Katj

I usually lock up the tanker to get distance and closure rate on the hud. I don't know if you'd do this IRL? I'll admit I often have to do a yo-yo, lest I overshoot. Then when I get closer it's strictly visual for me. Well, I also listen to the engines. Doing it with no audio would probably be much harder. I use bomb mode a lot now. When I first started practicing aar, I didn't like it. But now I find it helps a lot. When you're really heavy it's a bit much sweep, though. I guess it depends on the speed of the tanker, too.

Have you read ICAO Annex 5? It clearly states that SI-units (metric system) are to be used. As far as I know it is the only agreed upon international standard. The document does not, however, give the foot and nm a termination date. Although it is abundantly clear that they will be terminated at some point. Can you tell me where ICAO strongly recommends the use of foot, knots and nm? The metric system might be evil, but the imperial system is retarded. I'd rather be evil than retarded. Also, the definition of the foot is 0.3048 meters, so we're all flying metric already.

I've had this issue too a couple of times, I think jester may be fouling something up if you tell him to change a lot of settings. Telling him to select mk 82 or whatever again has helped. Or it may just be me that's doing something wrong.

Let me clarify; I couldn't understand why a Hornet pilot would choose an aim-7 over an aim-120b because I had only seen the F-14's aim-7 and it has such poor performance. Now, given that I've learned that the Hornet aim-7 has superior performance, I do understand. I've been meaning to try some bf cauc, the fox-1 environment is appealing.

I usually play on the blue flag PG server, and some hornet drivers have said that they don't bring 120b's, they just take aim-7's instead. Being a a tomcat driver myself I couldn't understand that given what I'd seen of the missiles performance. It's finally dawning on me what's actually going on.

It has some advantages; I find it more resistant to CM, it has a larger warhead, etc. It's mostly cold or flanking shots too. Hot you can shoot a bit further out, like 5 nm. You can shoot at 10 nm, but it's strictly to make the opponent go defensive.

It's a wvr missile against fighters as is, I don't know if that's right or not. When shot at ranges of 1-2 miles I think it performs well, but I don't have any statistics.

When and how did it break? I've not really used until recently.

Well put, sir. Anyway, I meant someone who's always at hand, not that the RIO's tasks are beneath me.

You get a lot of things with this module. Aar, carrier ops, high speed interceptor, dogfighter, bvr powerhouse, an airframe with some character, etc. All beautifully packaged. Unless you have a RIO slave, you also get Jester, and that might bring you some frustration. The avionics are a bit old, but perfectly usable. That may or may not be your cup of tea. Forward visibility isn't great. I personally own the Viggen, Tomcat, and Fighting Falcon. I almost exclusively fly the cat.

Ah, that might be it. I never looked in exterior view, but I couldn't see it from the cockpit. Thanks guys.

I haven't done any refueling practice in a couple of months because I've been concentrating on combat, but last night I did and it was as if on rails. I just went straight into the basket and got a full tank. So naturally I decided to up the difficulty level. I made my own mission, starting from carrier with 6000 lbs of fuel, and added a tanker at 20 000 ft. Oh, I made conditions pitch-black and added some turbulence as well. At first I couldn't understand how anyone could do it, but then I found the night vision goggles. The tanker flew a really bonkers pattern of my own doing, but disregarding that I still found it much harder than in daylight. It took me a long time but eventually Jester said that we were full at 16500, which I'm counting as a win. I think night aar is one of those practice makes perfect situations, but I'm eager to hear any tips that you guys might have. Like, isn't the probe supposed to have a light that will illuminate the basket? Before I found the NV goggles I tried to use the flashlight but I'm telling you now so you don't have to try it; it's not a great idea.

Dude, I don't even know what that's supposed to mean but I'm going to assume you're not being very nice. I don't know what possessed you to say uranium isn't radioactive but it's nothing but incorrect and if you feel butthurt over the fact that I pointed that out, that's a problem on your end.

Depleted uranium is still uranium, albeit with an isotope composition that makes it less radioactive than naturally occuring uranium. Still, all uranium is radioactive to varying degrees so you don't want that stuff inside your body. U-238 (depleted uranium) actually decays through alpha radiation, which is often said to be the worst kind to have inside your body, though not so bad on the outside. Don't eat, drink or inhale. Uranium is also toxic. I don't know what's worst in the case of du rounds. I'm sure there has been research on the subject. Tungsten is also toxic, by the way. That's why it isn't used in lead-free (which is a thing we want because lead is toxic) hunting ammunition anymore. Now we mostly use copper, which is also toxic, but only in doses higher than the ones you are likely to encounter in meat harvested with copper bullets. We even need small amounts of copper to stay alive. What a wonderful world, eh?

