GGTharos

Yes, it is a server side setting.

Why would you make up numbers? When you make up whatever numbers you want, you get whatever results you're imagining. The percentages you made up mean precisely nothing, so right off the bat your logic goes out the window You need actual, real numbers that represent the drag force and the thrust. But to make a long story short, yes, the F-18 is draggier, its inlets suck (so it doesn't recover as much pressure/thrust at altitude as a Viper) and thrust-to-weight on the Hornet is just lower to begin with. That doesn't mean there aren't things to tweak on either aircraft in DCS.

I have a '95 for the light grey I think, and the '93 for the strike. I'll get you more info if needed.

There's no reason to believe this to be true for any modern-ish radar. CW also requires separate radio channels for deconfliction.

Do not even attempt to hold on to that hope. This is simply a characters of SARH missiles which must be deconflicted by radio channel to avoid EMI. Once the track is lost, that radio channel is lost. A radar that can drop the track (and I am being very specific about the wording, as the channel will be in some way attached to the track, either literally in software/hardware or coincidentally) and the resume guiding with the same channel after re-acquiring will the the exception and not the rule for AI radars. If the AIM-7 does not behave the same way, then that is the bug, the AIM-7 should have the same behavior. Track and radio channel go bye bye together.

I doubt that a clean F-15E with -220s is going to accelerate as fast as a clean F-15C. It's trying trying to move 10% more mass with the same thrust, and drag isn't a differentiator here. I just looked up my charts, both are at 10000' and for the -220 engine and clean, 'standard day', looking at the 0.8 to 1.2 mach accceleration: F-15C, 40000 lbs: 25 seconds F-15E, 42800 lbs: 29 seconds F-15E, 43600 lbs: 16 seconds - this is the 229 equipped one, all other conditions same as above (you could probably shave off a second if you shave off 1000lbs. The reason this one is heavier is likely because the 229s are heavier) Now, you could accuse me of not reading the charts very precicely and that's fine - I did my best. No matter how you read it, the F-15E will accelerate slower which is expected. The -229 will help accelerate faster - also, the -229 chart was a real pain to read, so if someone has the right charts they can verify my math. EDIT: Yeah I thought I didn't read those charts quite right, I read the -229 incorrectly because again, that chart sucks.

Are you suggesting that the strike is less draggy than the light grey? Are you also suggesting that drag force is linear across a bunch of speeds?

Took me 10 seconds to google, and you can definitely get a lot more good stuff when it comes to this: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7907702_G-induced_loss_of_consciousness_Case-control_study_of_78_G-LOCs_in_the_F-15_F-16_and_A-10 This is tip of the iceberg stuff. Any SME who wants you to understand this stuff will answer 'it depends' to the question of 'how should I model g tolerance?', because it does.

No, just because you believe it's 'obviously' wrong, doesn't doesn't mean it is. You're not the first and not the last to make such claims. So ok, you're still not getting it. This isn't evidence, this is one exceptional individual, maybe two, in exceptional condition doing AGSM training in a controlled environment. The only thing that matters is the GLOC studies. Not youtube videos, not individual accounts, but the studies that show what the average human capacity is in combat. The brain has enough exygen supply for about 4-5sec, depending on how high the g is. GLOC studies show GLOC at lower g than 9, in real fighters ... not centrifuges. Look up the STOHL curve, which DCS models. DCS also does not model the punishing effects on subsequent high g pulls if you overdo one and start to grey out (so, your g tolerance tanks) and yes you can be lights out at 7 g if you do things wrong. Just like that. As a civillian, some people will be lights out at 4g. Do not underestimate how insanely situational this is. It's based on the STOHL curve, which isn't outdated. Documentaries are meaningless - I'll say again, videos etc have very little worth if you're going to discuss realism. The Eurofighter is also an extreme aircraft. You're not going to hold 9gs in the viper like you will in a lightly loaded EF. Again, stop with the centrifuge videos...they're not relevant. They are training in controlled conditions, not combat. The pilot is well briefed, exercised, prepared etc. Yu cannot guarantee any of this in combat. We also don't know if they show an average pilot for the type or an exceptional individual. You can say though that pilots who can't handle the g will be rejected for a given aircraft. Is that maximum or sustained g? If it's maximum (instantaneous) then it sounds like there might be a problem.

On what basis do you say they don't do good work? Your feelings? You're straight up thinking ridiculous thoughts, basically all-or-nothing thinking. Yep, then ED will look into it. I just think people are expecting more than they're going to get. Again, it won't be based on youtube videos or what people feel it should be. I'm not saying that those sources aren't useful starting points. What I am saying is that they are only starting points into an investigation, and you have to do a bit more than just repeat a mantra based on 'I think that'. You're immediately at a disadvantage because the devs have done their legwork, so you have to do yours and show they implented/heard wrong or you have received new data.

Don't bring data then, don't get any changes. It's literally that simple. Developers do a lot of complex work, yes, they can miss some stuff. If you want to bring it up, do it in a way that is difficult to question. The developers can't be going off checking stuff with every 'I don't feel this is right' comment, aerodynamics are tedious. Same thing with the g-loc thing ... there are studies for this, and air force standards. So say it's 'obvious' all you like, but you have nothing to show for it so ... it's obvious based on what exactly? If you find all of this tiring, maybe stop doing things that are tiring? Just be aware that the consequences of not backing up your feelings with solid facts is that your feelings are going to be very low on the 'let's check on this' priority list.

Nor should we, the SD-10 employs dual thrust, not dual pulse. It is also too fast for a dual thrust motor (at it's weight of 180kg, but it has been a while since I checked the flight profile, things may have changed) IIRC - these will typically peak lower than comparable all-boost motor powered rockets, with the R-27ER being an exception since it's got a lot more rocket than anything else.

Sure, it's been a minute for him probably - but the only point I want to make, is what should be well known at this point that if one wants ED to make changes, one must provide fairly solid data, not anecdotes. The goal isn't to impugn any member of the community or any current or ex-pilot, but rather to remind that people saying things doesn't go very far when actual data is available. @Blue Giant and @DummyCatz have the right idea. If you want to show something's off, this is the way.

@DummyCatzhas provided you with the math to at least begin to figure out if those statements are close to reality. I suggest you do the work.

Yes, you do. Again, no. Human memory sucks, it is very perishable. And yes it's certainly possible to retain details but your blanket statement is incorrect - you simply don't know if one has or has not retained this memory. The hornet is irrelevant to this discussion. Yes, all those things and more affect g-tolerance (for example, has the pilot practiced or trained their AGSM recently?), and one of the important functions of the g-warmup is for the pilot to figure out how well he'll be performing. Citation needed. I would tend to give weight to real GLOC research instead and not one individual's account, who may well be very exceptional.

The strike numbers cannot be correct. F=ma for acceleration here, you can even ignore the drag since we're more or less comparing apples to apples in terms of airframe, so the mach hump will look similar etc ... there is no way the -220 powered strike will have the same acceleration as the 38000lbs light grey, and the difference in mass is significant - about 10% or a little more. You'd expect the strike to accelerate correspondingly slower, so about 26-27 seconds. Similarly, the -229 doesn't provide over twice the thrust of the -220 either. I'd expect to see the acceleration shaved off to maybe 20 seconds here.

A real F-16 pilot who hasn't flown the jet for 10 years. He didn't say the bleed rate is garbage; he's also at 12000', so the speed will bleed. There's no magical 4th gen jet that will bleed speed nice and slow at that altitude. That doesn't mean anything ... Like come on yes it can and yes it does. It also doesn't say 'if I remember right', or 'disclaimer'. Now, does anyone have energy bleed data for the Viper? I don't know (Although you can infer the bleed rate to some degree from the sustained and instantaneous graphs). But I do know that ED gets help from real operators to build the FM, so what is it about the youtube guys that you believe more than the guys ED asked to test the FM? Finally, if it 'bleeds too much', how much should it bleed? How many g's for a 1kt/s bleed at a given altitude? How about a 5kt/s bleed?

His tacview shows the AIM-7 going dead. So ... 1) R-27's have been nerfed! -- No, they've been brought to reality 2) AIM-7's haven't been nerfed! -- Don't worry, they'll be brought to reality and there's already a thread about how they don't work correctly with FLOOD etc 3) These weapons aren't perfect, they're over 30 or even 40 years old (and even when they were new they were not exactly at the pinnacle of technology), and you shouldn't expect them to perform like newer weapons/weapon systems. Fly the aircraft you like indeed. Just understand that when you chose your ride, you also chose its limitations, be they IRL or DCSL.

It's not 'mach 1.2' ... it's the 'never exceed speed' which is usually between 700 and 800kts, it just happens to be mach 1.2 or so at low altitude. Exceeding that speed can result in melting canopies, engines, control surfaces being removed from your aircraft upon deflection etc. Stuff that DCS doesn't model yet. As for trying to do it with a bunch of payload that isn't AAMs, you could, but acceleration will be slow and fuel consumption will be massive. It's possible that the munitions aren't even rated for that part of the envelope. It's possible they weren't even tested at it, and that's not exactly a new thing with the strike eagle.

Yep, all of the above. Plus at those altitudes, the engines drink an insane amount of gas at max power.

I don't think manual FLOOD works the way you believe it does, but it would be hard to prove either way is correct.

When is FLOOD manually initiated? The radar should switch to FLOOD automatically if launching without STT or if STT is dropped during guidance, but this implies that the radar tunes the missile and has assigned a guidance channel to it. Once a track is dropped that channel is gone. Does that apply to DCS at this point? I don't know, but it's heading in that direction.

Unless you find very solid evidence to the contrary, it's JEM.

Regardless of supersonic or not, using max AB at high speeds massively limits endurance. The only thing that matters is what's cleared for those aircraft to do; the rule of thumb is A/G munitions are launched subsonic. Pretty sure you can do the math on the duration yourself, the necessary information is out there. And yes they can do a dash. Is it going to be supersonic? Very payload dependent, but with any significant payload and with any maneuvering at all, the answer is likely to be 'no'. It's not like 600kts is slow, it's just not supersonic. ... when they're clean. The F-111 can get to M1.2 on the deck...when clean. It is literally the maximum speed is can achieve, at least safely so. Put a bomb load on it and you might not even get to Mach 1 in level flight. Drag coefficients are not laughing matters, they're serious stuff; increasing the drag index of an aircraft has an immediate and measurable impact on top speed; the F-111 is quite aerodynamic when clean, the F-15E not really, but either way hanging stuff off the wings does bad things to the DI. Most fighter aircraft are only cleared to release iron bombs at subsonic speeds as far as I know. Supersonic release has been the exception, not the rule. Yeah but it's a Raptor, making it pretty irrelevant since the airflow mechanics of the release itself are different.

If you're doing a longer flight or something a bit more realistic that requires performance, AAR skill becomes important - it's not only being able to do it, but being able to do it smoothly and quickly. If you've got 4 planes that need to sip gas, you might be looking at 2-4 minutes on the boom each, maybe 5 depending on the aircraft and how much fuel it needs to take (IIRC boom transfer in DCS is ~2500lbs/min). You can easily do the math on that and see how it affects timings for various phases of a flight. In that respect, some form of assist for the less skilled players is practical. On the other hand ... you don't see a lot of missions flown in this manner.