coolneko

I've added a track file of the same problem. Before the latest patch I was able to launch a cheapshot 120 and it would hit almost every time with the AIs limited maneuvering after launch. Now it seems like either the radar cone of the 120 is smaller or the time that it goes active is later, missing the target completely. pitbull.trk

I think the current implementation of the FLCS is overshooting / undershooting 1g when you let go of the stick after commanding g. Even a small amount of force will have the FLCS drop to 0.8 or so g as it tries to find 1g. Pulling back hard and then letting go I've seen it go down to 0.5 g then oscillate back to 1g. Not sure if this is correct, but in the other viper sim no matter how ham fisted you are with the stick the fpm doesn't wobble around and the FLCS smoothly transitions to 1g. I may be wrong but I think during landing and takeoff (maybe just weight on wheels?) the FLCS blends commanding g and pitch with stick input, instead of just commanding g. That's why it takes a bit more pressure to point the nose up.

To be clear I'm asking for when the spj is in type 2, fwd emitting only. I know the hornet and viper can pick up a target roughly 40nm out, and the viper specifically can't burnthough until around 25ish miles. Does the spj have that same effect?

Has anyone tested the burnthrough range for the SPJ against other aircraft, specifically the teen series? Interested in how much you can shrink the MAR by using one.

Thought that was the case. Thanks!

I'm unable to get TMS left to bring up the SEAD DED page, or TMS right to cycle through emitters when the HAD is SOI. Anyone else having issues with this?

I've seen this document cited as evidence for the DCS F18's sustained turn rate. Just be aware that this is a document that was written for congress to dissuade them from funding the Super Hornet by comparing it to the Legacy Hornet, so it comes with a little bias. It also isn't a NATOPS manual, it was written by the General Accounting Office. Another problem is that there are no EM charts for the hornet in it, just claims that it has 19 d/s turn rate with no G specified or DI or weight. To my knowledge there are no publicly available EM charts for the Block 20 hornet, so ED is doing their best approximating the FM with what documentation they have.

The Navy procured a few F-16 variants (designated F-16N) for their aggressor role. It had the gun removed along with some other things to cut the weight down as much as possible. The Block 50 we have in DCS is heavier than the earlier blocks but it is still underperforming slightly in STR and ITR, but the big factors are incorrect AOA and G in certain regimes. ED knows about this and are working on it. Once they release the new FM I have a feeling that OP's tomcat problem won't be much of a problem anymore.

You'll need to look up 'cursor zero'. When you move the tpod it creates a delta from the original steerpoint. Once you cursor zero the steerpoint will be back to it's original position.

@uboats A few months ago someone posted in the general discussion thread that the JF-17 blk 1 and 2 are currently using EEGS, along with having pictures of the HUD as well. Has Deka looked into this? EEGS would make BFM in the Thunder much more interesting, and bring out its potential even with a negative angled gun.

Yep, that's why it's a good idea to not launch a fox 3 when friendlies are near. There's also a bug with how the enemy's ecm + chaff interacts with the 120 even at burn through range.

Guys are struggling because the STR and ITR are still off, along with gloc occuring so quickly. The FM is unfinished, ED has said so themselves. It has nothing to do with blk15 vs blk50. Obviously the A is more maneuverable. I think a blk30 would be easier to make using the cockpit textures that we already have and would also help provide that 'pinnacle dogfighter' viper too. Unfortunately it wouldn't fit for early 80s coldwar scenarios though, but the F16a would require remaking most if not all of the assets from scratch.

The only problem with the 120 that I've come across is that when you drop a track before the missile goes active it will quit functioning altogether. If I'm not mistaken the way it should work is if you drop the track before pitbull it should still guide toward the the last known location of that track and go active. Currently you need to support the missile all the way to active for them to work. I haven't had any problems with firing on multiple targets in TWS as long as they didn't drop from the radar before the missile went active.

If they were options then that's completely fine, but don't act as if those options you presented are the same as adding an option to remove one aspect from maverick operation in the viper. Your entire argument is based on the fact that if we let the viper have the maverick align option, then ED will abandon reason and allow anything as an option. How is that a logical conclusion unless you have no faith in ED? At the end of the day ED is the arbiter on these issues and I trust that they won't add in any of the things you proposed because they make absolutely no sense, and neither does the idea of an 'option domino effect'. Do you honestly think that after the boresight option is introduced, someone will ask for the viper to be able to fly into space, as long as its an option and ED will allow it? Or that the phoenix will be added to the list of weapons we could load? Do you think that ED won't be able to decide where to draw the line? You're right it is the exact same argument, but yours is in bad faith. You know ED wouldn't add anything like them into the game. If they were options they wouldn't. Like I said before, your previous examples aren't equivalent to an auto bore option so trying to get me to agree and then call out hypocrisy doesn't really add up. Okay. I'm not 'arbitrarily' allowing one but not another. The examples you brought up aren't anywhere near the same as an auto boresight option, and your conclusion that the addition of that option will lead to a cascading effect of ridiculous options doesn't connect. That's why one makes sense and the other doesn't. It seems that the only reason you want to leave it out is because A) you don't believe ED has the ability to decide what is a quality of life change and what isn't or.. B) You don't like the idea of a player having the ability to play your game the way they want too. As if all the examples I gave you were pretty absurd, right? (except for magic IFF, I would like to see an option to turn that off back in the game)

You're making a lot of assumptions. The point is they're having fun and not taking it seriously. People play DCS for a lot of different reasons. You don't have to act as if you're participating in a milsim event every time you play the game. Saying that a boresighting option will lead to the F-16 being able to fly to mars or adding weapons that were never loaded is completely a slippery slope argument. Nothing fundamental is changing about mavrick operation in the viper with a boresight option, while all the examples you've given are fundamentally changing how the viper operates. If I would have only responded to your post saying it was a fallacy, then you're correct, but I didn't. I also addressed the other points of your argument. The only reason I specified that particular point is because another poster did the exact same thing earlier in the thread. If drag modeling was removed by having an air-start jet, and you were asking for an option to remove it for when you're on the ground so you could take off and fly into space, then the reasoning would follow. The F-14D had GPS integrated INS (I think) so aren't you just asking for the F-14D? This is the most reasonable comparison you've had. If heatblur wanted to add an option to turn off INS drift I wouldn't argue. I also wouldn't come to the conclusion that said option would eventually lead to the tom being able to tunnel into the mantle of the earth though. Why arbitrarily decide that an air-start is acceptable for auto aligned mavs, but a ramp start isn't? Adding a boresight option and having the viper be a hypersonic spaceship aren't equal concessions, and I don't believe ED would be making random choices along the way for them to be connected. If you honestly think that having an option for boresighting is conceding the position of DCS being an accurate-as-possible flight sim, or that such an option would lead ED to be unable to tell the difference between quality of life additions or incorporating vapid ridiculousness then you should have them remove all unrealistic options in general. Invulnerability, infinite ammo, flight model and avionics easy mode, disabling G effects, less than 60 second rearm and refueling, completely repairing an aircraft in the time it takes me to make a cup of tea, magic iff etc.