sLYFa

Yes you can https://i.imgur.com/X4HpMJI.png I've also seen an F-14B NATOPS that shows the exact instruments we have now in DCS.

Well AFAIK early Bs and As remanufactured to Bs did have the engine instruments we have now so its not totally unrealistic

There is a knob you can turn right next to the bingo window to set any bingo value you want.

Optimum climb for the Tomcat is approx. 0.7 mach at full MIL power. Fastest climb is 0.9 mach at full AB. What you described above really makes no sense from an aerodynamical point of view. For bingo, you will need about 1500lbs for a 100nm home trip and 2000lbs for 150nm.That is if you cruise at the an optimum altitude of about 35k feet @0.7 mach and start your descend at about 60nm left with 200kts IAS. These are rough numbers and will vary significantly with weight and drag index (more weight/drag > more fuel required) The exact numbers can be found in the real jets performance manual if you can get a hold of it (or the pocket checklist which has a handy bingo table)

Thats true and of course should ED deliver what they promised and I'm sure they eventually will. The thing is that with this level of sophistication everybody expects from DCS modules, things happen to get out of hand and take longer than expected. But they are working on it and IMO thats as much as anybody can ask from them. I get the frustration I really do, but I try to appreciate/enjoy the things we already have more than looking at whats still missing.

I play VR and have more then single digit frames even on large MP servers (PGAW). I also seldomly get killed by lag and DCS certainly does not use MS PP to render frames. While there is always room for improvement, I'm quite happy with DCS as it is now (well if they get the carriers sorted out, flying F-14s from the beach feels so wrong). That doesn't mean I don't won't them to fix bugs/introduce new features, but from my side of the fence, it's not nearly as bad as you and other people describe. The thing is, those who don't have problems won't come to the forums and say so, while those who do have problems will voice their dissatisfaction. This creates a highly biased picture for anyone around here making DCS look far worse than it is, which is wrong and harmful. So while DCS is far from perfect, people should probably pump their brakes when sharing their list of what they think is wrong with DCS, as I'm sure ED are aware of the issues, And if not, a bug report is always welcome.

Yeah only that audi has made millions of cars over almost a century while EDs products are second to none and delivering a fully functioning Hornet with yet-unseen detail and functionality is not rolling out the same vehicle for the bazzillionth time. In case somebody hasn't noticed. There is nothing, NOTHING even remotely comparable to DCS in the consumer market. Thats not (only) for a lack of trying by other developers but because its insanely costly and time consuming to deliver a modern multirole fighter up to DCS standards. Same goes for the SC. There is nothing like that anywhere else and likely won't be for the forseeable future. Its only natural that unforseen delays occur with these kinds of projects. I get that this whole EA thing gets frustrating but thats the realitiy and really the only way we can have such a high level of fidelity. It's certainly fine to criticise ED where apprropriate but things like "I paid money, I want release date NOW!" are not constructive.

To quote a former Tomcat pilot: “Bang twice, no more no less, never thrice and never just once. Twice it shall be if needed at all to fly the ball…” This means you are not supposed to use it like an axis, i.e. keep it deflected from the neutral position to maintain glideslope. It should only be used for short corrective action. To quote further: "Fly the pass with throttles for glideslope control. DLC is not designed for use throughout the approach..."

This whole subforum? Whenever they showed/posted something people (not all of course) started jumping to conclusions about paywalls, missing features, SP only release and how FUBAR DCS is as a whole. But the best thing was their COO starting a thread about an updated DCS roadmap. Something meant to be an honest communication attempt with the community ended up being an orgy of "when are you going to fix this?", "why is this not included?", "why is your code so bad?", "can we get module XY?" and of course the whole blaming ED for not having released SC back in April. Some guy was even furious that the SC preview video "clearly showed the module in a finished stated" and accused ED of fraud. We get it, you are frustrated and so am I to a certain degree. But ED are working on it and no new preview content will speed that up (possibly quite the oppisite).

I guess ED learned their lesson that anything you show to the community can and WILL be used against them. So now they probably will sit quiet until they can deliver. If that was how ED worked, DCS would've been dead years ago. I'm more than sure they are hard at work, but debugging/rewriting MP code is probably not something you would show in a video. Besides, I'd rather have the devs working on code than wasting their time on the forums explaing what exactly the problem is and how they are going to solve it.

