Aernov

Is there an explanation for this CB behaviour?

Almost no P-39 or P-63 mentions, why is that? It has some unique flight characteristics, was used and liked by Soviet pilots (looks like we won't get any USSR-made aircraft in observable future anyway), has decent A/G capability, looks good...

Shouldn't P-47 be able to reach 52'' manifold takeoff power with throttle alone? Our P-47 reaches maximum of 46'' - 47'' at near-sea level altitude with "default" DCS weather conditions (29.92 in Hg, something like +15 deg. C, no wind). Is this correctly modeled? And should it lose manifold pressure with increase in altitude as fast as it does now? Shouldn't regular geared supercharger provide enough boost to climb to 7000 ft at 42'' manifold?

I'd love to get a late razorback modification in DCS (D-22 or -23, or both). How much difference is there between late razorbacks and already modeled bubble canopy P-47s systems-wise? Will it be too much work to make them? (3D model, aerodynamics, prop controls)

You'll have rockets, not only S-8 with HE and HEAT warheads which already can kill most things (except tanks, usually), but bigger ones as well, including S-24 (those can kill a tank or two, a building, concrete bunker...). Later you'll get R-60s, so air won't be safe around the Hind either. 30 mm cannon, while not as effective as GAU-8, still capable of doing some bad things to a lot of vehicle types. Apache "gameplay" will probably be very similar to Ka-50: hover above tree line and launch missiles from a distance. Mi-24 will do strafing (or even bombing) runs at relatively high speeds in addition to launching guided rockets. And infantry support missions can be done, it just requires more planning and editor work.

We could use some missions which require cold start and takeoff from FARP, road base (possibly with trees in the way), short runway (like the one on the famous Georgian "cross" unmarked airfield). Those will force us to use RVTO or even VTO, increase the value of in-air refueling and somewhat limit possible payloads. Also, strong crosswind, bad weather and night variations of the same missions (although in it's current state (no proper DMT contrast lock and incorrect slew behaviour, no FLIR hostpot tracker, incomplete NVG features) Harrier is not much of "N/A" yet). Also, some missions can be made with random target placement, so they will be slightly different each time (and a lot different if the random placement area includes mountains), searching for targets can be interesting after Razbam introduces (and fixes) hotspot tracker.

Your rudder axis may be assigned to multiple devices, one of which causes constant input to one side, you can check that in axis commands. Harrier can spin with strong "rudder" input (which translates to activation of reaction control system nozzles while Harrier is in hover mode or has enough duct pressure), but it can be stopped easily if you manage to hold the plane horizontal during this spin and recovery.

The damage is there, but ENG page and engine life count stays the same regardless of engine status. It should dissipate at a rate dependent on JPT, from less than 0.1 "points" per minute on <645 deg. C to more than 1000 PPM at temps greater than 800 C. It is not as important as DMT and other stuff described above, but it would be nice to have still. Also, they could program some power loss proportional to life count (more wear on the engine - less power allowed by DECS/JPTL), if it's not already implemented.

Also, to add to the missing features list: - RWR filter modes besides LIM are missing (Offset is especially needed); - EHSD overlays are missing some information (the one that currently displays AAR zones should also show SAM ranges as F-18's SA page does); - Engine life count dissipation with corresponding performance decrease if the pilot is "mistreating" the Pegasus and not maintaining JPT/RPM ratings and their time limits; - IFF/ACNIP panel - at least limited functionality, or something like JF-17 has, please; - Self-protection jammer (the built-in one); - Ground power panel.

So, what is the purpose of these pumps? Just prevention of immediate shutdown at near-zero or negative Gs?

Is MiG-21 supposed to start and run it's engine with fuel pump switches off? Real procedure requires (or advises?) at least feed tank pump on before engaging starter, with enabling two other pump switches soon after engine idle RPM stabilization and AC generator becoming operational, in DCS engine can start and operate with all pumps off.

Fxo and metashaders were deleted by me countless times, last time - after latest update a day ago. Also, after cleaning metacache and shadercache, repairing and launching DCS without PC reboot the issue did not occur. I somewhat doubt it's the end of it though. We'll see. Thanks for suggestions.

I have tried repairing, but I'll do it again for good measure. Should I delete metacache and then repair, or it will be created automatically on in-game terrain load?

