Bushmanni

Maximum roll rate is dependent on TAS and helix angle the ailerons (and other control surfaces) balance out at. Aileron movement causes the wingtip to be at different aoa in regards to local airflow and that aoa will generate rolling force. Roll rate causes shift in local aoa due to roll and the roll acceleration stops when the local aoa is zeroed. Essentially helix angle is function of aileron deflection. The faster you fly through air, the faster the wingtip will move as it follows along the helix. Inertia and air density only affect roll acceleration (along with EAS), ie. at high altitude or slow speed the plane seems to have more inertia as the aerodynamic force is less. Non-hydraulically boosted planes have a roll rate maximum somewhere below max speed as the control force grows too great for the pilot to move the ailerons and achieve a helix angle that would maintain the roll rate. Hydraulically assisted planes also tend to have limitations due to control forces. Modern fighters have roll rate limiters that limit the maximum roll rate to keep it at controllable levels and also prevent excess aerodynamic force on the ailerons. At high altitude you can have very high speed with relatively low aerodynamic forces acting on aileron so you can have a relatively steep helix angle in conjunction with high speed and hence stupendous roll rates if it's not limited somehow.

Navigation in FC3 aircrafts when there's no waypoints is overtly complex compared to full fidelity modules because of missing navigation features. I don't see any problems if FC3 pilots would get some help in this regard if it's possible to do something about it. FC3 should be providing all the basic functionality for ~90% realistic employment with minimum systems complexity. If you can't find the airfield and land the plane in soup or at night because the TACAN/ILS station selection system is incomprehensible means the plane is missing features that would enable some basic functionality for combat employment ie. night and bad weather operations.

Lower G limit makes Hornet eat missiles fired from bit longer ranges than F-15 for example. For example in a SARH duel you can fire sparrow 1 NM earlier at Su-27 and score a hit compared to firing at an F-15. The only difference is that Su-27 is limited to 8 G while F-15 can pull 10-11 G. G limit will also make it easy to force the Hornet to overshoot in a gunzo chase situation.

You can shoot down noobs while flying a massively inferior jet but when both pilots have decent understanding of their planes, it becomes very hard for even the best pilots to shoot down an 4th gen fighter while flying something like a frog or hog. Hardware differences become insignificant only when the other side is clueless.

Changing graphics to curved earth is relatively simple compared to changing the rest of the code that some way use coordinates (simulation, AI, MP code, etc., basically pretty much everything).

Heres a picture of bunch of Carl Vinsons in Open Beta Caucasus from 10, 16, 23, 30 NM away (left to right). First ship should have the bottom 10 m blocked by horizon, second ship should have bottom 44m blocked ie. probably not visible at all or only portion of mast visible and the two farthest should not be visible at all if world would be spherical.

The OP's argument that F-15 turns better than Su-27 in DCS is just plain wrong. I don't know where he has gotten this idea and anyone who knows how to BFM can see it themselves by tryin it out (assuming both have realistic combat fuel load that gives similar endurance). I haven't done any accurate measurement if the FM has changed very recently but I cant feel any major difference in it. Su-27 is superior in a sustained turn contest by a small margin just as it is supposed to be. The real advantage in this kind of fight that Su-27 has is that it can pull a long energy losing turn to get behind the F-15 and still has enough energy to maneuver for the gun shot and force the Eagle to jink and lose the energy advantage it had. F-15 can't do this because it will bleed so much energy tryin to do the same that it cant turn well anymore to stay away from Flankers nose and it also cant jink the Flankers gun when the Flanker gets behind the Eagle. Eagle can counter Flankers STR advantage by not fighting a two circle fight but instead choosing one circle and making a maximum G turn from the merge and use the max G advantage to pull a tighter first turn and use the shotgun like gun to gun down the Flanker from head on. Eagle can make another pass like this and still be able to threaten the Flanker in the head on but after this F-15 has so little speed that it will be a sitting duck for the Flanker if it's still flying. F-15 can still disengage from this merge if the merge is tight though. The Eagles one circle tactic is based on the fact that Eagle can pull more G's than Flanker as it should and it can reach max G faster. G advantage is available only if the fight is started from a reasonably high speed. When the fight gets slow Eagle will lose this ITR advantage as Flanker has better ITR at lift limit than Eagle, as it should be according to OP and as it is in DCS.

Turbine is a disk with small wings attached at the edge that make it spin when exhaust passes through it, just like wind mill. Fuel doesn't explode in jet engine, only expands. This expansion increases flow velocity and this increase in flow velocity is where thrust comes from. Combustor is like a liquid fuel rocket engine in principle (pressure vessel that has fuel and oxidizer coming in from one end and high velocity gas going out from the other) but the oxygen is taken in from the atmosphere and the power to compress air for burning is extracted by turbine from the exhaust gas.

