Scrape

May I suggest a different rudder trim position? I rotate the trim wheel full right then back until the T is vertical. This affords me half right rudder on take off roll to keep her steady. Some right roll on the stick held steady. RPM full forward. Boost at 8lbs. Always 8lbs, not more or less or the rudder trim goes to shit. Smooth yet deliberate advance to the 8lbs. If you advance too slowly the aircraft pulls too hard to counter. Elevator trim is one notch up and there should be no lateral movement on the stick from the pilot. Of course no flaps. The Spit will lift itself off the ground.

To answer that either way the profit would have to be quantified. DCS has lost revenue to a fragmented infrastructure of the core game however. The delay for 2.5 and the incompatibility of a lot of modules with the steam version. There is no dedicated game server from ED, so the large sandbox experience is provided by the players. ED does not control the MP experience for its own product, and that could be viewed as a hindrance to its accessibility as it is certainly rare. If ED are contracted for other projects and that is paying the bills, then that can be understood. Programmers need to eat. However, the long term effect to the core of DCS is affected.

The roll changes are correct. If you take a moment to think about the difference between advancing blades and retreating blades, and the speed and angle of attack difference from the left and right sides it might become more clear why those effects happen.

My flying buddies say the exact same thing. Navigation assistance as well for the co-pilot. The Gazelle multicrew system seems like it would work well in the Huey. Although the Gazelle still has sync issues, they are less and less each patch. Because there is no video screen or RWR in the Huey to the layman it looks like a simpler program write. Perhaps they feel there is no money in it, but I would disagree with that.

In addition to the aforementioned calculations I'll add another that most books don't cover. The bomb release was not accurate. Bombs often were released into the slip stream of its parent aircraft. Currently the ejector pistons on current bomb racks consistently push bombs away. During WWII this small but very important function had not been perfected. Thus the first second or two of the bomb's flight was yet another variable that a pilot had no way of predicting.

I know a lot of people use curves. I don't, and I don't feel the Spit requires them. If you duplicate the flight manual procedures then all expected results will happen in the sim.

The F-15E avionic capabilities are still very much classified. While there will be some leeway that ED can use as certain functionality of the F-15E systems are known there will be no way to reproduce the system fully. To move forward will be up to ED and how much they are willing to fill in the gaps. As it were even if the gaps are filled, they will be filled with....well you guys know. Upgrades to the F-15E have accelerated faster than other aircraft such as the F-16. A high degree of functionality was offered in the A-10C and in that respect a capable E-model can be built for the game. A E-model is as far beyond an A-10C as an A-10C is beyond an A-10A.

Don't forget about compressors.

They said it would, it's brighter than normal for testing purposes. The video posted was some raw footage from testing.

I see your point, but disagree. I wouldn't want to try and perform a start-up procedure with a folded wing in my face, or now I can't click my cockpit buttons because someone else's fuselage is inside of my cockpit. Keep the collision. People will figure it out. Will mistakes happen, yup they sure will. It will encourage a culture of organization. I'd rather have it that way then give in to the immature impatience. Like servers that kick players for taxiway takeoffs. I think the answer is...don't crash.

It's on the roadmap, but it's unknown when it will be ready.

The smudges are probably from the ground crew who fixed the system that the pilot broke and will soon be using. That's why pilots wear gloves, to wipe off the screen.

Oh I agree. That's how I do it. It is the hardest part of the landing, but I do not find it difficult to replicate. Just talk to her softly and she settles down nicely. I also agree that a three point landing where she comes down herself is the best way. This ties into the proper approach speed and pitch angle I mentioned. The Spit requires a pilot's constant attention, but it's a joy to fly.

My son heard the latest song posted on Heatblur's YouTube channel when he walked into the room and asked if I was watching Dragon Ball lol.

There is no landing issue with the Spit. While difficult its very predicatable when you stay within proper speed limits and pitch angle. The hardest part is keeping her strait with the pedal dance as you slow to taxi speed but the landing itself is not that bad. If anyone experiences excessive bounce then there is something the pilot is doing wrong.

