mattag08

"Foe" responses don't really happen anymore from what I understand. That's only possible if one side has cracked the other side's transponder/DL tech and has developed systems for that. Almost all IFF is friend or nothing. The real reason for VID is because you don't know if "nothing" is a passenger airliner or an enemy bomber barring some other form of ELINT or SIGINT (or NCTR). In my previous group we started to place 1 or 2 civilian or neutral faction aircraft near or in the AO so that you couldn't know if a negative return was enemy or not. Sometimes I'd even make the neutral faction aircraft actually hostiles that would attack the players. That meant you couldn't trust the IFF to be 100% accurate and had to actually make decisions based on all available information. It took a few missions before people learned what that meant (2 or 3 airliners definitely went down in the Mediterranean ).

RE: 4.3.1.1 AGM-45 Shrike This entire section on the AGM-45 is very confusing owing to various bits of information being out of place or ambiguously worded. Having read the whole section, I believe I've puzzled out how the system works, but a complete rewrite where step-by-step instructions are given would be much more appropriate given the complexity of the system. For the WRCS\Pull-up section, The last sentence is out of order and thus confusing. It should be placed after sentence #1. Combining the changed sentence with a more instructional method I would rewrite/reformat the whole section as: "To perform an AGM-45 attack in WCRS mode: 1. Select WRCS mode to AGM-45 and press an arming station select button for a hardpoint carrying an AGM-45. 2. WSO should enter a target altitude into the computer control panel (if the target altitude is unknown, use a mean value for the current target area). If multiple missiles are to be launched, enter a release advance time setting. 3. Place the TGT/MSL Rej switch in DF REJ, unless <reason for selecting NORM?>. The ADI will provide steering guidance. The HSI and BDHI will indicate target range (INS navigation mode only). 4. When the aircraft orientation is correct (ADI needles centered) and the target is within range one of the indexer lights will illuminate based on the required release maneuver. At this time the pilot can press and hold the bomb release button to initiate the attack. The possible maneuvers are as follows: 4a. Level - Indicates a confirmation of impending launch. The level signal may immediately occur or only appear after a pull-up or dive maneuver obtains the necessary attitude for missile launch. 4b. Pull-up - Indicates the aircraft is at a range where a pull-up maneuver is required. Fly a pull-up maneuver until the level indexer light is illuminated, then maintain that pitch attitude for missile launch. 4c. Dive - Indicates the aircraft is very close to the target. Follow the dive command until the level indexer light is illuminated, then maintain that pitch attitude until missile launch. NOTE: When dive is indicated the situation and proximity to the SAM installation must be considered prior to attack commitment. An enemy SAM launched at close range will likely arrive before the missile can kill the emitter. 5. Recovery maneuver - After missile launch the missile guides using internal sensors without any input from the launch aircraft. The launch aircraft can maneuver freely to evade enemy attack or terrain as necessary." (Feel free to copy this word for word to whatever extent desired, I'm not looking to copywrite anything above.)

This still doesn't look fixed. Also, it would be nice if the second half of the sentence could be expanded upon. It is currently very oddly worded. Does it require the compass mode selector knob SYNC position to be used? Even a link to 2.10.1.3 of the document would help. (It's also missing a period at the end of the sentence.) Also the page break is in an odd spot. It does not seem that this sentence is directly related to the sentence above relating to the change in ADI source data when going from PRIM to STBY. I would move "When transitioning between STBY and PRIM, immediate attitude information may show unusual gyrations on the attitude director indicator due to initial erection" up to the previous paragraph where it makes more sense. If it is meant to be included with the statement about synchronization, then more detail is needed, because it there isn't enough information to understand how those two sentences are linked. If this works similar to the F-14, I would rephrase the last sentence as: "Rapid turns (above 15° per second) may temporarily disrupt accurate heading information, requiring the pilot to perform a manual synchronization of the ADI. Manual synchronization is performed by flying straight and level flight for approximately 20 seconds while holding the Compass Mode Selector Knob in the SYNC position (it is spring loaded to SLAVED). This information also feels a little out of place since it delves into systems and 2.1 seems to be more of an overview of the cockpit.

Something that is being missed here is ED's atmosphere model is completely broken. No one is posting the air pressure or temperature settings for their testings. That matters. And in DCS it *really* matters because the effect on density of temperature in particular is insane. Additionally, the air pressure calculations are so wrong as to be laughable. ED admitted this was done to compress the battlespace and force aircraft to be in closer proximity than they would in the real world. Even though they have walked back similar changes (notably missiles) they have not fixed the atmosphere. Firing missiles at 40,000' is akin to 60-70k' IRL. Firing missiles at sea level is like firing a missile through sludge. Temperature is even worse, with very cold temperatures causing conditions similar to flying through water and very hot temperatures making flight almost impossible. I honestly don't know what comparing a real life missile or real life testing is going to do for anyone when the atmosphere we fire our digital missiles through bears no resemblance to real life.

