Gentoo87

Bump

I would as well

Looked at the TAS report as shown in sim speeds. Nothing is really that off... I have been silenced.

Bringing up TAS was a game changer..... We have been arguing about nothing for months. Or miss information/lack of understanding. Tas should be a limited differential at sea level. I'm still feeling it's quite slow down there at 520kph. Mind you the supercharger is out of range down there. Looking at the chart. at 1.5 km TAS does look correct per your statement. Yes when I do take the bird up for expected A/A I do remove the bomb rack. By no means am I expecting an A-8 to be as quick or hang with a 51 at sea level in pure level flight. The only way I've been able to stay with a 51 on the deck is by forcing the pilot to turn with gun fire. He's not hard to hit when he's flying strait. With this new mindset you have laid out. Spitfire on the deck should be capable of 347 ish mph at 18 lbs of boost at 3k RPM. Which would indicate the Anton cannot run from a MK IX. I'm not sure if our Spit has the 61 or 66.

I'll take the plane up again tomorrow and look at TAS.

Gotta give you this one after doing some further research...

The chart is measured from the reference aircraft indicated airspeed... not TAS. No aircraft datasheet measures in speed across the ground. So I did nothing wrong. Nice try though ;)

I agree, this Anton is not feature complete. The ATA is not right, the speeds are not correct for associated altitudes and manifold pressures. This plane is not right and needs corrected. It's not hard to do some simple research to figure this out. Further more don't get it twisted. At 1.42 ata it should be capable of hitting 550kmh at sea level, 580kmh at 1.5km. The higher 1.58, and 1.65 ata made it even faster at these altitudes for 10 minutes at a time.

Can some one provided evidence of such claims. Your claiming Americans or any other nation did not do the same in kind? What a shallow answer, I expect more of child.... All I asked for was the document used to develop the the module to show what we might not understand. I have have found many charts that depict this plane being much faster than described here by about 50kmh without special fuels or injection of any kind. We are also looking to be ATA restricted. Further research shows of the A-8 being capable of 1.58 on the first supercharger, and 1.68 on the second stage. I'm hoping some one from ED/developer could step in and share some of the docs used to build the Anton's representation?

Says performs as expected, can ED/Developer provide the charts used to decide the Anton's speed parameters. Every chart I found on the A-8 says she is 40-50kmh slower than depicted. All the charts I found measured at 1.42 ata @ 1.4-1.6 km of altitude says the Anton should be able to produce 575ish Kmh of speed. With the weapons pylon off I'm peaking at 525kmh at at 1.5 km Also I see some confusion about the ground attack "A-8" The F line of the 190 series was the ground attack version. FW 190 F-8 was for ground attack specifically.

I totally get that, I don't like using the switch either, there just just be a few degress of freedom of movement from the pilots camera position. So the plane can move and displace freely in the air without the feeling of my head being bolted to the seat.

False... just false... Your still not understanding what I'm asking. I'm not asking for a bobble head. Our heads naturally stabilize themselves. I'm asking for the plane to move. If you watch the driving footage. His head is stable to where he is looking. The car is bumping and yawing around while his focal point stays steady. In DCS our heads are locked to the axis of the plane.

I'm not asking for shake, I'm asking for some sway. Plane shakes enough when you pull the trigger. Planes don't fly perfectly strait, and true. They require constant adjustment to the wind. It's not real or sim to fly strait and true in a spit or any plane under 300 kts. Pilots don't anticipate, we have a natural need to keep our heads upright and oriented with level ground. I have the G effects turned of as well. It looks like I am not clearly getting my point across, maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary. I'd like to feel(which we can't) the plane actually fly. If the plane had some subtle bounce and yaw. Im not talking about making the cockpit look like your driving over a jeep trail. It would actually like like the aero would be doing it's job of keeping you in the sky. Right now as I fly. The planes don't require much adjustment accept for subtle changes in yaw to due power settings of the aircraft. Mind you this is for warbirds only as you have manual control of the surfaces. At no point should you be able to fly hands off on these old warbirds including the 51, and 47. Even well trimmed requires subtle adjustment to the wind. I can currently set my yaw trim in a spit and my power setting and take my hand off the stick and she will fly strait. Real planes don't do that. For late model jets with FCS. Not much input should be needed to fly strait and true due to its FCS. BUT!!! the plane should be shown to make constant adjustments on its own, very subtle but working FCS is moving surfaces to keep the Jet on the flight path marker. FCS making adjustments example: Warbird example of natural head movement. His head stays looking forward and true, but the plane yaws left right and subtle goes up and down as he manipulates the control surfaces to "fly" the plane.

