feel like it. It is certainly possible. (2.1) See 1.1. (3.1) So.. Other play it their way. Except. Currently you can't play it your way. You don't want to adapt your tactics and/or get a RIO who would enable you to do it. Instead your resolve is to have the aircraft changed to suit your style. (4.1) The current state works just fine if you work around the limitations of not having a Human RIO. (5.1) (1a) While I do prefer human RIOs, I still fly with Jester 66% of the time. And my point to your original statement still stands. (2a) Its not just a "Next Launch" binding you need. You will also need a whole set of commands to have him hook specific target before you can instruct him to select next launch. (3a) I fail to see an exaggeration argument, since this is exactly what happened with the LANTIRN Jester requests. (6.1) Since we seem to agree on more than not, my point is this. There are enough requests from people who seem more interested in changing the simulation of the Aircraft to rather suite their tactics/style/flying/peripherals such as virtual FBW so they dont snap their wings or SparrowHawk HUDs because they can't bothered to learn to read the ASI. Rather than adapt and work with what they have, which is why I am naturally adverse to these types of requests. I support fixing the things that are broken or missing first before adding QOL items.

I don't get all this micromanaging Jester. When one of my RIOs fly with me they handle radar, weapons and engagement. They just tell me where to point the nose. Only time I get involved is within a 20nm engagement. And the same goes when I RIO for them. The workload is split for a reason. When I fly alone I'm going to shoot the closest target on my radar. And I have never been in an engagement where the F-14s did not shoot first. Waiting for a dissimilar A/C to shoot 120s so you can pick-off the wingman with a Phoenix seems like you are placing yourself at a tactical disadvantage. Filling up the Jester Wheel with every conceivable RIO function defeats the purpose of having a AI RIO in the first place. Not to mention having to navigate the wheel. Which is then inevitably followed by requests for keybinds. Sounds like all of you wanted a full fidelity F-15 with a F-14 skin on it. If you want to take it to level where you cherry pick your targets as an ability then why not invest in getting a human back there. The servers I fly on have people from all walks of life, schedules and situations, some even playing on laptops, with playstation controllers or crappy internet, but they make it work. There are so many other things that can be added and fixed.