Bestandskraft

Now that the manual is out we can safely say that there will be neither paraflares nor NVGs initially (at least neither are mentioned). Any suggestions on how to use the F-4E for night A-G combat except script/AI-generated flares or a wingman flying a different aircraft type dropping them?

To elaborate a bit, since it is unlikely we’ll get NVGs at least initially and since the Pave Spike is day only, without illumination flares we won’t be able to use the early F-4E in night air-to-ground combat organically (at least I cannot see how at this point). I doubt most online servers will have provisions for script generated flares.

Since I haven't found anything on the forums or Discord: Will the Heatblur F-4E come with the option to equip SUU-25 for carrying and releasing LUU-2/B / MK 24 parachute flares and/or LUU-1/B, 5/B, 6B target markers?

Both the "Emergency jettison button guard - CLOSE" and the "Emergency jettison button - OPEN" act as toggles in that pressing either will open the guard when closed and close the guard when open. Tested with 2.9.0.46801 in the CE and EE, not in the BE.

Just checked this behaviour in 2.9.0.46801 and the F1EE (did not test the other aircraft). The auto-slats now start extending at 7.3 AoA and start retracting at 6.8 AoA as indicated in the F2 view status bar, which seems equally incorrect with reference to the publicly available manuals. Could you verify the behaviour again please?

According to both the F1ED and F1AZ flight manuals available on the net, the auto slats extend at i > 8° and retract at i < 7°. In the game, they extend and retract at 7°. Since I do not have the F1CE/EE's flight manual available, this might be correctly simulated, but in case there was an oversight I thought I'd mention it.

Noticed the same discrepancies and did some tests of the RL F1ED optimum climb profiles (also contained in Aerges' manual): Unless I'm totally misunderstanding how to fly these profiles, the aircraft significantly overperforms in the high-altitude/high Mach regime. Results below. They pretty much match what Bremspropeller has already established, except that fuel consumption has been lower, not higher than IRL in my tests. Very close match with published data until 30,000 ft. Parameters to reach 50,000 ft, clean, standard day should be 465 USG, 120 nm, 8:00 min. Observed in DCS: 422 USG, 73 nm, 6:10 min. Parameters to reach 2.1 M, clean, standard day at 36,000 ft should be 465 USG, 99 nm, 6:30 min Observed in DCS: 440 USG, 70 nm, 6:00 min. 50k.trk accel.trk 50k.acmi accel.acmi

Thanks for your reply! Ad 2) The pylon does look similar to an LM14, but the aft edge of the pylon in-game is straight while the LM14's aft edge in your photo is slanted. The schematic from the Mirage III flight manual also looks as if the LM14 becomes narrower vertically in the aft-direction, which isn't the case in-game. The only picture of a centerline pylon that looks like the one in-game I have meanwhile found is the following (blue aircraft on the top-right-hand corner), but it doesn't provide its name: Ad 5) I had also found that list, but it seems the in-game pylons are actually weightless except for the CLB-4 which weighs 183 kg according to the applicable .luas I was able to find (Link).

I have noticed what seem to be abnormalities in stores drag modelling for the F1. All empirical data for the following study were obtained in an F1EE with 10% fuel remaining, unlimited fuel selected, starting at 1000 ft MSL, 0.65 M, on a standard day, no wind. The study consisted in air starting the jet with MIL power already selected, then, upon entering the cockpit, immediately engaging AP in altitude hold mode and measuring the time until the jet reached 600 KIAS as per the F2 view. The jet was loaded only with the store given in the diagram on station 4, 0% gun, 30 Chaff, 15 Flares. The cx_pil values were obtained as per the following table: Store cx_pil Loadout URL Belouga 0,000413 Link CLB4-BLU-107 0,0006 X Link CLB4-Mk-82 0,00076 X Link CLB4-SAMP-125 0,00052 X Link CLB4-SAMP-250LD 0,00092 X Link CLB4-SAMP-400LD 0,00124 X Link GBU-10 0,000508 Link GBU-12 0,000365 Link Mk-82 0,00016 Link Mk-83 0,000225 Link SAMP-250LD 0,00012 X Link SAMP-400LD 0,0002 X Link Clean 0 Results Interpretation All stores with an "X" in the Loadout column above have a cx_pil defined in the /_G/launcher/ folder of the datamine. The cx_pil from other stores had to be obtained from other places (see respective link). Stores with a cx_pil in the Loadout folder (blue in diagram) seem to follow a certain logic in that a higher cx_pil causes a longer time for the aircraft to reach the target speed. Notable exceptions are the SAMP-400LD and the CLB4-SAMP-125 with cause the aircraft to reach the target speed in the same time span even though the cx_pil is significantly different. The same can be said when comparing the CLB4-Mk-82 and the CLB4-SAMP-250LB. Stores without a cx_pil in the Loadout folder (orange in diagram) do not seem to follow a discernible logic in that an increased cx_pil does not necessarily imply an increased time to reach the target speed. This is most notable with the GBU-12 and Belouga. Empirical results not provided here, but my testing (acceleration runs with stores and with the same stores after jettison) has shown that the only pylons that seem to have a measurable drag are the CLB-4s. Hypotheses Stores drag is incorrectly modelled in the Mirage F1EE, at least for some stores and/or pylons. "External" stores not specifically created for the Mirage F1 module interact with the F1 source code in a unexpected way, causing deviations from expected behaviour. There is another factor in play that determines stores drag, such as the store's cross sectional area. Since the loadout's (that is, weapon plus pylon) cross sectional area is not defined in any .lua I know of, reverse-engineering and accurately cataloguing stores drag might be impossible. This is especially true for CLB-4 loadouts whose cross sectional area cannot simply be calculated using a weapon's diameter and assuming a circular shape. Request I'd appreciate if anyone could shed some light on / explain the above apparent inconsistencies.