Sometimes (usually when relaunching DCS or after playing something other) I get consistent and pretty significant frame drops (28-38 from usual 57-60 with VSync), decreasing graphics settings does very little (only decreasing preload radius seems to have slight effect), while GPU usage sits at around 40%-50% and all of VRAM (11 Gb) used up completely, regardless of map and number of objects in the mission. Also during such framerate drops I have noticed a significant increase in disc usage from DCS (high write rate and total write volumes of around 200 Gb after a few hours of flying). Attached is a log file from last occurrence of this "anomaly", and it contains this line: "2021-01-29 09:43:39.112 ALERT DX11BACKEND: Error: Can't find precompiled shader for effect enlight/radar.fx:DIRECTX11=true;USE_DCS_DEFERRED=1;. Recompilation process will take some time, please wait (this situation should not occur on end user PC, if there is no manual shader editing)" All shader editing I did was deleting "fxo" and "metashaders2" folders (and I have launched DCS a lot of times since this deletion, first launches had no issues), now "fxo" folder contains less than 2 Mb of stuff and metashaders2 is empty. This framerate/disc usage behaviour is fixed by reloading PC, just restarting DCS helps inconsistently. dcs.log

For startup, taxi and different types of takeoffs and landings, Harrier NATOPS is actually usable in DCS. There are some things that don't work or don't make any difference (especially since you can't damage aircraft systems with wrong procedures, and some checks and tests don't work), but in general you can use real life manual for general flying in DCS. For weapons employment and onboard combat systems it's probably better to use in-game manual, since those procedures are still not matching real ones completely.

The text is sure easier to see on, for example, EHSD page with map overlay (no need to decrease gain now), but actual readability of that text is decreased by thick black outline, which flickers slightly when pilot is moving his head relatively to MFD. There is no such effect on A-10C MFDs.

What about Harrier HUD issues that appeared after it's rework? (Sidearm lock marker is placed not even close to the locked target, DMT HUD marker is displaced lower and to the left while slewing the DMT, DME shows distance in meters)

Is it possible in real aircraft to remove RWR contacts indication from HUD without turning RWR off? Or it is a kind-of compensation for lack of dedicated head-down RWR display? Also, when can we expect remaining RWR modes? At least Offset, please. Radar-rich environments make threat rings unreadable and Limited mode often hides things I still want to see.

Is turbine supercharger behavior correct in it's current version? I have noticed that during climb it just keeps manifold pressure at a set value without moving boost lever, increasing turbine RPM on its own. I have started climbing with turbine off (boost lever full aft), until max throttle was not sufficient (MP fell below 40'') Then I have advanced boost lever to set MP back to 42'' (turbine RPM rose slightly). And that was it, during climb to 20 000 ft I have not touched the boost lever, manifold pressure remained at 42'' (it even rose to 43-44'' near 20 000 ft) and turbine rpm was rising as well (throttle was maxed out whole time, only thing I did is closing intercooler flaps). I thought (based on "experience" with P-47 by A2A Simulations) that you would need to continuously advance boost lever to keep desired MP during climb (just like throttle with geared supercharger). And at 20 000 I have tried to decrease throttle without touching boost lever, and it had no effect on engine instruments readings. Also, shouldn't it be possible to reach takeoff MP (52'') with throttle alone? Now it maxes out at around 47'' at airfield elevation of 105 ft.

A1-AV8BB-NFM-000 NATOPS: "...When the lever is moved aft to the hover stop the nozzles are set for hovering. The position of this stop gives a fuselage hovering attitude of about 6 1/2°; i.e., the nosewheel slightly higher than the main wheels.The engine datum is at 1.5° to the fuselage datum. The nozzle angle for hovering is therefore 82° from the engine datum. A nozzle braking position, at 98.5° from the engine datum, can be selected by lifting the nozzle lever over the hover stop and pulling it back along a ramp." I have read somewhere that hover stop nozzle deflection may vary from 81 to 84 degrees. Do you ever hit your tail when landing at 81 degree? Or this is for moving surface landings?

Yeah, I won't actually try to mess with regedit and change user name, too much risk of messing up a lot of things. I'll wait for a soluton from HB. Thanks for the help with identifying my problem.

So, I have created new user creatively named "Test user", and Viggen worked fine... DCS_AJS37 folder was created automatically, and was empty. Attached is the log file with correctly identified Saved games folder. dcs.log I'll try to change my main user name to latin-spelled one. dcs.log

Well, this leaves two possible solutions: changing system language (which I do not want to do), or changing user (which will mess up a lot of things)... What bothers me is the fact that Viggen worked without an issue a few months ago, and there were no changes in user name, language settings and soft/hardware.

So, I'm getting some kind of error even before the game reaches for that folder?

Good nozzle angle for landing on stationary surface - 83 degrees. It may be a little easier to control the plane at 82 degrees, but touchdown attitude will be slightly more nose-up (not enough for tail strike though). When landing on a moving surface (ship), I usually do not try to maintain horizontal velocity with pitch alone, and set my nozzles at an angle that allows to match speed with the ship with minimal use of pitch-down (usually around 80-82 degrees). Angles more than 84 are used for jet braking, usually after conventional landing or FNSL. Also, in my experience, it is easier to control and stabilize with "preventive" corrections: if you feel that AV-8B is going to bank left in a moment (maybe after too strong previous correction, or when stopping lateral movement or using yaw), make early adjustment, with experience you will notice that you are already making these preventive corrections at the moment of an undesired oscillation occurring. On takeoff with 82 degrees there is no backwards momentum, in fact, I usually apply some back stick to stop forward pitch.