I only used the F-14 long enough to comment and I can tell that I never really read the DCS F-14 manual, only the real NATOPS and you can do 95% of what is described in the real docs in DCS (not talking about weapon systems, as the manuals on these are hard to find). The DCS tomcat also nicely matches the performance figures of the real AC.

Are you talking about the blue labels? shift+f9 will remove them for ships and shift+f10 will remove them completely I think there are already mods for that. Check the user file section https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/de/files/ or the DCS mods subforum

nailed it

Jesus Christ is this the first time some software company did not meet a deadline? I'm sure they had the best intentions and had good faith in meeting the announced release date. But things apparently didn't work out as planned and they did the right thing in not releasing a semi-functional module. Shit happens sometimes. Insinuating intentional wrongdoing on ED's part is pure BS. They were very open about what the exact problem is and they are working to get it done. And besides, its just game and not some life saving medicine, I'm sure you can survive a few more weeks or months without it.

That is to check the backup flight control hydraulic pump. With both engines off, you first turn it to low, move the stick and verify the stabs are actually moving. Then you put it in high and again check for stab movement. After that, you put it back to auto which shuts the backup pump off. It will automatically come back on if you loose both engine driven pumps inflight.

Did that fix already make it in the current open beta? I don't seem to have problems with two contacts flying close together anymore.

Set nav mode to AWL/PCD and make sure Jester sets the Stennis as DL host. There is also the IFLOLS on the carrier.

Did you by any chance put the fuel transfer switch to off? Engines shutting down while having 5000lbs of fuel left sounds like there was still fuel in the wing/ext tanks but it wasnt transfered to the feed tanks (that happened to me few times since the switch does not automatically flip to the auto position once fuel in the feed tanks gets low).

Hmm strange, works on my side. And the spoilers do deflect up and down with thumbwheel fwd/aft?

Flaps are down? DLC is actually on (i.e. inboard spoilers deflected slightly upwards)?. The DLC induced tailshift is really small, just a few degrees. You have to look closely on the gauge. Edit: Upon further reading I found that the current behaviour is indeed incorrect. The stabs should deflect 2.75° TED from theri trimmed position once DLC is selected. With the thumbwheel fully aft, the stabs should return to their trimmed position, while thumbwheel fwd should not change stab trim. Right now, stabs won't move upon selection of DLC. Only pressing the thumbwheel fwd/aft will induce stab displacement. This is incorrect as the behaviour should be as described above for both DFCS and non-DFCS aircraft.

Are you talking about the switch on the right side-console? Thats the emergency flight hydraulic pump. You don't need to touch that at all unless both engine driven hydraulic pumps fail (well and of course for testing the system prior to engine start) On the ECS, IIRC damage to the awg-9 is modelled due to lack of cooling air although it has its own automatic ram air door that deploys in case of main cooling air failure. Basically, all kinds of stuff (CADC, flight instruments etc.) could fail if you fly in either RAM or OFF and dont deploy the ram air door (thats the upper right switch on the ECS panel). But apparently this is not modelled.

I was also hoping for some SC news, but I guess there is really nothing to show if they are working on MP desync issues.

Point proven I guess. But please keep us all entertained bro.

The outboard spoilers are powered by a seperate electrically driven motor which is turned off if the aircraft is on the ground and the flaps are up to prevent that motor from overheating. You can see the status of this outboard spoiler module below the hydraulic pressure indicators (the most buttom left window).

Right now, you can immidiately break away since the Phoenix magically acquires the target as soon as you launch it. This is not realistic behaviour and will be changed at some point. How it should be: You keep the target in your rader cone until the time to impact (the counter to the right of the target symbol) starts flashing. This means that the missile has gone active and does not need radar support from you. The target symbol illuminating simply tells you that the RIO has selected it with his hand control unit (for example to assign it hostile/friendly or show some information about its range/altitude etc). This has nothing to do with the ability to launch the missile. As soon as you see a number to the right of the target (which is the launch priority number for that specific target) and "HOT TRIGGER" light illuminating on the ACM panel you can fire a phoenix. It will then go for the target with priority number 1. This number will then change to the time to impact counter.