What exactly is your MP testing methodology? Most of the MP bugs that don't appear in SP don't manifest until there are 30+ clients. Also most seem multicrew related and need a human pilot and RIO to reproduce.

For squadrons that operate the same aircraft BuNos mission to mission, it would nice to have a way to make the difference fixed by livery or fixed in general so that a pilot getting in a certain jet would know what kind of items would be in the cockpit already. Would add some immersion too, IMO.

Yep, like I said it feels abnormal. Grumman was smarter than that when they built this bird.

I know how to do a weight and balance. I'm a professional aviator. We do not have the requisite information to do what you are talking about. Since HB continues to refuse to give us this info, an auto-calculated kneeboard is the next best hope. If you have the W&B data for these weapons and the aircraft simulated, I'd love to have that info.

Considering there are still concerns about what the real weight of the jet is, it would be great to have the ACTUAL simulated gross weight with the current loadout, drag index, and take off trim setting (pitch and roll) on the kneeboard since we don't have access to the proper documentation to calculate it ourselves.

Is there supposed to also be a pitch up with flap retraction? That's what I'm seeing in the sim at the moment.

Simply not correct. The most common trainer in the world, the 172 requires forward pressure to counteract flap deployment. I've flown at least a few more aircraft that have this behavior. The physics are not as simple as "it always does X". However, whatever flap deployment does, you expect flap retraction to do the opposite, which is my point. I believe the point where fuel flow is measured is ahead of/not connected to the A/B fuel lines, so it can't measure the A/B FF.

You can use voice attack already. Just need to map the proper button combination.

So happy we finally got course/heading bug knob binds. Now we just need binds for Jester to utilize the Next Target button and Jester commands to adjust the antenna elevation by horizon-referenced degrees and relative degrees and we should be good to go.

How is it possible to break the lighting in this jet every single time we have a significant patch? I need to know if this is HB's or ED's fault because someone doesn't know how to properly manage their code.

Flap behavior seems abnormal, but I'll defer to Victory for final comment. Pitching moment should be down for flaps retraction and up for flaps extension. I know the horizontal stab is auto adjusted to smooth these out. Currently, both flaps retract and extend cause a nose up pitching moment (flaps retract is much greater than flaps extend). Seems excessive and backwards. I can get the nose to climb to 20-30 degrees by just cycling the flaps...

Unless ED stealth patched it at some point, the standard atmosphere in DCS was found to be modeled incorrectly when a 3rd party did computational fluid dynamics analysis of all of ED's missiles in the game and compared them to known parameters. The effects of temperature, pressure, and the rate of change of each with altitude are not modeled properly, which affects performance at different altitudes. It would also affect the performance of different aircraft differently since aircraft are optimized for certain Mach numbers, altitudes, etc. which means the non-standard atmosphere will cause better or worse performance depending on a number of factors. To summarize: this debate is largely moot because ED won't provide a proper atmosphere model.

Personally, I would be totally fine with this workaround. My unit really would love to have a player flown tanker.

This isn't the whole story. I just had a flight of four in the same flight and three of us could not take off until one particular aircraft launched. There was no particular order other than possibly it is related to the spawn order of the aircraft onto the carrier. This happened in both the F-14 and the new T-45 mod.

You can grade my passes any time.

If you had the flaps down (handle aft), then they deployed as soon as the wing sweep reached the flap deployment limit (I forget the exact angle, but it is fairly far forward). They didn't "automatically" deploy. You told them to deploy and they prevented the flaps from impinging the fuselage until that was not an issue and then deployed as you requested. Not a bug. You also damaged the flaps due to this (anything above 300 KIAS is a guaranteed flap jam). Forcing the wing sweep forward at high speed is dangerous and can lead to a wing spar failure. Leave the wing sweep in AUTO and only use the emergency handle if you have a wing sweep failure (if you do, you must follow the mach/sweep angle schedule or risk wing failure). Use other methods to decelerate like the speedbrake or high G maneuvers. Repair does not, and has never worked since the launch of the F-14. The only solution for a broken F-14 is to respawn.

It is likely an encoder in real life. @HB, any updates on getting this keybind added?

"Jump up and down" is a little much, but it certainly does not move as smoothly as more modern HUDs. You can visibly see the graduations of pitch and AOA it reports in T/O and Landing.

I suspect there is an issue with an induced G force as a consequence of aligning the F-14 to the flight deck as it starts its cat shot. Likely the 14 is being moved extremely rapidly a few inches up to align it to the deck, leading to the game thinking your pilot just experienced 20Gs or something. I would bet that the sea state and the pitch/roll of the carrier plays a role as well as MP sync issues and/or client framerate/bandwidth. Personally I see this bug about once per week, but have never noticed any correlating variables due to how infrequent it is.

Negative. It never "went" anywhere. It's been persistent for approximately 9-10 months now.

ACLS is still misaligned for the Supercarrier as well. How many more months before we get a fix for that?