oldcrusty

Yes! I'm excited. 'Central Committee' following '5 year plan?' (that's from history books )

Heck, I don't even trust my AV . At my age I'm fine with 'amusing myself to death' and if a game (sim ) runs good and I'm able to completely transport myself into it... I might get really trusty (that's bad!) If the game runs crappy and the code keeps me running in circles but I don't wanna leave it 'cause there are no alternatives... then I get bored and suspicious. 'Why do they keep me running in circles?' 'Do they know what they're doing?' 'Is there only 1 dev +AI running this outfit (lol)" 'Is there some other sinister reason...' OK, it's only gonna get worse older I get, fine! Sooner or later I'll get bored enough and venture into my backyard to help my wife with gardening...

I know, I've seen some of AI's creations... I just threw a quick jab at the entire 'entity' here and how things are running... generally (OT as usual )

It crossed my mind on occasion... this entire caboodle might already be coded by AI

Yep, round up as many 'normies' as possible into the spiderweb. I have a grumpy old man's approach to all this... The bigger picture and I simply don't like zuckerberg, lol.

How about this advanced concept of verifying if the changes produced desired results before releasing... if not, scrap'em. Maybe the devs are getting a kick out of watching us run a 'hamster wheel' of bugs, lol I got so numbed out dealing with this over the years and I finally learned how to find fun in creating crutches, bandaids and workarounds

Man... that useless microshaft's copilot... just sits there and watches me. It could've told me not to put DCS as a root... too late now!

...and who would the best summeriser? - yes, someone from ED's flight modelling team perhaps on their lunch break could jot down a few lines on a napkin and send it to one of our forum mods. Just the major stuff or changes... so there's no cloud of mystery and the 'test pilots' here can whip out their charts and tables and test for specific things quickly... before we decide to write essays and speculations

Couple of posters in this thread stated they don't see any yaw at all. So... something specific to strain gauge sticks? EDIT: One of them just responded so never mind.

No... Some 'historian' here should probably explain the timeline and the progress from the the early days of the Hornet through early 2000's.

Yes... after extensive testing of Hornet's radar and D/L, I agree.

Sorry for sticking my Hornet's nose in here but it reminds me of my attempts to fly a Hornet with an improperly positioned side stick. Even when correctly angled I had to focus on pulling the stick perfectly straight and w/o angling it also left. I know, I know you guys have all the axes displayed on the screen so there's probably something else going on... it just popped in my head

Here's my gamer aerodynamics guru's take on this: At slower airspeed (say below 260) the 'blanked out' part of the wing (referring to Hulkbust's description is larger then at at higher speed. The rudder deflection and yaw is less pronounced at higher speed so the lift difference between the wings is small. The rudder sits on top of longitudinal axis and when deflected it would cause a tiny roll in the opposite direction... I guess, lol. I would think that FCS should counter this roll at any airspeed but it doesn't. BTW, the interconnect between the rudder and stick during the turn seems to work fine but that's a separate logic. So... any real gurus, SMEs input? EDIT: I don't have a Viper but I'm curious about it's rudder effectiveness at higher speeds... should be nil

It does seem like there's a lot of 'wolf crying' going on already If the whammy sneaks through or it's already here... so be it, lol. The benefit of running a dedicated DCS machine with nothing else on it. When it craps out, wipe it out and re-image and... wait for the next whammy. JUST KIDDING of course.

Well, at the bottom of the linked page it says that increasing your page file can slow your system down but it can help in some cases as a bandaid... in a system with 128 gigs.

Nothing wrong with getting globally 'googlelized'

I agree, cage/uncage does seem a bit useless in most ACM situations with the radar track on approaching bandit. I use 9X + 'jahamac' whenever possible and I'd rather use slave/unslave (to radar) instead of cage/uncage. There's too much automation for my taste. Lots of times I just want the radar to leave the heat seeker alone The easiest way to do this (for me) is with weapon select switch. Go to guns then back to Aim9. The radar will drop the lock and might show bricks + AACQ cross. No soft lock... as long as you don't press the 'pinky', HACQ or any other ACM mode. Then I simply point the seeker at the target, sometimes at extreme angles, lock the seeker on target with 'cage' switch and BAM! I'm not saying this is the proper mech in the real jet but it works here quite well. BTW, I find the weapon select switch very useful in many scenarios to 'tidy' things up.

Not sure about all cylinders but at least some of them... once they go green we're done

Well now you can not raise the nose up any more by pulling on the stick. As soon as the mains hit the runway the horizontal stabs go full 24' NU but the only effect you get is a slightly extended nose wheel strut. During final approach on speed, the stabs are roughly ~ 15 NU and if the stabs go suddenly to 24' after touchdown (around 130, 140 kts) you would definitely see the results . Currently, the stabs ease up to ~15 NU when slowing through 100kts. From what I understand we should be able to gradually pull on the stick after touchdown, going to full up below 100kts. That's with the nose wheel on the ground all the time. The roll / rudder interconnect disconnects at a 100kts also.

As far as coupling to TCN or ACLS TC (when intercepting FB after the 'push') - yes, I've seen the back and forward chase. It eventually settles. It's a bug and I don't think it's been reported yet. I didn't see any issues engaging BALT hold at high alt. I tried it today after reading your post. I tipped the nose to 3' down, starting from 45.5k ft / M.88 and pushed the BALT button passing 45k. The nose pulled up to around 3 or 4' NU then settled level after 1 mild oscillation. Looked normal to me. I was heavy though, 48.4k lbs (c/l tank and JDAMs)

The strut part I can get used to. It's the inability to pull the nose up a bit more in case I wanted to aerobrake... the AF way

Well, whatever the root cause of weight related issues with landing gear is... I wouldn't even notice the difference between pre-2.9 and the current, if I didn't see the reports. However, what bugs me most is the 'scripted' behavior after the main gear slams on the runway. This silly 'slight nose up' attitude that can not be controlled. It almost feels like an old LOMAC F15 landing script... Yes, this is OT here but I felt compelled to throw it in. ( 'OT' is my next call sign)

Yep, this 'thing' is still lurking in the code. I've just stumbled on it during a gunfight.

Was this in a brand new mission or an older one made in previous builds? (I don't know if that matters). I did my tests using my own simple mission made in current build. The reason I'm asking is that in one of my tests I did exactly what you described: wpt=OAP >> O/S using bearing, range and elevation and all worked fine... on the first pass. EDIT: Oh wait, let me correct my post a little. When I tested my WPT as OAP I didn't make any corrections before designating it as OAP. If I did I suspect I'd have to mark my new refined position and use "Mark #' for OAP. That's what I had to do in my vid converting a visual designation to a Mark. You're right.

I used the OAP/OS in my mission and yeah... there were issues. Not exactly the scenario that LRR described but definitely related. I used HMD to designate my JTAC's position (OAP) and refined on TPOD. I used BRA to designate O/S. This wouldn't work until I marked OAP as Mark1. From there I created O/S with specified elevation (well, certain HSI map features are not modeled yet). It showed correctly on FLIR. Just some minor refinements on FLIR. Splashed the targets with IR Mavs. Turned around for a second pass avoiding any violent maneuvering since this can cause the designation to go bonkers (in DCS). All looked good but whenever I switched between OAP and O/S on HSI, the FLIR stayed locked on O/S wouldn't 'fuse' with Hornet's mission computer until I dropped FLIR's lock with the 'pinky'. Then, after trying to re-designate the O/S, the elevation was acting funny. It was showing 176 ft. The programmed O/S elevation was 580 ft. 580 ft. is roughly equal to 176 m... could be some bug there.