The only such setting is the general one in settings - gameplay, is it not? I have checked and double-checked that setting. I won't have access to my computer until next week, but I can triple - check it then. But, I take it your assessment is that something is wrong on my end? I expected as much, and nothing would make me happier as it would certainly be the easier fix. I asked this question fully prepared to feeling stupid when I got the answer. Also, I have no problems getting the F-14 to fall out of the sky like an autumn leaf. But maybe that is possible with easy flight model on? Or is there some aircraft specific setting I'm not seeing?

I've been trying to get the Viggen into a deep stall, flat spin, spin, or whatever, but the worst I can manage results in a gentle nose down. No matter how I try, I can't get the aircraft into an uncontrollable state or otherwise very unfavorable situation. I've tried all kinds of pitch roll and yaw inputs at high, medium, and low altitude, heavy and light aircraft, inverted, you name it. Disabling spak seems to help somewhat but honestly not much. I've heard that the real aircraft would superstall at about 30 degrees alpha, but I cannot reproduce that in dcs. What am I missing? I feel like I have some silly game mode setting or something, but I don't as far as I can tell.

As I'm sure you know, the Viggen's RM8 engine has a very high bypass ratio, which means a lot of air for the huge afterburner. There are charts somewhere around the forum that clearly show that at zone 3 burner the thrust increases with speed at roughly the same rate as the drag. So acceleration should be fairly constant in a pretty large envelope. But the Viggen also has fixed inlets that will give you an abrupt end to said acceleration. The in game Viggen may have the wrong numbers, and that 40 000' test in the linked thread seems way off. But conceptually it's correct (in accordance with the declassified charts) that you will have very good acceleration that comes to an abrupt end (although maybe not as abrupt as the current simulation). By the way max speed in terms of mach is temperature dependent, and the advertised mach 2 top speed requires cold conditions. I recently read a blog post written by a former pilot that said that his record was mach 1.97, and he didn't know any air force pilot that broke mach 2. However, he also said that he was still accelerating when he ran out of fuel, and implied that higher speed could be possible with certain flight profiles. This was with a SF-37 reconnaissance aircraft.

If you're convinced that your opponent is using your sweep against you, you can always go manual to really ruin their day. But I'm not convinced that it's such a big disadvantage to give away your speed with sweep. It can be had from radar or eyeball anyway.

Yeah, I understand that it's like riding a bicycle. But your stick is obviously different from mine somehow ;) Maybe I should try experimenting with some deadzone. It doesn't feel quite right though, as it will stay dead centered if I just let go of the stick. I will report back with results.

What kind of curves are you guys running? Except for the first couple of sittings I haven't had all that much trouble catching the basket, but I always start oscillating while hooked up. It's exhausting to the point where I have to take a shower after flying, and the tiniest lapse in concentration will make me lose the basket. So last night I decided the oscillating was due to my inability to make small enough corrections and, as always, I blamed the equipment. So I tried setting up some joystick curves for my t16km. I've been running all 0 until now, but now I tried 10 in pitch and roll (I don't bother with rudder during aar anyway). Apart from the first try, which was revolting, I had a much smoother ride for the rest of the session. I may even try going higher in the curves in search for the sweet spot, but it's very time-consuming, and I don't want to completely mess up my resolution at higher deflections. Yeah, so you guys saying it's easy, what are your sticks and curves?

That looks sick! I didn't know that was a thing! Must be potentially very unhealthy. That picture brings the mishap during operation credible sport to mind.

I think this would be a great option to have. I don't have much time to fly either, and the fact that at the moment I can't reliably refuel even under good conditions severely limits the missions I can fly. I mostly manage to get fuel, but getting a full tank usually takes me so long that I run out of the aforementioned precious time. That said, I wouldn't use such a feature/cheat, but I understand people who would.

Very nice animations! I do, however, think that OP is trying to observe the first case. OP claims that there is zero displacement of the loaded wing until halfway out from the tip. If that claim is true, and I haven't tested it myself so I cannot vouch for it, then there's a problem or "problem", if you will. Because physics, there's no way for a wing to not bend until halfway to the tip. Thus, if you are trying to prove that OP is wrong, you should prove that the wing DOES bend in the inner half, albeit very little. Now, because no part of a real aircraft is a rigid body, there should of course be all sorts of bending going on. E.g. the nose should droop when pulling Gs. I don't think that's modelled, and that's fine with me. I am happy that the wings bend at all.

And you are hooked up to the catapult? Does it happen every time? I've never had this issue. All you have to do is line up, lower the nose, press U to hook up, and then shift + U to launch. I don't think the state of the aircraft or clearance matters. I mean you need to be hooked up, but they will happily launch you into the water if you e.g. forget to lower flaps... That's what a friend told me...

I have to agree with OP that current behaviour doesn't look quite right. It's probably not the most pressing issue in the game right now, but I don't understand why you guys are giving OP a hard time just because he or she asked to get a problem fixed. I am sure ED will prioritize this request according to its importance. They took the time to implement wing flex, now they know that it doesn't look right and someone noticed. It's all good really.