sLYFa

Why would they not move? The control system is hydromechanical. If you have hydraulic power left, the stick/rudder will move the respective control surfaces. Oversweep also does not mean that the elevators should not move, it merely restricts travel.

The above may be true but that's not what OP was talking about. In DCS, the TF-30s seem to have a substantially lower specific fuel consumption at low alt and intermediate power settings, which manifests itself in a much lower power setting required to maintain level flight. This is most pronounced in the stack. While the F110s sit at around 2700pph at max conserve speed (about 220-230kts), the TF-30s need only about 2000 pph. I've heard that the TF-30s indeed have lower SFC at low altitude but it seems exaggerated in DCS. One would have to check the performance charts though to confirm if that is indeed the case.

maybe the SC spawn management got worse but I remember that once another aircraft leaves the deck (by launching or disconnecting) you would usually spawn in. In any case, the SC spawn management is rather poor. I wish they'd focus on that more than on shiny visuals...

FWIW, if you stay in the slot until you eventually spawn, the bug wont occur. It's switching slots after getting the delay that somehow causes the bug.

The indexer lights are fine. I guess you are putting the fpv into the E bracket like you do in the Hornet. That's not how it works in the Tomcat. The E bracket references the aircraft symbol in the HUD instead, so but the center of the E bracket on the tip of the aircraft symbol's wing and you will get a yellow O light.

Hold the shift key while scrolling, this will increase the rate at which the bingo setting changes.

That's true for the C but for the A, you have to keep the missile in the radar cone since the active command has to come from the launching aircraft's radar and it will come at certain distance to the target track, no matter if it's an active or a memory track. If you turn away from the missile, the active command will never reach it and it won't go active, no matter where the target or memory track is.

The active command will get sent even if the track is lost and replaced by a memory track. As long as the missile stays roughly inside your radar cone, the missile will go active. It's chances to actually pick up the target will be rather slim though since the position predicted by the memory track and actual target position at pitbull will be likely different. I did however score a few hits against player controlled aircraft with the Aim-54A even after track loss. But that is certainly an exception.

Four S-3B skins (one CAG, three low-viz) for VS-30 now available from the user files section. The skins represent VS-30 on their 2002 deployment with CVW-17 featuring accurate markings, bureau numbers and aircrew names (where available) for the four Vikings. This pack completes my CVW-17 OEF/med 2002 cruise collection. The rest of the airwing can also be found in the user files section. Enjoy! nullnull

null

The tunnel rails' weight is NOT accounted for in the ME and rearming menu. The FM does consider their weight and drag though. So whenever you are having the tunnel rails mounted, add 500lbs for each rail to the total ME weight to get your actual aircraft weight.

The weights are correct in DCS as per RL docs. The weights in the heatblur manual are not correct. I don't know where they got these numbers,maybe they are for a jet without stub pylons and gun but are certainly not correct for an operational jet.

42000 is for the A, the B weighs around 44000lbs

No need to edit sound files. There are text files in the '\Sounds\sdef' which control the volume of the various sound files in-game. Simply open the sdef file for the sound you want to alter and set the 'gain' parameter up or down.

IMO the best advantage the B has over the A is high altitude endurance. The B can cruise at 5000pph while the A takes 6000 to stay in the air. The B also climbs much faster in MIL power, saving even more gas.

in the config, enter: "{"low_S3B_RefPod", 0 ,"xxx",false};" where xxx is the name of your custom refueling pod sheet

AFAIK if there are no AC flying around the carrier, IFLOLS will be off

Tried the new files. The engagement range got better but the missile is still way too fast. It will accelerate to almost mach 6 (3800 knots). That's out of this world missile performance. Its land-based counterpart on the other hand (Sa-11) only goes about mach 3 which is reasonable.

I second all of the above, especially the current way the SC handles spawning makes launching large events (events in the sense of cyclic carrier ops) with 10+ aircraft difficult. The option to freely place client aircraft on the deck would go a very long way for the MP community. I do feel however that it is appropriate to cut some slack ED. Prior to SC, it was practically impossible to launch more than 2 aircraft in MP as the desync was so bad, even on high end servers with low ping, that on deck collisions due to warping were inevitable. With the new net-code that came with SC, this was largely fixed. As for the JBD bug, there is a workaround: Create a four-ship AI flight taking off from the catapults ('take off from runway option')and make them spawn through a trigger. Then, despawn them (either with another trigger or after a set time)and the stuck JBDs should go down.

I think he means the Sovremenniy class. Its AA missiles have insane range and energy retention. It will engage and hit flanking targets up to 80nm whereas the real range should be something around 20nm (like the ingame SA-11).

Whenever you try to spawn on the Supercarrier but get the 'Your flight has been delayed' message (mostly due to other aircraft already on the deck), the aircraft's performance substantially changes for the worse IF the player changes slots before the deck is clear to spawn. It appears like the plane's weight becomes much higher than it should be from what can be seen in the ME/rearming window. To test this, I created a mission which tries to spawn the player on the catapult, which is initially blocked by AIs. Once the AIs despawn (after 15s), the player spawns in. Taking off and flying on-speed in landing configuration showcases the issue. If you DO NOT change slots and wait for the AI do despawn, on-speed is 144 kts. If you DO change to the other slot (which has exactly the same loadout), on-speed is 158. This corresponds to roughly 8000lbs in weight difference. I remember there was a similar (if not the same) bug back before the SC got released. HB eventually fixed it, IIRC citing issues with fuel weight initialization which done twice for a delayed flight with slot change. Two tracks are attached to showcase the issue. If somebody wants to reproduce himself using the attached mission, do the following: -Choose a slot -Choose the other slot within 15s. -Wait for your spawn Aircraft weight is set to 60000lbs in the ME (no rails) for both slots. For comparison, do not change slots prior to spawning and you will not see the excessive weight. This issue has been haunting our wing's (and probably several other peoples) MP missions for quite some time and I hope HB can come up with a solution. Takeoff_without_weight_bug.trk Takeoff_with_weight_bug.trkF14_weight_bug_test.miz

try a caseI pattern with ACLS/AP

With the last update, the issue no longer occurs and AI on deck will taxi and take off while other AI are holding overhead. I didn't see anything in the changelog regarding the issue but I'm glad it's gone!

The AI does not fly the same plane you do. AI flightmodels are very simplified which makes it possible for them to be controlled by AI pilots in the first place. Creating an AI that can refuel and land the Tomcat with the same flightmodel players have would be a huge undertaking. What we have now is in the form of Icemam is basically the ability to control the autopilot from the rear seat. But complex tasks such as AAR, BFM or approaches/landings cannot be done by the autopilot and hence not by Iceman.