26-J39

Love all your vid's, top notch! Well done! :thumbup:

Yes I think my best was about 650 km/h dive with a pull out. bahaa This was BS1 tho and i've never tried to repeat the experiement in BS2.. :D

Great post David OC, i was a bit worried things would turn ugly here.. :thumbup: You make some really good points so thank you for explaining them. In simple terms you could say the flight model is quite accurate but DCS's interpretation of structural limitations of the airframe are modeled with a blade collision, where as in real life any number of failures could occur. Makes sense to me anyway :D

I didn't think about it like that, fair call. Thanks for your input :thumbup:

I was thinking the same thing.. Don't get me wrong guys I think HB's work is truly stunning but I think they get a little carried away with texture work that will barely even be visible.. I mean look at the pic of the boot and the wear.. really..? DCS is already resource hungry enough and IMHO these resources could be better utilized.

yeah same problem here, Viggen grounded till fixed for me.. I found it helped to reduce your dive angle. I usually like 40deg ish but reducing it to 20-25 helps the accuracy for some reason.

Very nicely said thinkr. I agree, I think it's always worth the effort to kick up a fuss because you never know, ED are just as passionate about aviation like the rest of us but obviously they can't pay attention to every demand and must prioritize their work. They have stated that they will never abandon any module and the general standard and quality of DCS modules has had the bar raised significantly since BS1 so an upgrade down the track after F/A-18 etc could be very possible.

Allyson- "it's pretty incredible" Matt- "We are" :megalol: :thumbup:

Better ground handling could be because of the map itself. A while ago you needed to be an ace to land on DCS grass, now in Nomandy TO & landing on grass (off runway) is smooth as butter. Just a thought. :dunno:

^ ^ :megalol:

Set the waypoint as a target waypoint then do a waypoint fix as you would a nav fix. This way it just updates the target waypoint and not your flight plan.

DCS is ever evolving so the way I see it DCS is in "beta" whatever branch you run.

Nice! Thank you :)

I believe the canard vortices are placeholders at the moment.. physics for the vortices are currently based off data from the main delta wing... This was mentioned by Cobra in the twitch with Greywolf..

Currently a known bug.. Here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181491

Bad Ass! :D

I do believe ED has been toying the development of a ASM F-15C.. There were some posts regarding this a LONG time ago. I would say it's well and truely on the back burner as F/A-18C would be the priority but I do think it's not as far away as most think.

Thanks for your reply, you are definitely correct there and it's the safest way to avoid issues.. :thumbup:

Thanks, thats a good point. For me I've never had to downgrade from beta and I can't see myself going back to 1.2.16.. :D so I guess I'll just cross my fingers.. :lol:

Would you mind expanding on why you wouldn't? I ask because I was planning to do this.

No, china man in pink boat only eat fish :smartass: :D

IIRC the C variant had issues with the pylons/payload oscillating at certain speeds causing excessive fatigue.

Thats Gold! :lol:

What will you do when the F/A-18C comes out? A slash and a dash with numbers and characters... OMG!!

Hmm interesting Flagrum.. I've never had a real issue with rotor seperation.. I might have to test this out.. Edit: Got me thinking Flagrum, I do agree that in the diagonal the stick has a larger range of deflection..( makes sense unless some software compensation in various sticks) question is, is it like this in the RL airframe? I would think we would need to look at the mechanics of the cyclic assembly in the RL huey, does it have a "square stick range" or circular.. I think this is the real question.. :book: