paco2002
-
Posts
717 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by paco2002
-
-
1 hour ago, draconus said:
You're replying to a guy that just said "It's just nice that at least they've added the ability to refuel with engines running!" and simply asks for hot rearming.
Lol, I was reading the complete opposite, my bad
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Pavlin_33 said:
I would repectfully disagree. Accidentally doing it IRL is almost impossible, and so should be in game.
Set a modifier for that binding
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, admiki said:
Easy to solve. Pull as much collective as you need to go your desired speed (throttle is left at 100%). Same for anti torque.
Seriously, speed/power is not locked, it depends on environment and your own configuration.
This!
i.e. A mi24P with 10% fuel and no ammo and no weapons will need so much less colective than a fully loaded one. Also heat
-
On 5/15/2024 at 1:14 PM, 85th_Maverick said:
It's just nice that at least they've added the ability to refuel with engines running! It's a small but good step forward.
Would it be possible, I ask the ED team regarding this same subject, to please make it possible to also rearm with engines running at idle only (not higher rpm) as it happens with all other DCS modules, including with planes like the MB339, L-39, F-18, F-16, F-14, F-15E, Harrier, M-2000, JF-17 which don't seem to pose a danger to the weapons loading personnel on the ground and not get sucked in the engines, if this would be an answer to why the Su-25s alone are being simulated to not be able to rearm with engines running. BTW, regarding the danger of getting sucked into an engine, that would mostly be possible when the engine is at quite high rpm, as it happened in reality on an aircraft carrier when someone got just below the intake of an A-6 Intruder when the engine was coincidentally also already revved up at full thrust setting. So, the only reason why the FC3 aircraft aren't able to rearm so far with the engines at idle is because they've been programmed that way from the beginning.
Please, if you want, also try to re-code the rearming of FC3 aircraft to be able for that when the engines are running, at least at no more than idle. Having to wait until the engines reach exactly below 5%, which also takes quite some time is a nuisance. Having to repair, which requires exactly 0% is even more of it, as on a Su-25T it can take quite double the time it takes from idle to 5%.
Just a quick note, you can refuel FC3 aircrafts with engines running
-
On 5/15/2024 at 9:56 PM, Rosie said:
@Vibora Its been a few years. Any progress made on the Sea Eagle and MP? I really want to like this module and got it when I was new to the sim thinking I would enjoy skimming the water trying to launch these missiles at some ships.
This should be addressed, at least with an easy fix like making a mark in the F10 menu and sending the missile there
-
On 5/10/2024 at 10:27 AM, Aphrodite51503 said:
I'm not seeing a visual from The landing system on a super carrier
I am also tremendously surprised that the inaccuracies of the SM2 missiles
I guess it's because I am somebody who is actually fired us into missiles on it test range but I know that they're highly accurate so I'm not really sure why they're not so accurate in this game
And also I know the flight profile of the sm2 missiles are all so wrong
Flight profile is actually very simple for the sm2 missile
Replies out the launcher to about 80,000 ft it tips over on the side and goes to its Target and then it dives on it's Target
So if you could fix those two problems with the sm2 missile that would be great
Thank you
If you could be a bit more precise on the flight path of the SM2 would be better, also, any paper to see it?
-
On 5/1/2024 at 6:45 AM, Tonito said:
Buenas estimados, me encuentro probando el JF 17 y tengo problemas con el módulo , uno de ellos arrancando en forma automática tira fallos como que no prende los MFD, luego también actualmente estoy rompiendome la cabeza con el DTC cuando rearmo el avión , y no me permite actualizar el sistema de armas, ( ya lo puse en un post, y no logre solucionarlo todavía por lo menos no tuve respuesta del mismo aclarando que es un rearme después de una misión (rearmarlo nuevamente y actualizar DTC) ver post.
En el Mapa Atlántico Sur /Malvinas es un mapa que adquirí que está lindísimo pero aun no esta terminado , por los problemas que están atravesando con RAZVAN * cosa que no sabemos en qué quedará ...?
Tambien postee el problema con las comunicaciones que tampoco está solucionado en este mapa.
Mi planteo es saber si van a tener en cuenta el arreglo de estos problemas en los módulos y mapas que ya abonamos y a la fecha no sabemos si se van a solucionar o no, ya que se ve que todo sigue curso con MAPAS nuevos y Módulos nuevos de FC inclusive.
Tengo que saber o me orienten en qué situación se encuentran estos temas ya que debo considerar la compra de los módulos y mapas nuevos que siguen promocionando dudando de los mismos.
Desde ya les agradeceria respuesta para tener en cuenta y mil disculpas por las molestias
saludos cordiales !!
Muy buenas! Como persona a la que personalmente le gusta mucho el JF-17, me extraña mucho que el auto arranque falle... Creo, y solamente creo, que lo que dices de que se apagan las pantallas es que has estado demasiado tiempo parado, sin el aire acondicionado puesto, eso provoca que el calor recaliente los sistemas electricos y el propio avión apague las pantallas para mantener una temperatura de trabajo sin sobrepasar los limites. También te dará fallos "WARNING" ya que apaga mas sistemas a parte de las pantallas. En la pierna derecha tienes el cuadro de fallos, si pone "EQUIP HOT" eso quiere decir que esta recalentado el sistema eléctrico. Mi consejo con esto es que hagas el arranque, y lo dejes unos minutos a que enfríe.
Con lo del mapa del atlántico sur no me voy a meter, eso es cosa única y exclusivamente de RAZBAM...
Pero los problemas de comunicaciones, pueden ir relacionados con que el aeropuerto donde aterrices sea neutral, en vez de azul o rojo.
Teniendo en cuenta que lo que has dicho, no son problemas del simulador, te recomiendo a que no lo consideres cosa del juego tan rápido! En este caso ha sido fallo tuyo, pero oye! Que no pasa nada, estamos para eso
.
Mi recomendación es que compres el JF-17, es el módulo con más detalle y realismo de DCS, tomando en cuenta temperaturas de piloto, empañamiento de cristal y demás cosas, a parte de ser de los aviones más modernos de DCS.
Cualquier duda, no dudes en preguntar!
-
1
-
-
Hi! I was testing missiles when I saw that the KD-63 doesn't follow terrain, it is intended? Feels weird to me.
Mission:KD-63Bug.miz
-
15 hours ago, tekwoj said:
I've used LS6-100. All hit dead on. The point is offset when looking at flat angle, which is normal. When you're passing above the locked target you see that it's locking exactly the point on the ground where the target stands. At what distance and altitude are you locking and launching? TBF I saw somewhere that the pod shouldn't be able to track objects above 6nm or so.
6NM is little to nothing, anyway, it depends in conditions i guess
-
1 hour ago, rayon89 said:
...you have to shoot it between mile 20 and mile 14.
For me to understand that is not BVRYes it is sir.
-
43 minutes ago, rayon89 said:
Hello, I am finding that since we entered the latest versions the Aim 120-c are useless, we practically have to reach the Dogfight by shooting them between mile 15 and mile 10 to be able to achieve a non-escape range.
They sold us a simulator but in reality what they want is to make an ARCADE game
Correct-as-is. Go fly at 35k-40k and M1.8 and you will be able to shoot at 30+NM
-
On 5/12/2024 at 4:07 PM, Flappie said:
MC was added to the Mi-8 module less than a year ago.
I know Flappie, don't get me wrong, I know it happened less than a year ago, but IMHO having those bugs fro this longs time it's... Quite frustrating. I have been since probably 2-3 years without flying in perfect dark night, and to my surprise, the white dome lights in a complete dark night didn't light up the cockpit... That's where my frustration comes. Not even with Gamma at 3.5 I could see the white in the instruments.
On 5/12/2024 at 7:21 PM, Rudel_chw said:I really try to not be affected by this kind of bull<profanity> posts, but calling a mature Module "abandonware" is honestly too much. The lighting issue was solved over a year ago and I have absolutely no trouble at all flying this helo at night on the new Kola map:
Note how the dome lights now work much better and even illuminate the pilot helmet. And on twilight hours, the internal lights keep working just fine:
Eduardo
Hey Eduardo! Que tal?
. I think it was not this dramatic nor bull<profanity> It was my honest opinion, and I say to you the same that I said to Flappie in the above, no bad vibes on that message!
-
On 4/25/2024 at 1:56 AM, Focha said:
This has not been addressed at all...
Yup, can confirm that, this is getting a bit "abandonware" like
-
1
-
-
On 1/28/2024 at 9:43 PM, ACS_Dev said:
The topic of the bow-mounted PKT has been brought up extensively before, and I know it will take some work to implement. I do still think it's something we should get, at least as part of an upgrade for the Mi-8. I will detail why below, hopefully in a manner interesting enough to warrant a renewed look at the idea.
First, the question of "why don't we have it already?"
I researched this on the Russian half of the forums with the handy assistance of auto-translate. I am trusting it pretty heavily here, so if the translate is misinterpreting things please correct me.Initially, it seemed certain that we would get it, at least once Multi-Crew was added.
"It seems to me that the PKT is not a completely useless thing, at least if the shooters are implemented in the same way as in the UH-1. Sometimes it is not always clear where the enemy is hidden, and by the direction of the PKT’s fire it will be possible to determine in which direction to work, at least against the infantry. "
"As soon as we make a crew over the network, we will definitely implement it!.. Only when will we do it.. "
However, even before that, there did seem to be some doubts.
"with PCT: maybe we won’t even do it at all. Game value tends to 0 (7.62 has a relatively low rate of fire, therefore - only for infantry. It is still in development now). Another disadvantage when installing the PKT is the obstruction of the view of the ground for the player-pilot.
In general, the installation of a bow PKT will be relevant if the LAN crew of one helicopter is capable of achieving it. Then let's return to this issue."
These comments were made nearly a decade ago, and since then there looks to have been a change regarding the implementation.
"Are any of these things planned for the MI-8 in the future?
Pomegranate blocks UB-16 and UB-32?
Bow and side gunner with PCT?
Is it possible to hang additional PKT on pylons as in the photo below?
M134 machine gun on board _"
"possibly UB-32 blocks. The rest is NO"The reasons were elaborated further in this 2018 post:
"Well, I agree that historicity and correspondence are all great!... but I’ll write again the arguments that guide us without implementing a PKT machine gun in the nose. Let's evaluate the necessary measures:
- 3D modeler to make a new version (version) of the cockpit: a MOBILE machine gun, add new cockpit objects, make an animation of a folding seat, make an animation of an on-board technician who is preparing to fire and controls the machine gun (this is already a “character” modeler);
- for the programmer: attach an AI that would find targets and open fire, attach sounds and effects, make it possible to switch versions of cockpits from ME (with and without a machine gun);
- testers: test all this and correct it many times (both 3D models, animation, and the logic of controlling the AI shooter, its work in searching and firing at targets).
- make changes to the Pilot's Manual.
At the same time, BST does not have “its own” 3D modelers, either one or the other. “Character” modeling has not yet been put on stream, so it will (if done) still be done using “hand made” technology. But the labor of modelers is quite expensive, and now tasks for the “character” department are “standing” in a queue (as well as for 3D cabin modelers). In a long line!
Now we evaluate gaming interest. Yes, Huey has a tail gunner with an M-60. This was the FIRST such experience. Who uses it how often? Yes, almost no one when the M-134 appeared. Those. Even then it became clear that the single-barrel 7.62mm in DCS reality is (yet) not so effective. Why? because, unlike in real life, infantry in DCS does not behave this way at all and does not pose such a threat to a helicopter, and for moving mechanical targets the effectiveness of a single-barreled machine gun is very low (for lightly armored ones it generally approaches zero).
In addition, the cabin option with a bow gunner will not be in demand by those players who use the MI-8 for landing on difficult sites and transporting cargo on a cable suspension (and I think more than half of them are).
As a result, we predict that a rather expensive development will not lead to cost recovery (such as an increase in the popularity of the game with the Mi-8 module and an increase in sales). Moreover, by a large margin, the costs will outstrip the benefits of introducing a machine gun (this is our expert assessment, with which many employees are unanimous).
Therefore, we do not install a machine gun out of harm, but out of an assessment of the realities of life. Don't misunderstand."
Why bring this up again? What do I have to add to the discussion and what has changed since then?
Firstly, to address historical accuracy, the PKT was certainly present in Afghanistan aboard Mi-8s and later in its history.
This documentary and this video both provide ample examples of Mi-8s, even M-8MTs, with nose mounted PKTs retained. It was certainly used.I was unable to confirm that the Mi-8MTV-2 had a presence in Afghanistan, however I believe that the Mi-8MTV itself, an earlier variant with only minor differences, was flown in the war.
Regarding 3D modeling, it has been more than a decade since the Mi-8 was initially released, and it both deserves and (in my opinion) demands an overhaul. The external model no longer holds a candle to contemporary ED models and the internal pilot models leave much to be desired. Any such upgrade will require the remodeling of not only the entire helicopter and armament but the pilots themselves. It is no longer a question of if substantial 3D modeling is due on the Mi-8, but when.
Module development itself has not been static since the initial release. ED now has multiple new attack helicopters and the institutional knowledge on how to fully implement and model not only door gunners but removable ones, ones that can be used on either side and that can be used seamlessly in Multi-Crew. This was done for the Huey, the Hip and it will likely be done again with the Chinook. With the advent of Mi-8 Multi-Crew this was only cemented further. There is no question of whether or not ED is capable of modeling the PKT. I cannot comment on how easy or difficult it would be to model, but I am quite positive that, barring departure from the company, there are developers within ED who could make it happen. This applies to all elements of the development process; AI, 3D modeling, animations and sounds.
Furthermore, we now have confirmation of an Afghanistan map coming to the consumer side of DCS. When this map releases it will see plenty of action from Mi-24 and Mi-8 users. Not only will this renew interest in an overhaul of the Mi-8 but it will also elevate demand for a more uniquely Afghan-oriented Hip (I don't see this as a concern). With the map, pilots will face the harsh reality of hot-and-high conditions and their affects on helicopter performance. I recently developed and released an 'Afghan' multiplayer sandbox that makes heavy use of the Hip and even then, in the comparatively low altitudes of Syria, heavy cargo loads discourage the use of the heavy weapon rack and the even heavier rocket pods. The Hip instead needs to lean more on its internal guns and of course the Hind, whose speed also discourages the carriage of draggy stores. The anachronistic Kord fires to one side and occupies the valuable door space, which is needed for cargo transfer and mission triggers. The forward-facing PKT is forward facing and would indeed see use as it did in Afghanistan.
Finally, given that a paid module update is the most likely future for the Mi-8, the addition of the gun would add another incentive to upgrade, thus increasing sales.
But the PKT isn't even that good!
I initially thought this too, however the existing Mi-8 rear PKT gunner already exists to test this claim and, in my opinion, refutes it handily. I took the time to test the PKT's effectiveness against several targets it might see in Afghanistan; A Ural-375, a rocket technical and an insurgent. As you can see in the tracks below, the PKT makes quick work of these.
PKTEffectiveness.trkPKTEffectivenessInf.trk 114.98 kB · 0 downloads
If given a straight view to the target (as a PKT would be), it takes less than 2 seconds for the PKT to kill the insurgent. It takes 4 seconds to kill the truck and 6 seconds to kill the technical. Especially for insurgents, this gun isn't that much of a downgrade from a Kord. An AI PKT operator could easily kill several light vehicles in a pass with this gun alone. In an environment where rocket pods can't be brought along, this weapon would quite handy and would indeed see use. It would also be enjoyable for human operators and possibly even more easy and useful than side-facing guns given the more conventional aiming requirements.
The last sentence of the preceding paragraph brings up another point unto itself. A forward facing crew-operated gun is likely the easiest type to operate, and I would be willing to bet the Mi-8's nose gun would easiest door gun position in DCS. If you have attempted to bring along a door gunner you know that the helicopter's perpendicular motion to the target confounds aiming and it is hard to hit many targets, particularly infantry. There is no such problem for the Hip's nose PKT. The helicopter could easily run down the length of a convoy of trucks, blasting the entire length with high lethality.
Finally, the nose-mounted PKT position would be an exceptionally easy way for prospective Mi-8 owners and DCS players to access the hobby in the most simple way possible. Requiring nothing more than the standard gaming PC and basic non-sim peripherals, a friend could simply download the sim, trial the module, bind a couple of things and hop into the gunner's seat with no further study or technical requirements. Sharing a cockpit with 2 other people and flying around using the PKT to blast various targets would be a mildly claustrophobic but unique and extremely enjoyable experience for even the most casual players.
Conclusion:
Though it might not be very easy, the addition of the PKT nose gun would not likely provide any novel challenges to ED, it absolutely would be useful, it would be used, and it would be worth it. I could see myself carrying it every time when in Afghanistan.
In the meantime, here is a (Russian) article that covers, among other things, the nose PKT extensively.Thanks for reading,
ACS_Dev.
Still waiting on a comment on this... Why is not in already? We have 3D model in game but not functional
-
I have to say, that it is not a scam... But it's not too far from it right now. There are minor bugs, and major bugs (to simplify). If a minor bug is not limitant to the gameplay, it will have low priority, and that's ok. The issue is, that there is no actual fix, nor communication from the devs on what is being done (nothing).
The gun camera bug has been since 2018 (?), and the hand of the pilot flying to Narnia when the stick is hidden... Worth note, you have to select it to hide from the MAIN MENU... Wouldn't a click on the stick better? Like almost all the other modules. Another one, multicrew desync, still bugged... I don't want to hate for free but it's in such a bad situation that makes me feel sad... It looks like it will be like this forever.
-
On 5/5/2024 at 3:43 PM, MicMic said:
Thank you.
Anyway, it doesn't match the visibility angles (110º green and red, and 140º the white)
If it brights and works I would call that a win!
-
16 hours ago, LorenLuke said:
Only one player can control the aircraft at a time, and all the control inputs inside the the vehicle are repeated in the other stations (the controls themselves are animated to match the inputs, regardless of who's controlling the aircraft). You can request control of the aircraft, and the controls are handed off to the other player, while the controls of the first person who was initially controlling the aircraft no longer work (until the controls are handed back).
As a side note, the C101 and the Mirage F1 can be controlled (fly the aircraft) by both pilots at the same time
-
On 5/2/2024 at 3:19 AM, Mig Fulcrum said:
Any update about it?
The -95GR is my most anticipated variants of all, i love early tomcats. Of course we are talking after the release of the Phantom, but it has been 4 years since the A (late) came out. Just want to know how far it is now.
It would be good to see and update on the 2 other Tomcats left to come to the game
-
22 hours ago, Inf said:
Good thought, but nope I'm using a date in 2020.
Check if the KA50 is set on a coalition that has Russia in it. If no, then GLONASS does not exists hence the nav error
-
2
-
-
On 5/5/2024 at 9:34 PM, dresoccer4 said:
Flying in the Kola map and noticed the left mirror is very yellow. Anyone else experiencing this?
It looks like missing texture color. Might be an issue
-
On 5/4/2024 at 1:02 PM, Xl-45 said:
Hi, thanks for this tip, but as a beginner on the JF i still struggle a bit to understand :
- If you need to pull more gs at higher speed, put EFCS switch to AUTO and DIR LINK to ON
- If you need to pull more AOA at very low speed put EFCS switch to EFCS and DIR LINK to ON
Is that correct ?
It seems like i am not able to get to 9g (8g max) while following the above steps (no difference between EFCS AUTO & DIR LINK ON and EFCS AUTO & DIR LINK OFF), direct link switch on seems only to work when near a spin at low speed, allowing me to get more than 26 AOA but no more than 30, EFCS switch to EFCS gets me more than 30 AOA only if very slow, otherwise i get lower AOA than with EFCS AUTO (all that with DIR LINK ON)
Am i doing something wrong ?Just to clarify, DIR LINK, even if it's on, it will only really turn on if you reach the maximum AoA (+-26). On that moment the plane will turn off AOA limit and give you all freedom.
Now on the EFCS, if you turn to EFCS (instead of AUTO) it will change the way the plane handles the limit, in AUTO, there will be a 8G limit while under 350kts, but if it's in EFCS the limit will change from Gs and AoA to a limit in degrees per second, more precisly, it will be limited to 6.5º per second. So if you want to get more G's, set EFCS switch to EFCS and go fast, Pulling 6.5º at 200kts will not give you as many G's as going at 700kts.
Anyway, if you're a beginner, and you want to fly it normally, leave it in auto, if you want to "minmax" everything, or play with airframe limits, then DIR LINK ON (It will only trigger when reaching 26º AoA) and if under 250, EFCS to AUTO, and if over 250 EFCS to EFCS.
Hope this clarify a bit the usage of both switches, in case you have any doubt about this or anything more, please do it, I love speaking about this
-
1
-
-
On 5/2/2024 at 9:16 PM, Napillo said:
if you're in a dogfighting competition, any edge you can get will be used, even if it doesn't make sense at all in a warzone. Fighter pilots gonna cheat any way they can to win.
On 5/2/2024 at 8:29 PM, Tango3B said:I am aware of this and I mostly agree. I am also fully aware what the manual states about the FCS. But here is the thing…Skywalker asked if it can be done and I told him how to do it. You can do really wild stuff with the Jeff that way…
Should the FCS be used that way? Probably not because you basically override the built in safety features. But as a pilot I absolutely do not care. If I can manage to fly the jet in this very configuration to get an edge over my opponent I will absolutely do it. While it might take some getting used to flying the Jeff to its absolute limits it is fully worth it. Do I want to defend against a missile at high speed at only 6G available or will I take the 9G option? You might damn well know my answer. Remember your goal is to always max-perform your jet to get her home and not to recite the manual. Fighting is for men, not for intellectuals…
In a doghfight at slower speeds using only DIR LINK (EFCS has to be in AUTO, then!) gives you a tremendous amount of AOA if I need it and I do overshoot the normal limits. Try it against a Hornet or a M2K in a 1 circle when you are really slow. See what happens and what this jet can do. Again, I absolutely do not care what is written in the manual - which by the way also actively discourages the use of the gun in A/A. Ridiculous, try harder. Let me put it this way…use these functions only if you understand BFM. You should never end up slow in an unfavorable position…I think we can both agree on that. Thank you.
I cannot differ more with both of you, but I guess it is what it is *shrugs*
Have fun, and don't treat the rest of the people as cheaters to justify doing wrong things
-
On 4/25/2024 at 7:29 PM, BOBBER_REBBOB said:
I have conducted some tests with SA-2, SA-3, SA-6 and SA-11. All of their missiles hit an artificial speed cap. Hope this gets looked at.
TestSA-3.trk 85.13 kB · 1 download TestSA-2.trk 134.83 kB · 1 download SA-6.acmi 18.71 kB · 0 downloads SA-3.acmi 17.13 kB · 0 downloads TestSA-6.trk 77.13 kB · 0 downloads TestSA-11.trk 102.86 kB · 2 downloads SA-2.acmi 17.11 kB · 1 download SA-11.acmi 25.9 kB · 0 downloads
Can confirm, this is still in the game, and it's quite annoying, it reduces a lot the range of the missiles
-
2
-
-
4 hours ago, skywalker22 said:
So there is no way to over G the Jeff? Max G is only at 6.
It can also go up to 6.9G when flying under 400 knots (between 370-390 seems to be optimum to be 6.5 to 6.9Gs. But thats about it - very very limited aircraft, hard to use it in any dogfight.
If you think more G's are more good for dogfight... Try again, it's not correct.
The JF-17 is limited to 6Gs over 350kts, and to 8Gs below 350
3 hours ago, Tango3B said:Well, you sure can. So, for example when defending against a missile and you do a split S while being quite fast you can easily go beyond 9G. Just switch the EFCS on and make sure you also are in DIR LINK. As long as you are fast this gives you more available G. When you are starting to get slower switch EFCS back off.
Also, for normal maneuvering, I always fly with DIR LINK on. That way I have no problem reaching 8G+ between 360-390 kts. I believe this mode takes the weird AOA restriction off of your jet so I actually feel very comfortable dogfighting this way. Just make sure you switch DIR LINK off again before landing…So yeah, the Jeff is certainly not as limited as some people think. Just use these modes…play around with them and you see what I mean. DIR LINK works wonders when fighting a Hornet, for example… ;-D
While it's true that with EFCS and DIR LINK you can get more G's and insane turns... It is not for that, those are emergency modes that are needed in case of... emergency... EFCS changes to a secondary mode of the FCS and should only be used to fly the plane back to the nearest airfield. DIR LINK gives full autority of the FCS everytime the planes reaches de AoA limit (that way, you can overshoot the limiter) but this mode should only be used if things go wrong and need to use full autority to get out of a difficult situation, like a flatspin.
2 hours ago, skywalker22 said:Thx. But it works really strange, in some cases it over Gs when EFCS switch is on AUTO (up), and other times when on EFCS (down). Is there any reasonable explanation why is that so?
Because with EFCS the G limit dissapears, and the FCS of the plane works with other calculations of the FCS, IIRC the plae will only work with AoA limits, so in that case, the speed and altitude will be the factors that will make the plane surpass or stay below the 6 or 8 G limit with AUTO FCS.
And, take care of your wings, since overstressing them will break them.
And one last thing, why the need of using emergency modes for dogfighting? This remembers me of the paddle drama on the F18 lol
F-15CX mod (22x Default missiles or Aim-120D, Aim-200A, Aim-2000, Aim-9X-2)
in Flyable/Drivable Mods for DCS World
Posted
Poor little F-15C... What they've done to you