To each there own. I think this is a sim. I would like it simulated. give me the choice with a checkbox or a slider. Why play a simulator if the effects of an airplane aren't "simulated" are you really here for just the deltas and a pretty look? Real planes don't fly like this there a little shaky, there a little loose. Even jets with an FCS are constantly adjusting to change for the pilot.

I get no feed back from the runway on take off in vertical forces(bumpiness), just lateral as you describe the sliding around. You might be right, as the Mig 15 gives a great sensation of flight the whole time. Tomcat just shakes everywhere, I've seen them bounce on a taxiway. Other modules just feel like they're on rails. The sliding I get, we as sim pilots have no sensation of yaw. In a real plane you can feel slip your rudder footwork becomes an extension of that. The game you need to wait until your visually of axis to correct by then it's to late and you need to over correct. One more idea in reference to what you describe in VR, I'm pretty sure IL 2 players do it in VR. I don't see why their minds and perception would be any different than those that fly here Example:

My mention was to keep the ticker for g effects on head movement or add a slider for this very explanation As this a sim, I just wished it felt more real. I've never flown a real jet, I have been limited to cessna's and piper's. There still a bit bumpy. Runways are not perfect surfaces. I feel the airframe shake from the visuals, I feel the runways have just been paved by a master contractor who's crew makes no mistakes. The ground being perfection as the material never settles. Everything feels to perfect.

I let it go dead horse put to rest lol

Wishing for a greater effect on feel like I'm in the air. I feel like the head should respond a little more to aircraft input. I have the strongest neck known to man even with the G effects on. I'm not talking on this games realism, I feel I get a better sensation of flying from taxi to landing. The plane doesn't feel stable and true 100% of the time. You'll see the plane yaw and him haw around. I'd like see a little more movement from take off to landing of my pilots perspective. Or at least give me a slider for said effects to give people a choice. In the clip below I have G effects on. The head just feels very stiff and so does the plane. The plane doesn't yaw or him haw around very much either. As the forces on the lifting body change.

He's explaining at as clearly as he can, but I'll give it a go! Red triangle with a small number near it will give you an estimated altitude depending on what's tracking it. Your data link sees the target but your jet's internal radar does not. You may have your radar pointed at the targets bearing, elevation of the radar looks to be your issue! If you look at your captains bars there are 2 little numbers to the right that indicates what altitude it's cone of vision is seeing. You need to adjust your radar elevation setting to fit the targets altitude in between what your captains bars are currently looking in Narrowing your radar, and switching to a 2 bar scan pending range may help. You wont detect much outside of 80 miles reliably. Hope this helps!

Will the clouds at some point affect the windshield? be it a whooshing effect or condensation build up. I flew in another sim last night moving through the clouds I noticed said effect. Curious if it's gonna be a thing here

Same problem!

I still have this issue binding Gunsight axis commands is very poor. Doesn't use the whole axis.

Case closed!

I keep hearing the release of the F14D is not possible because of the lack of information... Can some one enlighten me on the data availability of the F/A 18 Hornet, and F16. I'm pretty sure these jets still have classified things about them. Currently they do not mimic 100% of the sim factor although close. I talked to an F18 Pilot and there's just much we can't do (he still thinks it's awesome). In the same way we are still fudging systems of these Jets. I only bring this up as many simulated modern conflicts leave the Jet feeling a little behind the times when going up with the 18/16/15 and so on. Why can the Tomcat D not be fudged a bit as well? I would much rather hear Heatblur say they don't want to do it vs the information is not out there. People have found plenty.

Can Confirm