Observe the attached track which was recorded in a no-wind mission. Entering the aircraft, I'm programming ESERI (a waypoint southwest of Cyprus) into the INS and steer towards it. With true heading selected, the indicated course to ESERI is initially 300°. I deliberately command the autopilot to fly a heading of 305°, expecting that the head of the TACAN/waypoint needle will fall off to the left, which would lead to a passage to the right (northeast) of ESERI. Instead, the indicated bearing to ESERI initially remains constant at 300°, and as we approach the point, actually starts to fall off to the right, passing the heading bug. The aircraft ends up missing ESERI approximately 1.3 nm to the left (southwest) of the point. To precisely overfly ESERI, a constant adjustment of heading to the right (homing) would have been required. Without knowing precisely how to RL F1EE's INS worked, the above behaviour is highly unexpected and unusual, which leads me to believe a bug in the INS modelling might be involved. Note that I'm getting the same basic result when ground starting the aircraft. Note also that if I instead navigate to ESERI off of PHA TACAN using the VA function, the needle behaves as expected (heading set right of course causes the needle to fall off to the left, heading set left of course causes the needle to fall off to the right). ESERI.trk

Through internet research and comparing RL pictures with the pylons available in-game, I've determined the Aerges Mirage F1 uses the following pylons: Station 1/7: MATRA LM39 for all missiles (should be AERO 3B/ADP-8 for AIM-9, but not implemented) Station 2/6: CLB-30 Station 3/5: ALKAN 915/916 for all stores except AA missiles, MATRA LM38 for AA missiles Station 4: ALKAN 910 for all stores except for "CLB 4" prefixed stores which use the CLB 4, and except for AA missiles Questions: Is the above list correct? I especially have my doubts about the LM38 which does not seem to look exactly like the pictures I found on the internet, and which seems to feature a missile rail which might or might not be part of the actual pylon. If it is not part of the pylon, which is its designator? Which pylon is used for AA missiles on Station 4 (centerline fuselage)? I have not found RL pictures of any pylon that looks like it. The BARAX pod seems to be connected to the CLB-30 with an additional rail. Which is its designator, or does it belong to the BARAX? I have read that the ALKAN 915 was used on the right side of the aircraft, and the ALKAN 916 on the left side. Is this correct? Which side of the aircraft is station 3, right or left? The weights of the pylons are not considered in the ME loadout screen but affect the flight model (at least the CLB 4 does; weight and/or drag of other pylons is either zero or close to zero). Is there a list of pylon weights available, e.g. in some .lua?

Unfortunately there is no change in 2.8.6.41066 MT relative to the OP. Confirm the fix made it in?

Just tested the AAT in 2.8.5.40170 MT and I can confirm that no DME readout can be obtained on other aircraft in either the F1CE or the F1EE in A/A TACAN mode. That is, even though the AAT channels are set 63 channels apart and A/A TACAN is selected, there is no DME readout, neither in X or Y mode, against other human players flying in the F1CE, F1EE or another aircraft. The only thing that does seem to work in A/A mode is a BEARING readout against an AI tanker. If TACAN T/R mode and the appropriate band is selected, a DME readout can be obtained against a tanker transmitting in the X or Y band, respectively, but no readout is obtained against other human players. Interestingly, a bearing readout against a tanker is obtained even though it is set NOT to transmit a bearing in the ME. I am not sure if the latter is an F1 or a DCS bug. The main problem with this is that one currently cannot use the A/A TACAN for precise tactical formation station keeping, which impedes BFM/ACM training out of canned setups.

I can confirm that this still occurs in 2.8.5.40170 MT.

I would like to add to the bug report that the behaviour described in the F1CZ manual is also described in the game manual (p. 83), so it should apply to the CE and EE as well, no 1000 Hz test signal is audible in the headphones and a "successive listening of audio signals at 400, 1300 and 3000 Hz, as well as the simultaneous lighting of the amber indicator light in the spherical indicators" does not occur as should be the case per the manual when performing the ILS test, when selecting a north course on the omnibearing selector, the vertical bar in the spherical indicator will only center (or be displaced from center depending on the actual course selected) and a TO indication displayed if certain VOR/ILS frequencies are dialed in, but not with others. This can be tested in the Caucasus instant action takeoff mission where the centering occurs with a frequency of 108.00 selected, but not with e.g. 108.05. Neither of those frequencies exist in the Caucasus theater as per the Beacons.lua, so the logic when the test works and when it doesn't in-game isn't clear. Selecting a VOR/LOC frequency that doesn’t correspond to any VOR/ILS with a valid signal near the aircraft does not seem to be the criterion at least. I will admit though that the RL manual is poorly translated from the French so how the test is supposed to work in detail is not easy to understand.