I'm not so sure its that simple. You see AMC doesn't see itself as belonging to the Air Force. It belongs to itself. They pride themselves on providing service to the military as a whole, and after all it is in fact what they do. If a P8 tanker which is tied to the Navy and Navy duties then would it be in a position to tank Air Force jets? Who would you call for that? Which command? Is this a Naval commander who on top of running his theater is now receiving request from 16 different units who might be passing through in the next 3 months? Oh and a couple ferry flights flying at an odd hour due to country allowed airspace time. Phone calls and emails to which command in the Navy? Would they be equipped to logistically handle that? Would they keep that tanker service to themselves in the Lavy and not share such a valuable asset? That's not how it works. That in fact would be petty. Hoarding resources is not how you win a war. Large tankers in one command allows for all services to have a one stop shop for tanking needs. This consolidation reduces cost overall, and increases the availability of an asset that everyone needs and everyone will use. Especially when the Air Force has an aging tanker fleet and needs replacement aircraft I would raise hell too if another service was awarded money for new tankers when the supplier of everyone to include the Navy isn't. Imagine an Air Force unit asking for a tanker to whom? Which command? That logically disrupts how movements are organized. Perhaps it seems petty to the outsider, but the logistical flow and support of tankers for all military units (all branches) is a work of art considering what's on hand. Especially when the time will come when that Navy P8 tanker didn't make it and now the Navy has to call the Air Force to support it. It isn't Air Force pride so much as keeping the logistic machine intact. This is a good machine. It's kind of amazing. It should be maintained, not fragmented.

I'll add to the list of positive compliments. This is my most anticipated release full stop. For me, Jester not required.

Did you just suggest that there is another jet as capable at being a 'bomb truck' than an E-model? :megalol:

While that is a point, a post from 2012 was a ways back. Sometimes in business a company has to shift gears for any multitude of reasons. Do we have a reason to believe that the E-model is still on track? I wouldn't hold them to what was announced 5 years ago without any updates since then. Especially due to the complexity of of making a DCS module. There are a lot of hurdles to simming an E-model. If RAZBAM tried, but had to reorganize their crew to something else I wouldn't fault them for that. IMO ED or 3rd party should focus on its infrastructure gameplay with so many modules at this stage. By the next quarter we will have enough aircraft to sim a modern battlefield in MP with no tools to manage a persistent mp campaign effectively. But that's a post for another thread.

The Air Force doesn't have enough tankers for itself, let alone another branch. It's understandable. I've seen lots of movements cancel or become delayed. Not by hours, but days. Deployments shifted or TDY's for training dropped for lack of tanker support. When I joined I never heard of such a thing. Now, it's more common.

I agree there is information out there. Still even the F-15C in DCS does not reflect the performance envelope of the C model with 220 engines. Particularly when it comes to acceleration. I've worked E models for several years in my career. There will be some things left out. Modeling 229s when 220s aren't at the mark is for me a stretch not to mention the avionics and weapons system. I can't speak about the Mirage because I don't have intimate knowledge of that aircraft. I'm not saying it can't be done to an acceptable level (it is after all a video game/sim), and if ED did do it they would have to tread lightly in some areas and outright guess in others. It would be the same difficulty if they tried to model a Super Hornet, which has similar capabilities. The avionics in the E model is more advanced than what's in the F-22. That's just the way it is.

The USAF will give ED zero help with the E-model. It is the most advanced airframe in service. Even if they model it, it wont be correct. The F-15C FC model we have now doesnt model the performance of a C correctly, so I doubt they will clear the true to life high fidelity hurdle. If we had it, it would be OP anyway lol. I would love a sim though. Janes F15E was a lot of fun back in the day.

Thanks for the knowledge nuggets. Aircraft that have a lot of nuance garner the most interest from me. I'm the same with my race cars. Maybe its because I feel they have character. Im looking forward to what Heatblur produces. From your words I take it you are speaking from first hand knowledge as a Naval pilot or RIO. You should let us know after the release if the flight model passes muster.

That's hilarious. Take comfort that you are not crazy until you push buttons on your console for seat heater and air conditioning as if you are running a pre-flight on your "car" before you drive away. Then, only then, are you crazy.

In a way it does. Flying any helo is about understanding translation. Any helicopter has limitations and to understand those limitations while performing within them is why the RAF sent all of their Harrier pilots through helo training first. Moving a Harrier in a hover is about understanding translation of lift. If that concept can be grasp and understood then it isn't a problem to land vertically in the Harrier. The best way to learn translation is in a helicopter. To put a Harrier down where you want it means the pilot can interpret how to counter the forces acting on his aircraft. Thrust is not a problem once the Harrier is light, and there isn't a directional stability problem. Weather vane effect would be comparable to a helo. The biggest difference is working with a limited bank angle before the aircraft departs compared to a helicopter. Avoiding pilot induced oscillations is also a skill learned in a helicopter.