When you load a plane with unrealistic fuel load you get unrealistic performance. Is there a problem when you have a realistic fuel load? F-15 wing seems to be optimized for low AoA so it performs well when fast or light when you don't need high AoA for turning. Full aft stick pull is optimal for only about 90-180 degrees in typical combat load, depending on starting speed so you do need to manage AoA in order to make a good 360 turn. From corner speed you only get about 90 degrees. If you fly with empty fuel tanks you can get unrealistic UFO behavior but is that contructive way to asses flight model? We don't care if you feel like Su-27 doesn't turn good enough compared to F-15 as it's not scientific way to get correct performance. F-15C has moving intake ramps that can act as leading edge flaps for the fuselage which both Su-27 or F-16 doesn't have. F-15 also has relatively light but strong contruction because of simple wing structure. Which feature is better and how much and in what condition? Comparing planes using their outer appearance is fallacy anyways unless done using wind tunnel or CFD. Professional designers don't simply slap on aerodynamic features because "slats give 15% more turn rate" but actually use wind tunnels, CFD and test flights to get desired performance from their design. More stuff means more weight and weight means less performance so you need to balance weight and stuff. Why would we do any better as amateurs? There are performance graphs from real planes to asses sim performance.

Seems like a Hellfire hit to me.

Didn't mean that it's easy, just that the AI doesn't need the extra fidelity that comes with PFM and players will see and feel it only as bad fps. I have the impression that SFM can simulate performance accurately enough? If not then maybe there's a case for improving the SFM a bit sometime in the future but to me it seems that SFM can do a pretty good job already. So if there's a problem with model accuracy the solution is not to use more complex flight model but to make the existing one more accurate.

AI doesn't need the extra fidelity of how the aircraft feels to the pilot. AI SFM should simply be tuned correctly and maybe add some extra fidelity to excess power modeling if necessary.

Director mode on, linear (default) curves.

Pirouette logic is a thing in Super Hornet but Legacy Hornet doesn't have any dedicated logic for it. Super Hornet got a new FBW that also eliminated the Pirouette maneuver and a dedicated logic for enambling the maneuver was added from pilots request. Lecagy Hornet got the new FBW from Super Hornet with some modifications as they have some distinct differences in control surfaces so it's unclear to me if updated Legacy Hornet FBW has or needs dedicated logic for pirouette. Super Hornet FBW is very complex system and I doubt it's possible to simulate it perfectly (adapts to damage automatically for example) without big impact on fps or very long (and costly) development time.

I could be a bug with only certain kind of buildings. OP should give more specific intructions for replicating the bug.

Pk itself doesn't tell why the missile missed so you can't simulate missile behavior based on Pk alone. Other thing is that in practice missiles capability to hit target is highly dependent on what the target does to defeat the missile which is not a property of the missile itself.

Arabs have gotten plenty of high tech weapons like M1 Abrams blown up by the enemy by not using them correctly.

US does operate jets and other military equipment in Alaska and because it's a strategic piece of land they do make sure their equipment works there. This is pure speculation but I'd think that using the bountiful heat from the nuclear reactor would help you keep the deck and rest of the ship defrosted regardless of weather. Just make sure you dont have too much insulation. The airplanes themselves seem to operate in cold weather just fine.

He's using content developed for Vive that has less detail as it would not show in the Vive anyways. I tested DCS using the Acer WMR headset and the resolution difference was striking. Acer display has low contrast so even if a object is visible by multiple pixels you tend to lose track of it because it just blends with the background too well. While you can see cockpit much better you still won't see bandits any better with it compared to Vive because of this but Odyssey could be different because of different display.

Limiting maneuvering before merging doesnt really help the less skilled people as it's such a fundamental while not too hard subject that if you fail at it, you won't have the skills and knowledge to beat your opponent anyway.

It is but I think it's for claritys sake dubbed as FM modulated.

There's two types of seekers used in AIM-9, AM modulated (older ones) and FM (AIM-9L/M) modulated. The AM modulated seeker will get louder as the target gets closer to the center of FOV and then finally go silent with perfect lock. FM modulated will get both louder and higher pitched as the target moves closer to the FOV center. AM modulation: FM modulation:

SteamVR support is supposedly in closed beta currently.

Nice, and you also have a refraction from the shock wave.

You need BRAA to employ missiles effectively and to evade enemy missiles so you can't fight without it. BULLS would be really nice but you can fight without it.